Given how frequently this seems to recur, it is time to put the...

Given how frequently this seems to recur, it is time to put the matter of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 to bed definitively.

This thread offers a number of pieces of evidence—in no particular order—conclusively proving that any claim to the contrary is not merely unreasonable, but ludicrous, counterintuitive, irrational, and worst of all, precisely what fuels a cycle of terrorism and carnage.

Al-Qaeda was indeed behind 9/11 and other attacks, but it had a fully justified theological basis on account of the Islamic teaching as to defensive jihad. The governments of the U.S. and Israel promote these theories subtly because they want to preclude people from learning that.

They are wary because they’re fully cognizant of the fact that if people do learn, they’ll realize they can actually do something about it that imperils Israel.

If Americans learn that they are at grave risk of being so attacked because of a theological basis for it coupled with the ongoing triggering condition (U.S. support of Israel), they'll react as they did during the Vietnam War and essentially revolt to the extent that the U.S. government has no option but to capitulate to the demands (in this case, eliminating or markedly reducing support of Israel).

That's the biggest threat to Israel's enjoyment of U.S. support, and why AIPAC, the ADL, and other entities are so keen on ensuring that messages from al-Qaeda and other such groups are never aired, remain hidden from the public, and obstructed.

Osama bin Laden (supposedly) only denied responsibility ONCE (9/16/2001). I say supposedly because at the time, he was neither in an area from which he could communicate directly to the Pakistani newspaper that published this purported denial, nor had access to two-way communications technology (this was not until he settled at a safe house in late September).

Even assuming he did so, the only reason was to prove to Muslims that even without evidence or overt confirmation, America would launch a war on a Muslim country and invade Afghanistan, proving its gripe was with Muslims as much as it purportedly was with “terrorists.”

As we all know, the U.S. played right into his hand indeed.

An al-Qaeda laptop recovered by U.S. forces belonging to Ayman al-Zawahiri featured a draft statement from Osama bin Laden to the American people, wherein he not only admits full responsibility but even somewhat apologizes to Americans, noting that Tel Aviv ought to have been attacked, and indeed would have been, were it not for open and overt American support of Israel!

In 2009, Osama bin Laden released a statement attributing the attacks by and large to American support of Israel, urging Americans to hold AIPAC and any American politicians subservient to the lobby fully accountable and responsible:


x.com/SlanderedSaint…

In 2006, he unequivocally made clear that he had directed the hijackers and personally selected them:

In April 2002, in the introduction to the al-Qaeda released the Last Will & Testament of hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari.

The more than hour long video begins with an introduction by Osama bin Laden, who devotes nearly 7 minutes to a detailed recounting of the personal qualities of each hijacker:

On December 27, 2001,* al-Jazeera aired an approximately 33-minute videotape featuring Osama bin Laden speaking at length regarding the events of the preceding three months.

The footage not only demoralized U.S. forces and officials (as it confirmed he'd survived the Battle of Tora Bora and successfully escaped), but infuriated them as well, given that it featured a defiant Osama landing blow after blow with a series of logical, eloquent, reasoned, and sharp critiques and assertions.

He addressed and justified the 9/11 attacks, praised the hijackers vocally and emphatically, and recited poetry on their behalf, nearly breaking down weeping.
---------------------------------
*While this footage aired on December 27, 2001, it was recorded shortly before, specifically sometime between December 16 and December 24, 2001. This timing is based on the fact that bin Laden escaped Tora Bora on the 16th and Al-Jazeera received the tape on December 25 (by way of a delivery from Pakistan by DHL).

In 2006, al-Qaeda released a nearly 100-minute documentary on the 9/11 attacks (Knowledge Is For Acting Upon: The Manhattan Raid).

It features all manner of previously unknown details and footage as to the plotting, planning, and eventual carrying out of the attacks. Al-Qaeda and bin Laden take overt, unambiguous credit without equivocation.

This brief excerpt from the documentary features a particularly historic moment: Ramzi bin al-Shibh meeting with Osama bin Laden in late August 2001 at the al-Farouq camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Bin al-Shibh’s sole purpose in traveling there was to relay personally and directly to bin Laden that the date had finally been set* by Mohamed Atta for the massive upcoming Planes Operation: September 11, 2001.

---------------------------
*Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and bin al-Shibh initially claimed during separate interrogations (even the ones where they were not subjected to torture) that Zakariya Essabar was sent by bin al-Shibh to relay it. It was later ascertained that bin al-Shibh himself went.

In 2002, KSM and Ramzi bin al-Shibh met with al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda and for a full weekend admitted to the plot, their (al-Qaeda’s) responsibility, and even shared key insight and details, as well as provided Fouda with proof such as photos of the hijackers’ IDs (those which were never publicly released), emails, the receipts from bank transactions with the hijackers (facilitated by Mustafa al-Hawsawi).

Fouda published a book about the entire ordeal (Capture and Kill), was scrutinized and blamed by The NY Times and Washington Post in 2002 when it became clear he’d met with the men, and offers incredibly detailed insight into the nuances of the attacks which he learned about.

In 2015, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) referenced his role in the attacks in a letter to Barack Obama (something he had repeatedly admitted, since arriving at Guantanamo and even before when tortured by CIA at a variety of black sites). He also directly references bin Laden’s role and culpability:

x.com/SlanderedSaint…

Virtually every al-Qaeda member involved in any capacity at all with 9/11, whether by having been assigned the most minute role or the largest, has immediately accepted culpability.

They have done so every instance and in every context: their claims on tape or video, admissions made in books or writings, on the legal record through statements at hearings at Guantanamo, their interrogations, and much more.

None have even wasted a minute denying or otherwise claiming to not have been responsible. To the contrary, most express anger if the opposite (that they were not involved) is ever claimed or even suggested.

The only remorse or regret that ever surfaces is over the fact that they were not tasked as one of the hijackers.

This goes for everyone from Walid bin Attash (Khallad/Silver) to Ali al-Bahlul (who recorded the last will and testament videos of the hijackers), and beyond.

They not only refuse to deny it, but take great pride in playing any role at all, from the smallest to the largest.

The U.S. all but confirmed al-Qaeda was behind the attacks within an hour or so.

That's all it basically took for the FBI to narrow down and review the flight manifests of the three flights that were invovled (United 93 had not even crashed yet).

When they learned that the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were both on the flight that had just crashed into the Pentagon, they knew right away.

These were the only 2 of the 19 hijackers with confirmed al-Qaeda ties, especially al-Mihdhar, whose father-in-law, Ahmed al-Hada, was a longtime friend of Osama’s and whose very home was used as the al-Qaeda switchboard for years (all phone calls were routed through al-Hada’s house, pictured here).

The FBI had spent the last several weeks actually searching for both after learning that they were in the United States (given that they were confirmed al-Qaeda members, but not at all because the Bureau had any idea of what they were about to do).

Though the Bureau insists it would've stopped the attacks had it known about their presence earlier, blaming the CIA for keeping it from them, this notion is absurd. They had committed not a single crime and were living openly like all of the other hijackers eventually did.

Indeed, al-Hazmi was in the San Diego phonebook:

Ahmed al-Hada's home in Yemen, the infamous al-Qaeda switchboard.

On the day of the 9/11 attacks, while in Yemen for the USS Cole investigation, FBI Agent Ali Soufan was interviewing Abu Jandal, Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard and head of security (pictured below).

Before informing Jandal of the occurrence of the attacks, Soufan had strategically shown him a photobook containing dozens of al-Qaeda members.

Unaware of the day’s events, and having developed rapport with Soufan, as well as desiring not to lie (a grave sin in Islam), Jandal freely identified a litany of individuals from the book.

It was only after this that Soufan disclosed the harrowing events of the day. Jandal's reaction was one of shock, and even practically disbelief. He struggled to accept that an event of such clearly historic magnitude could've been carried out by the seemingly obscure, lowly, geographically distant people he knew and organizaton he was a member of.

His astonishment deepened when he learned that it was his earlier identifications of around nine people from the photobook which had confirmed al-Qaeda's involvement. The individuals Jandal had recognized (and even identified as having been at the camps) were all aboard the hijacked flights.

On October 29, 2004, bin Laden took direct credit again in a lengthy statement on the attacks:

aljazeera.com/news/2004/11/1…

The Dancing Israelis were described by eyewitnesses as “horsing around” and “happy”, but not dancing. In fact, it was Mohamed Atta’s father who is responsible for introducing the phrase! On September 28, 2001, a USA Today article entitled “Conspiracy theories say Israel did it” cited Egyptian news agency MENA’s interview with the elder Atta, complaining that insufficient focus was being paid to reports that the FBI had “seized a number of Jews while they were dancing in celebration over the incidents.”

To be clear, they most certainly were likely jubilant and celebratory, or at least certainly far from sad. That is because they were almost certainly Israeli intelligence operatives who were, like the global intelligence community had been, keenly aware that something was soon going down and it would be major, and that this was it.

There was a significant--even massive--amount of chatter in 2001, particularly during the summer, and Mossad was consistently gathering information. It is virtually impossible that they would have possessed precise details or knowledge of key operatives.

The most plausible scenario is that the group operating in or from NYC (during 2001, Mossad operatives disguised as Israeli art students were detected across the nation attempting to access government facilities and engage with federal agents) immediately recognized the gravity of the attack they had anticipated.

This recognition stemmed from the fact that the weather was clear and no pilot error could account for the crash. Furthermore, they were aware that the WTC had been targeted previously and remained a high-priority site for potential attacks.

Consequently, their jubilation and excitement following the impact of the first flight (AA 11) were based on this understanding.

The Saudis suffered enormously and were not behind it either. They were cooperating with the CIA, but not to carry the attacks out. Instead, the Agency was pursuing a plan to infiltrate al-Qaeda, which it executed upon learning about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, the only two hijackers with documented ties to the organization.

The intelligence community was in dire need of informants and sought to penetrate the group. Since the two men were in the U.S. (where the CIA is prohibited from operating by law), a common strategy was employed—asking Saudi intelligence to monitor and cultivate them as informants.

However, due to their strict operational security, this approach failed, and Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi intelligence asset overseeing the operation in the U.S., eventually lost track of them.

The costs America suffered far, far outweighed the benefits. The American relationship with Saudi Arabia alone (one of the most key relationships it has, arguably second only after Israel) was immediately imperiled, and the same could be said for the Saudi relationship with the U.S.

So disturbed and anxious were the Saudis that their relationship with the U.S. would irreparably damaged that the very next day after the attacks, they chose to send nine million extra barrels of oil to the U.S. over the next two weeks (which is why there was only a slight inflation spike despite the worst terror attacks in world history).

The economic and geopolitical fallout, damage to international relations, and the erosion of trust in the U.S. government would far exceed any perceived benefits from enhanced surveillance.

Such a drastic and risky endeavor would be an indescribably imprudent and most ignorant, harebrained strategy for achieving any purported objectives or goals, whether to launch wars or expand surveillance (especially considering the intricate web of global interdependencies).

As senior al-Qaeda figure Abu Muhammad al-Masri himself said in his book on 9/11 (featuring a length of several hundred pages): these conspiracy theories are themselves promoted by the American and Israeli governments to deter Westerners from purging their governments of Zionist influenced lobbies and elements, and to prevent Muslims people from joining al-Qaeda and not regarding it as that powerful, incredible, capable, and organized of a group.

He laments that this seems to have worked, pointing out how many Arabs and Muslims themselves refuse to believe al-Qaeda was behind it, as if they concur with the lamentable stereotype that all Arabs and Muslims are somehow ignorant cave-dwellers and goat herders.

The book is titled The September 11 Operations: Between Truth and Skepticism.

The notion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job or false flag operation orchestrated by the U.S. government or intelligence agencies is fundamentally and wholly implausible when examined through the lens of operational reality and risk assessment. Such a theory crumbles under scrutiny due to several compelling factors.

Firstly, the modus operandi of elite intelligence agencies like the CIA and military units is defined by meticulous planning, strict discipline, and an unwavering commitment to risk mitigation. Every operation undergoes rigorous scenario analysis, with contingencies mapped out and potential collateral impacts carefully calculated. The horrific scale of indiscriminate violence and total lack of control exhibited during 9/11 stands in stark contrast to the surgical precision and tightly regulated nature of sanctioned operations.

Crucially, an attack of this magnitude would have required the involvement of an impossibly vast network of operatives and support personnel across numerous domains. We're talking about thousands of individuals, ranging from demolition experts and aviators to intelligence analysts, logistics coordinators, and crisis actors. Maintaining operational security and ensuring complete loyalty from such an extensive web would be an insurmountable, outrageous challenge, especially given that the intense investigative scrutiny that followed was literally the most profound in world history.

Furthermore, there would be an inconceivably staggering number of potential leak points - each individual involved would essentially hold the power to unravel the entire conspiracy through a single disclosure. No matter how rigorously vetted, the psychological burden of maintaining such a horrific secret indefinitely would inevitably crack even the most stalwart resolve. The subsequent legal inquiries and public pressure would create an environment rife with incentives for defectors to come forward, shattering the veiled truth.

Moreover, the risk-reward calculus underpinning such a reckless operation defies all logic and rational decision-making. Even if one entertains the dubious notion that the attacks were intended to justify policy objectives like heightened surveillance or military interventions, there existed a vast array of far less destructive and risky avenues to achieve similar ends. To sacrifice thousands of American civilians and first responders, while risking severe blowback and potential exposure, eroding America’s global image and reputation of competence and strength, and more represents an unfathomable trade-off devoid of any strategic rationale.

The sheer complexity of such a supposed coverup alone strains credulity. From meticulously planting DNA evidence and crafting falsified passenger manifests to coordinating simultaneous aerial psyops and even potential holographic projections, the logistical and technical challenges are utterly impossible, impassable, and demonstrably implausible. No agency, no matter how capable, could ever realistically orchestrate and maintain such an intricately woven web of deception indefinitely.

Ultimately, to ascribe the 9/11 attacks to a U.S. government conspiracy is to discard each and every shred of rational, reasonable logic and thought, as well as to disregard every repeated, consistently observable and reasonable assumption about human nature, organizational behavior, and risk management. It demands a suspension of logic and a rejection of Occam's razor in favor of convoluted narratives unsupported by credible evidence.

Despite the immense volumes of classified information made public by whistleblowers like WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden, there remains a striking absence of any credible evidence linking the United States or Israel to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

This absence is noteworthy and significant. Given the scope and nature of the leaks, which have consistently and regularly brought to light information about government operations, practices, resources, tools, and more that is deeply damaging, extremely sensitive, and profoundly disastrous, the lack of any documents, communications, or even a single parcel or morsel of anything remotely suggesting complicity by the U.S. or Israeli governments in such a monumental event is jarring and thunderously resounding.

These leaks have exposed intricate details of numerous classified activities, yet not a single piece of evidence has surfaced that implicates these governments in the attacks.

Perhaps even more significant, all of the material that has been leaked points conclusively to the very opposite: that only al-Qaeda orchestrated 9/11.

The leaked documents and communications reveal a U.S. government scrambling in response, desperate to preempt further strikes, and showcase a globally tense atmosphere immediately following the attacks and lasting for years later, even in many ways to this day.

Notably, reports indicate that Israeli officials, including then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, were profoundly shaken by the attacks and feared global backlash against Israel. Such reactions underscore the genuine shock and horror felt by world leaders in the wake of the tragedy.

It is thus not only unsupported by evidence, but also wholly contrary to logic and reason to believe or in any way conclude that the 9/11 attacks were anything other than a grievous assault inflicted by al-Qaeda—undeniably the most severe and tragic event in American history.

The idea that such a catastrophic event could be a false flag operation involving complex and wide-reaching government collusion, without a single leak despite extensive and eager whistleblowing, defies the very reality of information security and human reliability.

Larry Silverstein's acquisition of the World Trade Center lease and his subsequent insurance decisions are often cited by conspiracy theorists as indicative of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

However, a critical examination of these claims against the backdrop of standard real estate and insurance practices reveals a different picture, devoid of the sinister implications some attempt to draw.

Firstly, the inclusion of terrorism coverage in Silverstein's insurance policy was not only standard and prudent, but REQUIRED.

In other words, IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF SILVERSTEIN’S CHOICE.

It wasn’t optional, but obligatory: the lenders required that such coverage be included or else Silverstein would not be loaned the funds necessary for the lease.

This is hardly surprising as virtually any and all major buildings, especially in large, notable cities, were customarily expected to have terrorism coverage. Bear in mind the 1993 WTC bombing, and then the 1995 bombing of the federal building Oklahoma City!

In addition to this, the use of the phrase "pull it," by Larry Silverstein in a documentary is another outrageous element fueling conspiracy theories despite being astonishingly simple to incontrovertibly disprove!

The phrase been widely, wildly, and often deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented as a reference to demolishing Building 7. However, Silverstein was not referring to the building itself, but specifically to the team of firefighters inside at that particular moment.

The infamous interview clip is from the PBS documentary America Rebuilds and here are Silverstein's exact words:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Firstly, in emergency fire response contexts, the phrase "pull it" ubiquitously refers to withdrawing the contingent of firefighters from a structure that is plagued by an ongoing fire.

Silverstein was suggesting that withdrawing the firefighters might be prudent given the staggering loss of life already endured. He was NOT suggesting, let alone ordering, the demolishing of the building!

Secondly, Silverstein clearly states, "And they made that decision to pull..." The operative word "they" refers to the Fire Department Commander, not Silverstein himself!

Even if it were an inside job, why on earth would he be the one with the task or authority to authorize this? Why would anyone need to do so, rather than have it timed automatically? And why in God's name would he admit it in a PBS documentary?!?!?!

The belief that PBS, which receives significant government funding, would air a documentary that includes anything remotely suggestive of a government-orchestrated inside job is ludicrous, untenable, irrational, and truly underscores the grievous lack of common sense pervasive among such a large contingent (pun intended) of the population!

The notion that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative or had anything whatsoever to do with the CIA, or any element of American intelligence, is along the most absurd and indescribably false notions to ever surface.

Every single piece of evidence, every shred of concrete data, and every molecular parcel of demonstrable fact militates heavily against and completely contradicts the notion that he was ever a CIA operative.

There are video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden from the mid-1980s where he is vehemently denouncing America in lectures and persistently urging for a ban on any and all purchases that would even marginally benefit the U.S., to the extent that he states “not a single sip of Pepsi should be taken by any Muslim.”

The CIA and all of its top officials have denied that the U.S. ever recruited, trained, armed, or funded bin Laden during that time. Bin Laden himself (and al-Qaeda’s media) have too.

Independent journalists and authors who extensively researched the CIA's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict with the Soviets in the 1980s support the CIA's contention.

The CIA has maintained that it did not support the Arab fighters, including bin Laden, who came to Afghanistan to fight in solidarity with a Muslim country. Additionally, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll wrote that the CIA archives contain no record of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s.

The U.S. covertly financed and armed the Afghan mujahedin factions, specifically even the Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions, fighting Soviet forces. But it did not engage with any of the Arabs (who came to be known widely as the “Afghan Arabs”) ones at all.

Before he was even known in the West, bin Laden confirmed this unequivocally by stating to Robert Fisk in 1993:

"Personally, neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help."

In a second interview with Fisk for The Independent, July 10, 1996, bin Laden repeated that position:

"We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies. Most of the weapons that came to Afghanistan were paid for by the Saudis on the orders of the Americans because Turki al-Faisal, the head of Saudi external intelligence, and the CIA were working together."

Even more indisputable evidence exists in the books of Michael Scheuer (who was chief of the CIA's bin Laden Issue Station) and @FlaggMiller's exceptional book, The Audacious Ascetic.

Al-Qaeda’s video release of the Last Will and Testament of hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari featured footage of several of the muscle hijackers during their time in Afghanistan (beginning around 0:32 mark).

At the 1:16 mark or so, several of them are shown specifically altering/doctoring their passports.

They both removed stamps and indicators that would shed light on their travels to places like Pakistan (which is known as a destination for those seeking to travel to Afghanistan), as well as added false ones suggesting travel to or through regions they wouldn’t ultimately ever visit.

The U.S. government DID NOT “mysteriously lose” trillions of dollars the day before 9/11, as conspiracy theorists claim.

This is a categorically false and misleading allegation that distorts the facts about $2.3 trillion in accounting entries that were poorly documented due to outdated technology.

On September 10, 2001 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion in a speech, but he was NOT implying that the money was missing.

Instead, he was using the number to highlight the need for better financial management and modernization of the department’s systems. See the video of this part of his speech below, which makes it unambiguously clear!

These accounting problems were not a new revelation. They had been known and a subject of public concern for many years. The Pentagon's operations are highly complex, and its reliance on old financial systems made achieving transparent and efficient accounting extremely challenging.

This issue was already recognized and steps were being taken to address it before Rumsfeld's announcement in 2001.

Moreover, the specific transactions associated with the $2.3 trillion were all made in fiscal year 1999 and reported in early 2000, long before 9/10/2001.

Rumsfeld’s speech had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up! Why would he even have mentioned such a thing had the U.S. been behind the attacks that he'd have known were about to occur the very next morning?!

By the way, the same thing continued to occur and in 2016, $8 trillion couldn’t be accounted for, again due to poor practices and outdated technology.

Conspiracy theorists that time claimed it was because the U.S. used the funds to build a massive spaceship capable of turning itself fully invisible, like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek…..

The claim that "jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams" as a reason the Twin Towers should not have collapsed on September 11 is a misunderstanding of both the materials involved and the architectural design of the buildings. It’s crucial to address these points to understand why the Twin Towers ultimately fell.
Firstly, while it's true that jet fuel burns at a temperature (around 800–1500°F) lower than the melting point of steel (around 2750°F), the heat generated was sufficient to weaken the structural integrity of the steel. When steel is heated to high temperatures, it doesn't need to melt to fail; it can lose much of its strength and become susceptible to deformation under weight.

Secondly, the design of the Twin Towers featured a tube frame structural system. This innovative design used closely spaced perimeter columns and floor trusses that spanned to a central core. The impact from the airplanes severely damaged several of these perimeter columns, critically compromising their structural capacity. Additionally, the lightweight floor trusses, also made of steel, weakened significantly under the intense heat from the burning fuel and office materials. This loss of structural integrity in the trusses led to the floors sagging and putting additional load on the perimeter columns, exacerbating their failure.

Furthermore, the fireproofing on the steel structures, intended to protect them from such temperatures, was dislodged by the initial impacts of the airplanes. This left the metal exposed to the full intensity of the heat, hastening their weakening.

The towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane in use during the 1960s when the buildings were designed. However, the Boeing 767s involved in the attacks were larger, were traveling faster, and carried more fuel than a 707 would have on a typical flight. This led to much more severe structural damage and fires than the buildings were anticipated to withstand.

Each of these factors—material properties of steel under heat, specific architectural vulnerabilities, dislodged fireproofing, and the scale and nature of the impacts—combined to create a scenario in which collapse was possible. This understanding refutes the notion that the buildings should have remained standing if it were not for some sort of planned demolition. The evidence, thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by experts, consistently supports the conclusion that the fire-induced failure of structural elements led to the tragic collapses.

Just watch this short and simple video. Denying these scientific facts is literally the equivalent of denying the sky is blue!

youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1Ky…

The assertion that no plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, is another falsehood.

This claim is contradicted by a wealth of evidence and accounts! First and foremost, a plethora of eyewitness accounts confirm the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

These accounts come from various individuals, including Pentagon personnel, journalists, and passersby. Their descriptions of a large commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon building are wholly consistent and corroborative.*

Moreover, physical evidence from the crash site supports the fact that it was indeed a plane that struck the Pentagon.

Debris from a Boeing 757 (pictured below and which additional photos of can be easily found across numerous sources) was found at the scene. A 757 indeed was used by American Airlines for Flight 77.

The plane debris in particular includes parts of the fuselage, engine components, landing gear, and more. Such evidence is consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner; it does not indicate any other type of event or weapon!

Furthermore, data from the flight's black boxes, recovered from the wreckage, align with the conclusion that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

The flight data recorder provided detailed information about the plane's speed, trajectory, and final moments, all of which are consistent with the observed damage and eyewitness reports.

Security camera footage from the Pentagon, although limited in clarity and frame rate, also captures the moment of impact, showing a large object, consistent with the size and speed of a commercial airliner, striking the Pentagon.

Moreover, Barbara Olson, wife of United States Solicitor General Ted Olson, was on the flight itself and called him to report the hijacking.

The second photo below further affirms that only a plane could have hit the Pentagon, given the location of the body fragments found: the blue lettering indicates remains from Flight 77 passengers and crew; red lettering represents the remains of Pentagon staff; and the black with yellow lettering are remains of the hijackers.

_____________________________________
*Mary Lyman, a motorist on Interstate 395, observed the airplane’s steep, fast descent toward the ground. Her position on the highway gave her a clear view of the initial impact.

While cutting grass, Omar Campo witnessed the plane screaming overhead, felt the impact, and saw the area engulfed in fire.

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, detailed the plane’s loud screaming noise and its erratic wing movements, as if struggling to maintain balance. He also noted the plane hitting lampposts before impact.

Daryl Donley expressed his surprise upon realizing that the approaching object was a commercial passenger jet. Donley’s quick response led to him capturing some of the first photographs of the aftermath.

Mike Walter, a USA Today reporter driving on Washington Boulevard, recalled his disbelief at seeing a low-flying American Airlines jet. He likened its trajectory to that of a cruise missile, describing its direct path into the Pentagon.

Terrance Kean, a resident of a nearby apartment building, was drawn to the event by the loud jet engines. From his window, he observed the large passenger jet strike the Pentagon, noting the nose’s penetration into the portico followed by fire and smoke.

Tim Timmerman, a pilot, recognized the American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon. His expertise offered an additional layer of credibility to the observation.

In addition to these individuals, many other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike, as well as people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other adjacent areas, witnessed the crash.

The claim that Hani Hanjour was too poor of a pilot to successfully strike the Pentagon is false. This notion itself stemmed from his poor English skills. Language skills are, of course, an entirely separate and distinct matter from one's technical or practical skills.

Recall that Hanjour received formal flight training in the United States and obtained a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial pilot's certificate in 1999. This certification is not trivial; it requires passing rigorous written, oral, and practical flight tests that assess a candidate's knowledge and skill in operating aircraft.

At the end of the day, the FAA's issuance of a commercial pilot's certificate to him is incontrovertible evidence of his meeting the minimum standards for piloting an aircraft. This certification directly contradicts claims of his absolute ineptitude as a pilot.

Concerning the flight maneuver into the Pentagon, aviation experts have weighed in on the feasibility of such an action by someone with Hanjour's background.

For example, John Nance, an aviation analyst, explained in a PBS interview that while the maneuver was difficult, it was within the capabilities of someone who had a commercial pilot's license. He stated, "It's not as difficult as a lot of people thought... The hard part is not the flying or the navigating in those last few moments. It's getting to that point...".

This statement underscores the notion that while challenging, the maneuver was not beyond the reach of someone who had been formally trained as a pilot.

Moreover, the technical aspects of flying a Boeing 757 should not be overlooked. Modern commercial airliners are equipped with advanced avionics and flight control systems designed to assist pilots in maintaining control of the aircraft.

These systems can significantly mitigate the complexity of flying, even for someone who may not have extensive experience with that particular type of aircraft. The argument that Hanjour could not have executed the flight path because of a lack of skill overlooks the support provided by these technological aids.

Additionally, a 2004 article notes:

The hijackers had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and "as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough."

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

And an FBI report summarizes:

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

Perhaps most definitive:

A footnote to Chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Footnote 170). It recounts an FBI interview wherein an instructor confirmed that Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.

The instructor himself believed that Hanjour must have had training from a military pilot, because he knew to deploy and use a terrain recognition system for navigation, and because of how well Hanjour had handled the approach and landing.

The FBI’s 2006 dodging of the question as to why Osama bin Laden’s wanted poster (originally issued for the 1998 East Africa U.S. Embassy bombings) made no mention of 9/11 had nothing to do with a lack of evidence.

The omission is deliberate, for reasons lasting to this very day. It was a legal maneuver strategically aimed at facilitating the classification of al-Qaeda and any other War on Terror detainees as war criminals/enemy combatants rather than criminal defendants (who would be entitled to all manner of additional protection, rights, and more).

By refraining from explicitly tying bin Laden to the 9/11 events on the wanted poster, the FBI sought to maintain a legal framework that enabled the treatment of individuals associated with al-Qaeda under the umbrella of wartime protocols. To articulate otherwise would risk mandating or establishing grounds for criminal charges against bin Laden and undermine the legitimacy of employing military standards in counterterrorism efforts.

The attack on the USS Cole isn’t listed either, and no one has ever argued that wasn’t al-Qaeda’s doing!

The Tim Osman theory (that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative actually named Tim Osman) arises from a claim put forth by Michael James Riconosciuto, a mentally disturbed and deranged drug dealer and convict.

It arises specifically from a November 2001 article where he claimed to have provided FBI with a heads-up regarding 1998 Embassy Bombings and 9/11.

Riconosciuto emerged into the public eye primarily through his involvement in the Inslaw Affair, a complex legal case involving allegations against the United States Department of Justice. Riconosciuto claimed to have reprogrammed Inslaw's PROMIS software, a case-management program, with a secret "back-door" to allow clandestine tracking of individuals.

As to Osama, Riconosciuto asserted that he had met a person named "Tim Osman" (allegedly Osama bin Laden) during a meeting in Sherman Oaks, California in the late spring of 1986. Riconosciuto claimed that, along with Ted Gunderson, a former FBI official, he was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense Systems).

He asserted that the meeting was also attended by two representatives of the mujahideen. One was "Ralph Olberg," an American businessman procuring weapons for the Afghan rebels, and the other was a person he identified as "Tim Osman," a 28-year-old Saudi who he claimed was Osama bin Laden.

The outlandish tale has long ago been debunked and proven incontrovertibly false, but experienced a significant resurgence after the nonsensical drivel below was published as well:

Alex Jones DID NOT predict 9/11 with any degree of accuracy.

Nothing he said proves there was a conspiracy! He delivered a rambling monologue that simply threw out any semi-plausible possibility to cover virtually every base.

Yes, he mentioned bin Laden, plane explosions, and the Twin Towers, but he also mentioned nuclear attack and biological attacks, and said further that such an attack “would happen in Europe, Asia, or Latin America, or the United States.” Even the attributes that did feature in some way on 9/11 were not prescient or inside information of any sort!

The fact that he mentioned Osama bin Laden proves nothing but that Jones keeps up with the news, as bin Laden was already well known, having attacked US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and gone on a media blitz with Western outlets warning them of violence if America did not stop its unjust and deleterious actions and involvement in the Middle East.

Further undermining Jones, al-Qaeda was also in the news that year, as the federal trial for four of the bombers involved in the 1998 attacks began in early 2001 and stretched on for months. Jones was not revealing any new or secret information, but rather exploiting the existing tensions and threats that were already public knowledge.

The fact that Jones mentioned planes blowing up is not evidence of a conspiracy. It was not even such that it could be labeled a prediction, but rather playing to a common fear.

The FAA had been constantly under guard since the earliest days of aviation, long before the War on Terror. Even the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 by Libyan agents underscored why anyone would have still recognized the possibility of a plane attack. Jones was not foreseeing anything, but rather playing on the existing anxiety and vulnerability of air travel.

The fact that Jones mentioned the WTC was not a proof, or even a coincidence. The WTC was a known target for its size and illustrious image as a symbol of American capitalism and power. Indeed, that is why Osama bin Laden chose to attack the Twin Towers specifically, as he and al-Qaeda repeatedly stated and explained. stated in his video confession after 9/11.

Jones was not identifying or predicting anything, but rather picking an obvious and prominent landmark that had already been attacked before.

Jones has a history of making false and sensational predictions that never pan out including: the end of the world in 2012, the invasion of Texas by the US military in 2015, and the assassination of Donald Trump in 2016.

The claim that Alex Jones predicted 9/11 in detail is a blatant and misleading falsehood.

x.com/TuckerCarlson/…

Conspiracy theorist Milton William "Bill" Cooper DID NOT predict 9/11 either!

On June 28, 2001, Cooper claimed that bin Laden would soon be "blamed" for a 'major attack' on a large U.S. city, "but don't you believe it".

The utter buffoons who garble this up and allow themselves to get distracted would be jarringly humiliated were they to take the time to do a simple, cursory Google search!

On June 19, 2001, U.S. outlets from the New York Times to ABC News and CBS News all reported on the release of the infamous al-Qaeda tape State of the Ummah or The Destruction of the Destroyer USS Cole.

A summary of CBS's report follows, proving that any imbecile with a single functioning neuron and a fuzzy television set would have had ample time (nine days, at least) to draw the same conclusions as Cooper did:

In a recruitment video obtained by CBS News, followers of Osama bin Laden claim responsibility for the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbor, Yemen, which occurred on October 12, 2000, killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39.

The video, which features militant training activities and speeches by bin Laden, does not directly show bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attack, but includes content that strongly implies the group's involvement. The video includes a scene with a song praising the attack on the Cole and images of bin Laden among his followers, reinforcing the connection.

The video also conveys messages aimed at the West, particularly the United States and Israel, with bin Laden depicted as alive, active, and preparing for more attacks.

Abdelbari Atwan, editor of Al Quds, who has met bin Laden, interprets these messages as a direct threat and demonstration of ongoing hostility towards these nations.

Interestingly, the video also reflects on the Muslim world's ailments and suggests militant action as a remedy, showcasing injured and deceased Muslims from various global conflicts, which bin Laden uses to rally support for his cause.

Towards the end of the video, bin Laden specifically addresses Palestinians, encouraging them towards violent resistance. The tape, produced by "As-Sahab Productions," doesn't claim to be directly ordered or financed by bin Laden but contains extensive footage that would have undoubtedly required his consent to be filmed.

This release coincided with increased security concerns in Yemen, as U.S. intelligence had tipped off local authorities about potential plots, leading to the arrest of individuals allegedly planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa.

This image vividly captures the intense fire that engulfed the 7 World Trade Center (Building 7). Considering the severity of the blaze, combined with the fact that the building's water sprinklers were rendered inoperative, and that its successful evacuation allowed emergency services to concentrate on the catastrophic collapses of the two primary towers, it is starkly clear that the use of explosives was completely unnecessary for the building's collapse.

Perhaps even more readily apparent is the fact that with the Twin Towers already destroyed, orchestrating the collapse of an additional building (one which was relatively less significant and unnecessary from a strategic standpoint) would have served no conceivable purpose.

Such maneuvers are how covert operations get blown wide open. Agencies like the CIA prioritize operational security and strategic advantage above all, and do not dare take such extreme risks for no plausible benefit.

Hell, even the local Keystone Cops know better than that!

An audio recording of Mohamed Atta reciting the Quran* in Kandahar, Afghanistan. This was specifically recorded in early January 2000 after a private Ramadan** feast in which bin Laden had formally confirmed Atta as the leader of the “Planes Operation” (9/11).

To celebrate the occasion, bin Laden gave Atta the privilege of leading the Tarwih prayer.

It was never released by al-Qaeda given the rather poor audio quality and Atta’s hoarse voice.

______________________
*Chapter 9 (Surah at-Tawbah).

**Ramadan ran from December 9, 1999 to January 7, 2000

Having been on the inside of the counterterrorism world for decades, I can bet the lives of my wife and children that Israel benefits far more from these claims that they were behind it rather than the truth, that al-Qaeda did it because it had a justifiable theological and even rational basis under Western military doctrine (search my posts for the 2003 analysis of Osama’s 1998 fatwa, by the scholarly journal Defence Studies).

Consider that not one group from the ADL to AIPAC has launched a sincere attack or genuinely earnest effort to actually combat the claim that “Jews did 9/11” but all these groups have dumped millions into stifling the reach of al-Qaeda’s messages.

There are literally full length documentaries on YouTube asserting 9/11 was a Mossad job, but post one speech by Osama bin Laden or even Anwar al-Awlaki and watch how swiftly it’s removed.

Assess the objective facts and draw logical conclusions. Consider that since its inception, TikTok was hardly paid mind in spite of long housing these theories.

Even for the more than five weeks after October 7 during which it served up much more pro-Palestinian content than pro-Israel, it necessitated little focus.

But the day Osama bin Laden’s Letter to America went viral, that very exact damn evening, you had ADL head @JGreenblattADL in a conference call frantically decrying the app and, within a week, far more bipartisan support of legislation to ban the app (courtesy of AIPAC) than had ever been remotely imaginable.

The notion that 9/11 was somehow predicted or foreshadowed in media before the attacks is utterly baseless and entirely divorced from reality.

The appearance of 9/11-like scenarios in films, TV shows, books, advertisements, and album covers prior to 2001 is nothing more than the inevitable result of the immense volume and diversity of content produced worldwide.

It is a statistical certainty, a forgone and incontestable fact, that some fictional and nonfictional depictions will bear an uncanny, even striking, resemblance to real-world events, especially those events on a literally global scale.

This phenomenon is driven by the universal use of dramatic, catastrophic themes and imagery in media, which tap into shared fears and captivate audiences. It is a fundamental aspect of the creative process, a cornerstone of narrative tropes and marketing strategies that explore worst-case scenarios.

This very phenomenon led to literal allegations that the Titanic disaster as well was a deliberate government job or other conspiracy!

The human propensity to see patterns and meaning where none exist, particularly in the aftermath of momentous events, only reinforces the illusion of premonition.

In the wake of a tragedy like 9/11, we instinctively scour past media for signs and portents, but these perceived connections are nothing more than the product of our own confirmation bias. The use of striking, provocative visuals in media is a standard practice across all genres, designed to grab public attention, not to predict the future.

Let there be no doubt: any perceived foreshadowing of 9/11 in pre-2001 media is a fallacy, a trick of hindsight and the inevitable consequence of the massive output of content and the ubiquitous use of impactful imagery.

These coincidences are unavoidable and meaningless, a testament to the breadth and depth of our shared creativity, not evidence of a hidden agenda or prophetic knowledge. To suggest otherwise is to willfully ignore the realities of the media landscape and to engage in groundless, irrational thinking.

The idea that 9/11 was perfectly predicted in media before the event is a delusion, and the only astonishing fact is that there aren't more such examples of these coincidences given the scale of the matter!

Odigo Messenger & 4,000 Jews?

On September 11, 2001, around two hours before the attack on the World Trade Center, an employee of Odigo Messenger (an instant messaging service) received an anonymous message stating,"[W]ait two hours and we will kill you sons of pigs...booooommmmm."

The recipient, accustomed to occasionally receiving such messages, initially dismissed it. Later that day, at 4:47 p.m. ET in the U.S., another message followed, stating, "Didn't I tell u that we will fuck u and your mother usa wait your turn you sons of pigs. Boooommm."

These messages were sent to an employee at Odigo's main office in Herzliya Pituah, near Tel Aviv, Israel. No other messages of this nature were reported at that or any other Odigo location (including one about a mile from the WTC).

The claim that Odigo enjoyed detailed advance warning, and then even used it to ensure the absence of 4,000 Jews from the WTC by tipping them off, is categorically false!

Claiming that these messages indicate a grand conspiracy is intellectually bankrupt to an extent that implies severe cognitive deficits.

The messages came at a point of heightened tensions during the Second Intifada, and they featured no mention of anything remotely tied to 9/11; it's just vague threats and bombastic language (in the wake, lacked any actionable intelligence and did not specifically reference a terrorist attack.

In America alone, the FBI received thousands of threat reports daily in 2001. Globally, the message to the Odigo employee would have been just one among approximately 20,000 threats received worldwide on any given day.

And while conspiacy theorists love to claim only two Jews died, more than 400 of the victims of the 9/11 attacks were Jewish.

If one seeks to explore a truly strange and unexplained anomaly, then consider that on September 9, 2001, on Yahoo! Finance's forum, a message was published stating: "IN 48 HOURS YOU JEWS WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOUR KNEES!"

While likely also wholly unrelated, at least this threat featured more definitive language!

The fact that the passport and identification of some hijackers survived the crash is not proof that they were planted! The only passport recovered from the World Trade Center site belonged to Satam al-Suqami, one of the hijackers of Flight 11, which was the first plane to strike its target (the North Tower) that morning.

The passport was found on the street by a passerby just a bit after the crash and handed over to a NYPD detective. It was not found afterward in the rubble or debris as is commonly claimed, and bore damage and charring, consistent with being affected by the explosion.

The impact, along with the blast wave and air currents, ejected the passport from the plane and naturally into the street below.

It must be stressed that this isn’t the sort of astonishingly improbable scenario it's made out to be. Numerous objects, such as paper, clothing, seat cushions, human body parts (including rib cages, limbs, and heads), suitcases, and other debris were found scattered all over the streets after the crash.

In fact, later on, the body of a flight attendant, still strapped to her seat with her hands zip tied, was even recovered from the rubble, one of the few nearly intact bodies found in the wreckage.

And perhaps most crucial, this wasn’t an isolated case whatsoever. The other crash sites, such as the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, also featured identification documents from the hijackers. Several of their driver’s licenses, credit cards, and luggage tags were recovered, including even one of the red bandanas worn by the hijackers of United 93.

Additionally, personal items from other passengers and crew were found, including driver’s licenses and various belongings, making it clear that surviving items weren’t unique to the hijackers.*

It’s simply a matter of physics, logic, and undeniable fact. Anyone with real-world experience in law enforcement, emergency response, or evidence collection can attest that in any explosion, implosion, or similar event—whether a plane crash, bombing, arson, or structural collapse—objects of all shapes and sizes often survive in varying conditions, depending on the precise circumstances they endure.

Denying this reality and believing otherwise isn’t merely misguided—it’s willful ignorance!

__________________________________________
*Several photographs of such items belonging to the hijackers as well as others and—recovered from all three sites—are featured.

On December 27, 2001,* al-Jazeera aired an approximately 33-minute videotape featuring Osama bin Laden speaking at length regarding the events of the preceding three months, another excerpt of which is featured earlier in this thread.

The footage not only demoralized U.S. forces and officials (as it confirmed he'd survived the Battle of Tora Bora and successfully escaped), but infuriated them as well, given that it featured a defiant Osama not only landing blow after blow with a series of logical, eloquent, reasoned, and sharp critiques and assertions, but overtly taking credit for the attacks just three months earlier in unequivocal language.

Among other things, bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks, praised the hijackers vocally and emphatically, and closed the video by reciting a poem he wrote regarding the hijackers, breaking down and nearly weeping by its end.vrv
---------------------------------
*While this footage aired on December 27, 2001, it was recorded shortly before, specifically sometime between December 16 and December 24, 2001. This timing is based on the fact that bin Laden escaped Tora Bora on the 16th and Al-Jazeera received the tape on December 25 (by way of a delivery from Pakistan by DHL).

On September 11, 2019, al-Qaeda released a 40-minute video titled And They Shall Continue To Fight You! from its then-leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the video, Zawahiri makes pointed threats against the U.S. and Israel, outlining a vision for jihad driven by divine resolve and ingenuity.

Zawahiri urges innovation in tactics, specifically citing (and praising) Osama bin Laden for transforming civilian airliners into weapons of mass destruction on 9/11—a stark departure from previous hijackings, which generally aimed to negotiate and culminated in safe landings rather than explosive crashes.

The explicit and blatant commentary leaves no rational room for denying that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, hence why no conspiracy theorists ever mention it!

A BRUTAL TAKEDOWN OF THE 9/11 VIDEO THAT PREYS UPON—AND HUMILIATES—ITS GULLIBLE AUDIENCE:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men described by virtually all who studied them as “the perfect soldiers” (even giving rise to a book about them by that very title) armed not only with with box cutters alone, but also with exceptional tradecraft (tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…), rigid discipline, and profound faith in God, didn’t just act on impulse or receive instructions from a man who has never been on dialysis and who never didn’t shift to a cave fortress until after the attacks carried out a meticulously planned operation years in the making, executed with precision using weaknesses in aviation security that had been exploited before but never to such devastating effect.

These men weren’t facing "the most heavily defended airspace in the world"—they were exploiting a peacetime system that wasn’t prepared for commercial airliners to become weapons. Fighter interceptors weren’t "molesting" these planes because no one had yet imagined such a scenario unfolding.

These 19 hijackers weren’t just devout "religious fundamentalist"s—they were highly trained operatives who blended into their surroundings, and who the FBI quietly confirmed later indeed never used alcohol, strip clubs, or cocaine to avoid detection (x.com/SlanderedSaint…).

They managed to knock down two buildings in New York, but conspiracy theorists conveniently lump in a third, WTC 7, as though it were some magical anomaly.

Fires from the nearby tower collapses raged for hours, weakening structural supports until the building fell—something thoroughly explained in detailed investigations and which a simple photograph unequivocally affirms (x.com/SlanderedSaint…). Yet two planes into two towers, with debris taking down a third, is spun into an absurd impossibility by those who ignore science in favor of suspicion.

While in Washington, a hijacker who was far more competent than claimed (and indeed chosen precisely because of his aviation experience) knew more than enough and was more than competent to steer a plane into the Pentagon (x.com/SlanderedSaint…). The idea that this "couldn’t happen" is an absurd and irrational fabrication, as innumerable aviation experts have confirmed that such a maneuver is entirely plausible.

The Pentagon was a massive building with thousands of targets inside, and the headquarters of American military might. Claims that the attack specifically targeted the Budget Analyst Office investigating $2.3 trillion in accounting discrepancies are pure drivel considering that no funds were actually missing but merely unaccounted for—just as they were in 2016, when $8 trillion was asserted by conspiracy theorists that time to have been directed towards building the U.S. equivalent of the Starship Enterprise (x.com/SlanderedSaint…).

Worse for the conspiracy theorists, they latch onto details like a passport found near the WTC site as though it were proof of fabrication. The survival of a single piece of identification among the wreckage isn’t implausible—it’s happenstance. Objects are ejected, and random artifacts survive in any large-scale disaster; note they never address the other personal items from passengers and crew found at each crash site, or even from other hijackers (x.com/SlanderedSaint…). Or the HUMAN BODY that was nearly fully intact!

The 9/11 Commission was no flawless masterpiece. It was late in forming, restricted in resources, and politically pressured, because indeed the Bush Administration desired that the truth of its failures and real motivation for the attacks (American foreign policy, primarily support of Israel) be kept quiet!

The Commission’s work, combined with multiple supplementary studies, uncovered where systems failed and who bore responsibility. Contrary to the wild claims of censorship, WTC-7 was not erased from the historical record, Able Danger and other rumored operations were examined, and the CIA and Pentagon did not seamlessly weave a grand cover-up. Many alleged “smoking guns” fizzled under scrutiny; insider trading claims were probed by the SEC, which found them meritless. Data on WTC-7’s collapse was not hidden to shield secrets, but subjected to open scientific inquiry, a matter of public record where engineering methods are documented and explained.

As for Bush and Cheney testifying behind closed doors? That decision reflected political concerns, not evidence of wrongdoing, or certainly not as it relates to a conspiracy. Testimonies and data from thousands of other sources filled in the picture comprehensively, but just to put buffoons at ease, the interview of Bush and Cheney has since been declassified (archives.gov/files/declassi…).

The Commission’s conclusion that funding sources for the attacks weren’t practically significant is a matter of prioritization, not evasion. The attackers used a mix of personal funds, private transfers, and donations channeled through al-Qaeda—a network already well-documented. No grand revelation about "who funded it" would have altered the facts of the day.

The attacks weren’t a "failure of imagination"; they were the result of a failure to act on warnings, a failure to anticipate the unprecedented. The idea that "no one envisioned planes flying into buildings" ignores years of warnings and exercises that didn’t prepare for the scale and execution of this attack. The Pentagon, FEMA, NORAD, and others had drills, yes—but imagining a scenario is not the same as preventing it in real time.

The FBI’s decision to keep certain materials sealed relates to national security, not secrecy for secrecy’s sake. Intelligence investigations often involve sensitive methods and sources that can’t be exposed without compromising broader efforts. This isn’t evidence of a cover-up; it’s how counterterrorism investigations—and any investigation—works!

Osama bin Laden didn’t "live in a cave fortress" for years mocking the world. He lived on the run, hidden by loyal networks, eventually tracked to a compound in Abbottabad. The SEAL team raid wasn’t a farce or a panic—it was a precise operation. Bin Laden didn’t resist because he wanted to go to trial and speak publicly and openly (x.com/SlanderedSaint…), and his burial at sea was nothing but pure contempt and American arrogance, deliberately done to insult him and other Muslims (x.com/SlanderedSaint…).

Not a single SEAL involved in the Abbottabad raid was killed in the August 2011 crash falsely alleged to have wiped them all out (history.com/news/the-costl…). NOT A SINGLE ONE. All that occurred was that family members of those other, unrelated SEAL Team Six members blamed the government in part for putting a target on the back of the entire unit by revealing some of its members had carried out the bin Laden raid.

The media identified bin Laden quickly because he was the obvious suspect, and morons like Alex Jones (x.com/SlanderedSaint…) and conspiracy theorist Bill Cooper seized upon this fact (x.com/SlanderedSaint…) to later claim their own clairvoyance.

Al-Qaeda’s fingerprints were all over the attack, from intercepted communications to the identities of the hijackers (x.com/SlanderedSaint…). This wasn’t some rush to judgment but the culmination of years of intelligence gathering on a known adversary.

Conspiracy theorists call for infinite questions, rejecting every answer because it isn’t the answer they want. But the facts remain: the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by al-Qaeda operatives using real planes, real pilots, and real vulnerabilities in the U.S. defense system—not holograms, missiles, or "inside jobs." No amount of speculation changes the overwhelming evidence: forensic, technical, and historical.

This isn’t a tale spun to deceive. It’s a tragedy laid bare by facts, a record built by thousands of experts, investigators, and witnesses. The truth of 9/11 doesn’t need embellishment—it stands firm against every baseless claim and every attempt to rewrite history.

If conspiracy theorists truly cared about exploring government deception and real conspiracies, they can begin right here: x.com/SlanderedSaint… and x.com/SlanderedSaint…!