The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Were the Saudis Behind 9/11?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Claims that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks on America have been circulating since 2001. The Saudis have denied all such claims even though 15 of the 19 aircraft hijackers were Saudi citizens.

This week, allegations of Saudi involvement reignited as one of the men convicted in the 9/11 plot, Zacarias Moussaoui, reasserted the allegations. Moussaoui, who is in US maximum security prison, charges senior Saudi princes and officials bankrolled the 9/11 attacks and other al-Qaida operations. He may have been tortured and has mental problems.

Among the Saudis Moussaoui named are Prince Turki Faisal, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, two of the kingdom’s most powerful and influential men. Turki was head of Saudi intelligence; Bandar ambassador to Washington during the Bush administration.

These accusation come at a time when there is a furious struggle in Washington over releasing secret pages of the Congressional Intelligence Committee report on the 9/11 attacks that reportedly implicated Saudi Arabia. The White House claims the report would be embarrassing and damage US-Saudi relations.

I have been following this twisted tale since the 1980’s when I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Peshawar, Pakistan’s wild border city, I met with Sheik Abdullah Azzam, founder of al-Qaida.

At the time, al-Qaida was a tiny, store-front information bureau supporting the “mujahidin” fighters being sent by Saudi Arabia and the US to fight the Soviets occupying Afghanistan.

Sheik Abdullah, a renowned exponent of “jihad,” told me something that shook me: “when we have liberated Afghanistan from Soviet colonialism, we will go on and liberate Saudi Arabia from American colonial rule.” This was the first time I had ever heard America called a colonial power.

Azzam was assassinated soon after. But his star pupil, one Osama bin Laden, carried on Azzam’s quest to drive western influence from the Muslim world.

At the time, “our” Muslims fighting Soviet occupation were hailed as “freedom fighters” by President Ronald Reagan. Today, in a re-writing of history, they are widely called “terrorists.”

What Moussaoui reportedly said is that the two aforementioned senior Saudi princes, Turki and Bandar, donated money to the Afghan mujahidin during the 1980’s, not to al-Qaida. Many Americans will fail to understand the distinction

Saudi Arabia funneled large sums of money to militant groups in the Mideast, Balkans, Caucasus, Africa and South Asia. The purpose was twofold: first, to keep young hotheads as far as possible from the kingdom; second, to combat Iran’s spreading influence. Washington gave tacit backing.

Iran, gripped by Islamic revolutionary zeal, was sending preachers and teachers all over Asia and Africa, notably so in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Saudis, deathly afraid of the Islamic revolution in Tehran that called for sharing oil wealth with the Muslim world’s poor, waged a long proxy war against Iran that pitted Wahabi Sunnis against Shia. Washington, gripped by anti-Iranian fever, backed the Saudi religious offensive.

In the midst of this religious-political conflict arose the Saudi exile bin Laden. Though his father was one of the kingdom’s wealthiest men, bin Laden opposed the Saudi ruling princes whom he charged were stealing the Muslim world’s wealth and helping enable continued American domination of the Muslim world – what I called in my second book, “the American Raj.”

Having followed bin Laden’s career since the late 1980’s, I am convinced that he had no direct support from the ruling Saudi princes – nor from CIA. The Saudis were even more afraid of him than Iran. But I have no doubt, as I said on CNN back in 2001, that numerous wealthy Saudis and Kuwaitis were giving private donations to al-Qaida and other militant groups.

To the Americans, cutting off al-Qaida’s finances was a primary objective. They never understood – and still do not – that resistance to US influence may be facilitated by money but is not driven by it. The US’s enemies are motivated by ideology and revolutionary fervor, not cash. It’s hard for some westerners to understand that money is not behind everything.

What the media never talks about is that there has long been boiling dissent in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the world’s most rigid, reactionary nation. It comes from both the nation’s second-class Shia as well as the growing numbers of young Saudis who yearn to break out of the stultifying society in which they live. There are even rebels among the kingdom’s 22,000 princes.

A sizeable number of Saudis believe their nation is occupied by the United States. This is no chimera. There are some 40,000 American “technicians” and “contractors” in Saudi serving the oil industry and military. US forces in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Diego Garcia overwatch Saudi Arabia. There are secret US bases in Saudi. Israel is a secret ally of the Saudi royal family.

The Saudi royal family is protected by the America’s CIA, FBI, NSA, and military intelligence. This, however, is not guarantee of absolute security: the same arrangement was in place to guard Egypt’s military dictator, Husni Mubarak, yet failed. In the 1980’s, a full division of Pakistan’s crack army guarded the royal family. “The Saudis don’t trust their own military,” Pakistan’s late leader Zia ul-Haq told me after being seconded to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia maintains two parallel armed forces: a feeble army, which is denied ammunition, and the Bedouin or “White Army,” that protects the royal family. Most of the tens of billions of US and British arms bought by the kingdom sit rusting in warehouses, or are operated by western mercenaries. US mercenary firms direct the White Guard.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no reason for the Saudi royal elite to have funded Osma bin Laden or the 9/11 hijackers. But the attack was clearly an attempt by Saudi dissidents to strike back at US domination of their country.


In fact, the reasons for the 9/11 attacks have been all but obscured by a torrent of disinformation and hysteria. The attackers were quite clear in their reasons: to punish the US for supporting Israel and oppressing the Palestinians; and for its “occupation” of Saudi Arabia and keeping a tyrannical regime there in power.

The Bush administration claimed the attacks were caused by religious fanaticism and hatred of western values, a false dialogue that continues to this day as we just saw with the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris. Muslims are to have no legitimate political motivations; they are all mad dogs. Even if we attack their homelands, they have no right to attack us.

Saudi Arabia remains at a low boil, as western intelligence services hunt for opponents of its feudal government. The intense US preoccupation with remote Yemen reflects Washington’s deep concern that millions of Yemeni expatriates in Saudi could become a revolutionary vanguard. The bin Laden’s, of course, were of Yemeni origin.

Yes, men and funds for the 9/11 attacks likely came from Saudi Arabia; yes, the royal family knew about this – after the fact – but remains mum to this day; yes, Washington knows the Saudi princes knew, but remains mute and keeps trying to censor Part 4 of the damning 9/11 report. Too many senior US officials and legislators have been on the Saudi payroll.

While in office, Britain’s former prime minister, Tony Blair quashed a major report by the Serious Fraud Office into tens of millions in illicit kickbacks by British arms makers to Saudi royals…for “national security reasons.” Expect the same from Washington.

Few in official Washington want to know that America’s key ally, Saudi Arabia, was involved in 9/11. Even fewer want to reopen the 9/11 investigation which was full of holes and omissions and perhaps likely to raise questions about some of America’s other allies.

The change of ruler in Saudi has so far made little difference. The song remains the same. But behind the scenes, pressure is growing.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 9/11 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Bliss says:

    Thanks for this excellent, enlightening article.

  2. combover says:

    Pakistan’s “crack” army??? Here’s a journo who knows what he’s talking about…

  3. This article is riddled with misleading errors, going through them all would be the task of Sisyphus, so I’ll limit this initial comment to Margolis’ initial premise, which is built around the fact defense attorneys attempted to plead insanity on Moussaoui’s behalf against his will, but is construed Margoli as…

    Moussaoui, who is in US maximum security prison, charges senior Saudi princes and officials bankrolled the 9/11 attacks and other al-Qaida operations. He may have been tortured and has mental problems

    …if Margolis were honestly reporting, he’d not have omitted the fact the trial judge found Moussaoui not only competent but highly intelligent and more skilled than some of the attorneys in her court room:

    Mr. Moussaoui’s behavior at his trial in 2006 was sometimes erratic. He tried to fire his own lawyers, who presented evidence that he suffered from serious mental illness. But Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who presided, declared that she was “fully satisfied that Mr. Moussaoui is completely competent” and called him “an extremely intelligent man.”

    “He has actually a better understanding of the legal system than some lawyers I’ve seen in court,” she said.

    When developing new information and discovering the facts do not conform to one’s books, one should correct the books, not revise the facts. This article is worthless.

  4. This is just a potpourri of disinformation. Like, “15 of the 19 aircraft hijackers were Saudi citizens.” This means that 15 of the 19 stolen identities (most likely stolen) of the ALLEGED hijackers were those of Saudi citizens. Well, what does that mean? It means that whoever did this wanted us to believe that Arabs did it. Nothing more, nothing less.

    It is now over thirteen years after the events of 9/11 and independent researchers have established that the whole official story is false. The buildings were not brought down by being struck with airplanes, but rather, by controlled demolition. At this point, this is an established fact. The plane hijacking part of the narrative only exists in order to frame the Arabs, claiming that this is “Islamic Terrorism”. Jihadi groups such as the mythical Al Qaeda had no capacity to wire skyscrapers for demolition.

    Whoever did this had to be able to provide highly skilled explosive experts with access to the key inner parts of the building.

    Whoever was behind this event had to believe that they had a very strong degree of control over the mainstream media message so that they could establish their narrative in the immediate aftermath.

    Whoever did this had to believe that they would benefit from the psychological atmosphere resulting from the attacks.

    Which group is that?

    Now, who has a history of staging terrorist attacks and framing Muslims for them? Suspicions quite naturally fall on a certain country in the Middle East. That country is NOT Saudi Arabia.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
  5. @Ronald Thomas West

    Why do you believe, of all things, that this Moussaoui issue is of central importance? That guy is obviously just a patsy. You are certainly right, however, that this article is worthless.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  6. @Jonathan Revusky

    Why do you believe, of all things, that this Moussaoui issue is of central importance

    What a stretch of the imagination, reading that into my comment. Let me clarify how anyone should be able to read what I’d posted; I stated the article is riddled with errors. Per example, I pointed out Margolis opens with stating Moussaoui has mental problems, Margolis ignoring the fact of Moussaoui’s trial judge made a court finding Moussaoui was fully competent. That informs with simple but telling example of how Margolis presents his ‘facts.’ And that’s what people do when they’ve a vested interest in protecting a line of thinking, in this case, promoting protecting his books as opposed to exploring where newly developing information might lead. It’s a path taken by ethical midgets.

    Now, will you like to further imagine up how it is I see things?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  7. @Ronald Thomas West

    What does it mean precisely to say that somebody “has mental problems” anyway? It’s very subjective. Doesn’t every real human being have “mental problems” to a greater or lesser extent?

    So it is hard to see what this even means… or why, of all things, you would point to this as a factual error on Margolis’s part.

    Has it every occurred to you that the State has a vested interest in saying that Moussaoui was mentally competent? If you’re hyping some fearsome international terrorist organization called “Al Qaeda” and the one genuine Al Qaeda “terrorist” you’ve purportedly captured alive is just some obvious whack job and misfit, whom nobody would trust to hold up the local 7-11, this undermines your narrative, right? After all, you’re trying to get everybody terrified of this “Al Qaeda” boogeyman. So you have to say: “No, this guy actually is a highly functional individual!”

    My sense of things is that (a) this is one of the few things that Margolis got right in the article; Moussaoui probably is some kind of whack job. That is typical of the patsies that intelligence agencies would use. And (b) it doesn’t matter that much anyway. The buildings were rigged for controlled demolition. The whole plane hijacking story is a red herring.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    How did trial judge come to that conclusion? Did he order a mental health examination? Isn’t supposed to do that to someone who is openly self incriminating?

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  9. @Jonathan Revusky

    What a bunch of joke supposition. Insofar as:

    Has it every occurred to you that the State has a vested interest in saying that Moussaoui was mentally competent?

    I worked for a trial lawyer for years. The defense attorneys were trying to get their client labeled crazy, not because he was crazy, but because they felt that was his best defense.

    As for the rest of your crappy projection into what you think I believe, this is about as far as I’d gone with 9/11 until recently:

    That is until a few days ago, when I’d posted this following in another post:

    The ‘high five’ MOSSAD agents on 9/11 might indicate a Jewish role in the attacks … and ‘world Jewish conspiracy’ freaks would take that as gospel truth, or indisputable evidence but it might merely indicate MOSSAD had been sucked into a play that distracted from the more important actors. The same could be said of the allegations by Zacarias Moussaoui implicating the Saudis, but what is missed and not reported in mainstream is the fact the most damning evidence points squarely to the evangelical ‘Christian Dominion’ personality Dick Cheney; according the highest ranking former intelligence officer yet to speak out, Major General Stubblebine of the United States Army:

    In the Indian country where I grew up, they have an expression for persons like yourself, it’s called ‘someone not worth talking to. Adios dude.

    • Replies: @George Archers
  10. @Anonymous

    The trial judge was a woman, Leonie Brinkema:

    A defendant in conflict with his attorneys is given their say in the tradition of ‘pro se’ or the right to defend oneself. The outcome is often the lawyer’s proverb ‘a man who represents himself has a fool for an attorney.’ On the other hand, some ‘jailhouse lawyers’ are pretty good and I notice Moussaoui was not sentenced to death. Who knows why not, but I can speculate it might have complicated the case from the judge’s point of view, precisely on account of Moussaoui’s difficulties with his attorneys.

    Btw, none of what I’m stating here bears on what I might think actually happened behind the scene.

  11. They have an essay contest to honor the dead king. In the US honor is dead. First responders are dying early from 9/11. Try to keep the radar on and stay off the radar. Find somebody to blame. Take pride in Saudi America.

  12. Dr Niels Harrit, Uni of Copenhagen, and other scientists found nano-thermite. OBL didn’t have access to nano-thermite. From a military laboratory in Israel ? The 5 Israeli “art students” were ready to celebrate when it happened, so they must have known it beforehand. In Israel they said on TV that they were there “to document the event”. They were standing on a hill outside N.Y. ready to film when it happened. Isn’t that strange ?
    Was the attack made by Mossad and PNAC ?

  13. @Ronald Thomas West

    Listen Dude–stop blaming the Christians . American Jews were behind the whole 911 operation. Worse Bill Clinton was also behind it. American Jews proposed to Slick Willy–they wanted 7 middle East countries destroyed.What better way—put the fear in Americans to go along.
    Eric Morg is a Israel born operative. He’d be out of business in no time if he connected his Kins–in a 911 nuke WTC 1 and 2 attacks.
    Why would Americunt Christians benefit from terrorizing Americans or Muslims? Grow up-do some learning in basic Physics :^(

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  14. moi says:

    Looked like a controlled demolition to me. Nuff said!

  15. @George Archers

    When people (like yourself) deny reality and obsess with Jews while pretending Christians are all lily-White (pun intended), what happens in actuality is, they couldn’t find their own ass with both hands in matters of intelligence. Christians are no different to Jews in the sense of both cultures produce creepy sociopaths who’re power hungry and both cultures produce perfectly good people. General Stubblebine points directly to radical evangelical Christians (Bush-Cheney) as at the levers of power necessary to act on shutting down the USA’s air defense on 9/11, necessary to bring the attacks off, and clearly he is correct. Moreover, it was a Christian dominated congress that produced a whitewash investigative report. Setting your ‘exclusive’ assertion of American Jews aside (moronic), does that mean MOSSAD had no role? Of course not. MOSSAD is highly active in Jewish communities throughout the world and the USA is no exception. Does a high level Christian involvement mean MOSSAD had nothing to do with 9/11? No. Does any of the evidence mean the Israelis were a senior partner in bringing off 9/11? No. They could have been manipulated, no different to the Saudis could have been manipulated. Related to this, criminals are in the habit of alliances of convenience, it happens everyday. And Intelligence agencies happen to be among the world’s most criminal organizations, that’s the nature of the beast. But none of it means anything except there are very solid reasons to pry into 9/11 and attempt to sort who the big time players are and an important place to investigate (inter alia) is the Doug Coe cult, the fascist Christian group behind the National Prayer Breakfast:

    It’s actually great when people like yourself make ludicrous assertions because it justifies pointing out (above link) how social prejudices such as your own, detract from accurate perceptions of reality and there are intelligent people will read this, its not all about you.

  16. Arnold says:

    9-11 was a Cheney-Netanyaho-Bandar Bush operation and Osama Bin Laden was the patsy.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    I hope that Mr. Margolis will answer this charge.
    What he says seems eminently sensible, and accords with my understanding of events.
    An actual debate would be very helpful at this point — there isn’t much out there besides disinformation, disingenuousness, deception and inuendo.

  18. @Anonymous

    I hope that Mr. Margolis will answer this charge

    In that case, I’d like to see him explain (over the objections of 2,200 certified architects & engineers) how it is WTC Building 7 died of fright.

  19. @Anonymous

    “I hope that Mr. Margolis will answer this charge.”

    LOL. Of course he won’t. That’s not the way these sorts of disinfo guys operate.

    “What he says seems eminently sensible, and accords with my understanding of events.”

    Interesting. Quick question: for you, what is the single most important piece of evidence that shows that these jihadi Arabs, a.k.a. “Al Qaeda” really had anything to do with the events of 9/11? (I mean, obviously aside from their role as patsies on whom to pin the blame…)

  20. @Anonymous

    If you can wrap your head around the fact over 2,200 certified architects & engineers have directly disputed the official report on 9/11, that’s a good start. Now, consider what happened to a 47 story steel & concrete modern structure on the afternoon of 9/11.

    No plane hit Building 7, only minor debris.

    Building 7 is the only modern steel structure in the world purportedly brought down by minor fire, compared to other steel structures surviving much larger & more intense fires.

    The 1,500 professionally trained architects & engineers who dispute the government’s WTC Building 7 collapse explanation (above video) has grown to 2,200 professionally trained architects & engineers who dispute the government’s WTC Building 7 collapse explanation (below video)

    ^ Explain that away


    The Arabian Peninsula has never — since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas — been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food…

    No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them…:

    First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

    If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

    Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

    So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.


    9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow fires one of the commission’s investigators, Dana Leseman, with whom he has had a number of conflicts (see April 2003). Leseman and a colleague were researching a possible link between two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, and elements of the government of Saudi Arabia.
    Blocked – The firing stems from a dispute over the handling of classified information. Leseman asked Zelikow to provide her with a document she needed for her work, 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report she had helped research herself, but Zelikow had failed to do so for some time (see April 2003 and August 1-3, 2003).

    According to the New Republic, the section outlines “connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family.” An anonymous official is quoted as saying, “There’s a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone’s chasing the charities. They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We’re not talking about rogue elements. We’re talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government.… If the people in the administration trying to link Iraq to al-Qaeda had one-one-thousandth of the stuff that the 28 pages has linking a foreign government to al-Qaeda, they would have been in good shape.… If the 28 pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight.” [New Republic, 8/1/2003] The section also is critical that the issue of foreign government support remains unresolved. One section reads, “In their testimony, neither CIA or FBI officials were able to address definitely the extent of such support for the hijackers, globally or within the United States, or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent in nature. This gap in intelligence community coverage is unacceptable.” [Boston Globe, 8/3/2003]

  23. “The attackers were quite clear in their reasons: to punish the US for supporting Israel and oppressing the Palestinians; and for its “occupation” of Saudi Arabia and keeping a tyrannical regime there in power.”

    They didn’t actually mention Israel & the Palestinians – you’re projecting. They said it was about US occupation of Arabia.

  24. Pat Casey says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    It is now over thirteen years after the events of 9/11 and independent researchers have established that the whole official story is false. The buildings were not brought down by being struck with airplanes, but rather, by controlled demolition. At this point, this is an established fact.

    Thank you. And the fact that, at this point, anyone who does 100 minutes of research, mostly on youtube, cannot deny this without choosing to be self-consciously stupid makes me feel safe enough to say that under my Christian name.

    The elephant in the room is a little more dangerous to mention I have to think. Loose Change didn’t, and neither does Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Justice. Wikipedia does tbough: Building 7 not only was, but was built to be the CIA’s largest office outside of Langley. In other words, that building was a fortress disguised as an office building.

    But you know what? So what. I would never so much as pick up a picket sign to protest about it, even though this is both the most transparent and the most lethal conspiracy of its kind that ever will be carried out. Because it is the most daring conspiracy that ever could be carried out.

    In cold objective terms, I can’t help but admire the minds that had the capability and the courage to see that operation through. And they continue to see it through.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  25. Pat Casey says:

    My opinion on Building Seven is a 180 from every other theory I’ve come across. The only reason to take it down was to send a message to the U.S. government. Whoever did it knew that everyone who matters would know the truth about how that building came down. Which was the point. You will let us get away with this because you can see that we can do whatever we want to do.

    I would be highly careful about anything you read online about Israelis and 9/11. Lots of honey-pots for crack-pots out there. Paging Mr. Ward Kendall…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  26. Tom_R says:


  27. @Pat Casey

    Well, I don’t begrudge you the right to admire the audacity of the people who did this, their… (looking for the a propos word..) Chutzpah! Yes! That’s the word!

    But the other question is what all this tells us about commentators, like Eric Margolis among many others, who keep going on about Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. If the buildings were obviously prepared for demolition prior to the day of the operation, do these people believe that anybody, jihadists or not, would sacrifice their best operatives, men so devoted to the cause that they could be trusted to immolate themselves, in order to fly planes into buildings that were prepared for implosion anyway???

    Once you realize that the the buildings were indeed prepped for demolition, and that’s just a fact, surely you realize that all the people pushing all this nonsense about planes and hijackers are just purveyors of disinformation. What’s more, I see a ramp-up of this nonsense, insinuating all this stuff about Saudi Arabia now.

    All that said, Margolis may not be a conscious purveyor of disinformation. The man may not be all that bright and he may be just passing along stuff that people are feeding him.

  28. @Pat Casey

    Yes, your theory of building 7 has a lot of merit. If this was such a secure building, the CIA’s NYC headquarters, and they were showing that they could wire it for demolition and blow it and get away with it without even some simulacrum of a plane hitting it… that could be a clear message, yes… speculative, but interesting idea that I hadn’t thought of. Thank your for that.

    Of course, another aspect of it is that they nonetheless made sure that nobody (or very few people anyway) died in building 7. They announced that it was going to collapse before it did even though there was no technical reason to think that it would collapse from a few office fires. Whoever was behind this did not dare (or at least did not think it in their interests) to blow the building when it was full of CIA people (and others.) Of course, maybe it’s just that Mossad would not kill a bunch of CIA operatives, made sure they were out of the building, simply as a question of elemental professional courtesy.

    As for your comments about the Israeli connection, well, they’re obviously the prime suspects. Look, whenever you see a gruesome terrorist attack and Arabs being framed for it, if your assumption is that this is Mossad behind it, you will almost always be right. That’s not anti-semitism. That’s just the way it is.

  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    How about the USA/Israeli connection to 9/11. Mini nukes took down the towers. What about WT7, it went down all by itself. The Saudis might have a lot of money but doing 9/11 are you serious?

  30. Enver Masud says: • Website

    There may have been Saudis involved as patsies. For clues to who were the masterminds behind 9/11, read my letter to President Obama — and click on the links to download the evidence.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.