“What is ‘Truth’? said jesting Pilate washing his hands. he would not stay for an answer.”

On September 3, Hank Berrien published a story, ‘Newly Released Taliban Video Blames U.S. For 9/11’ on DailyWire.com. Unfortunately the way that Berrien frames his story, anyone who disputes the official narrative of 9/11 will seemingly appear to be agreeing with and supporting the Taliban. Howerver the Taliban are not original in making the claim that the U.S. government under the regime of George W. Bush and led by Dick Cheney perpetrated the events of 9/11 as a pretext for starting a bogus ‘War on Terrorism’ to establish dominance in the Middle East for power and profit. For the past twenty years independent researchers have been making the same claim based on a huge amount of evidence.

Even a cursory glance at the physical evidence of 9/11will prove that it was a false flag PSYOP designed and implimented by the members of the Bush administration who had written the PNAC (Project The New American Century) document. The PNAC’s seminal report, Rebuilding America’s Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. [1]

“History is written by the winner”

The question then is; “what did the historians of the accepted official history taught in the US win? These historians are winners in various contexts, and investigating what conflicts they were winners of, and who the losers in these conflicts were, can do a great deal of clarifying the popular myths that have become officially sanctified ‘HISTORY’.

 Other PNAC founders include Dick Cheney, then vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan’s education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.

As for Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”, these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,” it says, “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism”. Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that “public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible”. Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele’s estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives. [1]


Who and What is al Qaeda?

This historic interview with President Carter’s National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms that the so-called “Soviet-Afghan war” was triggered and initiated not by the Soviet Union but by the United States.

America has been at war with Afghanistan for more than forty Years. It started in July 1979. It is still ongoing.

America’s War against the people of Afghanistan started on July 3, 1979, when President Carter, on the advice of his National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski “signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul”.

Confirmed by this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan preceded the entry of Soviet forces into Afghanistan in the context of a military cooperation agreement with the Kabul government similar in form to that reached between Damascus and Moscow in the context of the ongoing war in Syria. That agreement between Moscow and Kabul was signed on December 24, 1979.

Confirmed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Soviet forces (in a cooperation agreement with a secular Afghan government) were fighting the Al Qaeda mercenaries who had been recruited by the CIA.

Amply documented, the recruitment, training and indoctrination of the Mujahideen was financed by the drug trade which was supported covertly by the CIA.

The terrorists were recruited starting in July 1979. They were used to undermine and destroy Afghanistan’s secular social structure. The decision of the Carter Administration in early July 1979 to intervene and destabilize Afghanistan’s secular government was conducive to Afghanistan’s destruction as a nation-state.

These are the realities of history.

The official justification for the US-NATO War on Afghanistan which started on October 7, 2001 was that an unnamed foreign power attacked America on September 11, 2001, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

And those same Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorists had been recruited by the US starting in July 1979. They were supported and financed by the US.

What was initiated in 1979 is best described as “America’s War With Terrorists” whereby Al Qaeda recruits are used to destroy secular sovereign nations in a diabolical covert operation which has now extended its thrust from the Middle East to South East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Beyond.


Interview with National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began their aid to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during the 1980s, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.

Indeed, it was on July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

Q: Some stirred-up Muslims? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

**Translated from French by William Blum


Michel Chossudovsky, August 22, 2021


Who and What are the Taliban?

Millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars helped fan religious conflict in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to a major new study, and even money spent since 9/11 may have stoked tensions.

The conventional wisdom that building schools in a conflict zone helps promote peace and stability is called into question by New York University professor Dana Burde, whose findings make sobering reading for donors as reconstruction of Afghanistan enters a crucial period.

“Aid education may not always have the influence that we think,” she said. “Although there are dramatic and positive results of current support to education in Afghanistan today, this was not always the case.” 

Promoting violence — in the form of jihad against the Soviet invaders and their local proxies — was the goal of the U.S.-funded education effort in the 1980s and early ’90s. Textbooks such as “The Alphabet of Jihad Literacy,” funded by the U.S. and published by the University of Nebraska at Omaha, came out at a time when the CIA was channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to mujahedeen fighters to resist the Soviet occupation.

USAID funded textbooks for distribution at refugee camps in Pakistan, with content written by mujahedeen groups with the support of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the CIA.

Burde said the rationale of this indoctrination in the ideas of warfare as religious duty rested on the assumption of the “importance of starting early.” While the U.S. program ended with the collapse of Afghanistan’s communist government, its textbooks have spawned dozens of copies and revised editions, she said.

She managed to find several old copies of the Pashto-language books and a 2011 edition on sale in the Pakistani city of Peshawar as recently as last year. The Taliban, she said, continues to recommend these books for children.

The majority of the book’s 41 lessons glorify violence in the name of religion. “My uncle has a gun,” reads the entry for the letter T, using the Pashto word for “gun,” “topak.” “He does jihad with the gun.”

“Kabul is the capital of our dear country,” reads the entry for the letter K. “No one can invade our country. Only Muslim Afghans can rule over this country.”

Burde says the anti-infidel message in the U.S.-funded textbook of yore is easily repurposed for those seeking to indoctrinate young Afghans today to support the fight against NATO forces. She discovered in the course of her research that the Taliban today insists the books are used in schools in areas under its control.

The failure to defeat the Taliban by the U.S.-led combat mission, which technically concludes at the end of 2014, leaves education statistics as a commonly cited indicator for those seeking to claim success for the longest war in U.S. history


In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This “super-intelligence support activity” will bring together the “CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception”. According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require “counter-attack” by the United States on countries “harbouring the terrorists”.

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign – complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans – as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution. [1]

The NIST Report

NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”–

Catherine S. Fletcher, Chief Management and Organization Division, NIST Sept. 27, 2007

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”–NIST

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” BUT the “focus” of the investigation is NOT the “goal” of the investigation as stated in their own words: “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”

This is spurious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of rational argumentation on the part of NIST.

NIST did not provide a full explanation as to why the WTC Towers collapsed.

NIST modeled their CGI cartoons to the point that the building was “poised forcollapse”, and left it at that, a glaring example of circular reasoning.

This is scientific fraud and nothing less.

NIST never tested for explosives:

22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

**The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.** – Nonsense, there is no excuse for not testing for excellerents, see: NFPA 921**


9-11- NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel

WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707

For the past 20 years independent reasearchers have delved into the details of the attacks of September 11, as well as the hidden history of what led up to that day. Some of those details are presented herein. An adendum will be added at the end for those who wish to find out more for themselves.

For myself ne thing is very clear, calls for a new investigation into the events of 911 are likely futile at this late date. But in my view such an investigation is unnessesary. What is nessessary is to promote far and wide the information that independent researchers have already found and reavealed. To keep pushing to remind or wake up the public to the real facts of this event. Truth matters, History matters. As George Sanayana observed; “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”


[1] Johm Pilger

© 2021 William Whitten

William Whitten is an autodidact , polymath, epistemic maverick, artist and an American patriot.

9 thoughts on “9/11: 20 YEARS OF LIES AND COVER UP

  1. James Corbett warns that as the 20th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, we must be on the lookout for false flag terror. He says that reports of a Swiss Federal Intelligence Service warning about imminent attacks on “coronavirus vaccine infrastructure, including vaccination centers, transport and manufacturing facilities,” scream to him that there’s a high likelihood that the next false flag event will be blamed on the anti-vaxxer crowd and he says not to fall for it.

    “They will pull that trigger if and when they feel they need to and we have to speak out about it before, to warn the public that this is already an option on the table – false flag terrorism – in order to gin-up a response from the public, to get those damned ‘anti-maskers’.”

    He reminds us that, “The War on Terror was never about the dastardly Muslim boogeymen, it was always about creating the Homeland Security apparatus to wield against the population and to criminalize dissent – and that is happening right now.”



    1. Dear Patriots,

      Big News!

      The court in Colorado in Coomer v. Trump, et al. just granted Sidney Powell and Joe Oltmann a two hour deposition of Dominion former VP and head of Security Eric Coomer regarding his Facebook posts, their authenticity, and his deletion of any.

      This will be the first opportunity to question a Dominion employee in sworn testimony. The court has ordered the deposition taken pursuant to a protective order.
      –Sydney Powell — 9/8/2021


    2. This week on 9/11 Free Fall, psychologist Robert Griffin talks with host Andy Steele about his involvement in AE911Truth’s soon-to-be-released documentary, The Unspeakable. Griffin shares his admiration for the individuals featured in the film, whom he spoke with in preparation for his own interview, and also discusses the social and psychological challenges faced by victims’ family members and activists who question the official 9/11 story.

      Andy Steele:
      Welcome to 9/11 Free Fall, I’m the host Andy Steele. Today, we’re joined by Robert Griffin. Robert is a psychologist and a member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. He is a 9/11 Truth advocate and is featured in AE911Truth’s film called 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out. He is also in our latest film, The Unspeakable, which we’ll be talking about today. Robert, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.



        From the OCTOBER 15, 2021 edition of the Neo-MarxistÜberLiberal CounterPunch Magazine online

        America’s Instinctive Fascism Creeps On
        Recently Norman Ornstein told Salon’s Chauncy de Vega that the United States is mired in a crisis of democracy that shows parallels with Germany’s descent into Nazism during the 1930s. Ornstein is right to worry about the nation’s ongoing lethal rightward drift beyond “normal” bourgeois democracy. That is how the United States’ political life is shaping up. The signs are ominous indeed. As de Vega writes, “the coup attempt of January is only a prelude to similar events in the future, when Republicans and their allies fully intend to overthrow any election they lose, and therefore deem illegitimate.” De Vega quotes a gloomy passage from a widely read Washington Post essay written by the right-wing commentator Robert Kagan:
        ‘The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves…We are already in a constitutional crisis. The destruction of democracy might not come until November 2024, but critical steps in that direction are happening now. In a little more than a year, it may become impossible to pass legislation to protect the electoral process in 2024. Now it is impossible only because anti-Trump Republicans, and even some Democrats, refuse to tinker with the filibuster. It is impossible because, despite all that has happened, some people still wish to be good Republicans even as they oppose Trump. These decisions will not wear well as the nation tumbles into full-blown crisis.’”

        “Millions of racist, sexist, and nativist white Americans, many if not most of them armed, are angrily panting for the Amerikaner Party of Trump’s (APoT’s) return to full national power and revenge. The storming of the US Capitol last January 6th is for them just a test run for further and more serious efforts to “take our country back.” The second American civil war they want is already being waged in numerous ways, including the right’s interrelated assaults on minority voting rights, gun control, election integrity, women’s reproductive rights, racially honest school curriculum, and basic public health measures to defeat COVID-19.”
        “Two in every three Republicans still ‘absurdly’ believe the 2020 election was stolen from its supposed rightful winner, the Confederacy fan Donald Trump.”

        The blatant biased Leftist spin put on this issue, with this unbelievable hyperbolic language, is one of the reasons that rational people dismiss this nonsense coming from the Radical Left.


  2. The censorship of Spike Lee’s NYC Epicenters is a tragically fitting end to the last 20 years
    Ted Walter September 11, 2021 PRINT
    Even the respected and dauntless filmmaker Spike Lee could not overcome the awesome wrath of the mainstream media that comes down upon any person of influence who dares challenge the official story of 9/11.

    In a span of three days, from August 23rd to 26th, Lee went from staunchly defending his decision to include so-called “9/11 conspiracy theorists” in his eight-hour HBO docuseries, NYC Epicenters 9/11 → 2021½, to removing the entire 30 minutes he had devoted to questioning how the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell. The half-hour was part of the final two-hour episode set to air on the night of the 20th anniversary of 9/11.

    Unbeknownst to most people — because only members of the media got to view the episode and declare it unfit for the public to see — the 30 minutes of excised material included far more than just interviews with so-called “fringe architects.” (Actually, there were upwards of 10 architects and engineers, ranging from a San Francisco high-rise architect to a fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.) There were also interviews with 9/11 family members who believe they have not been told the truth about the murder of their loved ones and with first responders and survivors who witnessed explosions. Along with all those interviews was a wealth of archival footage and radio dispatches from that morning, in which rescuer after rescuer can be heard reporting explosions. (Full disclosure: I was also interviewed for the film.)

    Instead of painting a full and accurate picture of the now-excised section, the media seized upon the inclusion of “conspiracy group” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and our founder Richard Gage — who, in the words of Slate editor Jeremy Stahl, “is responsible for peddling some of the most pernicious and long-running lies about the 9/11 attacks.”

    Stahl’s choice of words was clearly intended to imply, falsely, that Gage does not actually believe the view he is presenting but is, rather, knowingly perpetuating a lie for some nefarious purpose. Any person practicing real journalism who has interviewed Gage “multiple times” could not plausibly claim that Gage is lying. What Stahl was practicing was propaganda, the express goal of which was to stop millions of viewers from seeing the half-hour of documentary film that Lee made.

    The death blow to Lee’s attempt to shine a light on the Twin Towers’ and Building 7’s controlled demolition appears to have been Stahl’s reporting of statements that Gage made in the past year in which he called the coronavirus pandemic a “hoax” and aired other related views about vaccines and Bill Gates. Stahl also loosely accused Gage of being anti-Semitic — or of condoning anti-Semitism — for having tolerated suggestions, made by an audience member in 2012 and by a podcast host more recently, that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    Less than 24 hours after Stahl’s Slate article was published, news broke that Lee was “back in the editing room” reexamining the final chapter of the series. One day later, HBO announced that the entire half-hour had been cut.

    If Lee had any say in the decision, I suspect he did what he did because he felt he could not defend keeping Gage, nor did he care to, and he didn’t have time for the massive edit that would have been required to remove Gage, who was central to the section. It may be that all of the other attacks did not faze him at all. However, the current narrative is that Lee capitulated to the totality of the media’s condemnation over featuring so-called “conspiracy theorists.”

    At the height of the controversy and since, countless articles have been published referring to the controlled demolition theory as “debunked.” These articles either have no links to any sources, or they have links to Popular Mechanics articles from 10 years ago or more, or they have links to the very reports and FAQs issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that are disputed by thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists. (By the way, Lee and others make the point that fire isn’t hot enough to melt steel because there was molten metal at Ground Zero, not because the steel needed to melt for the buildings to collapse. This fact, as with all of the evidence of controlled demolition, has not been debunked.)



  3. Conspiritus 911

    Shaffer also claims that Able Danger identified many of the individuals responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, including members of the “Brooklyn cell” such as Mohammed Atta – who, it was reported in the days after, was under CIA surveillance in Germany in January 2000 until he left for the US in June.

    Richard Clarke also wasn’t informed of Hazmi and Midhar’s entry to the US, despite Agency chief George Tenet calling him at the White House several times a day and meeting with him in person every other day to discuss intelligence on Al-Qaeda “in microscopic detail”. Had he been told at any point prior to 9/11, even a week before, he believes the attacks could’ve been averted – a view shared by numerous senior FBI officials.

    Clarke contends this decision was made at the highest levels of the CIA, and has pointed to a far more sinister explanation than mere internecine rivalry – Langley was using them in a secret operation of some kind.



  4. Is Infiltration of “Extremist Groups” Justified?

    Kurtis Hagen

    Published 2010


    International Journal of Applied Philosophy

    Many intellectuals scoff at what they call “conspiracy theories.” But two Harvard law professors, Cass Sunstein (now working for the Obama administration) and Adrian Vermeule, go further. They argue in the Journal of Political Philosophy that groups that espouse such theories ought to be infiltrated and undermined by government agents and allies. While some may find this proposal appalling (as indeed we all should), others may find the argument plausible, especially if they have been swayed by the notion that conspiracy theories (or a definable subset thereof), by their nature, somehow or another, do not warrant belief. I will argue that Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposal not only conflicts with the values of an open society, but is also epistemically indefensible. In making my case, I will adopt their favored example, counter-narratives about 9/11. T is a critical evaluation of the article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”2 by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. They support confronting supposedly pernicious3 and “demonstrably false” conspiracy theories (or “extreme views”), rather than ignoring them. One strategy, which they emphasize, they describe as follows: [W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.4 In other words, they suggest undermining conspiracy theories by engaging in a conspiracy against groups that promote them. I will argue that, beyond the obvious irony, this recommendation is epistemically indefensible, even when considering the rather extreme case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is their primary example. Sunstein and Vermeule’s argument in a nutshell is as follows: (1) Lots of people are susceptible to belief in conspiracy theories. (2) Some of these theories are …




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: