Pursuit of 9/11 Truth and Justice: Stories Within Stories

Introduction—Democracy’s Response to A Huge Tragedy

The 9/11 tragedy was the most shocking tragedy in the recent history of the USA, the most influential country in the world. The democratic system in the USA gives people the space to respond to such events of historical importance in many diverse ways and this is an important strength of this and other democratic countries, which distinguishes them from non-democratic and authoritarian countries. So here in the USA we have one official view of the 9/11 tragedy, and at the same time we have other diverse views which question the established account. However even if the official view is to be accepted, then within the framework of essentially accepting this view, serious questions of glaring negligence have been raised (even by some highly placed officials and other ground level operatives). Such acts of negligence are sometimes so shocking that they lead people to suspect something deeper, prompting them to raise doubts about the official version. Here we look at aspects of negligence being questioned within the framework of the official version, and also diverse views expressed by others, such as by some of the family members or close friends and relatives of the victims or by the wider movement for seeking 9/11 truth and justice which includes several of these friends. Then there are wider questions of preceding events and trends, or possibly related events happening in other countries, or the wider controversies leading to bin Laden and others. Hence there are stories within stories which can be helpful for understanding 9/11.

The perspective of this article is to encourage democratic debates and seek answers to troubling questions in an open society in ways that strengthen the corrective capacity of democratic systems. One of the biggest strengths of any true democracy is its self-correcting capacity so that even if something horribly wrong has been done, the system of checks and balances, working within the government as well as in opposition, courts and among citizen groups, is able to check the wrongs at an early stage. In recent times even some mature democracies have seen this capacity eroded in serious ways, thereby reducing their strength as democracy. The aim of initiatives seeking 9/11 truth should be largely to strengthen this self-correcting capacity of the USA, which in turn will be very helpful for peace, justice and protection of environment in many ways. My own perspective is strongly that of justice, peace, transparency and of protecting life-nurturing conditions of earth, as can be seen in thousands of my published articles and hundreds of books and booklets. With this perspective my writings on the USA are focused on this most influential country seeking an enlightened leadership role based on peace, while rejecting completely the path of forever wars.

People’s Yearning for 9/11 Truth

The small world of Lorie Van Auken appeared to collapse around her on September 11, 2001 as news of the sudden death of her husband sank in. He was at work in his office at the WTC in New York when the 9/11 collapse came. While the deep personal tragedy and the responsibility of caring for her two school children who had suddenly lost their father weighed heavily on her, she was also taken aback by several aspects of the tragedy which were being reported repeatedly all the time. It appeared absurd that the President of the USA had continued to listen to a children’s story in an elementary school for some time after learning about this tragedy which had shocked the entire world. So as soon as she had recovered her strength somewhat, she got together with some widows of the victims to travel repeatedly to Washington to demand an honest official investigation of the 9/11 tragedy.

She was disappointed by the response of some big people, but some others helped. Finally an official investigation was announced. However when Henry Kissinger was announced to lead this, this saddened her as Kissinger had been known as the king of cover-ups. Along with colleagues she went to meet Kissinger. It tells us something about the conditions in which Kissinger lived that the first impression of Lorie and her friends was that the room was hot like a sauna and soon coats and sweaters had to be removed. Lorie was looking at the too many photos in the room to see if there was any photo of Kissinger with the fabulously rich bin Laden family members. There had been a controversy around the fact that Kissinger had refused to reveal the list of his company’s clients and it was suspected that this aspect may involve conflict of interest. Finally Lorie could not contain herself and asked Kissinger point blank if some very rich Saudis or more particularly members of the extended bin Laden family were among his clients. On hearing this question Kissinger spilled his coffee and appeared to be falling off his seat.

Anyway, Kissinger was finally kept out of the investigation commission but another man placed in a crucial position was the one involved with preparing the Iraq war plans earlier. Moreover the budget allotted for such a big investigation initially was ridiculously low, lower than the investigation into the Clinton-Monica affair. There was a campaign to increase this but even after the increase the budget and the powers remained very limited. What worried Lorie and others committed to truth and justice was that some of the top leaders had throughout been unenthusiastic and initially even reluctant regarding the investigation. Why was this so, when finding out the truth should have been so important for all concerned but particularly for the top leaders? There appeared to be no real enthusiasm and commitment for finding the truth and only the truth on so important an issue.

Finally what emerged from the entire effort was essentially only a cover-up, as even some commission members or staff members agreed in course of time. Deeply saddened but not defeated, Lorie continued her efforts for truth by linking up with some independent efforts for 9/11 truth and justice. Her testimony at the Toronto International Hearings on 9/11 was considered very important.

Bob Mcllvaine experienced the deepest sadness in his life when he saw the dead body of his son Bobby soon after the 9/11 tragedy. He had gone to WTC to attend a seminar. In the course of recovering from the great tragedy, Bob became a peace messenger and activist, courting arrest for protesting against Iraq war. He closely followed the official 9/11 investigation hearings and was shocked by the cover-up. He said, “Do I want a new investigation? Quite frankly, I don’t care if there is a new investigation. I know it is necessary but I can’t believe an honest investigation will ever take place.”

Despite this loss of hope in official investigation, Bob kept his hope with independent 9/11 truth initiatives, as is evident from his very important and moving testimony for the Toronto hearings. In this testimony he made a strong appeal to the hearings to give special attention to the explosions of 9/11 which killed many people including Bobby.

Aspects of 9/11 Truth Initiatives

Although the various 9/11 truth and justice initiatives have drawn attention to many important aspects of the tragedy, perhaps the most crucial aspect of their understanding, very different from the official investigation, is that the main part in the total collapse of the three WTC buildings (numbers 1, 2 and 7) was played by explosives or other such devices as are used in controlled and planned demolitions. A very important fact in this context is that there has not been any earlier or later case of a steel-framed high-rise building undergoing a total collapse due to fires. This is even more relevant in the case of WTC building 7 where there was not even an allegation of a plane hit and yet the building had a full collapse and explosions were heard. There are several eye witness accounts of hearing explosions before and after the plane hits on buildings 1 and 2. The accounts by fire-fighters are most important as they could distinguish between the fire explosions and other explosions. In fact such was the prevailing situation that several eye witnesses took it for granted that the towers were being demolished using explosives. It was also very surprising that while the total collapse of Tower 7 was the most unexpected, some officials present at the site appeared to have a foreknowledge that this would collapse entirely, and it did!

While the 9/11 truth movements are sure about this—and what they say is backed by several highly competent, experienced architects, engineers and scientists—the problem experienced in taking this message to many more people is that once you accept this, you must also accept that those who earlier placed the explosives in the three towers had unrestricted access to these for some time, and that other attacks of the day were also related to this. This takes us into a realm of what is often called ‘the unspeakable’, something with implications considered to be so frightening that people tend to shy away. This is a very important reason why despite presenting very important arguments the 9/11 truth movement, with presence and support of several scientists, engineers and architects, could not reach out to as many people as it hoped to.

However this is also the reason why we should listen to those who have continued their search for truth and justice despite all the difficulties and dangers that may be involved in such a brave endeavour. In fact it can be a matter of pride for the American nation and people that despite all the difficulties and risks, highly committed and persistent truth seekers, including senior professionals and members of families of those who died in the 9/11 tragedy, have persisted in their efforts. The US democracy, despite all its increasing problems, still allows them to continue their work (despite creating difficulties and neglecting some of their significant findings) whereas an authoritarian government may not have allowed these efforts to continue. However there is a bigger challenge here for American democracy regarding whether it still has the corrective capacity to undo some very big wrongs of the past. The persistent work of the 9/11 truth-seekers continues to question US leaders and institutions whether they still retain or have lost the corrective capacity that is perhaps the most important strength of a democracy as distinguished from a dictatorship or an authoritarian system.

There is a hope among several noble truth seekers that the realization and acceptance of the 9/11 truths can help to pave the way for significant reforms, which in turn can help to pave the path for peace and for improving democracy. Thus one of the important 9/11 truth groups, the International Centre for 9/11 Justice, says on its website that it is “committed to eradicating the elite criminality and institutional corruption that produced the 9/11 atrocities and facilitated the cover-up”. It wants the country “to live up to the principles of peace, justice, freedom and true democratic governments” and “an end to the criminal and destructive policies enacted after 9/11.”

To achieve its objectives this centre follows multi-disciplinary educational and research activities. In fact there is even a ‘Journal of 9/11 Studies’ which has already published 160 peer-reviewed papers, a lot of these being on scientific and engineering aspects of 9/11 and helpful for understanding the science of what happened. Then there are various other initiatives and organizations seeking 9/11 truth including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiries, Fire-fighters for 9/11 Truth, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and others.

Let us not forget that some of those making such efforts—including professors, scientists, journalists, rescue workers, other professionals and activists with a record of commitment to social concerns—have done so with serious risks to their careers and it would be unjust to their brave efforts if these are not given a fair hearing.

Negligence Evident Even in Official Versions of 9/11

While the 9/11 tragedy was officially mentioned as a completely surprise attack, testimonies of very senior officials are available which reveal that actually many, many intelligence warnings were being received at the highest level but were not acted on. Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, the only member of the official 9/11 Commission who was allowed to see President Bush’s daily briefs, said these had contained ‘an extraordinary spike’ in intelligence warnings of al-Qaeda attacks that had “plateaued at a spike level for months” before 9/11.

National Coordinator for Security Richard Clarke had put all relevant domestic agencies on full alert in early July. He later wrote that the CIA then had information about al Qaeda terrorists having entered the USA while the FBI had information that very strange things were happening at the flight schools in the USA. An FBI agent, Kenneth Williams, had sent information that bin Laden was sending some Arab students to civil aviation schools in the USA. From Jordan intelligence had been sent that al Qaeda was likely to be planning an attack using planes. Richard Clarke later wrote “they (US intelligence agencies) had specific information about individual terrorists from which one could have deduced what was about to happen.” At the same time he stated that this information did not reach him or the White House.

Another curious aspect is the undue haste with which efforts were made at very high levels to link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam Hussein and Iraq without a shred of evidence being available for this. On the afternoon of the day of the attack itself, at about 2.40 pm on September 11(as per notes taken by a senior policy maker) the Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, who along with several other powerful persons in the government had been a long-term advocate of acting very tough against Saddam and Iraq, told his aides—“Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time, not only OBL (Osama bin Laden).” Further, “Need to move swiftly—Near term target needs—go massive—sweep it all up—things related or not.” Next day we had President Bush himself urging such a high-ranking official as Richard Clarke to prepare a report linking 9-11 and Iraq. As we now know very clearly, the ‘war on terror’ which was launched using 9/11 as the base cause inflicted great destruction on Iraq as well as several other countries, leading to 4.5 million directly and indirectly caused deaths and over 38 million displaced people, as per Brown University estimates. Therefore it is important to examine the entire truth of the base cause also.

Alternative Views

Several professional civil engineers, architects and scientists have explained in great detail that the steel-framed buildings designed to withstand great shocks could not have collapsed without controlled demolition, in turn involving in all likelihood some incendiary or explosive substances. This evidence is stated to be even stronger in the case of the WTC 7 building which collapsed without any airplane hitting it. In dust samples of the tragedy scene traces of thermite, an incendiary which is capable of cutting steel easily and which could have been very effective in a controlled demolition of the three steel-framed buildings, have been found. What many eye witnesses have stated also supports the demolition theory, apart from the testimony of several experts. Nearly 1200 professionals who got together to form the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth by and large supported the controlled demolition theory, or at the very least questioned the official version very seriously. Several peer-reviewed papers have taken the same stand. Fire-fighters and their Commissioners in New York, who lost several colleagues in the fire-fighting and rescue work on 9/11, have also questioned the official view on the basis of what the fire-fighters saw on 9/11 and have learnt since then. Questions have been raised as to why steel scrap from tragedy site was too hastily collected and shipped to far way Asian countries, which, some have alleged, amounts to removal of critical evidence from a crime site. However a part of the saved scrap was corroded in ways that is likely to reflect the impact of explosives. Steven Jones, a physicist and three colleagues wrote an article in Europhysics News, magazine of European Physics community, in 2016 which stated, “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all 3 buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” The International Centre for 9/11 Justice has stated in its list of well-established refutations of official view of 9/11 that it is impossible that the one or more explosions that multiple witnesses reported near the base of the North Tower before the first airplane struck were caused by anything other than pre-planted explosives. Further this review by the Centre says it is impossible for the top sections of the twin towers to have continuously accelerated through the intact structures below them without the use of explosives. In addition, the Centre says that it is impossible for the molten and once molten metallic particles found in the debris and the dust of the World Trade Centre to have been produced there without the use of explosives. Further, according to the Centre, it was impossible for building 7 to have fallen suddenly, symmetrically and in free fall for 2.5 seconds due to any natural sequence of structural failures.

Refuting other aspects of the official view the centre has stated it is virtually impossible that the alleged hijackers, known to be marginally trained and barely competent pilots, could have successfully navigated to specific points using the airplane’s navigation system and then maneuvered the airplanes at high speed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Also the Centre says it is exceedingly improbable that all 8 pilots of the four airliners would have failed to enter the universal hijack code into their transponders. The Centre has pointed out several technical reasons why several of the cell calls by passengers and flight attendants of hijacked planes are unlikely to have been made from there. It may be noted here that it is not just civil engineers, architects and fire fighters who have got together to question the official view, in addition groups of pilots, medical professionals, scientists, veterans, former intelligence officers, lawyers and journalists have also questioned the official version.

Senior Officials Spoke

The CIA director George Tenet himself told the official 9/11 Commission that the advance warnings regarding this terrible tragedy were so many that “the system was blinking red”. The warnings had started from spring and summer of 2001 and increased steadily till the day of the attack on September 11, as confirmed also in the report submitted to members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate in 2009 (Tora Bora Report).

This report also confirmed that on July 12 2001 Tenet had addressed a secret meeting of senators in which he warned of an imminent attack by bin Laden and al Qaeda in the USA. He said that the question in the context of such an attack was not if but when.

On August 6 2001 in the daily intelligence briefing submitted to President Bush there was one report with the tell-tale title ‘bin Laden Determined to Strike the US.’ This report even said that the emerging evidence pointed more towards hijacking related attack. Bush said he considered this to be a warning of historic importance. But what did he do in the 35 days available to him between then and 9/11?

The official 9/11 Commission noted that it did not find any evidence of any meeting that Bush had summoned with his top advisers on this issue during this time.

This is really surprising, all the more because Richard A. Clarke, senior counter-terrorism adviser to the US government and key official later wrote that he had repeatedly tried to focus on this issue and to arrange such meetings.

Another important factor was that several foreign governments, on the basis of their own intelligence gathering, had been sending urgent warnings to the USA. British, French, Russian and Arab intelligence agencies had also sent important warnings. Former US federal crimes prosecutor John Loftus has stated that the information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 regarding the very high possibility of attack was extremely extensive. Investigators in the Philippines who had earlier provided a lot of solid information regarding the aborted Bojenka Project involving attacks using hijacked planes in the USA expressed surprise that the USA had not taken adequate precautions despite so much information being provided to them.

Several USA intelligence agents had started complaining even before 9/11 that their important intelligence inputs regarding the possibility of an attack were being ignored (more such complaints were openly voiced after the 9/11 attack). Julie Sirrs, an agent of Defence Intelligence Agency, returned with valuable information from Afghanistan but instead of her inputs being valued she was victimized and had to resign.

On September 9 and 10 terrorist chatter interceptions increased greatly, as stated also by Richard A. Clarke. Although US intelligence sources later explained that several of these messages were translated only after 9/11, critics maintain that some of these involving big suspects should have been attended to immediately, and probably were. The need for this had clearly increased after the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leading opponent of Taliban and al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan on September 9, in which Al Qaeda-Taliban-ISI involvement was widely suspected. The ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Mahmoud, was in fact in the USA on September 9, meeting important US officials, and so his closer questioning on this was possible immediately.

Other chatter on or around this day has terrorists exulting about the big event ahead and bin Laden telling close family members something big may happen and he may not be in touch for some time after this. On September 10, 2001 we also have two known terrorists doing very important tasks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged to be the lead plotter of 9/11, sent the final OK to the lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. Omar Saeed Sheikh (one of the three terrorists who got released from an Indian jail following the demand made by the Kandahar hijackers in 1999) sent 100,000 dollars from the Middle-East to Atta. To recall Tenet’s colourful expression, indeed the system was blinking red. Shares of some airline and insurance companies were being hastily sold by persons who appeared to have some idea of the impending big attack. What is no less surprising is that on September 10 the father of President Bush, former President GHW Bush met Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of Osama bin Laden, in New York, stated to be in the context of some common investment or business interests. In Pakistan, according to US TV reports, bin Laden was admitted to a Pakistani army hospital on September 10. So a lot of significant things were happening in the two days preceding 9/11.

At least some insiders appeared to be aware of the gathering storm. As Newsweek reported later, on September 10 some Pentagon senior officials suddenly and mysteriously cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently driven by security considerations. What people saw on September 11 was extraordinary slackness in security at all levels which has been extensively analysed and criticized, resulting in alleged unhindered hijacking of 4 planes in quick succession. It has been widely reported that when the first two planes struck on September 11 2001, Bush was on an photo–op trip to meet second graders and after news of the first hit came in, he kept listening for some precious minutes to children reading about a naughty pet goat! Security officials made no efforts to hide President Bush’s presence at this place despite the high-level terrorist attacks taking place. In fact the schedules of 8 key persons of the US government, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, supposed to be in the most important decision-making roles on 9/11, show discrepancies in their official versions or raise questions.

Pakistan and other Foreign Links

Some time after 9/11 the head of Pakistan intelligence agency ISI Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed resigned amidst allegations that he had instructed a terrorist Omar Saeed Sheikh to send 100,000 dollars from UAE to the would be 9/11 hijackers in preceding days. Ahmed had become increasingly fundamentalist in his views and was getting more and more close to the Taliban. Even after the post 9/11 assurances to cooperate with the USA assault on the Taliban regime, he continued a double game to help and instigate the Taliban to the extent he could within the existing circumstances. So when there were serious allegations against such a person for financing 9/11 hijackers, why weren’t serious charges pressed against him?

A related question—why weren’t such serious charges taken up against his associate Omar (Saeed) Sheikh, particularly given his background of imprisonment in India for abducting tourists, his release under the pressure of Kandahar hijackers, his closeness to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Of course he was later arrested in 2002 for his involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, but questions remain as to why charges were not pressed against him earlier for his role in funding 9/11 hijackers. The Wall Street Journal was one of the few international newspapers which took up this story, and its South Asia Chief Pearl was murdered in Pakistan, with clear involvement of Omar Sheikh.

The Times wrote about Omar Sheikh, “no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama-bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda organization.” ABC reported that he was treated like a son of bin Laden in Afghanistan. However the Pittsburgh Tribune drew attention to another aspect of this many-sided operative when it stated that important persons within the Pakistani government believe that Omar owes his special strength not to his links with the ISI but rather to “our own CIA”. This report, when seen with earlier reports of Omar , who grew up as a bully and strong guy in British educational institutions, being recruited first of all by British intelligence agencies, adds further to his double agent reputation. He has clearly been related closely to the ISI and bin Laden, yet at some time had western intelligence links too, so it seems.

There have been reports that Omar spoke frequently with Lt. Gen. Ahmed before 9/11 on phone , and these conversations resulted in around 100,000 dollars being sent from UAE, using an alias of course, and most probably there were previous other payments also from the same source. These and related leads should have been followed, but were not, both men apparently getting away with such serious allegations sticking to them, Mahmud emerging a little later as a prominent businessman and Omar as an accused in Pearl murder case. While one can understand why the Pakistani government ignored the serious allegation of funds transfer, it is still not clear why the USA government chose to do so.

Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2001, has stated—Two of the Sept. 11 2001 hijackers had a support network in the USA that included agents of the Saudi government and the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship (as reported in the Miami Herald). Some details of Saudi support were reported to be contained in 28 pages of the final section of the December 2002 report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community by both Houses, but the release of these 28 pages of the report was held back by the Bush Administration and it was only after persistent high-level demands that the Obama administration released an edited version. It is widely believed that these unedited 28 pages contain important evidence.

Another significant country whose links should be explored is Israel, keeping in view its increasing role in the middle-east region, its closeness to USA, its highly influential lobby in the USA and the emphasis Israel has placed on influencing USA foreign policy in favour of taking a more aggressive approach towards those countries of its region which it perceives as hostile countries. The fact that 9/11 was used as a pretext for the hurried invasion of Iraq becomes significant in this context.

Earlier Disturbing Trends

Much before the tragic attack of 9/11, some disturbing trends which are important to understand 9/11 had been revealed quite clearly. First of all there were the neo-conservative plans for highly aggressive foreign policy with their growing influence. It is clear that a group of neo conservatives who advocated a very aggressive foreign policy for the U.S.A was becoming increasingly influential in the Bush government. They advocated unhindered unilateralism in foreign policy, a huge rise in defence spending and increased US dominance of the world. There was a special emphasis on the dominance of the Middle-East region, in collusion with Israel, starting with an invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam and gain more control, with support from Saudi royals and their allies in the Arab world. Some of these neo-cons had even been stating that if some kind of a Pearl Harbour event takes place, then this will pave the way for an attack by US and allies on Iraq and some other countries. Many of these neo-conservatives acquired influential positions, particularly in the defence department, when George W. Bush came to power in 2000. However they faced opposition to the implementation of their aggressive ideas from persons within the U.S.A government. Hence they were looking for various possibilities in which wider public and government support could be obtained for these aggressive policies, particularly in the Middle East.

Secondly there had been very high CIA support for some militant Muslim Groups with the ISI as ‘ go-between’. There have been several reports by now of how the USA and its allies supported Muslim extremist and fundamentalist groups to oppose or check the emergence of leftist (particularly communist) forces or pro-Soviet Union forces. This trend was accelerated in the 1980’s following the disastrous and highly objectionable invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. In what was perhaps the largest covert operation in its history, the CIA sought to turn the Afghan opposition to this invasion into a much broader war of fundamentalist, extremist, violent Muslim groups from around 40 countries against the Soviet Union. In this mobilisation many Muslim-majority countries with US-friendly governments played an important role. Saudi Arabia provided a lot of money, of course, but even more important was the extensive, continuing support of Pakistan and its powerful intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistan has a long border with Afghanistan and people across the border share close socio-cultural and ethnic ties. Due to this factor Pakistan’s help was most important for the CIA in mobilising a huge and prolonged resistance against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. It was no less helpful that the CIA already had a good working relationship with the ISI which expanded greatly during the massive mobilization against the Soviet Union presence in Afghanistan.

The visits of CIA and Pentagon officials to the ISI headquarters in Pakistan became very frequent and a very close relationship developed. The ISI became the conduit for channelling American arms, funds and other support to the various militant groups which were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This support enabled militant Muslim groups like al Qaeda to strengthen their position and widen support base.

Thirdly, some militant Muslim groups turned against the USA and its allies. However it became clear soon enough, particularly after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan that some of the leading militant groups had ideas of their own which differed radically from the plans of the USA and its allies. Evidence began to grow about the hands of some of these groups, particularly the groups associated with bin Laden, in many attacks on USA/allies targets. In the 1990s there were attacks on American armed forces personnel in Saudi Arabia, on CIA operators within the USA, an attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993, the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemeni waters in 1999.

It is clear from these examples and several others that the militant groups armed and supported by the USA to defy the Soviet Union could easily turn their wrath from one supposed ‘infidel’ to another, that the actual results of such support could easily be very different from what was the original intention.

Failure to take Timely Action

Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief, who saw the passenger lists soon after the 9/11 attacks, commented – “I was stunned… that there were al-Qaida operatives on board using names that the FBI knew were al-Qaida.”

Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested in the USA on August 16 after officials of a flight school tipped off the FBI about the suspicious conduct of this French-born man of Arab descent. He had been seeking flight training on a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. This trainee was reported to be interested mainly in steering a jet plane in mid-air, not in learning how to take off or land. The officials at the flight school found it very difficult to get the authorities interested in this case. They were surprised at delayed actions such as the search of this suspect’s computer. This suspect had earlier been trained at another flight school in the USA which was known to have been used by other Al-Qaida operators. The New York Times commented on December 22 2001 that the Moussaoui case “raised new questions about why the FBI and other agencies did not prevent the hijackings.” Much later, another report published in The Guardian (July 22, 2004) alleged that the trial (in the USA) of Moussaoui (who potentially could have been the 20th hijacker of 9/11 if he had not been arrested) is in danger of collapse because of the CIA’s reluctance to allow key lieutenants of Osama bin Laden to testify at the trial.

A report written by Labour MP and former (1997-2003) Minister Michael Meacher in the Guardian questioned why the US government continues to withhold from the public some very important documents relating to 9/11 which particularly throw light on intelligence failure.

A report in the French daily Le Figaro (31 October 2001) said that Osama bin Laden underwent surgery in an American hospital in Dubai in July 2001. He came with a deputy, four bodyguards, a personal doctor and nurse from Quetta in Pakistan for treatment of serious kidney-related ailments. During his stay in the hospital for about 10 days July 4-14 he met with a CIA official stationed in Dubai, and when Osama left Dubai this CIA official too was called back to his headquarters. Osama also met influential UAE and Saudi persons and officials. Despite the fact that he was on the ‘most wanted’ list no attempt was made to arrest him during his two week stay at the hospital.

This report also stated, “According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil.” Based partly on such reports US and France intelligence officials met in Paris but US officials, while worried, were strangely evasive at this meeting.

The main information of this report regarding bin Laden’s treatment at a reputed American hospital in Dubai and the local CIA agent meeting him two months before 9/11, without any attempt being made to arrest Laden, was attributed to a member of the hospital management, but it was widely believed that the report was published only after it was well confirmed by French intelligence sources. Although the US authorities and the hospital in question officially denied it—they had to—it is highly unlikely that a reputed newspaper of record would have published such shocking news very prominently in big headlines without being sure of this. Reports based on this appeared in several other reputed newspapers, including the Guardian. It is also known that flights between Quetta and Dubai were common on daily basis during those days, including private flights of royals and aristocrats, some of whom said they went on hunting trips, but also used the opportunity to meet Taliban leaders and others close to them in bin Laden territory.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers or their collaborators who helped them in important ways were under surveillance by US agencies as suspected terrorists. Yet they could travel freely and finally carry out the horrific 9/11 attacks. There were serious lapses also in giving them visas, entry and related matters, and reports of those with known terror links entering multiple times raised several eyebrows.

Meanwhile FBI agents had been complaining from time to time that when they had important leads they did not get adequate attention and support and sometimes were just ignored or transferred. Attorney David Schippers said that he had used these warnings and information from such agents to send a warning to the Attorney General of the coming danger. John O’ Neill, a senior FBI agent known for his special expertise on bin Laden related terrorism plots and actions, said oil corporate interests with Saudi link were a reason for obstruction of some investigations. On August 22 2001 he resigned, citing obstruction of investigations. He then took up a job as security chief in World Trade Centre and died in the 9/11 attack while arranging evacuation.

Involvement of a Foreign Government or Secret Service Likely

Several experts have given an opinion that such a huge terrorist operation involving planning at several levels could not have been possible without the help of a foreign government or secret service.

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence in 2001 said, “I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing…. by a sovereign foreign government.”

Horst Ekmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, said, “Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service.”

As stated earlier, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s ISI had asked Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, to wire $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. The Times of India reported on August 1, 2003 – A top FBI counter-terrorism official told the US Senate governmental affairs committee that investigators have “traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan.” In fact this 100,000 dollar payment is likely to be in addition to several other payments as well from the same source.

When, soon after the 9/11 attacks it was revealed that the chief of Pakistan’s main intelligence agency had sent $100,000 to the lead hijacker, one would’ve normally suspected that the USA would adopt a very hostile attitude towards Pakistan. But in reality cooperation between Pakistan and the USA continued to grow – particularly in intelligence and defence issues.

When National Co-ordinator for Security Richard Clarke met President Bush just a day after 9/11 on September 12, Bush asked him to relate 9/11 to Saddam. Clarke submitted a report initially endorsed by the CIA and the FBI that there is no such evidence. Bush’s staff members returned the report to Clarke asking him to update and re-send. Later Bush tried to deny the entire episode but retreated when others supported what Clarke said.

This shows how Bush and some of the neo-cons among his policy-makers, particularly Rumsfeld and Cheney, were very keen to use 9/11 as a pretext for an attack on country after country starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. The resulting war on terror subsequently led, counting direct and indirect deaths, to nearly 4.5 million people dying over the next two decades, often in very cruel ways, and many more families getting ruined or disrupted by serious injuries, displacements and other related factors. Meanwhile, the endless War on Terror ensured that the military industrial complex got unlimited, unending orders to fill its coffers and share it with powerful politicians and other influential people.

Assassination of Massoud just before 9/11

The assassination of the popular nationalist Afghanistan leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the Northern Alliance, on September 9, 2001 should also be examined in this wider context. This 9/9 serious tragedy is likely to be related to 9/11 in more than one way. Massoud had travelled to Europe earlier in April that year, addressed the European Union Parliament and given a clear warning that a big terrorist attack on the USA was likely to be planned from Afghanistan as an important base for this planning.

Massoud was the most courageous, learned, principled and committed among various Afghan leaders and commanders. President of European Parliament Nicole Fontane had referred to him as ‘pole of liberty in Afghanistan’ while inviting him to address the European Parliament. However the US had consistently disfavoured him while extending more help to unprincipled military leaders. At the same time there are some indications that this attitude was perhaps about to change. Based on reports from two competent US intelligence field officers who met Massoud and returned very impressed by him, the US attitude towards him was probably beginning to change, but this is not certain, and the fact remains that powerful interests in the USA remained opposed to supporting an independent nationalist with a very strong base among people, like Massoud.

Massoud had started getting help from India, and after being attacked was in fact taken to a field-hospital set up with Indian help. In the areas controlled by him Massoud had encouraged education and rights of women as well as democratic governance. In a 1999 interview he had stated that Pakistan was treating Afghanistan as a colony and obstructing the peace process that he and his colleagues were trying to pursue.

It was becoming clear that many in the international community had started seeing Massoud as the most acceptable leader of Afghanistan in future who could bring peace to the troubled land. However his leadership was opposed strongly by bin Laden and Pakistan. Bin-Laden and/or the ISI are likely to be behind his assassination. His assassins, posing as journalists, were reported to be desperate to get the interview with Massoud at the latest by September 10, not willing to wait beyond this. Why they were so keen to finish the job assigned to them before September 11 can be understood by later events.

Many Escapes of bin Laden

It is also important to know more about bin Laden as we see that time and again bin Laden is allowed to escape or else inter-acts with US agents or allies, which would not be the case if there was really such a big hunt for him.

It is well-known that the CIA, often acting through the ISI, had enlisted the close cooperation of Osama bin Laden (OBL) to oust the Soviet Army from Afghanistan. However after this aim was achieved, over a period of a few years, OBL and his organization al Qaeda (AQ) turned hostile to the USA. Soon the CIA and other USA intelligence agencies started tracking him as a major threat. This happened around 1995 when OBL and his close followers were in Sudan.

OBL is reported to have died in a US raid in Pakistan on May 2 2011. During these 16 years 1995-2011 the threat perceptions about OBL generally were at a very high level. He was first placed on the ‘most wanted’ list, then an award of 25 million dollars was announced for information relating to his capture, raised after some time to 50 million dollars. Several attacks were launched with the main aim, or one of the main aims, being to capture or kill him. One such effort succeeded at last on May 2 2011, as per official accounts. However there were at least seven occasions when it should have been possible to apprehend OBL much earlier, but he was allowed rather mysteriously to get away.

The first such instance was in Sudan in 1995-96. The official 9/11 Commission report has stated, “CIA paramilitary officer Billy Waugh tracked down Bin Laden in Sudan and prepared an operation to apprehend him, but was denied authorization.”

The second such occasion came when with about 300 close and loyal followers OBL left Sudan for Afghanistan (Jalalabad) on a chartered flight. It is unlikely that the USA government, which was in close touch with the Sudan government on this issue and whose intelligence agencies were closely trailing the activities of OBL in Sudan, would have failed to apprehend OBL at this stage if it had made a serious and timely effort.

The third such occasion came in 2001 in Dubai which has been described earlier in terms of a report in Le Figaro, a leading newspaper of France.

The fourth instance of OBL being let off relates to the period starting early October and continuing till the third week of November in 2001. This is the time when the USA bombing of Afghanistan had started as a part of its war on terror but OBL had not yet escaped to Tora-Bora caves. During this period he also appeared openly in Kabul, for offering condolence for a colleague who had died and also to give an interview to a senior journalist from Pakistan. During this period there were at least two instances of his travelling openly in rather long convoys of vehicles when he and AQ fighters close to him would have been a rather easy target of US bombing. However while there were a lot of other bombings, which probably also harmed innocent persons, these long and very visible convoys passing along predictable routes were surprisingly spared from bombing attacks.

The fifth escape relates to the period lasting from the last days of November to around December 16-17 2001 or so when Osama with about 1200 fighters had taken shelter in Tora Bora caves in East Afghanistan, rather close to tribal areas of Pakistan. The USA sent a very small force of about 100 soldiers who were supposed to enlist the help of local Afghan allies to kill or capture Bin Laden and close aides in Tora Bora. The small US force, which fought quite valiantly in the middle of several difficulties, repeatedly asked for ground-level US reinforcements. However this was refused at higher levels.

Despite this on December 9 the US forces gained a clear edge. However a leading local ally pleaded with the US force to halt the bombing. OBL and his close associates then left this area in mid-December, helped by Afghan and Pakistani contacts, partly on foot and partly on horse, to finally cross over to Pakistan unhindered.

This timeline is well-confirmed in perhaps the most comprehensive and credible report on this particular OBL escape prepared for the members of the Foreign Relations Committee, US Senate, in November 2009. In his accompanying letter the Chairperson John F. Kerry stated that the focus is on learning from mistakes in the past. With this focus, this report titled ‘Tora Bora Revisited (TBR)—how we failed to get bin Laden and why it matters today’, made a strong indictment of highest levels of military and political leadership in the USA which refused to provide reinforcements to US soldiers on the ground in Tora Bora, and this resulted in the defeat of a main objective of the intervention of capturing or killing OBL and his closest deputies as soon as possible.

As the TBR report confirms, in late November CIA senior official on counter-terrorism Henry Crumpton, who was earlier head of the CIA unit on Afghanistan as well, made a strong plea for sending more ground troops to Tora Bora to the top army authorities and in fact went to the extent of meeting President Bush and Vice-President Cheney for this. They listened to him but did nothing to heed his suggestion.

Gary Bernsten, senior CIA operator who was specially sent to Tora Bora by his boss to ‘kill the enemy’, later wrote—“We needed US soldiers on the ground. I had sent request for 800 Army US rangers and was still waiting for a response. I repeated to anyone at headquarters who would listen—we need rangers now! The opportunity to get bin Laden and his men is slipping away.”

Summarizing the sad failure, the TBR report notes-

• Calls for reinforcements for launching assault were rejected.
• Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.
• The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the side-lines.

Further the TBR report confirms—There were enough US troops in or near Afghanistan to execute the classic sweep and block manoeuver required to prevent the escape of OBL.

The report noted further that this failure proved very costly as the escape of a charismatic terrorist gave more strength to his followers and al Qaeda units in many countries. By crossing over to Pakistan OBL and his AQ militants continued their plots there, the report says, including the July 2005 transit bombings in London and two aborted attacks in the USA.

One of the important factors behind this failure was the fact, not even known to ground forces in Tora Bora, that President Bush had already shifted his focus from strengthening Afghanistan efforts to invading Iraq for removing Saddam Hussein. In fact even as senior experts were pleading with him for Tora Bora reinforcements, Bush had quietly asked his defence secretary Rumsfeld, himself a known hawk on Iraq, to prepare for Iraq invasion. This happened on November 21, just a week or so after the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, not allowing time for consolidation and focused attention here. Rumsfeld lost no time in phoning his top general Tommy Franks the same day to get the Iraq invasion files ready in just a week’s time. Franks was busy planning for Tora Bora when he got this phone call and his reaction, recorded in the official TBR report was—Son of a B…No rest for the weary.

The sixth escape of OBL relates to the period lasting from the last fortnight of December 2001 (when he crossed over to tribal areas of Pakistan ) to May 2 2011 when he was reported to have been killed in a USA attack in Abbottabad, about 100 km. from the capital of Pakistan. The official Pakistani account differs in some respects, depending upon the source, but the overall trend has been to say that the Pakistani authorities were not aware of the whereabouts of OBL during this period till around the time he was killed in US action. It is very, very difficult to believe that OBL, with whom the ISI had interacted so closely for so long, who had so many common friends in Pakistan, could have stayed on in Pakistan with family and friends for over a decade without the ISI knowing about this.

It is likely that OBL spent the first half of this decade in and around Waziristan, perhaps moving here and there. The next half of his time in Pakistan, from 2005 to the summer of 2011, was spent in conditions of more stability and comfort in a windowless mansion of Abottabad, probably specially built to house him and those close to him. This was built at a distance of just about a km. from the Pakistani Military Academy. It must require very special imagination to believe that no senior persons in the Pakistani army and the ISI were aware of OBL living in this mansion for around six long years. We can safely conclude that he lived there with their knowledge without being apprehended for about six years and so this is his sixth escape. Several accounts of OBL living with Pakistan authorities knowledge have been published (NYT magazine by Carlotta Gall, London Review of Books by Seymour Hersh etc.).

It may be added that OBL was buried in sea by US forces, and the entire account of his medical condition, confirming his identity( by DNA test or in other ways) and burial in sea is based on official sources only without any other independent confirmations. In another big tragedy several of the soldiers from the US unit that killed OBL were tragically killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. Of the 38 persons who died in this accident, 15 were reported to be from this unit.

Conclusion—Learnings from Stories within Stories

Clearly there are several aspects of the 9/11 tragedy which are still not understood properly. The US government should have acted with more restraint and responsibility after the huge tragedy in 2001. The aim should have been to first find out the complete truth and then take strong steps to punish all those culprits whose guilt had been established beyond doubt. Instead of rushing to invading other countries based on suspicions or unconfirmed allegations which remained to be fully established, the first step should have been to establish the 9/11 truths beyond doubt. When the government failed to do its duty adequately, several groups of citizens and professionals stepped in, which should be seen as a strength of democracy to be supported further. However while the task of pointing out the serious shortcomings of the official version has been accomplished and some points such as those relating to controlled demolitions have been convincingly argued, we still do not have any comprehensive and complete understanding of what happened on 9/11 and in the days or months before this. It is possible that more than one plot was at work—terror groups were working on something but a powerful section of the authorities, possibly to find a justification for wars that were already on their agenda, neglected warnings to stop them and instead introduced their own additional plot too. If something resembling this happened, this was without the knowledge of other important sections of the authorities (and field operatives or officials in lower ranks) who kept wondering what was happening and why some justified actions were not happening or were being denied. However this or other possibilities cannot be confirmed and this is why several persons and initiatives feel the need for an honest re-examination of the entire issue at the official level. In addition there are related side-stories of the tragic assassination of Massoud just before 9/11, the reported many escapes and final killing of OBL and the many-sided foreign links of 9/11 which need attention. As things stand today, the horrible 9/11 tragedy which killed less than 4 thousand persons was hurriedly used as an unjust pretext for launching a War on Terror which in terms of deaths caused directly and indirectly has claimed over 4 million lives. Hence a deep tragedy was compounded by causing over 1000 times more deaths, something that was entirely avoidable if the balanced response was of properly investigating the 9/11 tragedy and then punishing only the well-established culprits strongly. At a wider level, therefore, there is clearly a need for greater transparency in the context of all such issues of historical importance as once the truth is known, it becomes much more possible to draw lessons for peace and democratic reform.