Tag: 9/11

How the CIA Deliberately Allowed Two 9/11 Hijackers Into the US

Tucker Carlson has a new series coming out called “The 9/11 Files”, the first episode of which I stumbled across today on Rumble. It covers how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was tracking two of the alleged hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

The CIA tracked Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar to a meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia, in early 2000 and knew they had visas to enter the US but “failed” to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI also “failed” to learn about the two operatives being in the country despite the pair renting a room in the home of an FBI informant.

The first episode of “The 9/11 Files”, published today, is titled “The CIA’s Secret Mission Gone Wrong“. Here’s the video description:

A former FBI agent who was embedded in the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, Mark Rossini, claims the CIA was fully aware that the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States planning an attack. Rather than inform the FBI, the CIA tried to recruit two of the hijackers for a “false-flag” operation, which quickly spiraled out of control. The failed mission raises urgent questions about government secrecy, intelligence failures, and what really happened before 9/11.

Keep reading

How Tyranny Becomes Entrenched: 9/11 and the Police State’s Endless Power Grabs

hey said it was for safety. They said it was for order. They said it was for the good of the nation.

They always say it’s for something good… until it isn’t.

Nearly a quarter-century after 9/11, we are still living with the consequences of fear-driven government power grabs. What began as “temporary” measures for our security have hardened into a permanent architecture of control.

The bipartisan police-state architecture that began with 9/11 has been passed from president to president and party to party, each recycling the same justifications—safety, security, patriotism—to expand its powers at the expense of the citizenry.

So they locked down the country “for our safety.”
They expanded surveillance “for our security.”
They rounded up anyone who challenged the narrative “for the common good.”
They erased names, ideas, and histories “to prevent offense.”
They forced schools to teach only what was politically correct “for the children.”
They censored speech “for our protection.”
They targeted dissenters “to preserve peace.”
They militarized the streets and called it “law and order.”

These very abuses—once denounced when carried out by the Left—are now cheered, defended, and excused when carried out by the Right.

People who once spoke passionately about truth, freedom, and faith have now fallen silent in the face of injustice, or worse, convinced themselves that nothing is wrong. The very voices that should be warning against tyranny are instead excusing it or looking away.

This is the danger of double standards in politics: every tyranny is rationalized in the moment by its chorus of defenders.

But history teaches that what goes around comes around. If you justify it now, you’ll have no defense when the tables turn.

And yet, time and again, the lies we tell ourselves make it possible. The cult of personality. The blind loyalty to party. The belief that “our side” can’t be the villain.

It never ceases to amaze how far people will go to excuse the actions of their favorite tyrant, even when those actions are the very things they once swore to oppose.

The pattern of justifying tyranny is as old as power itself. Every abuse comes wrapped in the same excuse: we had to do it.

Keep reading

US Mourns The Victims of 9/11, But What Of The Victims Of The “War On Terror”?

In a video reportedly from 2006, a young Iraqi child was captured asking a U.S. soldier why America killed his dad. The soldier being questioned responds that it wasn’t him who killed the young boy’s father. When the child continues his line of questioning, the soldier turns the question around, asking him “do you hate Americans?” and “do you want to shoot me?” Elsewhere, graffiti on a wall in Sanaa, Yemen, depicts a U.S. drone and text written in Arabic and English by a child that says “why did you kill my family.”

Thousands of miles away, Hussein Al-Marfadi, one of many Muslim men who were incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay without charge, was transferred after 12 years in detention to Slovakia — a country where he had no roots. Lamenting his predicament, he said the Americans “killed our youth in Guantánamo and then they tossed us away like garbage.”

At another notorious prison, Abu Ghraib, a prison that the U.S. took over after it destroyed and occupied the country in 2003, Iraqis were subjected to the most egregious torture at the hands of Americans. Commenting on how his experience at the prison impacted him, Talib al-Majli — an Iraqi man who was incarcerated there for 16 months and never charged with anything — stated that “To this day I feel humiliation for what was done to me … The time I spent in Abu Ghraib — it ended my life. I’m only half a human now.”

Amid the violence of the U.S.’s war on terror, these stories, and hundreds of thousands more like them, are a reminder that Muslim people and communities have been rendered disposable as a means to the U.S.’s national security ends.

Unfortunately, the violence of the war on terror, which has been marked by militarism, draconian immigration policies, surveillance, federal terrorism prosecutions, detention, and torture has, thus far, continued unbated. This has resulted in the ongoing targeting and victimization of Muslim and other marginalized communities. Moreover, since Donald Trump began his second tenure as president, he has executed the “war on terror” with even greater fervor — expanding the post 9/11 “forever wars” and constructing new “security threats.”

Keep reading

The Roots Of Trump’s Continued Wars On Terror Trace Back To 9/11

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an “invasion” at the border.

Unfortunately, more than two decades of widely-accepted, bipartisan laws and norms first laid the groundwork for this to occur.

After 9/11, the Bush administration created the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, and Congress expanded the pre-existing Foreign Terrorist Organization list. These lists allow the executive branch, at its sole discretion, to add and remove individuals and groups to standing lists of “terrorists,” a term that is defined broadly.

The Trump administration has exercised this authority to formally designate transnational cartels as “terrorists” due in part to their role in the flow of people and drugs across the southern border into the United States. They have leveraged this designation to justify a range of actions, including deploying troops to Los Angeles and deporting immigrants to a brutal Salvadorean prison without due process.

Another post-9/11 legal invention that paved the way to what the Trump administration is doing today was the USA PATRIOT Act’s updates to immigration law that allowed deportation of not just those involved in actual violent acts of terrorism, but also those loosely associated with designated “terrorist groups,” even if those associations were peaceful and law-abiding or involuntary and a result of duress. People who have previously been excluded from the United States by these provisions include Iraqi interpreters for U.S. troops, victims of forced labor by violent armed groups in El Salvador, and even Nelson Mandela. These provisions mean that not just alleged members of cartels, but also cartel victims could be denied entry into the United States or deported if already here.

These same post-9/11 immigration law amendments also allow for revoking or denying immigration benefits to foreign nationals who “endorse or espouse” “terrorist activity,” defined broadly. The Trump administration has already revoked the visas of several immigrant students and scholars solely for their nonviolent activities criticizing the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza, as part of what they call a “zero-tolerance” policy for terrorism. The administration has primarily leaned on an older and more obscure provision of immigration law to carry out these attacks on immigrants’ free speech rights. But if current efforts are blocked by courts, or they wish to go further, post-9/11 immigration law may give them the tools to justify doing so.

The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal “war on terror” in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an “imminent threat” and resulting “self-defense” powers.

Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague “national interest.” We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an “immediate threat to the United States,” that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was “in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”

Commentators are entirely correct to denounce these assertions of legal authority. But policymakers have spent more than two decades accepting a war paradigm against whomever presidents determine to be “terrorist,” making it politically and legally all the more difficult to push back against what the Trump administration is doing now.

Keep reading

Newly Declassified FBI/CIA Files Reveal Two Saudi Government Operatives “May Have Served as an Advance Team” for 9/11 Hijackers — Official Narrative in Tatters as Timeline Shifts Back to 1998

For over two decades, the American people have been told a carefully curated story about the September 11th attacks.

Now, newly declassified FBI and CIA records are shredding the “official narrative,” revealing that Saudi government operatives may have been on U.S. soil as early as December 1998, three years before nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered.

Exclusive reporting from veteran national security journalist Catherine Herridge exposes that two Saudi government employees, Mutaeb al-Sudairy and Adel al-Sadhan, were not mere tourists.

Instead, they were caught on video in 1999 surveying Washington, D.C. landmarks later listed as potential al-Qaeda targets, including the White House and Capitol.

The Gateway Pundit reported in 2024 that in the CBS video, Omar al-Bayoumi, who the FBI says was a Saudi operative, was seen casing the US Capitol in Washington, DC, the likely target of the Flight 93 operation that was thwarted that day by American passengers and heroes.

The video was found by British police during a raid on Bayoumi’s UK apartment days after the 9/11 attacks.

According to ProPublica, Bayoumi was joined on the trip by two Saudi clerics, Adel al-Sadhan and Mutaeb al-Sudairy.

They were so-called propagators, emissaries of the Islamic Affairs Ministry sent to proselytize abroad. U.S. investigators later linked them to a handful of Islamist militants.

Former FBI veteran and Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, William R. Evanina, confirmed to Herridge that the two were here in the US for a reason.

Keep reading

Mamdani for years used July 4 to promote self-styled ‘Taliban’ rapper who ‘worshipped’ 9/11 hijacker

New York City mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani for years marked the Fourth of July by sharing a photo of a rap group that is infamous for its glorification of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and for its praise for one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Mamdani wished his social media followers a “Happy 4th” on Independence Day in 2021, 2023, and 2024 — less than one year before the failed rapper and socialist activist became the Democratic Party’s nominee — in tweets accompanied by a picture from a music video of the two lead singers of the controversial rap group called The Diplomats (also known as Dipset), who were famous — and infamous — for some of their pro-terrorism-tinged lyrics.

Mamdani, a longtime rap aficionado who took a largely unsuccessful stab at being a rapper himself, has tweeted “Happy 4th” exactly four times — sharing the picture of the pro-terrorist Dipset rap group on the Fourth of July in 2021, 2023, and 2024 — and then, only after becoming the Democratic nominee, sent out a much more anodyne, standard-fare, politician-style tweet in 2025 wishing his followers “Happy 4th” featuring pictures from a Democratic Club BBQ held in Queens.

Rappers “worship” ringleader of 9/11 hijackings that murdered almost 3,000 people

The Harlem-based rap group’s own lyrics from the 2003 album that Mamdani repeatedly promoted describe the hip-hop collective as the “Dipset Taliban”, “Harlem’s own Taliban”, and “Harlem’s Al-Qaeda” and described the group’s songs as “9/11 music” — while one of the group’s main singers compared himself favorably to Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and declared in a song that “I worship the prophet” Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 9/11 and who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Throws Out Plea Deal for 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad

In 2024, The Gateway Pundit reported that then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced the revocation of a plea deal previously reached with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, along with two of his co-conspirators, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi.

This decision effectively reinstated the possibility of the death penalty for the trio.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the plea deal, reached between the Convening Authority for Military Commissions and the defendants and signed by retired Brig. Gen. Susan K. Escallier, was intended to ‘mitigate’ the legal repercussions for the accused while allowing them to avoid capital punishment.

On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld Austin’s decision to undo the plea deal.

Fox News reports:

A divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday tossed out an agreement that would have allowed 9/11 terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in another failed effort to end a years-long legal saga surrounding the military prosecution of men held at Guantánamo Bay.

The 2-1 D.C. Circuit appeals court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff.

The deal would have carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed and two co-defendants, potentially taking capital punishment off the table.

The original plea deal garnered outrage from various political factions and advocacy groups who argued that any leniency shown to those involved in the 9/11 attacks undermines justice for the nearly 3,000 victims and their families.

In making his decision, Austin wrote, “I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009.”

“Effective immediately, I hereby withdraw your authority in the above-referenced case to enter into a pre-trial agreement and reserve such authority to myself. Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pre-trial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024 in the above-referenced case,” he added.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Awards Antiterrorism Grant to Mosque Linked to 9/11 Hijackers, Pro-Hamas Cleric

California governor Gavin Newsom (D.) recently awarded taxpayer funds under a state antiterrorism program to a San Diego mosque that has been linked to 9/11 hijackers and whose imam defended the Hamas attack on Israel.

Newsom, considered a top 2028 presidential contender, awarded nearly $200,000 to the Islamic Center of San Diego in March as part of a program to help religious institutions and nonprofits beef up security to protect against potential terrorist attacks, according to state records.

“Today more than ever, our state stands together to support our communities. Californians deserve the right to worship, love, and gather safely, without fear of violence,” said Newsom, whose administration has given another $500,000 to the San Diego mosque in previous years.

The Islamic Center of San Diego, led by Imam Taha Hassane, has condoned anti-Israel violence over the years. Hassane, who joined the center in 2004, defended Hamas’s slaughter of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, saying in a sermon weeks later that “resistance [against Israel] is justified,” the Washington Free Beacon previously reported.

“We cannot accuse somebody who is fighting for his life to be a terrorist. The terrorist is the one who started the occupation, not the one who is defending himself,” said Hassane, whose remarks prompted his removal from San Diego’s Human Relations Commission.

Hassane’s wife, Lallia Allali, resigned from her job with the San Diego school district after she posted a cartoon following the Oct. 7 attacks that showed a Star of David beheading five children. She currently teaches courses on “Islamophobia” at the Islamic Center of San Diego.

The Islamic Center of San Diego gained notoriety in the wake of 9/11 after revelations that two of the al Qaeda operatives who flew the plane that hit the Pentagon—Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar—prayed regularly at the mosque. An official at the mosque also allegedly helped the terrorists receive a $5,000 wire transfer from the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. Other mosque leaders hosted a welcoming party for the hijackers when they arrived in San Diego in 2000, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Newsom awarded the grant as California faces a steep budget shortfall. State leaders acknowledged in a press release regarding the antiterrorism program that it comes amid “significant budget challenges” for the state.

The office that oversees the grant program—the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services—is the same one that oversees the state’s wildfire mitigation program. Newsom faced criticism following a Free Beacon report that he shut down a highly trained volunteer firefighting force called Team Blaze a year before the Los Angeles wildfires devastated the city in January.

Newsom has awarded grants to other mosques that preach anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate, the Free Beacon previously reported.

Keep reading

Senator Demands 9/11 Investigation Into ‘Controlled Demolition’ of Building 7

One would have been hard-pressed to imagine, just a few years ago, a sitting United States senator suggesting that the Building 7 collapse may have been a “controlled demolition.” 

“What would you like to know about September 11, the official story there, Senator?” podcaster Benny Johnson prompted.

Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wisc.) answer:

Well, start with Building 7. Again, I don’t know if you can find structural engineers other than the ones that have the corrupt investigations inside NIST that would say that that thing didn’t come down in any other way than a controlled demolition… You just look at that… 

There’s an awful lot of questions. Who ordered the removal and the destruction of all that evidence? Totally contrary to any other firefighting investigation procedures. I mean, who ordered that? Who is in charge? I think there’s some basic information. Where’s all the documentation from the NIST investigation.

Now, there are a host of questions that I want and I will be asking, quite honestly, now that my eyes have been opened up.

Keep reading

Former Congressman Curt Weldon Resurfaces With Explosive Claims About 9/11 “Coverup”

A former high-ranking congressman has resurfaced with explosive allegations about 9/11.

Curt Weldon, who represented the seventh district of Pennsylvania for two decades and served as the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee, claims that U.S. intelligence knew about terrorists’ plans to commit 9/11 a year prior and torpedoed his political career after learning that he was going to tell the public.  

Weldon has appeared in multiple interview shows over the last few days, including Tucker Carlson’s, where the episode has garnered more than five million views as of Wednesday just on social-media platform X.  

Weldon spoke passionately and in great detail regarding circumstances and actions on the part of the U.S. government that, if true, would make 9/11 the greatest coverup in U.S. history.

Keep reading