The Great 9/11 coverup

Eric Zuesse
flags  at the 9/11 Memorial during ceremonies marking the 12th anniversary of the attacks - UPI/Chris Pedota /POOL

flags at the 9/11 Memorial during ceremonies marking the 12th anniversary of the attacks – UPI/Chris Pedota /POOL

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.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jan 23, 2017 8:42 PM

Visible on the matter, on the day …’THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT’… Becoming more visible in the Planers’ depositions …THE DISSOCIATION CONSTANT… off the radar of No-brainer.

Sep 12, 2016 8:19 AM

Good work Eric.
Please note: America’s intended government is not a democracy. The word democracy can not be found in the Declaration of Independence nor is it mentioned in our Constitution. America is a Constitutional Republic, where our social contract, the Rule of Law holds, the highest office. No one stands above it; not the wealthy corporate leader, the common laborer or the democratically elected government servant, who by the way has taken a sworn oath to protect and defend (the rule of law) against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The abdication of which leads to a very dark cell for life or a brief moment in front of a firing squad.
Please see: A Republic If You Can Keep It! & The Most Pressing Issue Of Our Time –

Sep 11, 2016 2:49 PM

Reblogged this on sentinelblog.

Sep 9, 2016 5:11 AM

I’m surprised that any American can read this article and not be emotionally furious and even homicidal, that the leaders of the day would conspire to kill 3000 of their own citizens to accomplish a political goal and not be severely punished for it! The whole Bush League should be cooling their heels in prison and their shame and treachery should be broadcast to the World. Those who came after are also compromised for not seeing to it that justice was done. The current president is himself complicit in this this tragedy!

Sep 8, 2016 10:31 AM

Operation Aphrodite’ was the World War II code name of a secret USAAF program that began in 1944. Pilotless aircraft packed with explosives were remotely controlled into their targets.

Sep 9, 2016 2:35 AM
Reply to  Husq

Interesting USAAF take on a “mistel”

Sep 7, 2016 9:28 PM

I Really am an Eric fan however, I still think the theory of actual terrorist crashing the planes into the various targets is a plant to distract investigators from an inside job pulled of by a group of rogue and lawless politicians serving a most deviant cabal of global lunatics.
The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade Later

Sep 8, 2016 5:47 PM
Reply to  adambaumsocal

@adam – that article you link to mentions the names of some well-known peddlars of nonsense who’ve disrupted science discussions for years, for example the dubious “James Randi Foundation”.
Rather than speculating about “who”, perhaps it’s better to rather look to a proper investigation by international experts.

Sep 7, 2016 12:33 PM

The mainstream narrative most obviously breaks down over the alleged cell phone calls made from planes which had no onboard phones;the alleged cell phone calls could mostly ,except in a small number of Flight 93 instances, simply not have been made from the height the planes were allegedly flying at when the calls were allegedly made. Prof Dewdleys research makes this completely and abundantly clear and there is no way to open-mindedly avoid it nor to insist that there were onboard phones on say Flight 77. It was indeed the well-known TV presenter Barbara Olsen who set the tone for the mainstream narrative that there had been “hijacks from swarthy Mediterranean-looking types with box-cutters etc….. “. in Moussaiou the FBI entirely restated her husbands case claiming she never got through at all either to him or to anyone in his office,that his entire testimony was a tissue of lies.He had never spoken to her at all. The FBI is either covering its arse or admitting it knows the truth but that to pursue it is well outside even its own paygrade.The fact that the husband was Ted Olsen places some of what truly happened within the WH as he most certainly knew he was lying…
If any of the calls from the stated height did not happen though may have been made from the ground the entire official narrative collapses. The 21 pages is a limited hangout sewn into the 9/11 report to misdirect folk like Eric ….
People who cannot accept this will scream and shout that there were onboard phones when the evidence is clear there werent or that Flight 77 had extra communications tech fitted to enable such calls,when there wasnt….. Dewdley proved beyond all doubt that in 2001 the handshakes could not have been made and that the cellphone calls didnt happen. The calls were of course necessary,indeed vital, to establish the ” Arab /Muslim” narrative and who better to launch the media storm than one of their own Barbara Olsen? http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/

Mark Baraniecki
Mark Baraniecki
Sep 7, 2016 11:58 AM

[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.]
This is true, but it’s still an implicit dictatorship.
15 years later, the evidence is now pointing to 9/11 being an attempt to turn the US into an explicit dictatorship, with the conclusion that 9/11 was a failed coup d’état, and we are now living in the messy aftermath.
On the morning of 9/11 a group of Arab looking “journalists” tried and failed to gain access to George Bush claiming to have an appointment for a “poolside interview” at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort, Florida [Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001) – ref. Daniel Hopsicker’s interesting investigation; https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title .
If Bush had been taken out of the picture that morning, VP Cheney would have become President under Emergency Law dating from the Reagan administration, with the neo-cons holding the Office of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to enforce it – which would have been the end of American democracy.

Sep 7, 2016 11:05 AM

Very good summation by Eric Zuesse of the suppressed political background to the 9/11 events. The anomalies for such an outrageously audacious plan as you would expect were many and rely heavily on the conspiracy theory mime to minimise scrutiny event to this day. As debated on this site with regard to Roddis’s “debunkerette”
It is clear the sheer scale of the 9/11 events were intended to rendered all observers in shock and leave most for a period of time without any real reference points for immediate critical evaluation.
Yet as many have said about the events there is a familiar pattern is there not? A pattern which is perhaps lost in the ever growing mass of information surrounding the numerous anomalies. That pattern is one of perception management, how even before the 9/11 event preparations clearly had been in place to ensure the global audience were being manipulated. Spoon fed the narrative – for what appeared to be an unexpected attack on New York. [BBC’s PKD* “pre-cog/ pre-crime” moment reporting the collapse of WTC7 some 20 mins before it happened].
Think more recently of false narratives with:
MH-17; the Ukrainian coup d’état; War in Syria; Russian expansionism; Greek debt; Hilary’s Hacked emails; Alexander Litvinenko’s murder; terror attacks in Europe … to give just a few examples.
Yet we still have some people believing our rulers [wherever and whoever they might be] are too stupid or too busy to dream up stories to deceive us? That all these unfortunate events are if not planned by Mr Putin, happened as a coincidental side effect of incompetence. And that by that fact we attach too much significance to them.
Even the generally accepted definition of perception management is erroneously manipulated:
“Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to…
foreign audiences …
See for full definition:
I think many would agree that in the world of management/ advertising/politics etc. etc. perception is more important than reality. Even within the accepted definition of perception management there is a problem as we can see where we are led to believe foreign audiences not ourselves are the targets…
The truth as we know is stranger than fiction. And like fiction it doesn’t happen by accident. But defining the truth, or framing it, is so delicate that often it needs protecting especially when it may so easily fall into the wrong hands.
PKD Philip K Dick

Sep 7, 2016 11:10 AM
Reply to  tutisicecream

Para 1 scrutiny of the event

Sep 7, 2016 10:48 AM

4 hours …. watched twice ,,,, bushtuckerpress

Sep 7, 2016 10:26 AM

As most 9/11 articles a few plausible theories are mixed with many officially led assumptions. This combined with the mania to hold either a person or entity to account serves but one purpose, division. The network of individuals, organisations, corporations and governments that enabled and subsequently covered up the events of that day still control the narrative. They continue, emboldened to destroy all that oppose their ends, yet we plead for a truthful account in the name of democracy?? We know who was involved, we know why, why is it necessary to have them admit? The irony is that many who understand will still dutifully act in their assigned roles within the very structures that perpetuate that system. Come November the same crony political cabal will be voted for by those pleading for democracy. How many times do we need to be hit in order to understand what is going on?

Sep 7, 2016 10:22 AM

Thanks Off-Guardian, for hosting a diversity of views and allowing free flow of information here.
It’s notable that comments about 911 at “The Guardian” that do NOT support the official version are routinely removed and posters are placed on “pre-moderation”.
Core 911 researchers like Kevin Ryan are NEVER given space at ‘The Guardian” but George Monbiot and others are given space at “The Guardian” to smear these people as “members of a coven”, etc.
Interesting, that.
“Guardianista’s” children are all at high school learning Newton’s laws on conservation of momentum, but the readers themselves are deep in science ignorance and denial.

Jan 25, 2017 8:12 PM
Reply to  marc

I’m curious to know why a Guardian template is the background for the bios of the exponents of Off Guardian? …….just curious.

Sep 7, 2016 10:01 AM

The reason it’s important to dismiss the “hijacked planes” theory is a) because there’s no evidence for it; but more importantly b) because it supports the belief that the attack came from outside, and specifically from al Qaeda i.e. that it was really organised by Muslim fundamentalists (whether ObL or KSM or whoever) and that therefore the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan – and the subsequent demonisation of Muslims and the whole pseudo ‘war on terror’ was somehow justified.
Osama always denied involvement (if he had instigated it he would surely have been crowing about it). People will remember the exchange between Bush and the Taliban after Bush had accused them of hiding ObL. The Taliban said: “we know where he is and we can arrest him and hand him over – if you can give us proof he was involved”. Of course Bush couldn’t, so he evaded the challenge by saying that he didn’t talk to terrorists.
In relation to Osama, it’s known that in 2001 he was suffering from kidney failure and was on dialysis. He had been seen in the American hospital in Dubai, where he was visited by the local CIA chief. It’s fairly reliably reported that he died in December 2001 – so the whole “Navy Seal capture and assassination of Osama” was a fake, probably designed to help Obama be re-elected. Most of the Seals involved died soon after in a helicopter crash (dead men tell no tales?).
For me it’s really important to know that no Muslims or Arabs took part in the 9/11 attack. But there is solid evidence of Mossad involvement.

Sep 7, 2016 10:12 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

So you’re keen to disprove “Muslim” involvement and prove “Mossad involvement’?
How about you focus on the hard facts (not nonsense about “no planes” and “fake videos” as you do elsewhere) and call for a solid investigation, rather than jumping to conclusions?

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
Sep 7, 2016 7:55 PM
Reply to  marc

Even if Arab hijackers were part of the plot, the case for Mossad involvement is still incredibly strong. Here’s a good, comprehensive rundown from Wikispooks: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Jan 23, 2017 8:27 PM
Reply to  marc

…….al jebr….
The patriot hasn’t sussed it yet..But embusque’s smirk on their tv sets..Was the missing piece of the jigsaw jets:
……….the truth is anti-semetic moishe

Sep 7, 2016 9:23 AM

“The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11.” Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” Two years later, President Bush stated, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, “Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.”
At unspecified times during the two years prior to September 11, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace) conducted training exercises that simulated hijacked aircraft being deliberately crashed into targets so as to cause mass casualties. As USA Today later reported, “One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Centre.”
Nonetheless, there is simply no evidence that commercial planes were hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers. If the government lied about planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville (where the absence of any wreckage was ‘explained’ by the claim that the planes had “vaporised”!), why should we accept their claim about the WTC? Let’s not forget that the first alleged plane was never seen on film – only an explosion at the side of the tower. We were then told it was a plane. Anyone planning an attack of this kind would surely have arranged to hit both towers simultaneously, for maximum effect. The delay in the ‘second plane’ arriving allowed the TV crews to get into place for this ‘made-for-television’ event. We were simply told by the announcers that “a second plane” had crashed into the other tower.
The apparent speed of the alleged plane has been accurately calculated from the (faked) videos as being in excess of the plane’s capability at that altitude (c. 1000′). Had a real plane been flying that fast, the wings and tailplane would have broken off before it reached the tower.
In any case, since we know that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition (an extremely sophisticated operation which succeeded in turning 100,000 tons of concrete and steel into fine dust), it’s clear that the ‘hijacked planes’ assertion was a cover story. There is, for example, eye-witness evidence of a plane seen heading at low altitude towards the Pentagon, but we know that no plane crashed there, so the plane that was seen was a decoy. There were very likely decoys at the WTC too, as some people swear they saw a plane that day. But the total absence of identifiable wreckage or body parts is conclusive proof that no commercial planes crashed into the Twin Towers.

Sep 7, 2016 10:04 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

Hi paulcarline
With all due respect, i think you venture onto thin ice when you infer there were “no planes” and “fake videos.”
As i noted to you on another thread, many professional TV cameramen, as well as any number of citizens, documented the events. Many videos are available from countless sources.
Are you implying some grand conspiracy where the perpetrators are able to ensure control over all the images and eye-witness accounts?
It’s been obvious since 2006 that there are people who jump online to start proposing patent nonsense whenever people try to have a rational, fact and science-based discussion of this issue.

Sep 7, 2016 11:07 AM
Reply to  marc

I agree with you, it’s far more likely that if there were ‘conspiracy’, that it involved remote-controlled flying of airliners into the targets. This is consistent with the precision required to hit the targets at the speed and angle of approach, in particular with regard to whatever hit the Pentagon…….

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 7, 2016 3:19 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

A plausible speculation. But equally plausible is that actual airliners were remotely ‘jacked’ and flown into the towers. Who can say with certainty.
Something was flown into the towers and the towers collapsed. What was flown into the towers, was the cover for the demolition. And blaming Al-Quaeda was the trigger to inflame ordinary Americans to the point of many agreeing to sacrifice themselves in reality to a purpose not their own. To a high a degree, the operation, whatever the details in their entirety and sadly, was a brilliant success.

Sep 7, 2016 5:31 AM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.