PRESS RELEASE
9/11 Families’ Lawsuit Keeps Attention on Saudi Role in that Crime
Sept. 11, 2017 (EIRNS)—An amended complaint filed by the 9/11 families in their lawsuit against that appendage of the British Empire, Saudi Arabia, provides new details on the "pattern of both financial and operational support" provided by the Saudi government to the 9/11 attackers, including an earlier "dry run" for the attack, Paul Sperry reported in a New York Post article which has caused a stir since its publication two days ago.
The amended complaint cites FBI documents on how the Saudi government employed and financed two Saudi "students"—Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi—whose attempts to gain access to the cockpit of an American West flight from Phoenix to Washingon, D.C., in November 1999 were of such a nature that the plane made an emergency landing in Ohio, Sperry reports.
The two were arrested when the plane landed, questioned by the FBI, and let go. The FBI later "discovered" that the two had been trained in Afghanistan, had regular contacts with one of the Saudi hijacker-pilots and a senior al Qaeda leader from Saudi Arabia now held in the Guantanamo prison, were employed by the Saudi government, and were in "frequent contact" with Saudi officials while in the U.S., including attending a symposium hosted by the Saudi Embassy and chaired by the Saudi Ambassador. And the Saudi embassy paid for the pair’s tickets for the "dry-run" flight.
Sean Carter, lead lawyer for the 9/11 families suit, told Sperry that
"that the allegations that the Saudi Embassy sponsored a pre-9/11 dry run—along with charges of other Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plot, from California to Florida—are based on ‘nearly 5,000 pages of evidence submitted of record and incorporated by reference into the complaint’."
Carter said that they used
"‘every FBI report that we have been able to obtain,’ though hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents related to Saudi terror funding remain secret."
Sperry also reports that the Saudi government filed a motion to dismiss the families’ suit in August, and the judge presiding over the case gave the plaintiffs and their lead law firm, Cozen O’Conner, until November to respond to that motion.
