Is it proper to restrict 9/11 truth seeking to a narrow framework?

The Economist had reported on June 26, 2003 (article titled ‘The Carlyle Group—C for Capitalism’), “On the day Osama bin Laden’s men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush : his father the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former Secretary of State, who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya’s move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs. Bush and Baker.

“In the immediate aftermath of the attacks when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of the defense spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group’s investments in defense companies.”

If connections like those between the bin Laden and Bush families, which were multifaceted and long-standing, are also investigated, then the 9/11 probe into this aspect of the tragedy gains more credibility. However, this is also precisely why this aspect was not widely investigated and some information was withheld.

In the middle of all the very difficult questions raised in the context of the 9/11 truth- seeking, the issue of Saudi linkages has been raised several times but it is important to remember that this is only one of the issues. If one is to assemble the dozen or so of the most important questions, then the question of Saudi involvement would be only one of these nearly a dozen questions. Is it right, then, that all attention is focused on only one aspect of 9/11 truth? This would be like the establishment trying to co-opt the truth-seeking in such a way that some of the most difficult questions can be avoided.

Some of these other important questions can be briefly mentioned here. Firstly, there is the evidence that has been accumulating that points to controlled, pre-planned demolitions of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7, particularly Building 7 which was not hit by planes but collapsed nevertheless. Secondly, there is the question of the great haste with which the administration assigned blame without proper investigation and planned attacks on several countries. Thirdly, there is the question of strange behavior by several leaders and others, which appeared to indicate pre-knowledge or at least a response that differed from the normal expected response. Fourthly, there is the question of Osama bin Laden being in a Pakistani military hospital one day before the tragedy on September 10 but no action being taken. Fifth, there is the widely reported arrival and stay of Osama in a Dubai hospital from Quetta in July 2001, including holding meetings like a visiting dignitary, without any action being taken. Sixthly, there is the question of Osama living near Pakistani military establishments in a mansion for a long time without any action being taken, before the widely reported attack of US troops resulting in Osama being killed in 2011. Seventh, there is the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud on 9/9, just two days before 9/11 tragedy, which has left behind several unanswered questions. Eighth, several issues linked to the murder of the WSJ senior journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan need to be investigated further. Ninth, the role of a Pakistani terrorist sending money to would-be hijackers just before 9/11, as well as the suspected involvement of the ISI boss in this and his subsequent resignation, needs to be explored further boss in this and his subsequent resignation need to be explored further. Tenth, the role of Israel which had been lobbying for attack on some middle-east countries earlier needs to be looked at more carefully. Eleventh, the role of those domestic lobbyists advocating for attacks on Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, to the extent of discussing a ‘Pearl Harbor type of event’ that could lead to this, should be explored further. Last but not least, there is the entirely unexplained lack of expected action on the part of US authorities despite many highly suspicious activities being reported by local intelligence operatives and warnings from foreign intelligence sources (CIA Director George Tenet himself stated that the system had been ‘blinking red’ in the pre-9/11 days).

This partial list can no doubt be extended, but the main point is to emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach. Only a comprehensive approach can hope to get nearer to an understanding of the actual events. The reason why 9/11 truth seeking has been important is that it provides an opportunity to take some very important facts to the people in such a way that they feel highly motivated to bring much needed, much delayed reforms in the way in which the US democracy has been functioning in recent decades. This objective is best achieved by comprehensive truth seeking and not by confining attention to only one or two aspects of the great tragedy.

At present, the hope for a more comprehensive understanding of the 9/11 tragedy rests more with the various truth seekers who have come together this year (2026) to advance the Project for 9/11 Truth and Accountability, with important contributions from the International Center for 9/11 Justice, the brave firefighters for justice (who lost about 350 colleagues in the 9/11 tragedy), and others. This project is preparing the 9/11 Truth and Accountability Report (to be released later this year) which is to be submitted to the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Federal Special Grand Jury. According to the International Center for 9/11 Justice, US Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of this subcommittee, has been encouraging of these efforts. The present plans are not just to complete and present this report to the subcommittee this year, but also to continue the research and investigation, revising the report every September to incorporate new findings, until this informational foundation can be used to prepare a full-fledged investigation into the what, how, and why of the 9/11 tragedy.

The already released outline of the report under preparation, as well as four presentations made at the ‘Turning the Tide’ event organized on the 25th anniversary of the tragedy, have been placed on a webpage dedicated to the forthcoming 9/11 Truth and Accountability Report.

The outline includes chapters dedicated to the failure of the USA government to properly investigate the 9/11 tragedy, the weaknesses of the official 9/11 investigation including conflict of interest and heavy influence of US intelligence community, issues related to explosives related demolition in WTC buildings, issues relating to facilitation of some alleged hijackers, holes in narratives relating to alleged hijackers boarding and flying the four planes, failure of US air defense to intercept them, issues relating to 2001 anthrax attack and its link to 9/11, allegations of a false flag operation, persons who can potentially have a lot of relevant information and finally, the issue of release of relevant records.

Clearly, this comes closer to a more comprehensive approach, although some aspects may still be missed. On the one hand, it is a strength of US democracy that such a detailed report, based on over two decades of research involving the efforts of thousands of people, is being prepared. On the other hand, it remains to be seen how much support this truth-seeking can ultimately get at the official level. As stated earlier a narrower version of truth-seeking may get more support at some levels.