The Bush administration had already drawn up plans for an invasion of Iraq in January 2001, and by July of that same year plans for an attack on Afghanistan were already well underway. The attacks of September 11, 2001, merely provided the pretext.
In this article, I will present evidence that the United States’ wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so-called ”War on Terror” were planned long before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Journalist Ron Suskind, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1995, recounts in his 2004 book The Price of Loyalty that from the very first day of his presidency, Bush and his administration began planning for a war against Iraq. The source of this revelation was none other than Paul O’Neill, a member of the National Security Council and Secretary of the Treasury under Bush. Suskind also cites numerous other sources in his book, including 19,000 internal government documents, several of them classified, which show that as early as January 2001 the Bush administration had begun formulating plans for the occupation of Iraq.
The official narrative, of course, is that the American government’s view of Saddam Hussein as a threat to the world emerged after the 9/11 attacks. However, O’Neill’s testimony and Suskind’s book demonstrate that this was not the case at all. In reality, the invasion of Iraq was being planned eight months before the 9/11 attacks.
For example, a White House memorandum obtained by Suskind and marked ”Secret” refers to ”a political and military plan for Iraq after the Saddam crisis.” Suskind also obtained a Pentagon document identifying oil-field regions in Iraq that companies such as the notorious Halliburton later received priority contracts for following the invasion.
Paul O’Neill recounted that during meetings with the Bush administration, the questions ”Why Saddam Hussein?” and ”Why now?” were never asked. Instead, Bush reportedly said:
”Find me a way to do this.”
In other words, devise a scenario that would justify invading Iraq.
O’Neill further revealed that the Bush administration believed it had the right to launch wars whenever it deemed necessary, an attitude that conflicted with his own moral principles. After repeatedly opposing the administration, O’Neill was eventually dismissed and decided to go public with what had been taking place.
In an interview with CBS, O’Neill discussed the Bush administration’s plans and revealed that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had called him before the book’s publication and warned him against participating in it.
In The One Percent Doctrine (2006), Suskind described how the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, developed a new doctrine stating that if there was a 1 percent chance that Pakistan’s government was cooperating with the Taliban by providing information on how to build a nuclear weapon, that possibility should be treated as if it were an established fact.
This reasoning was later applied to Saddam Hussein when U.S. officials began claiming that he had ties to Al-Qaeda. Cheney ultimately declared:
”If there’s a 1 percent chance that weapons of mass destruction have been provided to terrorists, we have to treat it as a certainty.”
Unsurprisingly, it later turned out that the claims about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction were unfounded.
Diplomat Joseph C. Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase enriched uranium. There he first met with the U.S. ambassador to the country, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, who explained that she had already looked into the matter and found the allegations to be baseless.
Wilson then interviewed dozens of individuals who had served in Niger’s government. The conclusion was the same:
There was no evidence whatsoever.
Eleven days before the Iraq War began, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report revealing that documents—indirectly originating from the Bush administration—which claimed that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase 500 tons of uranium from Niger were forgeries. This had also been established by Italian military intelligence.
Because Wilson persisted in his claims, the White House allegedly retaliated by leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, who was working undercover as a CIA operative. In his memoirs, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also acknowledged that the Iraq War was fundamentally about oil:
”I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
We have now established that, according to this account, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction, but was instead based on a narrative that is easily challenged. Let us now examine evidence that, prior to 9/11, plans were also in place to attack Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq.
As early as the 1990s, the neoconservative organization PNAC (Project for the New American Century), whose members included figures such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, stated openly in a document that the United States needed to establish control over the Middle East, beginning with Afghanistan, followed by Iraq and then Iran.
On page 51 of Chapter 5 of their publication Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in a section titled ”Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force,” they wrote:
”The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new PEARL HARBOR.”
On September 11, 2001, the hawks got their Pearl Harbor, and all that remained was to set the great propaganda machine in motion and play upon every fear that could possibly be stirred up within a traumatized and outraged population.
”Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,”
Bush declared to the world, and the rhetoric and attacks directed at those who dared ask critical questions had only just begun. When some people began to suspect that something was not quite right, or wanted a discussion about America’s role in the world and a more measured approach to the issue, they were practically branded as traitors. This is almost mild in comparison to the insults that those who question 9/11 today often endure from defenders of the official narrative, simply because they are audacious enough not to believe it.
The Sydney Morning Herald revealed that in the months before 9/11 there had been a shift in the focus of the U.S. military. Over several months, beginning in April, a series of government documents was released that sought to legitimize the use of American military force in the pursuit of oil and gas resources.
Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars and an internationally recognized security expert, explained that the military had increasingly come to define the securing of natural resources as its primary mission. It was considered necessary for the United States to gain access to the oil and gas reserves of Iraq and the Caspian region and transport them via pipelines through Afghanistan.
The United States did not want to route the oil through Russia because that would give Russia access to it, and routing it through its archrival Iran was out of the question. Afghanistan therefore became the natural choice. The problem, however, was that the Taliban were unwilling to cooperate.
Consequently, they became the principal enemy and, in this view, had to be removed. The only question was how to accomplish that.
On September 18, 2001—one week after the 9/11 attacks—the BBC published an article in which former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik revealed that he had been informed by American officials that the United States was planning to attack Afghanistan during the autumn of 2001. He also stated, correctly as it later turned out, that the attacks would be launched from bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where American military personnel had already been deployed.
How could American officials already know, as early as mid-July, that the United States would invade Afghanistan in the autumn?
According to the author, the answer is that they knew because the invasion had been planned long before the World Trade Center disaster.
MSNBC and NBC News revealed in May 2002 that the United States had been planning a war involving military operations in Afghanistan even before 9/11 occurred. Two days before the September 11 attacks, a document was reportedly sitting on President Bush’s desk awaiting his signature. The document, a National Security Presidential Directive, called for the launch of a broad war on terrorism. Among other objectives, it proposed to ”eradicate al-Qaeda from the face of the earth.”
NBC News reporter Jim Miklaszewski explained:
”It describes the same war plan that was put into effect after 9/11.”
Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, declared:
”Show me a reporter, a commentator, or a member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before 9/11, and I’ll buy you dinner at the finest restaurant in New York.”
Even Tony Blair, Britain’s Prime Minister at the time, was forced to admit:
”To be honest, there was no chance that we would have obtained public consent for suddenly launching a campaign against Afghanistan if it had not been for 9/11.”
After 9/11, it became remarkably easy for the U.S. government to push through measures that gradually eroded citizens’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, all in the name of the ”War on Terror.”
The Patriot Act effectively overrode constitutional protections and allowed authorities to arrest individuals and detain them indefinitely if they were suspected of having terrorist connections—without evidence being presented or the matter being heard in court.
At the Guantánamo Bay base in Cuba, a detention camp was established where many people were held for years without having their cases brought before a court. Increasingly, CIA aircraft began landing in various countries to pick up ”suspects” and transfer them to third countries for ”interrogation,” including through the use of torture methods such as waterboarding—a form of simulated drowning.
The War on Terror had become a war against democracy.
These sensational allegations were revealed on June 24, 2009, by Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator. They are also supported by the award-winning journalist Eric Margolis, who has stated that the CIA assisted Osama bin Laden when he and his associates were training for guerrilla warfare in Central Asia.
According to this account, bin Laden was already being utilized during the 1990s for operations in Central Asia, including in Xinjiang, China. In these operations, al-Qaeda and the Taliban were allegedly used in much the same way that the United States had operated during the Soviet–Afghan War—that is, through proxy warfare.
This also involved the use of forces from Turkey, which were then assisted by Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. These countries, in turn, allegedly relied on bin Laden, the Taliban, and other groups as a kind of terrorist army.
The purpose of these activities was said to include efforts to gain control over Central Asia’s vast energy resources and to open new markets for the military-industrial complex. The challenge was how to carry out such operations without revealing U.S. involvement, which could have provoked outrage in countries such as Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, as well as countermeasures from Russia and China.
The solution, according to this account, was to use Turkey as a proxy and thereby appeal to both pro-Turkish and pro-Islamic sentiments. This became the beginning of a ten-year-long operation in Central Asia.
”I have information about things our government is lying to us about. For example, the claim that we severed all ties with bin Laden and the Taliban after the Soviet Union collapsed. Those claims can easily be proven false based on the information that was classified in my case, because we maintained very close relationships with these people right up until September 11,” Sibel Edmonds revealed.
Edmonds, who monitored and translated hundreds of intercepted communications, also disclosed that during her time at the FBI she reported certain employees who had either mistranslated or failed to translate information relating to terrorist activities, including matters connected to 9/11.
She further alleged that one colleague had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer and that senior officials within the U.S. State Department had sold nuclear secrets to foreign countries.
One might think that someone who was so meticulous, honest, and patriotic would be promoted. Instead, according to Edmonds, when she reported these matters to her superiors, she was fired and subjected to a gag order by the Attorney General, while some of the individuals she had reported were later promoted.
She also revealed that her supervisors had initially instructed her to work slowly, arguing that:
”It would bring more government funding to the Bureau.”
In June 2002, Edmonds appealed her case, and some of her colleagues even offered to testify on her behalf. During Congressional hearings, the FBI reportedly acknowledged that Edmonds had been correct in everything she had claimed. However, all information relating to her case was classified by the court on orders from the Department of Justice, which argued that the matter involved issues of national security.
In April 2004, a group of surviving family members of 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit based on Edmonds’s testimony. In response, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that Edmonds’s date of birth, educational background, and previous employment history were also classified state secrets.
When Edmonds subsequently appealed, and two senators—Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont—became involved in the case, Ashcroft ordered that all information relating to her case be immediately removed from congressional websites. He further directed that the matter was not to be discussed publicly, again citing national security concerns.
According to this account, both the FBI and Congress had now effectively been silenced.
In April 2005, the case was finally brought before a court. At that point, the judge suddenly ordered that all spectators leave the courtroom. Only Edmonds, her attorneys, and the State Department’s lawyers were permitted to remain. The doors were locked, and guards were stationed at every entrance.
After Sibel Edmonds and her attorneys had presented their case, the judge instructed them to leave the courtroom while the government’s attorney made his presentation. Edmonds could scarcely believe what she was hearing and later compared the proceedings to a Kafkaesque trial.
The ruling that followed was issued without explanation and held that Edmonds had no right to pursue the matter further on the grounds of ”national security.”
In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization dedicated to protecting citizens’ constitutional rights from government infringement, named Sibel Edmonds the most gagged woman in U.S. history.
That same year, she received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award, presented to individuals who have shown exceptional courage in defending the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
In January 2008, The Sunday Times published the article ”For Sale: West’s Deadly Nuclear Secrets,” in which Edmonds alleged that officials within the United States had been selling nuclear secrets to foreign powers.
Edmonds stated that she possessed evidence showing that a senior official in the U.S. State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who sold information to buyers on the black market, including Pakistan.
”He was helping foreign interests against the interests of the United States by supplying them with classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, promotions, and political favors,” Edmonds said.
She further claimed that the FBI had also gathered evidence against senior Pentagon officials who were allegedly assisting foreign agents.
”If all the information the FBI has in this case were made public, we would see very high-ranking individuals brought before the courts for criminal activities,” Edmonds stated.
”What I discovered was devastating. While the FBI was investigating the matter, several parts of the government were attempting to conceal what was going on,” Edmonds continued.
Her claims are supported by former FBI agent John M. Cole.
According to the account, the Pakistani side of the operation was managed by the head of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), General Mahmood Ahmad. Intelligence analyses allegedly showed that the ISI maintained close contacts with al-Qaeda both before and after 9/11. Ahmad was accused of sending $100,000 from the United States to Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the 9/11 hijackers, shortly before the attacks, according to The Sunday Times.
Classified information was also allegedly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s leading nuclear scientist, who was closely connected to Ahmad and the ISI. Khan became a millionaire by selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran, and some of his associates reportedly met with Osama bin Laden.
”We were aware of the contacts between Khan’s people and al-Qaeda,” said a former CIA officer.
In late September 2001, the FBI confirmed in an interview with ABC News that Mohammed Atta, identified as the leader of the 9/11 attacks, had received money from a Pakistani source. The funds were reportedly transferred from Florida, and the source, Mahmood Ahmad, arrived in the United States one week before the attacks. During his visit, he met with, among others, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CIA Director George Tenet.
Less than a month after September 11, on October 8, General Mahmood was removed from his position as head of the ISI and retired early. The Times of India was the first to report the alleged reason:
”Highly placed sources here confirmed on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of evidence presented by India showing his links to one of the suicide hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center. U.S. authorities demanded his dismissal after verifying the fact that $100,000 was sent from Pakistan to hijacker Mohammed Atta by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the behest of General Mahmood.”
The question, according to the author, is why Mahmood was never prosecuted for involvement in 9/11.
As early as 2000, Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher accused the U.S. State Department during a Congressional hearing of deliberately sending humanitarian aid to Taliban-controlled areas while ignoring information about the location of Osama bin Laden’s headquarters.
He also stated that U.S. officials had persuaded anti-Taliban forces to disarm despite knowing that Pakistan had supplied weapons to the Taliban, thereby helping them crush all resistance.
According to Rohrabacher, the State Department merely pretended to oppose bin Laden and the Taliban while actually supporting them.
In a highly interesting post on his website in July 2004, Rohrabacher wrote:
”We knew the Taliban were evil, yet we helped them because we had made an arrangement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to create the Taliban and keep them in power.”
He then made another revelation:
”In April and May of 1999, we had an enormous opportunity to capture bin Laden, and I was personally involved this time. A longtime friend of mine who had been deeply involved in Afghanistan’s struggle against the Soviets contacted me. My friend, who is an American, had an impeccable reputation, excellent credentials, and was well known and respected among the Afghans. He called me and informed me that bin Laden had left Afghanistan and was an easy target. The very next day, I contacted the CIA, gave them his phone number, and explained that they needed to get in touch with him immediately because he could hand them bin Laden on a silver platter. A week passed, and my friend was never contacted by the CIA. So I went back to the CIA, and this time they firmly promised that they would contact him, insisting that they wanted to capture bin Laden. Time passed, and guess what? They never called my friend this time either.”
Sibel Edmonds argued that the 9/11 Commission Report was incompetent and wrote several articles claiming that even when the commission was informed of important information relating to 9/11, it ignored it.
She was supported by 25 national security experts who, in an open letter to Congress, demanded to be heard because of what they viewed as serious shortcomings in the investigation.
”It is often said that you do not need to be a rocket scientist to run a government, but I happen to be one. The most improbable of all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 is the official one put forward by the U.S. government.”
This was stated by former head of advanced space program development in the United States, Dr. Robert Bowman, at a meeting of skeptics of the official 9/11 explanation. Bowman held a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering. He was also a former vice president of Space Communications Company and had taught, among other places, at the United Nations, the Academies of Science, and the House of Lords.
Dr. Bowman described the 9/11 Commission Report as:
”an excuse, a cover-up, and a pack of lies.”
According to the author, Dr. Bowman was one of the people whom staunch defenders of the official explanation dismissed as cranks or conspiracy theorists. The author argues that such critics sought a new investigation into 9/11 because they did not believe that nineteen Arabs, acting without any knowledge or assistance from within the U.S. government, could have outwitted the world’s leading superpower—with its premier intelligence services—and successfully flown three aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world, without a single fighter jet intervening.
After the alarm was raised, it is said that at least 70 minutes passed before the first fighter jets took off. If that was the case, it would mean that one hour and ten minutes elapsed before aircraft capable of intercepting the hijackers were airborne. By then, of course, it was already too late.
This occurred in the country that accounts for 46 percent of global military spending and invests billions of dollars each year in its advanced intelligence services.
Captain Daniel Davis, a former officer with NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), stated:
”Based on my experience as a NORAD officer, tactical commander of the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense sector, and private pilot, there is no chance that aircraft would not have been intercepted after deviating from their flight plans, turning off their transponders, and ceasing communication with air traffic control. No chance! With extremely bad luck, perhaps one aircraft might have slipped through, but there is no possibility that all four could have done so. Attempting to conceal the facts by calling it a conspiracy theory does not change the truth.”
Let us now examine the reporting surrounding the hijackings and how the U.S. air-defense system responded.
Personnel at the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) detected the first irregularity at 8:14 a.m., approximately fifteen minutes after the aircraft had departed from Boston, and understood that it was a hijacking by 8:21 a.m., at which point they reportedly raised the alarm.
The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) should therefore have had enough time to intercept Flight 11, which crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. They should have had an even better opportunity to intercept Flight 175, which struck the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m.—that is, 77 minutes after the first hijacking was detected and 52 minutes after the first crash.
How, then, did the hijackers manage to outrun the U.S. air-defense system in all three cases?
General Richard Myers, then Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mike Snyder, a spokesperson for NORAD, both stated independently in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that no fighter jets were launched until after the Pentagon had been struck.
This was despite the fact that Flight 11 had displayed two standard indicators of a hijacking—a loss of both radio contact and transponder signal—at 8:15 a.m.
If that account is correct, it would mean that standard procedures, which are normally carried out within two to ten minutes following a hijacking, were not initiated until nearly eighty minutes later.
This not only sounded bad—it sounded illogical as well. Unsurprisingly, a new version of events quickly emerged.
On September 14, CBS News reported, without identifying its source, that contrary to earlier reports, fighter jets had in fact been scrambled, although they arrived too late. The implied message was that the failure was entirely the FAA’s fault because it had notified NEADS so late that an interception was impossible.
NORAD then suddenly revised its account and agreed with CBS’s claim.
If we accept NORAD’s assertion that NEADS was not informed of the hijacking of Flight 11 until 8:40 a.m., it would mean that the FAA waited a full 20 minutes after observing warning signs of a hijacking before sounding the alarm. If that was the case, why would they have waited so long to do something that is normally done within a matter of minutes?
Regardless, fighter jets from New Jersey’s air base should still have been able to intercept the hijacked aircraft. However, NORAD claimed that no aircraft were available there, so jets were instead dispatched from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts.
According to a NORAD spokeswoman, at the speed they claimed to have flown, the jets should have reached New York in 10 to 12 minutes. Yet NORAD stated that they did not arrive until 19 minutes later.
The 9/11 Commission subsequently presented a third version of events, claiming that NORAD was not informed about Flight 175 until after it had already struck the South Tower.
This account was contradicted by Captain Michael Jellinek, an employee at NORAD headquarters in Colorado, who was on the telephone with NEADS when he witnessed Flight 175 crash into the South Tower. He reportedly asked:
”Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?”
”Yes,” replied NEADS.
There was, however, nearly an hour available to scramble fighter jets before the last aircraft struck the Pentagon.
When the order was given to launch fighter aircraft, it was not sent to Andrews Air Force Base, located only about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from Washington, D.C., but instead to Langley Air Force Base, more than 120 miles (200 kilometers) farther away. Why?
According to NORAD, Andrews had no fighter jets on alert status.
Andrews Air Force Base is responsible for protecting the White House, the Pentagon, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Are we really to believe that, in the world’s most powerful superpower with the world’s most formidable military, there was not a single fighter jet ready nearby to defend the nation’s most important buildings?
If one accepts that all of this resulted merely from misunderstandings, negligence, and coincidence, one must also accept that the failures occurred within the FAA, NORAD, NEADS, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and the government itself.
The first three, according to the author, failed because they did not follow standard procedures, were inattentive, and did not have fighter aircraft readily available. The latter agencies allegedly failed to identify, track, and neutralize potential threats to the country. These failures would seem serious enough to warrant numerous dismissals, yet not a single person was fired after 9/11.
Following the attacks, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked whether there had been any warnings beforehand.
”No,” Fleischer replied.
When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission in 2004, she stated that:
”No one could have imagined that they would take airplanes and fly them into the Pentagon.”
According to the author, however, there had been many warnings, including warnings about hijackings in which aircraft would be used as weapons. Rice herself had allegedly been warned of a possible attack as early as July 10, 2001, by then-CIA Director George Tenet, according to Watergate reporter Bob Woodward.
Prior to 9/11, eleven countries reportedly warned that an attack was being planned. The CIA received a list of 200 suspects before the terrorist attacks, and the government allegedly ignored warnings from several FBI agents.
Between April and September, the FAA reportedly received 52 warnings from intelligence agencies concerning planned attacks by al-Qaeda.
When Rice was asked by the Commission about a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) from the CIA concerning threats against the United States, she claimed that it was not a warning but rather more of a historical document. This was despite the fact that the memorandum was titled:
”Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
and despite the FBI’s statement within the document that it had information indicating that terrorists linked to al-Qaeda were preparing hijackings inside the United States.
The document NORAD Exercises in the U.S. National Archives, cited by the 9/11 Commission, reveals that military exercises were conducted just five days before 9/11 in which hijacked aircraft were simulated as part of the scenario. One of the exercises, conducted on September 9, involved terrorists hijacking aircraft bound for New York and then blowing them up.
Let us now take a closer look at the 9/11 Commission Report itself.
One of the Commission’s own attorneys, John Farmer, revealed in his book The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, published that year, that the public had been seriously misled about what occurred on September 11.
Among other things, he wrote:
”I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described. NORAD’s tapes told a radically different story from the one we had been told and the one told to the public. At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”
If one reads the 9/11 Commission Report, one finds that the only chapter that really addresses the events before and during the attacks is the first chapter. The remainder consists largely of summaries of America’s role in the world and recommendations for how it should act in the future.
Let us now examine what the report says about the financing of 9/11.
Despite reports that General Mahmood Ahmed and Omar Saeed Sheikh sent $100,000 to Atta, the alleged leader of the hijackers (”Bin Laden’s cash link to hijackers”), the 9/11 Commission wrote the following in its report:
”The U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance.”
Read that sentence again.
According to the author, the Commission is claiming that, despite information from the FBI suggesting otherwise, it was unable to trace the source of the financing behind the 9/11 attacks. It then goes on to state that, after the deadliest terrorist attack in the nation’s history, the question of who financed it is of little importance.
And this, the author argues, is supposed to be regarded as the definitive investigation?
The greatest tragedy in the aftermath, according to the author, is that the relatives of the 9/11 victims who do not accept the official explanation were still, eight years later, being denied a new investigation.
Instead, they were often portrayed by the media and others as fools or conspiracy theorists simply because they were demanding what they regarded as a competent and honest investigation rather than an illogical and corrupted one.
Michael Delavante, What you didn’t know about 9/11
