The Great 9/11 Cover-Up

Eric Zuesse, as originally published in Off-Guardian

Did you happen to notice that after more than a decade of the ‘news’ media’s demanding publication of “the missing 28 pages” (which turned out actually to have been 29 pages) from the U.S. Congress’s investigation into 9/11, the document’s press-coverage, finally, on 15 July 2016, turned out to have been little-to-none? And did you notice that the little there was, said it contained nothing important? Perhaps you didn’t get to know even this much about the press-coverage of it, because the U.S. Congress, which had been hiding the document ever since 2003, dumped it on a Friday night, in order for it to receive as little press-coverage as possible.

Well, what that document actually showed, and proved (and cited FBI investigators who could then have testified in public, if requested), was the opposite of unimportant: that the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was known in Washington as “Bandar Bush,” because of his closeness to the Bush family), had secretly been paying the Saudi handlers of at least two of the 15 Saudis among the 19 9/11 hijackers, and that Bandar’s wife and other relatives were also paying those hijackers-to-be, and their families — thus enabling the future hijackers to obtain the necessary pilot-training etc., for the 9/11 attacks.

How much news-coverage of this was there in the U.S.’democracy’ that is supposed to be informing the public about such things, instead of continuing the cover-ups of them?

Why do U.S. ‘news’ media hide it — after having demanded for more than ten years that the ‘missing 28 pages’ become published?

But that’s not all there is to the cover-up: As I mentioned and documented in my July 20th news-report on “9/11: Bush’s Guilt and the ’28 Pages’,”  U.S. President George W. Bush was also involved in the 9/11 operation: He had instructed his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to block his obtaining from U.S. government sources any specific information about what the attacks would entail, or about the date on which they would occur. (Presumably, he already knew, via his private communications with Prince Bandar or someone else who was in on the event’s planning, all that he had wanted to know about the coming event.) When CIA Director George Tenet, on 10 July 2001, was practically screaming to Rice to allow him into the Oval Office, to meet privately with the President to inform him of how urgent the situation had become to take action on it, she said: “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.” Tenet was shocked, and dismayed. That encounter with Rice was intended to urge the President to establish a hit-team to take out bin Laden, so as to avert the operation — whatever it was, or would turn out to be. The way that Chris Whipple put this, in his terrific report in Politico magazine, on 12 November 2015, titled “The Attacks Will Be Spectacular”, was that, “they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.”

Apparently, “Bandar Bush” knew the details, but his friend George W. Bush did not — Bush needed “deniability” — it’s not for nothing that he was able to say, after the event, as Condoleezza Rice was to put it when speaking to reporters on 16 May 2002, “This government did everything that it could in a period in which the information was very generalized, in which there was nothing specific to react to … Had this president known of something more specific, or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.”

How does she now square that statement with her having told Tenet, on 10 July 2001, “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.”? What ‘clock’? Why not? No one asks her — especially not under oath.

Is that the way things happen in a democracy, even 15 years after the event?

On 10 September 2012, Kurt Eichenwald, who had reported for The New York Times, was then issuing his new book on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars, and he headlined an op-ed then in his former newspaper (which thus could hardly have declined to accept it), “The Deafness Before the Storm”, describing the most puzzling aspect of the lead-up to 9/11:

It was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

Those “briefs” still are not published. And now, after the revelation, by Chris Whipple, that Condoleezza Rice was under instruction from her boss not to allow him to be informed too early for “the clock to start ticking,” we can understand why there is still so much that hasn’t yet been released to the public, in our ‘democracy’, about who was really behind 9/11.

On 17 April 2016, Paul Sperry in the New York Post headlined “How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11”, and he reported that his own investigation showed: “Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.” But isn’t it time, now, to demand that Bush’s role also be explored — not only that the Saud family’s (especially Bandar’s) role in it be prosecuted? After all, Bush was the one who took a Presidential oath.

Or: Is the U.S. not enough of a democracy, for that to happen — for the Constitution to be enforced, by the U.S. President after Bush (the President who will not prosecute his intended successor)? How total must the non-accountability at the top be, before we call the country a “dictatorship” — only a fake ‘democracy’?

Regarding the actions that brought down the three World Trade Center Buildings, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, there also is good reason to distrust the official ‘history’. Witness accounts both by firefighters and by the general public were videoed at the time saying that they heard multiple explosions, which indicated controlled demolitions after the two plane-crashes into WTC1 and WTC2. Other witnesses of the WTC7 collapse also heard explosions. Regarding WTC7, there was testimony from the owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, saying that he instructed the Fire Department not to go into WTC7 but simply to “pull it.” (And his subsequent statement saying he didn’t really mean that and he meant only to “pull” the firefighters from that building, which actually had none, was debunked.) Even the government’s “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7” acknowledged (p. 48) that there had been “(2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories of gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]” meaning that that 8-story segment had been blasted so that, throughout those 8 stories, there was zero resistance to the collapsed portion falling through it from above. This alone constitutes solid and conclusive physical proof of the official lie, though itself published in the official source. And yet on the very next page in that official document is stated, “Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. … There were no witness reports of such a loud noise.” But there were such witness reports; and, anyway, the very admission (on the prior page) that there was free-fall over an 8-story segment of the building, constitutes acknowledgement of physical proof that there had been controlled demolition on WTC7. Further, there has even been expert testimony that nano-thermite was used to bring down each of these buildings. But clearly, whatever the truth of the matter is, the U.S. Government has been lying, and continues to lie, about 9/11. For at least the past 16 years, we’ve been living in a dictatorship. And the evidence suggests that this has been the case ever since at least 1981.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Southernfink

    On top of all this, why not simply release the security footage of what actually crashed into the Pentagon?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

  • My hunger strike begins tomorrow outside World Trade Center PATH station.
    The 9/11 myth ends this year.
    https://unitedresistance911.wordpress.com/

    • Dow Jones

      Best wishes in your endeavor. Too bad there are not more USSANS like yourself. However, we don’t need a majority of sheeple to wake up; only a handful of thoughtful shepherds can do the job of reducing the consumate evil being spread in this world by the wolves and reptiles we call our “leaders”.

      • Angelinardavis1

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj283d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !mj283d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash283TopDigitalGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj283d:….,…..

        • Eric Zuesse

          Go to hell, spammer!

      • i try to be a thoughtful shepherd. thank you for the encouragement.

  • Sarastro92

    Let’s get the facts right Eric.

    1) It’s documented that the CIA knew in January 2000 that Al Qaeda operatives (Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi) had left a planning conference in Kuala Lampur and were heading to the US on passports they held. The CIA concealed this information from Bush and anti-terror Czar Rchard Clarke and ordered the information be suppressed from official FBI channels and kept it concealed until two weeks before 9/11 occurred.

    The alQ hijackers were traveling under their own name using credit cards in their own name. All George Tenent had to do is mention this specific fact even once, and these hijackers could have been picked up.

    2) Ditto for the FBI. Their own informant and his handler provided logistical support to the West Coast based hijackers in tandem with the Saudis operating with Saudi officials and funded by the Royal family.

    Not once did AG Ashcroft or FBI Director Mueller ever state these facts to Bush or anyone else. The FBI also had the Florida based alQ cell under surveillance, but denied this until 2013 when it was disclosed in a law suit engineered by Sen Graham.

    So based on the evidence, both agencies had specific actionable intelligence that they concealed from the White House. Instead they fed Bush some vague, apparently unsourced generic warnings that something bad was going to happen and little more. It’s hard to fault Bush given the duplicity and treachery of these agencies.

    It baffles me why Eric Z harps on claims from the, gasp NY Times, (especially a sleaze like Eichenwald) to go after Bush, while ignoring the real perps that should be prosecuted; namely a gaggle of CIA- FBI Executives.

    • Eric Zuesse

      your sources, please? I link to mine; please do the same, or else provide (within quotation-marks) article-titles or etc.

      • Sarastro92

        Eric: The source for what I posted can be found largely in the The Congressional 9/11 Inquiry. Since you did not challenge any specific claim, I assume you concede the veracity of posted facts. Otherwise, please be specific. I can’t reprint all 800 pages of the report.

        Meanwhile, as noted in my comment, your own published account never states any actionable information coming from the CIA or FBI that Bush or anyone else could have responded to. Did you expect Bush to put the whole country on lock down in Spring 2001? based on what Bush had to go on, what should he have done that he didn’t?

        I’m not a Bush apologist, but it’s important to get the facts right… and as I say, why go after Bush for not preempting 9/11 when other figures have been identified right in the middle of the 9/11 Terror Spectacle?

        Bush was certainly involved in a cover-up after the fact. But there’s no evidence he had anything to do with planning or facilitating 9/11.

        • Eric Zuesse

          that “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,” That is proof he was.

      • Eric Zuesse

        I just now found this on Hazmi and Midhar in Malaysia January 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/20080306025342/http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/WestCoast/Treasury_JI.pdf but that release was dated 24 January 2003 and no indication there was prior USG knowledge of it.

        Then you say — also unsourced — “The CIA concealed this information from Bush and anti-terror Czar Rchard Clarke”. Unsourced allegations are useless.

        • Sarastro92

          Eric:
          The 9/11 Inquiry described in detail the Hazmi – Mihdhar passage from an alQ conference in Malaysia into the US. That was in January 2000 when the CIA had the Conference and these two birds under surveillance. It happened in real-time.. By my reckoning that was 21 months before 9/11/2001.

          The fact that this seems to be news to you indicates that you have not read the 9/11 Inquiry… that’s pretty negligent if you’re publishing monographs on-line that accuse the POTUS of the US for knowingly allowed attacks on the US mainland.

          The Inquiry is available without charge on-line.

          As for “The CIA concealed this information from Bush and anti-terror Czar Richard Clarke” … again… you’re ignorance is astounding…

          You have never seen this video testimony by Clarke? While there are issues about this interview, what Clarke does provide is a FIRST HAND account of how the CIA actively concealed the presence of would-be alQ hijackers residing in the US for 21 months.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzP9YJpBubk

          “We therefore conclude there was a high level decision within the CIA not to share that information” (that AlQ operatives were residing in the US)

          Clarke’s testimony is corroborated by the 90/11 Inquiry.

          • Eric Zuesse

            Thank you! Yes! I hadn’t seen that interview, which is superb evidence. What it suggests to me is that when Condoleezza Rice on 10 July 2001 told George Tenet that, “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,” it wasn’t only Bush who didn’t want to know; Tenet himself was keeping secrets from Bush and even blocking it from Clarke, and Clarke here speculates upon why. But what especially strikes me is that Clarke says that if this information were to have been mentioned even as late as the 4 September 2001 meeting, then 9/11 still could have been prevented.

            Beyond that, though, I don’t see your point that Bush wanted to know. He clearly did not — except from his private source(s) such as Bandar — not part of any official or historical account of 9/11. What you have shown me here raises additional questions but does not absolve Bush from active complicity in causing 9/11. Many people were involved; perhaps most of them are unknown. But Bush and Bandar were two — and they now are known.

          • Sarastro92

            Eric:

            I agree with your synopsis of the Clarke interview. Clarke himself is a slimy figure, having played ball with al Q in the Balkans during the Clinton days. Clarke also omits any mention of the FBI who are just as culpable as the CIA in withholding info on alQ cells operating around the USA. It was also Clarke who immediately started “It’s bin Laden/ al Qaeda” shortly after the towers came down, well before any evidence was in.

            Still his testimony on specific intelligence briefing channels is credible and the fact that the CIA (and the FBI) could have picked up the hijackers as late as 10 Sept, 2001 is believable.

            But his conjecture that the CIA played this whole game to recruit double agents to infiltrate alQ is ridiculous. And in any case the US did have a high level double/triple agent in play, the infamous Ali_Mohamed. There’s lots on the net if you don’t know Mohamed’s story.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

            As for Bush, there’s practically nothing from him that’s on the record. The mangled quote from Rice doesn’t say much that’s intelligible. 9/11 was engineered by the Deep State, the murky Permanent Government we only see glimpses of. This is more or less the same networks involved in the JFK assassination…GW Bush was never part of that network… it’s hard to imagine such an inept and unreliable personality being the mastermind of anything. Dubya had no role to play in say, the Carlisle Group… he was never a player on that level… mostly he was a weak, weak-minded, minor figure in substance abuse recovery.

            Furthermore, Bush himself was targeted and directly threatened during the tense hours right after 9/11 occurred. Google “Angle is next” … Angel = Air Force 1 and generally insiders were aware of that code. The threat was deemed credible…

            Bandar had been around for decades and had no previous history with Dubya of any significance. His criminal ties with GWB mostly came into play AFTER 9/11 when the bin Ladens had to escorted out of the country; when the Saudi support network for the hijackers described especially in the 28 pages had to be protected and removed as well; and the deception/ cover-up apparatus put into place. It was all remarkably sloppy and amateurish. But with the political establishment circling around the Bush Administration (led by the Clintons I may add) and the MSM as well mudding the waters with a fair amount of disinformation (though there was a lot of good reporting mixed in) the whole 9/11 Staged Terror Spectacle played out as intended.

            That is to say, 9/11 resulted in a) a policy of Perpetual War on Terror ( serial Regime Change); and the imposition of an Orwellian Police state which included the shredding of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

  • Army of Addicts

    Whistleblower Deaths Connected To 9/11

    https://usahitman.com/wbdct911/

  • Army of Addicts