screenhunter_32_oct._30_11.08_150Osama bin Laden as Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks: Is This Belief Based on Evidence? 

by David Ray Griffin for Veterans Today

The idea that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been an article of faith for public officials and the mainstream media. Calling it an “article of faith” points to two features of this idea. On the one hand, no one in these circles publicly challenges this idea.

On the other hand, as I pointed out at length in two of my books – 9/11 Contradictions1 and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited,2 no good evidence has ever been publicly presented to support it.

Colin Powell’s Withdrawn Promise Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”3


Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, "most of it is classified."4 According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."5

This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks.6 A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: "We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?"7 Hersh’s answer was that they had no proof.

osamabinladenTony Blair’s Weak Document

The task of providing such proof was taken up by Bush’s chief ally in the "war on terror," British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On October 4, 2001, Blair made public a document entitled: "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States." Listing "clear conclusions reached by the government," it stated: "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001." Blair’s report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."8 Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war.

The weakness in Blair’s report, in any event, was noted the next day by the BBC, which said: "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial."9

The FBI’s Surprising Statement

What does our own FBI say? Here is a surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media: The FBI’s "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which he is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."11

After this story started flying around the Internet and was even covered by a TV station in Louisiana,12 Dan Eggen tried to downplay its significance in an August 2006 Washington Post article entitled "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?"13 Complaining about "conspiracy theorists" who claimed that "the lack of a Sept. 11 reference [on the FBI’s "Most Wanted" webpage for bin Laden] suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain," Eggen quoted the explanation offered by a former US attorney, who said that the FBI could not appropriately "put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed."

But that explanation, while true, simply pushes the issue back a step to this question: Why have such charges not been filed? Rex Tomb’s fuller statement, which Eggen failed to mention, had answered this question the previous June, saying:

The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.14

The 9/11 Commission

What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. But the Commission’s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission."15 (I discussed this book at length in Chapter 2 of my 2007 book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.16)

As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal, whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply "KSM," who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:

Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta – whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group – met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17

The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."18

Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."19 Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators.20 Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"21

An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," NBC pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."22

Buy the book OSAMA BIN LADEN Dead or Alive on Amazon.comThe "Bin Laden Confession Tapes"

As we have seen, neither the 9/11 Commission, the Bush-Cheney White House, the FBI, the British government, nor the 9/11 Commission provided good evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Many people, however, have assumed that the question of his responsibility was settled by the existence of videotapes and audiotapes in which he himself confessed to the attacks. There are, however, good reasons to believe that these so-called confession tapes are fakes. I will illustrate this point in terms of the two best-known videotapes of this nature.   

The "Jalalabad Video" Released December 13, 2001: The first and most famous of the "Osama bin Laden confession video tapes" was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them.23 Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden’s guilt.24

Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape’s authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself.

A BBC News report said: "Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun’ that puts Bin Laden’s guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake."25 This report was, in fact, entitled, "Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?"

This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had "suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi."26

This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape." Reporting "growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film," writer Steven Morris said:

The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.27

Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added:

According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike.

Morris then quoted one such opponent in Pakistan, who said: "This videotape is not authentic. The Americans made it up after failing to get any evidence against Osama."

Morris also cited Bob Crabtree, the editor of Computer Video magazine, who explained that it was impossible to determine whether the video was authentic without more details of its source, adding: "The US seems simply to have asked the world to trust them that it is genuine."28

This skepticism about the authenticity of this "Jalalabad video" was based on sound reasons. For one thing, this video’s bin Laden figure appeared too heavy and healthy, compared with the bin Laden who made the last of the undoubtedly authentic bin Laden videos, which was made sometime in 2001 between November 16 (on which occurred an event mentioned on the tape) and December 27 (the date on which the tape was released). In this post-November 16 video, bin Laden’s beard was white, he had a "gaunt, frail appearance," and his "left arm hung limply by his side while he gesticulated with his right."29 This immobile left arm, Dr. Sanjay Gupta observed on CNN, suggested that bin Laden had suffered a stroke, adding that this plus a "frosting of the appearance" suggested that bin Laden was in the final stages of kidney failure.30

But in the "Jalalabad video," which was reportedly made at about the same time (being dated November 9 and released December 13), the bin Laden figure was heavier and also darker, in both skin and beard color; his nose had a different shape;31 and his hands were shorter and heavier than those of Osama bin Laden as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos.32

Still another problem is that, whereas bin Laden was left-handed, the man in the "Jalalabad video" wrote with his right hand. Although it might be thought that this was because his left arm was immobile, the bin Laden figure in this video was easily able to lift his left arm above his head.33

If this video was made on November 9, as claimed, then it would have been made at most only a few weeks before the post-November 16 video. It is very hard to believe that the heavy, dark-skinned, healthy-looking man with a dark beard could have, within two or three weeks, turned into the pale, gaunt, white-bearded, man seen in the post-November 16 video.

If one accepts the Jalalabad video as authentic, one not only has to accept these radical changes in bin Laden’s physical appearance; one must also accept a complete change in his statements about 9/11. In the previous weeks, he had repeatedly – on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 – stated that he had had nothing to do with the attacks.34 In the September 28 statement, he had even declared:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.35

Is it likely that he would have made such statements if he himself had authorized the attacks and thereby the killing of innocents?

Whatever be one’s opinion about that, the bin Laden figure in the "Jalalabad video" made other statements that Osama bin Laden himself would surely not have made. For example, he said:

[W]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. . . . [D]ue to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.36

But in light of the real bin Laden’s "experience in the field" as a building contractor, he would have known that high-rise buildings are framed with steel, not iron. Even more important, he would have known that the buildings’ support columns – whether made of steel or iron – would not have been melted by the "fire from the gas in the plane." Why? Because he would have known, on the one hand, that a building fire, even if fed by jet-fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not, even under the most ideal conditions, have risen above 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius). And he would have known, on the other hand, that iron and steel do not begin to melt until they are heated to a temperature far higher than that: to almost 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,540 degrees Celsius). The real bin Laden, therefore, would not have expected any iron or steel to melt. 

A final reason to consider the "Jalalabad video" a fake is that bin Laden experts have declared it to such. When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country’s leading academic bin Laden expert,37 was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: "It’s bogus." Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work "on the 24/7 bin Laden clock," he added, "also know it’s bogus."38

General Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), suggested that the man in the video was an "Osama bin Laden lookalike."39

Former Foreign Service officer Angelo Codevilla, after saying "[t]he guy just does not look like Osama," added: "The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except perhaps to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicion."40

A fourth expert opinion has been issued implicitly, it would seem, by the Department of Justice and its FBI. If they considered this "confession video" authentic, would they not consider it "hard evidence" of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11? They say, however, that they have no such evidence, so they must not consider this video authentic.

The "October Surprise Video of 2004: The other most famous of the "bin Laden confession tapes" is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, leading to its being called "the October Surprise video." In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker’s message, entitled its story: "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks."41 However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it.

A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush’s reelection – an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts.42 The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush’s lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared,43 and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush’s victory.44 Given the fact that this video would quite predictably help Bush win reelection, it would seem to have been issued by his friends, not his enemies.

There are also substantive reasons to doubt this tape’s authenticity, one of which is the speaker’s language. The clearly authentic bin Laden messages were filled with religious language. A bin Laden video released October 7, 2001, for example, began thus:

Praise be to God and we beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge with the Lord of our bad and evildoing. He whom God guides is rightly guided . . . . I witness that there is no God but God and Mohammed is His slave and Prophet.45

Even though this talk as a whole had only 725 words, bin Laden referred to God (Allah) 20 times and to the prophet Mohammed 3 times. Likewise, his message of November 3, 2001, which contained 2,333 words, referred to God 35 times and to the prophet Mohammed 8 times.46 By contrast, the 2004 October Surprise video, which had almost the same number of words as the November 3 video, referred to God only 12 times. The only "Mohammad" mentioned, moreover, was Mohamed Atta.

Another substantive difference involved the type of causal analysis provided. Bin Laden’s clearly authentic messages had portrayed historical events as occurring only because they were caused, or at least allowed, by God. In his message of October 7, 2001, for example, he said: "God Almighty hit the United States. . . . He destroyed its greatest buildings." Human agents were involved, to be sure, but they were successful only because "Almighty God . . . allowed them to destroy the United States."47 In his message of November 3, likewise, bin Laden said that, if people are helped or harmed, it is always by "something that God has already preordained for [them]."48

The message on the 2004 confession video, however, reflected a worldview in which events can be understood through a causal analysis based on secular rationalism. "One of the most important things rational people do when calamities occur," the lecturer asserted, "is to look for their causes so as to avoid them." He himself, in analyzing "the [Iraq] war, its causes and consequences," provided a causal analysis involving purely human actors: Bush, al-Qaeda, and the American people. Far from suggesting that everything is finally in the hands of God, he said to the American people: "Your security is in your own hands" – a statement that a devout Wahabi Muslim such as Osama bin Laden would surely have considered blasphemous.

Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of this 2004 video is that, although the speaker was addressing the American public, he spoke Arabic rather than English. This is strange, because Osama bin Laden was reportedly fluent in English, which he had started studying when he was 11 years old.49 A British journalist reported that, when he and bin Laden met in 1989, they conversed in English for 45 minutes.50 General Hamid Gul, speaking to United Press International in 2001, said: "I know bin Laden and his associates. They are graduates of the best universities and . . . speak impeccable English.51 If bin Laden spoke impeccable English, would he not have used it when speaking directly to the American people?52

Accordingly, this video does not, any more than the "Jalalabad video," provide evidence that Osama bin Laden himself confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks.


I showed in a previous essay that, according to the best evidence presently available, Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years.53 In the present essay, I have shown that there is not even any good evidence for the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, insofar as the justification for the continuation of the AfPak war is based on the fact that bin Laden in the region both before and after the 9/11 attacks, that justification would seem to be doubly baseless.

David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books, nine of which are about 9/11. His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Olive Branch, 2009). In 2008, he put out two books: The New Pearl Harbor: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (which was named a "Pick of the Week" by Publishers Weekly) and Osama bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? (which has generated considerable media coverage in England).


  1. 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), Chap. 18, "Does the Government Have Hard Evidence of Bin Laden’s Responsibility?"
  2. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). This book was named Publishers Weekly’s "Pick of the Week" on November 24, 2008 (
  3. "Meet the Press," NBC, September 23, 2001 (
  4. "Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order," White House, September 24, 2001 (
  5. Seymour M. Hersh, "What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence," New Yorker, October 1, 2001 (
  6. "White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’" CNN, September 21, 2001 (
  7. Kathy Gannon, "Taliban Willing to Talk, But Wants U.S. Respect," Associated Press, November 1, 2001 (
  8. Office of the Prime Minister, "Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States," BBC News, October 4, 2001 (
  9. "The Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001 (
  10. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden" (
  11. Ed Haas, "FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’" Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (
  12. "Bin Laden’s FBI Poster Omits Any 9/11 Connection," KSLA 12 in Shreveport, Louisiana
  13. "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?" Washington Post, August 28, 2006 (
  14. Haas, "FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.’" 
  15. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006).
  16. David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised and updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007). This book won a bronze medal in the 2008 Independent Publishers Book Awards.
  17. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 149, 155, 166; henceforth 9/11CR.
  18. See 9/11CR Ch. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92.
  19. Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 118.
  20. Ibid., 122-24.
  21. Ibid., 119. I have discussed this issue at greater length in Ch. 8, "9/11 Commission Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and Saudis," of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.
  22. Robert Windrem and Victor Limjoco, "The 9/11 Commission Controversy," Deep Background: NBC News Investigations, January 30, 2008
  23. "U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden," Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (; "Pentagon Releases Bin Laden Videotape: U.S. Officials Say Tape Links Him to Sept. 11 Attacks," National Public Radio, December 13, 2001 The entire video can be viewed at this NPR Web page.
  24. See my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009), 23-26.
  25. "Could the Bin Laden Video Be a Fake?" BBC News, December 14, 2001 (
  26. "’Feeble’ to Claim Bin Laden Tape Fake: Bush," CBC, December 14, 2001 (
  27. Steven Morris, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape," Guardian, December 15, 2001 (
  28. Ibid.
  29. Toby Harnden, "US Casts Doubt on Bin Laden’s Latest Message," Telegraph, December 27, 2001
  30. "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden Would Need Help if on Dialysis," CNN, January 21, 2002
    ( For the tape, see ""Osama Bin Laden Tape Dezember [sic] 2001" (
  31. For a nose comparison, see "Osama bin Laden Gets a Nose Job" (,
    or "Bruce Lawrence," Radio Du Jour (  
  32. Compare his hands with bin Laden’s hand as shown in the post-November 16 video (
  33. This can be seen in a portion of the Jalalabad video placed on YouTube (
  34. For documentation and discussion, see Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? 27-29.
  35. "Interview with Usama bin Laden," Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001
    Bin Laden’s statement about innocents repeated what he had said in an interview with John Miller of ABC News in 1998: "Our religion forbids us from killing innocent people such as women and children"
  36. "Transcript of Usama bin Laden Video Tape," Department of Defense, December 13, 2001 (
  37. Bruce Lawrence is the editor of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (London and New York: Verso, 2005).
  38. Lawrence made these statements on February 16, 2007, during a radio interview conducted by Kevin Barrett of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It can be heard at Radio Du Jour (
  39. BBC News, "Tape ‘Proves Bin Laden’s Guilt,’" December 14, 2001 (
  40. Angelo M. Codevilla, "Osama bin Elvis," American Spectator, March 2009 (
  41. Maggie Michael, "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks," Associated Press, October 29, 2004 (
  42. Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 336.
  43. Philip Sherwell, "Bush Takes a Six-Point Lead After New Bin Laden Tape," Telegraph, November 1, 2004 (
  44. "Kerry Blames Defeat on Bin Laden," BBC News, January 31, 2005; "Bush Says Bin Laden Tape Aided Re-Election: Report," Reuters, February 28, 2006
  45. "Bin Laden’s Warning: Full Text," BBC News, October 7, 2001 (
  46. "BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement," November 7, 2001 (
  47. "Bin Laden’s Warning: Full Text."
  48. "BBC Transcript Of Osama Bin Laden Statement."
  49. See "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden," CNN, August 23, 2006, and Steve Coll, "Young Osama," New Yorker, December 12, 2005
  50. "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden."
  51. "Arnaud de Borchgrave Interviews Hameed Gul, Former Chief of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence," UPI, September 26, 2001 (; also available at(
  52. I have given a more thorough analysis of the problems in these two "confession videos" in my book Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books, 2009).
  53. "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" Veterans Today, October 22, 2009 (


The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on October 30, 2009, With Reads Filed under Veterans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

27 Responses to "BIN LADEN AND 9/11: THE EVIDENCE"

  1. Larry Korean Vet 1967  January 4, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Don’t forget that the word, “racist” was invented by Leon Trosky, real name, Lev Bronstein. The purpose of the word is today the same way it was used in Trotsky’s time – to suppress discussion, stigmatize, slander and attack opponents character with words the Communist don’t define and which there is no response you can use to vindicate yourself.

    The advocates of this Marxist/Capitalist group of people are dispersed throughout the world and use the internet, media to dominate the discussion boards, news and op-ed columns to make people think they are the majority view which should be adopted by the rest.

  2. Azeddine  November 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    “Cui Bono?” Who benefits (from a crime)? is the question that should be asked and next to look into the evidence at hand.
    The Project New American Century (PNAC) and the men behind it, among them Wolfowitz, ex destitute president of the World Bank, have given enough explicit indication about the need for “A New Pearl harbor” in order to implement the aims and objectives of the PNAC.
    98 % of the men who fathered said project were Jewish with strong Zionist inclinations, using their US citizenship and position within the system to defend the “Israel First” stance and to push the USA-GB into wars that have proved were based on blatant lies.
    The False Flag 9/11 tragedy was intended to serve just that: creating the needed excuse for a New World Order, tailor made to suit the interests of the smart guys who manage the Federal Reserve and Wailing Wall Street.
    There you have the motive and the intellectual perpetrators of the tragedy.
    There is enough evidence to show that the 9/11 was/is an inside job. The MOSSAD rules both Congress and Senate, via proxies and the AIPAC rules the US government. So, it`s just an academic discussion to talk about whether the MOSSAD did it or not. They were involved in the planning all right and sure in the execution phase as well.
    The buildings WTC-1, WTC 2 and WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolition and nano-thermite was used for it.

  3. Mike Corbeil  November 4, 2009 at 1:48 am


    You really need to wake up about Israel and the Mossad being behind the 9-11 attacks. You’re LOST and I wouldn’t want to trek through the same “wilderness” that you’re going through or stuck in.

    Don’t blame U.S. crimes on Israel. It’s criminal alright, but the U.S. government and the real rulers of it don’t need Israel to be globally and nationally criminal.

    You sort of remind of the malicious people who tried to get readers to believe that no planes hit the WTC towers, that, instead, it was all holograhic imagery that TV news crews caught on film. One or more of these people had me wondering if we have this capability, but it’s all bogus. Real planes hit the towers, the real ones anyway.

    Apparently, Israel was among the countries that provided the U.S. with forewarnings, which the U.S., according to the Bush-Cheney administration, evidently had no need for. After all, the Admin. ordered the FBI to stop carefully monitoring some Arabs in the U.S. suspected of planning attacks on and in the U.S. The Admn. clearly didn’t have a “need” for forewarnings; the Admin. acted entirely against them.

    Anyway, this another fine article by Prof. David Ray Griffin! I think his arguments are definitely strong or solid, but won’t verify all of the reference links that he provided; might not bother checking any of those articles, but will quickly review what they are, before deciding to read none of them. I viewed one or both of the so-called OBL videos he refers to in this article, which I first found a copy of at, where there’s an author index for him (for anyone wanting to check for the copy there); and I was already convinced that it was not OBL before having read from serious 9-11 truth researchers talking or writing about this; and I hadn’t seen more than only a few photos of OBL, but have a good memory for faces, visual featues. However, Prof. Griffin provides additionally important information about OBL having been fully fluent in English and the character or actor in the video speaking to Americans in non-English when most Americans wouldn’t understand the language used.

    Haven readers here heard of Barry Jennings and the important interview he provided to the Loose Change team? You really don’t want to miss viewing the following video, which I didn’t note the duration of, but it’s of generous length, very important, and I downloaded a backup copy in case it ever disappears from the Web; a 78 MB .flv format file.

    “Barry Jennings Uncut”, posted July 9, 2008

    (If you’re unable to determine how to download a copy of the video for yourself and want a good freeware tool for this, then I use Orbit Downloader, from There’s the Grab++ feature or function, which we just need to invoke and then reload the page with the embedded video in it, after which select the .flv file, except when it’s .mp4 or another format, in which case select that file, and click on the Download button. Works for pretty much all files, but not bitTorrent, in which case uTorrent’s downloader can be used. It’s apparently another very good freeware app. or tool.)

    • duffster  November 4, 2009 at 10:14 am

      Mossad is a convenient word.  Israel is a broad term.  I think it is fair to look at influences and even direct involvement from that area.  With intelligence sources stressing the vast and ubiquitious resources Israel has and the extremist elements within the country, those pointing fingers that direction, especially if they are specific and not generalized and tied only to operational issues, may have some traction.

      Rupert Murdoch is a powerful force in Israel and, since 9/11 has done everything imaginable to tell experienced observers that 9/11 was a gift from heaven personally for him.

      With so much lying, systematic, pervasive, and from an Israeli source, Murdoch himself is pointing a finger at Israeli involvement.


    • Mike Corbeil  November 9, 2009 at 4:40 am


      This is obviously tardy on my part, but I agree with your reply, which is very well stated. I had written plenty more for this reply, but the code was no longer valid, I didn’t do a CTRL-C copy before entering the code and clicking Submit, and this website doesn’t buffer what we write; therefore, the post was erased and won’t be re-written.

  4. 9/11 101  November 3, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    See “9/11 Unveiled” —

  5. Stephen M. St. John  November 3, 2009 at 12:17 am

    If certain elements within our government present bogus videos of Osama Bin Laden, as shown by David Ray Griffin, then it is not far fetched to believe they would also use a Dulles Airport video surveillance tape to frame the Arabs for the shock and awe crimes of 9/11. Read “Dulles Airport Shadow casts Doubt on the US Government’s 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” at

    • duffster  November 3, 2009 at 10:12 am


      Current hard intelligence supports Griffin.  "Belief oriented" conspiracy nuts are the only real believers in bin Laden…those and folks who watch too much TV.

      and of course


      Bin Laden is the new easter bunny.


    • Brian  November 3, 2009 at 12:26 pm

      The SITE Institute is often used to confirm Bin Laden audio and video tapes. It’s run by Rita Katz an Iraqi Jew. Her father was killed by the Iraqi government because they thought he was a spy for Israel. She later moved to Israel. Some people suggest the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, makes the bogus tapes and send them to Rita for verification.

      Mossad motto: Through deception though shall do war.

  6. David  November 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    9/11 was planned and executed by Osama Bin Laden et al. Bush and co. may have know an attack was about to take place but seeing it as an opportunity to invade and occupy Iraq, chose to keep quiet. That’s it, pure and simple. One other thing: It can certainly be argued that the US had it coming.

    • duffster  November 2, 2009 at 7:22 pm

      Nobody in the US has been able to, not only prove it, but show any evidence whatsoever.

      Check []

      See who is being sought for 9/11.  No bin Laden here.

      I am thinking of taking tours to visit his grave. 


    • Brian  November 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm

      Well, if you think Muslims and Bin Laden planned the 911 attacks you may want to read this. Yes it has a bit of an attitude and it’s not subtle.

      It wasn’t the Muslims.

  7. Kevin Barrett  November 1, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Bravo to Veterans Today for publishing this! The AfPak people know OBL didn’t do 9/11, so why shouldn’t Americans. According to, only 3% of Pakistanis blame al-Qaeda for 9/11. The mainstream media pussyfoots around this with little blurt-outs like “While Pakistanis are opposed to religious extremists, polls have shown a general refusal to acknowledge that al Qaida and its allies are directing the bloodshed.”

  8. Dennis Rick  October 30, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Well, I’m not going to shout racist comments like Brian has left here, for he is surely a racist..Hey Brian Obama half black and half white…lets here what you have to say about that? HmmmmmCat got your tongue?
    Thought so..Racist.

    Now for OBL, to tell you the truth I don’t think he was the “Master Mind” either of 9/11, for one I thought they already the “Master Mind” in GITMO. But I don’t think he is either.

    Me, I would look straight at Sudia and my thoughts would not wander one bit.

    Now as far as OBL going Hooah when the planes hit, Yea, he did, but that does not say he “Master Minded” the whole thing.

    I do think it took years of planning so that leaves Bush out all together (Sorry you Bush haters but he DIDN’T DO IT this time).

    I blame Clinton for his piss poor protection of our country that led to 9/11 for he knows a hellua more then he is saying or he wouldn’t have had Berger steal those classify documents. I blame Clinton for Iraq for he and Kerry and the democrat party swore up and down for YEARS!!!! that Iraq had WMD’s, I blame Clinton for Afgan, for he would have protected out country the “RIGHT” way, there very well not have been any 9/11.
    Crap, Clinton was President when they first hit the towers with trucks..what say you then? He fail and continue to fail all the way to 9/11 and has left us where we are today.

    Clinton is also responsible for our finanacial mess we are in….

    You people want to point a finger at, point it at Clinton and his party and no one else.

    • duffster  October 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm

      I was going to comment on the odd things here but, seeing it is Dennis Rick, I will pass.


    • Brian  October 30, 2009 at 9:51 pm

      Hmmm, you mentioned racist comments. I mentioned Israel’s intelligence agency and Zionists and somehow you twisted that into racist comments. If I had mentioned that Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency masterminded that 911 attacks would you call me a racist?

      By the way Zionism is a political movement. A lot of Jewish people are very against Zionism because of all the death and destruction that has been caused by a small cabal of Zionists. Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing.

      Zionism is why Palestinians are living in the illegal, immoral and cruel concentration camp known as Gaza. President Carter recently said the Palestinians are treated more like animals than people.

      Here is some very informative and powerful text on Zionism from the jewsagianstzionsim website:

      With the acquisition by the Zionist nationalists of the power to organize communities in Palestine, they formed the Vaad Haleumi Leknesset Yisroel (National Jewish Council Committee). This committee ignored the rights of the Orthodox veteran dwellers who did not recognize this validity of Jewish nationality, and whose identification as Jews was solely with their loyalty to their religious heritage. The religious inhabitants, on the other hand, shuddered at the prospects of spiritual disintegration of World Jewry, with the new rise to power of the Zionist nationalists.

      Such was the case until November 1948, when the United Nations finally sanctioned the establishment of a Zionist State. We do not doubt that their success in finally realizing their goal was due in great measure to their having misled the world into viewing the Zionist cause as the Jewish cause. The formation of the Zionist state resulted in the automatic deprivation of the autonomy heretofore possessed by the Orthodox inhabitants of the Holy Land.

      The Zionists grasped in the acquisition of their new powers, the opportunity to openly disassociate themselves from any identification with Jews as a religion. They systematically began to orient the minds of their generations according to the tenets of Zionist nationalism. Through the Ministry of Religions they employed part of the Rabbinate to assist them in their aims.

      The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.

    • Rex Carlson  November 1, 2009 at 1:52 am


      There is a clear and factual distinction between Zionists and Jews, just as there is between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Conflating them is both irresponsible and demeaning to Jews.

    • C  November 8, 2009 at 8:33 am

      LOL! You partisan zombies are so funny. Must be nice to be so naive that you just sit back and blame everything on the political party you like least. The 93 “attack” was massaged by the FBI from start to finish. Do yourself a favor and read ALL of this. Don’t just skim it, actually read it:

      There is no excuse to still be a partisan hack at this point. CLinton was a useless puppet just like Bush was, even if he did less damage overall than Bush. Both parties HATE you. Stop shilling for one of them like a dupe.

    • C  November 8, 2009 at 8:37 am

      Partisan Dennis, I’m sure you know all about the Carlyle group right? And how George H.W. Bush sat on the board with Shafeeg Bin LAden?(right up until 9/11) Both stood to make money off of the attacks and the wars that followed, as the Carlyle group is involved in the defense industry. Again, both parties hate and laugh at you. The Bush family laughs at you.

    • Sean Hannity  November 8, 2009 at 8:57 am

      Yep, its ALL the Democrats fault. Everything that goes wrong is. You are a great American just like me. Obey your media. We would NEVER lie.

    • Larry Korean Vet 1976  January 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      Don’t forget that the word, “racist” was invented by Leon Trosky, real name, Lev Bronstein. The purpose of the word is today the same way it was used in Trotsky’s time – to suppress discussion, stigmatize, slander and attack opponents character with words the Communist don’t define and which there is no response you can use to vindicate yourself.

      The advocates of this Marxist/Capitalist group of people are dispersed throughout the world and use the internet to dominate the discussion boards, news and op-ed columns to make people think they are the majority view which should be adopted by the rest.

  9. Mike  October 30, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    This is very interesting. well written piece on 9/11 and Bin Laden. Thanks for the information! Keep us updated, I’ll be back to your blog soon.

    veterans law []

  10. Brian  October 30, 2009 at 11:53 am

    I have a lot of respect for David Ray Griffin’s work. I am wondering when he is going to write about the obvious evidence that Israel’s Mossad (their intelligence agency) masterminded the 911 attacks to get sympathy for Israel and get America to join their fight against the Muslims. Oh the Dancing Israelis. Yes, perhaps there were other militant Zionists involved including some living in the United States.

    Muslims are not the problem, it’s the Mossad and their false flag attacks.

    • Rex Carlson  November 1, 2009 at 1:33 am

      I concur.

      I also encourage him to move forward on writing “9/11 101,”( i.e., a very basic text) for laymen/laywomen.

    • Elias Alias  November 1, 2009 at 4:24 am

      Brian, it may be wise to admit something Michael C. Ruppert once stated – paraphrasing here from a faulty memory – “Intelligence agencies provide services for governments.”
      If that is true, and I think it is, then the Pakistani ISI, the MOSSAD, the CIA and other U.S. Intel agencies, and many other Intel agencies of various nation-states, especially MI-6, could all be working for the government which governs governments – the one-world government. You’ll notice that various national Intelligence agencies co-operate on a global scale, and which of them has not worked in liaison with NATO?
      So I think we must look beyond the temptation to place blame for 9/11 on just the MOSSAD.
      The causal party in major false-flags would be the same forces which regulate the global economy, the World Court, the World Bank/International Monetary Fund, the world system of weights and measures, world education infrastructure, etc. That would be the United Nations, operating under a charter and constitution. Like, as in a “one-world” government. What else could the UN be? If it could not govern, could it have any authority as an organiztion of governments? Of coures the UN governs, and it’s trying to govern our America at present.
      We must not presume that the will of the American people is being vented when our own government is used by Intel agencies at the bidding of the new world order to attack the American people. Yet here it is –
      Note in that pdf the U.S. Army explains why psyops operate generally on the use of “surrogates”, and then note that some of those “surrogates” listed in that official document include “terrorists” and “terrorist cells”.
      It’s not just the MOSSAD. They work for the same world government the rogue element in our CIA works for. Ditto MI-6 and others, etc.
      And for grins and giggles, in closing, you might consider looking into the powers behind the Bank of England at the City of London.
      Elias Alias

    • C  November 8, 2009 at 8:29 am

      Griffin is afraid to call out Israels role in the attacks. Which is regrettable because he has done a lot of great work on the subject of 9/11. Griffin has no problem speculating about Cheney or Myers roles in the attacks but you won’t hear him mention Dov Zakheim or Dominic Suter. Or Philip Zach when it comes to the anthrax attacks for that matter. Dr. Griffin, we have your back, don’t be afraid to take on the Zionist/Israeli element of the attacks.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network