23 years later, new evidence continues to emerge in 9/11 litigation
It has been 23 years since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As we remember and honor those killed or injured by those horrific attacks, certain questions remain unanswered. Through our civil justice additional details have continued to slowly emerge. This year, critical evidence was introduced that revealed details of those who supported the 9/11 hijackers.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2024, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels heard oral arguments on Saudi Arabia’s renewed motion to dismiss the complaint in In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001. A key issue in the case revolves around whether the evidence shows that Omar Al-Bayoumi and another individual, Fahad Al-Thumairy, were acting as agents of Saudi Arabia when they provided material support to al Qaeda’s hijackers. The arguments included evidence on the following:
- The timing and frequency of Omar Al-Bayoumi’s meetings and gatherings with the hijackers and other Saudi government officials
- The origin and purpose of aviation descent calculations found in Bayoumi’s handwriting and in Bayoumi’s possession by the London Metropolitan Police Service just after September 11, 2001
- Bayoumi’s audible narration on the “casing video” made of his trip to Washington, including surveillance of the U.S. Capitol Building and the surrounding area.
Plaintiffs submit the evidence put forth shows a militant extremist network working within the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs at the Los Angeles Consulate and within the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., in the years prior to September 11, 2001.
Among the evidence exhibited, Plaintiffs presented a reconstruction of the videotape of the “welcome party” for the 9/11 hijackers hosted by Bayoumi during which he not only welcomed Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar but also introduced them to numerous other supporters, many of whom went on to provide material support to the 9/11 hijackers. Plaintiffs’ experts further conclude that the pattern, timing, and frequency of phone calls between Bayoumi, Thumairy and Saudi government officials in the key days of the hijackers’ assimilation into the U.S. illustrates both the plot and the agency relationship at the center of the Court’s current inquiry.
We argue that Bayoumi also provided significant material support to the Saudi terrorists Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, including signing an apartment lease for them in San Diego near where he lived. Evidence supports our argument that Bayoumi transferred nearly $10,000 into their bank account, helped Hazmi and Mihdhar obtain driver’s licenses, learn English, set up Internet service and their email accounts, provided information about flight schools where they could be trained as pilots, and helped them purchase a vehicle.
A “casing” video allegedly shot and narrated by Bayoumi in Washington, D.C. includes references to a “plan.” The video details the structural features, entrances, exits, grounds, and security posts at the White House, U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Capitol and surrounding buildings. The alleged narrator – Bayoumi - also details the location of the Washington Monument and the proximity of the airport, stating “Airport not far from here. Plane taking off.” At one point, the narrator states in Arabic, “They say that our kids are demons. However, these are the demons of the White House.”
Another key piece of evidence showing advance knowledge of the plot was seized by the London police from Bayoumi’s apartment in September 2001—a sketch of an airplane in blue ink with a mathematical equation written next to the drawing. According to plaintiffs’ expert, the equation is “a calculation used to discern the distance at which a target on the ground will be visible from a certain altitude.” The equation allows a pilot to calculate “at which altitude he would be able to see [an] airport” from a certain distance and that the sketch and equation “are consistent with preparations made as part of the planning for the 9/11 attacks and were made to assist the 9/11 hijackers in carrying out those attacks,” by providing them “with the visual cues needed to fly the hijacked jetliners into their targets.”
In 2015, Judge Daniels ruled in favor of a prior Saudi motion to dismiss. However, the bipartisan passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in May 2016, followed by Congress overriding a veto of the bill by then-President Barack Obama, enabled the families to revive their lawsuit in March 2017. While the Court has allowed limited plaintiffs’ discovery to proceed – which has resulted in the surfacing of this new evidence – discovery has been limited to the discrete question of agency on the Saudi officials. The Court took the motion under advisement, and we look forward to its ruling.
Subscribe to our blog if you’d like to have more content like this sent directly to your inbox.