9/11: The Whole Rotten Saga & the Most Ineffective Cover-Up Ever…

9/11 attack: front page of The Guardian

9/11 isn’t going to go away.

The same pre-fabricated, false-flag horror that enabled destructive, world-changing agendas to be accelerated, kick-started the phenomenon of modern Islamist terrorism and paved the way for America’s modern surveillance state, is also the incriminating, self-tied noose around the crime’s still-at-large masterminds.

15 years later, belief in the official 9/11 narrative is still degrading all the time. What started out in the early days as a fringe community of much-maligned ‘conspiracy theorists’ and independent ‘truthers’ has now, over time, become more and more common suspicion even among those who for the longest time refused to doubt the official story.

Former Senator Bob Graham and others have now urged the Obama administration to declassify the redacted pages of the Bush-era report believed ‘to hold the 9/11 secrets’.

Graham isn’t just saying he thinks elements of the Saudi state were involved in planning the 9/11 attacks – but that the attacks were enabled from within the United States. In his 60 Minutes interview, he says “I think it is implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many of whom didn’t have a high school education, could’ve carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States”.

In response to the proposed Congressional Bill that would allow a probe into the Saudi role behind 9/11 (which has been pointed to by independent researchers for over a decade by now: the world’s leading insurance provider, Lloyds of London, filed a lawsuit some time ago alleging Saudi involvement 9/11, but dropped the lawsuit just days later without explanation), Saudi Arabia had threatened the US with dumping its roughly $750 billion in Treasury holdings.

15 years ago, when conspiracy theorists and Inside Job advocates were being routinely mocked in mainstream discourse, it would’ve seemed ludicrous to think a former Senator would be going on CBS and openly suggesting the 9/11 Inside Job.

But here we are – 15 years, several wars, over a million deaths and several collapsed nations later.

Things appear to have changed. A recent US survey revealed that only 6 percent of Americans now trust the mainstream media. But as far back as 2006 a New York Times poll indicated that up to 84% of US citizens didn’t believe the official 9/11 story, with a CNN  poll putting the figure as high as 89%. In other parts of the world, it is has been suggested that as much as 90% of people don’t believe the official story.

The truth about 9/11, which is already known to – or at least suspected by – millions of people, is eventually also going to come out fully in the mainstream. The corporate media and corporate political realm finds itself in an increasingly untenable position. While false-flags and conspiracies have been carried out countless times before by the United States government (and other governments around the world), 9/11 was just too big – and too riddled with plot-holes, clues and blatant contradictions of the official narrative. As such, sooner or later the truth – or at least some portion the ‘truth’ – is going to have to come out in official terms in order for the political, corporate and military-industrial establishment to be able to maintain any credibility (and to be able to regain even *some* of the trust that has been firmly lost from the masses).

The question is how it will happen, when it will happen, which parties are going to be thrown under the bus and which parties will be protected.

Saudi Arabia, for example, could some day be thrown under the bus and made the primary scapegoat – while allowing other key perpetrators or conspirators to continue to quietly evade all formal accountability.

Not that Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be held to account; it is believed that Prince Bandar (otherwise known as ‘Bandar Bush’) has been funding Islamist terror groups all over the world – with US support – and played a key enabling role not just in 9/11, but in the spread/import of extremist terrorists in Syria, Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.

The Saudi role in the spread of extremism and terrorism cannot be understated. But the Saudis are only part of the equation – a reality that seems to have been missed by a lot of the recent newspaper pieces that seem to hint at pinning the entire 9/11 conspiracy on Saudi Arabia.


 New York Post front page: Bush and 9/11 

There has been so much evidence, and for so long, to refute the official story of 9/11, that it is remarkable anyone could still hold to the official account.

There is in fact more evidence *by far* to support the Inside Job argument than there is to support the official story that 19 terrorists managed to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, all masterminded by some people in a cave in Afghanistan (who didn’t seem to even know they were responsible until weeks later).

Those still holding to the official story have a knack for ignoring or shrugging off the extraordinary degree of air-defense failure (just for that morning), the inexplicable deviation from standard procedures, the curious air-defense stand-down, the coincidentally missing Chain of Command on the morning of 9/11, the fact that the entire 9/11 scenario had been fully rehearsed in prior War Games and that Vice-President Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 and was the source of the stand-down order, the collapse of WTC Building 7 which wasn’t hit by anything, the fact that Nano Thermite was reportedly found in the dust at Ground Zero, the fact the hijacking ringleaders were already under surveillance for some time (with one even living with an FBI asset), the fact that billions of dollars in insider trading relating to the World Trade Center was going on just prior to the attacks, the Bush/Bin Laden family connections, and so on – the list goes on and on.

And again, foremost on that list should be the fact that the Neo-Con cabal’s *need* for a 9/11-style event was clearly choreographed just ahead of 9/11 actually occurring (see here).

Six months before 9/11, the World Trade Center had been privatised for the first time, leased to private-sector developer, Larry Silverstein, instead of remaining under the control of the Port Authority. One of his first acts was to take out terrorism insurance for 4 Billion dollars – 9/11 made him an enormous profit; but he wasn’t the only one.

 9/11 Building Seven meme 

Then there’s the 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld announced had gone missing from military spending – the day before 9/11. It must’ve been just a coincidence that the exact part of the Pentagon that the phantom ‘plane’ hit on 9/11 was the exact department where the computers and people were who were investigating the missing money.

It must also have been a coincidence that there was no plane wreckage found and that the Pentagon is perfectly equipped to deflect any such incoming attack but apparently chose not to do so.

The fact that long-time CIA man Rumsfeld happened to be Defense Secretary at this point indicates logically that 9/11 was orchestrated as the planned ‘New Pearl Harbour’ event to bring in the Patriot Act (which was written up prior to the World Trade Center attack) and the Department of Homeland Security, and to provide the pretexts for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and engaging in a global ‘War on Terror’ that continues to this day – and can never be won.

Even Osama bin Laden himself – who never admitted involvement in the attacks – appears to have spent his retirement wondering whether 9/11 was an inside job. Among the ‘Bin Laden treasure-trove’ of personal belongings removed from his alleged safe-house in Abbotabad in 2011 were several books, including David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Bin Laden (a CIA asset against the Soviet Union long before 9/11) had in fact insisted on four occasions in official Al-Qaeda statements made to the Arab media that he had played no role in 9/11.

 Osama bin Laden quote 9/11 

He didn’t deny being a jihadist, of course – which makes it all the more odd that he would fail to take credit for 9/11, as he should’ve seen this as a ‘glorious’ act against the ‘Great Satan’. That didn’t appear to be his attitude at all, however.

On September 28th (a fortnight after the Twin Towers fell), he was reported as having said, ‘I have already said I am not involved. I had no knowledge… nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act… Whoever committed the act of 11th September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people; whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed’.

As late as 2006, Bin Laden’s FBI profile contained no reference to him having been involved in 9/11. Indeed, Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award) was told by an FBI spokesperson, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”

By December 2001, even the BBC was compelled to wonder whether the famous Bin Laden ‘confession’ video that the Cheney/Rumsfeld administration was citing as “the smoking gun” to prove who carried out 9/11 was actually a fake.

The footage is now regarded by most people as having been faked – yet it was the entire basis for the invasion of Afghanistan. A German TV show asserted that the White House’s translation of the video was inaccurate and “manipulative”. Beyond this, most or all subsequent Bin Laden videos are widely regarded as having been fakes.

By 2010, CIA officials were even casually admitting to creating fake videos, as in this Washington Post piece in which two ex-CIA officials talked about creating fake Bin Laden videos and about wanting to create fake videos of Saddam Hussein that would depict him as a pedophile (for propaganda purposes).

 Robin Cook quote on Al Qaeda 

The reason the Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda story solidified in popular consciousness so quickly was because the corporate media broadcasters attributed the attacks to Bin Laden almost immediately. “This bears the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda” various broadcasters claimed over looping footage of the Twin Towers collapsing.

That kind of statement made no sense, however – Bin Laden’s group had, prior to that, been an obscure operation of limited capacity, which carried out crude, smallish-scale attacks such as a truck-bombing in Kenya. It had never accomplished anything even remotely as sophisticated as 9/11 (and neither has anyone else since). Thus, “this bears the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda” made absolutely no sense – it in fact bore *none* of the hallmarks.

If Bin Laden being the ‘9/11 Mastermind’ was doubtful, the big ‘Al-Qaeda’ bogeyman was equally doubtful. Anwar al-Awlaki, an ‘Al-Qaeda leader’ linked to the 9/11 hijackers, was even invited to the Pentagon for lunch shortly after the attacks.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook insisted at the time that ‘Al-Qaeda’ wasn’t a real organisation, but was simply a CIA database of Muslim Holy Warriors who had been used in the 1980s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. “Al-Qaida,(sic) literally ‘the database,’ was originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians,” he wrote.

This is a clip from a superb, three-part BBC documentary series from about 10 years ago called ‘The Power of Nightmares’ (anyone who never saw it should really look for uploads on YouTube – it’s an absolutely brilliantly made series). In it, the narrator explains ‘… Bin Laden had no formal organization until the Americans INVENTED one for him. There is no evidence that Bin Laden used the term Al-Qaeda to refer to the group until after Sept 11th when he realized this was the term the Americans had given him’.



On September 20th 2001 the Taliban had in fact offered to give up Bin Laden to the United States – *if* they could provide proof of his involvement in the 9/11 attack. The Bush government refused to do so, as they had no such proof. The Taliban – as backward and medieval as they may be – were unwilling to betray their ‘guest’ and ally for a crime he didn’t appear to have committed.

Of course Al-Qaeda does exist now. 9/11 was used as the awe-inspiring event to kickstart the decade-plus of ‘Islamic Terrorism’ we’ve seen since, to justify the pre-planned sham of the ‘War On Terror’. Al-Qaeda – and its offshoot ISIS/Daesh – has been the creation of the United States military/intelligence in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and other key allies, its primary purpose being to carry out vast geo-political programs centering on the Neo-Cons’ ‘hit-list’ of countries or ‘regimes’ it had intended to go after even prior to 9/11.

Al-Qaeda was literally used to collapse the Libyan nation in 2011 (Gaddafi having been on the hit-list since the 80s), and has been used by the US and its allies to carve up Syria and Yemen. It is of historical interest to note that the very first arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden actually was issued by Muammar Gaddafi and Libya as far back as 1996, seemingly after a jihadist group associated with Bin Laden – and on the payroll of British MI6 to the tune of £100,000 – tried to assassinate Gaddafi. This was revealed primarily by the MI6 officer David Shayler, who subsequently served jail time for his whistleblowing.

The United States government even accused Saddam Hussein of being involved in the 9/11 attacks and supporting Al-Qaeda – when no evidence has ever emerged to link Saddam and Iraq with Al-Qaeda or terrorism. Like Gaddafi in Libya, the Saddam regime in fact saw such groups as the enemy on account of their religious fanaticism.

But Donald Rumsfeld was in fact desperately scrambling for ways to link Saddam and Al-Qaeda within just hours of those planes hitting the Twin Towers, and even as Afghanistan was being invaded, the Cheney-Rumsfeld administration was doing everything it could to link Saddam and Iraq with Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

In fact, as is now widely understood, Al-Qaeda had zero presence in Iraq until after the US-led invasion in 2003. ‘Al-Qaeda in Iraq’ – a creation of the US- led invasion – was the original identity of what is now known as the so-called ‘Islamic State’.

 Islamic State fighters in Iraq 

In the course of all of that, the ‘data base’ that the late Robin Cook referred to has expanded massively, leading to ISIS, the War in Syria, and the manufactured ‘Clash of Civilisations’ we are now so accustomed to. What the Bin Laden lie also served to do was to turn Bin Laden into a powerful symbol of resistance against the ‘Great Satan’ in the minds of many disenfranchised young men in Muslim nations, thus inspiring many of them towards jihadism – even though Bin Laden himself probably *hadn’t* actually carried out the vast attack he was being credited with. And the perceived injustice of the Iraq invasion led to many young Muslim men – in both Iraq and other parts of the world – to see Bin Laden even more as a hero/symbol of a noble religious struggle against US-led imperialism.

By the time US/NATO-backed Al-Qaeda battalions were rampaging through Libyan cities in 2011, the entire 9/11 and Al-Qaeda narrative had become an utter farce: within 10 years, the US and its allies had gone from attacking regimes that they accused of sponsoring terrorism and Islamist extremism to attacking regimes WITH terrorism and Islamist extremism – and for that matter, with the very same terrorists/extremists they had used the previous false-flags and wars to BUILD UP in the first place. It was genius.


White House spokesman Josh Earnest’s response to the recent pressure regarding the 28 pages is very revealing, very interesting. He said the Bill would open the United States to ‘global legal vulnerabilities’.

Translation: if the Saudi state can be sued by American citizens for 9/11, what if the United States can be sued by citizens of other countries? What if – given some future paradigm or power shift – the people of Libya could sue the United States for the terrorists it imported into Libya? What if citizens in Iraq or Syria could could sue for the emergence of ISIL/Daesh or the arming/funding of terror militias? What if people in Guatemala, for example, or El- Salvador decided to seek reparations for US-backed crimes inflicted on them? State-sponsored terrorism is something the United States has excelled at (despite, perversely, using that same accusation of state-sponsored terrorism as the justification for conducting hostile actions against other countries): the list of countries whose citizens could potentially demand reparation from the United States would be very long.

It is curious also that emphasis is placed on the dangers of allowing 9/11 victims’ families to sue foreign governments for damage, as though such things are unheard of. In fact, the Gaddafi-era Libyan state was forced to pay damages over many years to the Lockerbie families to the tune of 2.7 billion dollars (despite the fact that evidence strongly suggests the Lockerbie bombing hadn’t been perpetrated by Libya: see here, here, here, and here). Those payments in fact had a crippling effect on the Libyan economy and caused great resentment. Libya expert Susan Lindaeur had in fact stated in 2011 that – just prior to the foreign-guided Libyan Civil War that destroyed the country – Gaddafi had been calling, via the UN, for Libya to be reimbursed for the billions of dollars it had been forced to pay.

Earnest also says the Saudis recognise a shared interest with the United States in protecting the stability of the international financial system; suggesting the open acknowledgment of Saudi involvement in 9/11 could trigger a domino effect that might include a collapse of the global order and the financial system. Perhaps all the more so should the redacted 28 pages also implicate sections of the US government, the Neo-Con regime or other key US allies (though there’s no suggestion that they do).

The real reluctance of the White House might also be less to do with protecting Saudi allies and more to do with continuing to obscure the real origins of the ‘New Pearl Harbour’ and protecting American conspirators involved in the mass murder of New York citizens. Earnest’s reference to the stability of the international financial system is more likely in reference to just how many major American-based corporate entities and insiders were privy to, involved in or otherwise profited massively from the 9/11 attack.

If there’s one 9/11 video I recommend you to watch, it’s this comprehensive explanation of how much insider trading based on foreknowledge was going on and how many corporate insiders made millions from the attack on the Twin Towers.



Should the Establishment some day decide to allow for a 9/11 disclosure of sorts (in order to appease doubters, ‘Truthers’ and all of those vast numbers of people who’ve lost faith in government, media and major corporate institutions), it seems probable that the Saudis could be the scapegoat: some ‘rogue elements’ within the Saudi state secretly funding terrorism, etc. However, the accusation against the Saudis only concerns *financing* of the hijackers: everything else – the bulk of the conspiracy – would still had to have been conducted by American parties within the United States.

It is also worth considering that the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report are most likely incapable of fully exposing the true scope of the 9/11 conspiracy anyway.

The commission, after all, was a highly selective public-relations act in the first place and not a genuine, full investigation into the attacks. The 28 pages, according to all media sources, is all about Saudi funding of the hijackers – there is no indication that those redacted pages would reveal anything about US government involvement or the Israeli involvement: again, paving the way for some future possibility of Saudi Arabia taking the full blame.


Scores of academics have pooh-poohed the 9/11 Commission Report in any case, as have over 50 government officials.

$15 million was allocated to the official investigation of the 9/11 attacks – in which over 3,000 people were killed. By comparison, over $60 Million was spent on the investigation into Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

But any inquiring minds that examine the 9/11 scenario – from any perspective and any speciality field – seem to arrive at the same conclusions: 9/11 was an inside job and the official story doesn’t hold water. Just ask the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the Scientists for 9/11 Truth, the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, among others. Some 200-plus senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials are known to question the official story.

For the most part, mainstream Western media is unlikely to discuss all of these things in depth any time soon – but it *will* eventually have to do so. The ‘crazy, conspiracy theory crackpots’ deflection clearly isn’t working anymore.

And by this point, 9/11 must rank as the most spectacularly ineffective cover-up ever.



9/11 attack meme


S. Awan

Independent journalist. Pariah. Believer in human rights, human dignity and liberty. Musician. Substandard Jedi. All-round failure. And future ghost.


  1. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “White House spokesman Josh Earnest’s response to the recent pressure regarding the 28 pages is very revealing, very interesting. He said the Bill would open the United States to ‘global legal vulnerabilities’.

    Translation: if the Saudi state can be sued by American citizens for 9/11, what if the United States can be sued by citizens of other countries? What if – given some future paradigm or power shift – the people of Libya could sue the United States for the terrorists it imported into Libya? What if citizens in Iraq or Syria could could sue for the emergence of ISIL/Daesh or the arming/funding of terror militias? What if people in Guatemala, for example, or El- Salvador decided to seek reparations for US-backed crimes inflicted on them? State-sponsored terrorism is something the United States has excelled at (despite, perversely, using that same accusation of state-sponsored terrorism as the justification for conducting hostile actions against other countries): the list of countries whose citizens could potentially demand reparation from the United States would be very long.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.