Muslims Attack America on 9/11?
By Ibn e Abdul Haq
Clearing House" -"PTV"
- Almost 12
years and many a million deaths later, the US and its NATO
allies have made public their plan to start withdrawal from
Afghanistan in 2014. The war in Afghanistan has been an abject
failure, orphaned both on the military and the public relations
fronts, with the loss of life, property, and infrastructure
More importantly, contrary
to initial claims, the global war on terror has not made the
world a safer place. Instances of terrorism have continuously
been on a rise, engulfing one after another the countries
neighboring Afghanistan. Lest we forget, almost all subsequent
wars waged by US and NATO have had their genesis in the war that
was thrust onto Afghanistan after 9/11.
Much of America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on
the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This
assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact every war fought by US and its
allies during the first decade of the third millennium has been
founded in the post-9/11 doctrine of preemption.
It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for
attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were
Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks.
But it is still widely believed that the US attack on
Afghanistan was justified. For more than a decade now, the
corporate media around the world has consistently been forcing
this fantastic narrative as an undisputable fact. It seems
likely that the indoctrination will increase to new levels as
spin-doctors try to justify the Afghanistan withdrawal plan and
prove that the ‘war on terror’ has been a success unmatched in
The stage has been set for a massive ploy of psychological and
media war to be unleashed on the unsuspecting minds of the
masses. For example, as recently as in 2011, the New York
Times while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a “war of
choice,” called the battle in Afghanistan a “war of necessity.”
Time magazine dubbed it “the right war.” And in 2009, Barack
Obama was reported to have said ‘one reason to wind down our
involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to “go
after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on
2012, after his reelection, Barack Obama was reported to
have said ‘The war against terror has been won, with the
main perpetrators, including Osama Bin Laden, brought to
justice.’ ‘We will continue to fight Al-Qaeda on all fronts
and support the cause of freedom and human rights around the
world’, he added, giving us a glimpse of what the US and its
NATO allies have in store for the world in general and for
the Middle East in particular, in time to come.
assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 lies
behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently
violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven
innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to
portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a
controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New
Yorker. There has also been a steady increase in reported
incidents of Islamophobia, ranging from hate speech against
Muslim communities to incidents of insulting the Qur’an and the
prophet of Islam.
As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11
developments, including spying, torture, extraordinary
rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of
preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending,
the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were
attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative
consequences for both international and US domestic issues. In
light of the unfolding events it becomes essential to recap the
real ‘facts’ about 9/11, which served as the pretext for the
whole campaign named ‘war on terror’.
Is it conceivable that 9/11 was not done by Muslims? Insofar as
Americans and Europeans would say “No,” they would express their
belief that this assumption is not merely an “assumption” but is
instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined,
however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak.
This can be illustrated by means of 12 questions.
1. Were Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers devout Muslims?
The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is
that they were devout Muslims. But this portrayal is
contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco
Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made
“at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in
some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.”
These activities were “un-Islamic” because, as the head of the
Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: “True Muslims don’t
drink, don’t gamble and don’t go to strip clubs.”
2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s
Responsibility for 9/11?
Mystery shrouds the character of Osama bin Laden even after his
alleged death. Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the
hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about
the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin
Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin
Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report
was written as if there were no question about this claim. But
neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any
proof for it.
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking
to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” said 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.” But at a press conference with President Bush the
next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the
government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s
responsibility, “most of it is classified.” 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
It is often claimed that bin Laden’s guilt is proved by a video,
reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in
November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to accept
responsibility for planning the attacks. But critics, pointing
out various problems with this “confession video,” have called
it a fake. General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan’s ISI,
said: “I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike.”
Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike,
being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose,
wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand. The FBI, in
any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence
of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11.
Therefore, the White House, the British government, the FBI or
the 9/11 Commission have not provided solid evidence that Osama
bin Laden was behind 9/11.
3. Was evidence of Muslim hijackers provided by phone calls
from the airliners?
Many readers may think that there can be no doubt that the
airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their
presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls
by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls
playing an especially prominent role.
The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator
Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him
twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying
that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots,
were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed
with] knives and cardboard cutters.”
Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did
not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were
members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls
from other flights which stated the hijackers to be ‘Middle
Eastern-looking men’ and ‘Having an Islamic look’. From these
calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers
looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.
There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls:
Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from
airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet,
especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not
possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a
minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above
30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some
credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many
years had written a column for Scientific American.
Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone
calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it
implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including
those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the
planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one
would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.
4. Was the presence of hijackers proved by a radio
transmission “from American 11?
It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because
we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks
to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its
hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air
traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission in
which someone told the passengers: “We have some planes. Just
stay quiet, and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the
airport.” After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote:
“The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking.”
Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been
It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission
claimed, the “transmission came from American 11.” But we do
not. According to the FAA’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack
Events,” published September 17, 2001, the transmission was
“from an unknown origin.” The Commission’s claim that it came
from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could
have come from the same room from which the passenger calls
Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like
the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence
that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.
5. Did passports and a headband provide evidence that
al-Qaeda operatives were on the flights?
However, the government’s case for al-Qaeda hijackers also
rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging
to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these
claims are patently absurd.
A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the
streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center had
discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam
al-Suqami. But this claim did not pass the giggle test. ‘The
idea that this passport had escaped from that inferno
unscathed,’ wrote one British reporter, ‘would test the
credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on
Also found on the ground, according to the government’s evidence
presented, was a red headband. This was considered evidence that
al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were,
according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But
besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about
the passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for
another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train
the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it
would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would
have worn such headbands:
The red headband is a uniquely Shi’a Muslim adornment. It is
something that dates back to the formation of the Shi’a sect. .
. . It represents the preparation of he who wears this red
headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause.
Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin
Laden and they do not do this.
We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people
in the US government did not know the difference between Shi’a
and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers
would be described as wearing red headbands?
6. Did the information in Atta’s luggage prove the
responsibility of al-Qaeda operatives?
The evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that
the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members
of al-Qaeda is the two pieces of Atta’s luggage that were
discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The
luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was
already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda
operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to
Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter
flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on
American Flight 11, but Atta’s luggage did not make it.
This luggage is said to have contained much incriminating
material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator
manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule
flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta’s last will and
testament. This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda
and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks. When
closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all
One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to
take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to
Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying
aids do inside a suitcase in the plane’s luggage compartment?
Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned
to crash into the World Trade Center?
The biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not
appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the
collapse of an earlier story. According to news reports
immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than
being found in Atta’s luggage inside the airport, were found in
a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport
parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland
and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next
morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. This
story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was
discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly
been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had
not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the
Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we
avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?
7. Were al-Qaeda operatives captured on airport security
Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda
operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos,
purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show
hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for
example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport “were
flashed round the world.” However, although it was widely
assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they
were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta
or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston’s Logan Airport
were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that
Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.
Therefore, video proof that the named hijackers checked into
airports on 9/11 is nonexistent.
8. Were the names of the “hijackers” on the passenger
What about the passenger manifests, which list all the
passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased
tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on
the manifests for these flights. The passenger manifests that
were released to the public included no names of any of the 19
alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names
whatsoever. These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion
that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.
9. Did DNA test identify five hijackers among the victims at
If a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level,
it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the
ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low
hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged
impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a
putting green. The purported debris began showing up later and
may have been dropped from a C-130 that was observed circling
Moreover, the lack of positive identification of the alleged
hijackers in DNA tests is consistent with the autopsy report,
which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA
request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he
revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.
10. Has the claim that some of the “hijackers” are still
alive been debunked?
Another problem with the claim that the 19 hijackers were
correctly identified on 9/11, or at least a few days later, is
that some of the men on the FBI’s final list reportedly turned
up alive after 9/11. On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an
article by David Bamford entitled “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in
Morocco.” It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the
FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. The following day,
September 23, the BBC published another story, “Hijack
‘Suspects’ Alive and Well.”
11. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda capable of orchestrating the
For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they
must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and
opportunity) to do so. But several political and military
leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and
al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General
Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the
Russian armed forces, wrote:
Only secret services and their current chiefs-or those retired
but still having influence inside the state organizations-have
the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such
magnitude . . . Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the
organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They
do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.
Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former foreign minister of
Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of
this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it
was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I
laugh because I know what is there.
Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the
former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by
General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s
army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan
12. WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
Given the fact that WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane its
vertical collapse at virtually free-fall speed, which was
preceded by explosions and involved the melting of steel, was
still more obviously an example of controlled demolition. For
example, Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah
State University, who has been given special recognition by
Scientific American, said: “Obviously it was the result of
controlled demolition.” Likewise, when Danny Jowenko-a
controlled demolition expert in the Netherlands who had not
known that WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11-was asked to comment on a
video of its collapse, he said: “They simply blew up columns,
and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . It’s been imploded. . .
. A team of experts did this.”
The destruction of Building 7 of the World Trade Center had to
have been an inside job.
As a decade-long phase of the war imposed on false pretenses
begins to come to an end in Afghanistan, starting 2014, the
question of who benefitted from 9/11 is no longer unsolved. In
the last 12 years or so, the world has witnessed rich dividends
reaped by USA, Western Europe and Israel on the political,
diplomatic, territorial and economic fronts as a result of these
wars. Afghanistan, Iraq and their Muslim neighbors have, on the
other hand, been victims of violence, bloodshed and atrocities
committed by the US and its NATO allies. The Western military
machine has been stampeding all around the globe with its feet
stained with the blood of millions of innocent Muslims.
The official version with all its proffered evidence that
America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to
critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is
determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be
frightening. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. People’s
confidence in the moral integrity and political correctness of
the West would crumble. The most immediate consequence, however,
would be a reversal in those attitudes and policies that have
been based on the assumption that America was attacked by
Muslims on 9/11.
What's your response?
Scroll down to add / read comments
We are testing a
new comment software and would appreciate your opinion.
Please read our
Comment Policy before posting -
Please read our
Comment Policy before posting -
We ask readers to play a proactive role and click
the "Report link [at the base of each comment] when
in your opinion, comments cross the line and become
purely offensive, racist or disrespectful to others.