"If one were to suggest that there are still questions that remain regarding the September 2001 terrorist attacks, they would be called a conspiracy theorist. If you were to go so far as to suggest that there was an obvious cover-up involved, which withheld information from the public at large that made clear connections between the attacks and a planned, state-sponsored act of war, some would call you delusional."
The passage above is excerpted from a portion of recent commentary I provided on this subject, discussing elements that, when given only a cursory glance, are capable of arousing interest, suspicion, and disgust all at once. The title of this post, however, features a string of words I hadn't expected to catch myself writing at any point soon... ever, perhaps. And yet, according to a number of reliable sources, there may in fact be a "smoking gun" after all, pertaining to the most horrid act of terrorism ever to occur on United States soil.
There's little need for talk of an inside job, nor the idea of foreknowledge of an attack (the latter being a position I've certainly questioned) in order to see that the entire story about September 11, 2001, has yet to be told. The question, however, is whether we would still call it purely an act of terror once--or if, I should say--the whole truth were to be revealed.
A recent article appearing in the New York Post discussed the work of Paul Sperry, an author who, like many others, including congressmen and civilian researchers, believe that there may be evidence of a Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
"The Saudis deny any role in 9/11," Sperry writes, citing a CIA memo that purportedly references "incontrovertible evidence" that elements within the Saudi government "helped the (9-11) hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war."
The investigative report, commissioned by Congress, contained a 7200 word redacted portion that was allegedly ordered to be removed by then President George W. Bush, and while specific information about the redacted portion of the document has not--and cannot, presently--be discussed, the evidence based on certain information that has been leaked already seems to point to a Saudi connection with the terror plot that brought down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood.
Bob Graham, a former U.S. Senator from Florida, has championed the cause for reinvestigating the possible Saudi ties to the 9/11 plot, having authored a book on the subject, along with several articles, and having conducted numerous interviews on the subject. He notes that, despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission failed to include substantial information about the Saudi connection in its report, Dr. Philip Zelikow, who had served as executive director during the investigation, has changed his mind in recent years, based on forthcoming evidence:
Despite the carefully orchestrated campaign to protect our Saudi "friends," ample evidence of Saudi Arabia's intimate ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks has come to light. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow, stated in 2007 that while at that time he did not feel the evidence established "Saudi government agents," were involved "there is persuasive evidence of a possible support network..."
The "evidence" includes a number of dumbfounding connections between Saudi officials operating in the United States prior to the attack, as well as strange departures carried out shortly afterward. Among these, perhaps most damning were the meetings between two of the hijackers, shortly after their arrival at LAX, with Omar al-Bayoumi, a man presumed to be a Saudi intelligence agent operating in the United States at the time. The three supposedly met in a restaurant, by chance, on the day the hijackers arrived; however, experts have pointed out that al-Bayoumi had allegedly driven more than 40 miles to reach the restaurant where the chance-meeting transpired. Of equal suspicion had been the suspected meeting on the night before the attacks between three hijackers and Saleh Hussayen, who had left one hotel already, and moved (rather conveniently) to a second hotel where the trio had been staying. When questioned about this later by the FBI, Hussayen allegedly faked having a seizure during the interrogation, after which he was taken to a hospital, found to be perfectly healthy, and was subsequently released by the FBI. Again, no mention of this convoluted incident made its way into the 9/11 Commission's report.
Despite the strange circumstances that have have already managed to arouse suspicions about a Saudi connection to the attacks, the lingering possibility of confirmation which the redacted 7200 words might offer is tantalizing, to say the least. The question, however, is would that information, kept hidden away since the early years of the Bush administration, really be worth the risk of releasing now... even under the pressure from government officials pressing for truth? Perhaps most importantly, if that information were to be released and confirmed, would questioning so-called "alternative" narratives as to what occurred in 2001, even in the light of new evidence, still be relegated to the realm of being mere "conspiracy theories"?