The World ‘Knows’ Bin Laden Did 9/11 — So Why Isn’t There Any Evidence?

Vietnam veteran Geoffrey O’Neill’s powerful and impeccable writing on the facts surrounding September 11, 2001 are impossible to deny, impossible to forget, and impossible to ignore. Thank you, Mr. Geoffrey O’Neill.


Saudi ‘monster’ pronounced guilty by government decree

“A lie told once is lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”—German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels

July 14, 2018

By Geoffrey O’Neill (Special to Truth and Shadows)

He is arguably the most notorious person in the 21st century.

The world takes for granted that Osama bin Laden was the architect of the “terror attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001. But why was this man singled out for this horrific crime? How did we learn of his alleged guilt? And what is the evidence used to support his guilt?

These questions are critical because the allegation against bin Laden led, less than a month later (on Oct. 7, 2001), to the launching of the Global War on Terror with the invasion of Afghanistan. The mission, called Operation Enduring Freedom and ordered by President George W. Bush, and was supposedly intended to capture or kill bin Laden.

This is what we know about the claims of evidence against bin Laden:

Just hours after the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, a man by the name of L. Paul Bremer appeared on an NBC affiliate in Washington D.C. Less than a minute into theinterview with host Jim Vance, Bremer mentioned bin Laden as potentially being the mastermind of the event. It appears that the bin Laden myth was created at this point, and it soon went viral.

Who is L. Paul Bremer, and what was he doing in Washington at the time?

Bremer, like Bush, is a graduate of Yale and, like Bush, is also a member of the notorious Skull and Bones fraternity. After leaving government in 1989, he became managing director of Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm owned by Henry Kissinger. (It’s worth noting that Kissinger was the original choice to head the 9/11 Commission.)

In May 2003, following the introduction of “shock and awe” in Iraq, Bremer was named director of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Without question, he was a Republican insider. He was supposed to be on his way to New York City, to his office in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on Sept., 11 but his plane was diverted due to the events of that morning.

In addition to speculating in the interview about bin Laden’s complicity, Bremer said that “terrorists declared war on the United States, and we declared war on the terrorists.” What was this supposed to mean? Would it follow that the United States would have carte blanche to invade any country anywhere if a terrorist or terrorists were thought to be living there? Would that include Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, or France?

Bremer also said, “We can’t throw away democratic freedoms and civil liberties that are the heart of our society.”

But those liberties were not thrown away; they were taken away by Bremer’s colleagues in the Bush administration. This happened through the passage of the Patriot Act, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, the spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, the prosecution of whistleblowers, and the stifling our 1st and 5th Amendment rights. The list is long.

Bremer continued: “There will be consequences. In fact, I hope the most severe military consequences we can come up with.”

In this he was prescient. Using the justification of 9/11, the United States invasion of Afghanistan was followed by the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the bombing of Libya into the Stone Age, the arming and aiding of Saudi Arabia in their mission to destroy Yemen, and the instigation and perpetuation of the Syrian horror. Add in drone wars and proxy wars in God-knows-how-many countries, and Bremer must have swelled with pride over the level of carnage.

Bush names bin Laden

On the evening of Sept. 11, President Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office of the White House and said this: “Today was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” For the second time on that day we hear the name bin Laden from a national bully pulpit.

Without a shred of evidence to support their claim, two high-profile government officials, speaking to Americans, put bin Laden in the crosshairs. He instantly became America’s public enemy number one, guilty by government decree.

The accusation was further reinforced by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who appeared on the BBC the morning of 9/11 (even before the buildings came down) and pointed to bin Laden and al-Qaeda as likely being behind the event. He called for the U.S. to launch an “operational, concrete war on terror.”

Before the dust had settled from the destruction of the towers, Bremer and Bush, along with Barak and the worldwide media, implicated bin Laden without offering any evidence. A little more than a week later, on Sunday, Sept. 23, Colin Powell made it official. With host Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Powell named bin Laden the architect of 9/11.

Russert asked Powell for evidence, and he responded: “We are hard at work bringing all of the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a white paper, a document that will be able to describe quite clearly the evidence we have linking him [bin Laden] to this attack.” He told Russert he would make it available to him once it was completed.

Fleischer slams the door

The day after Powell’s promise, the New York Times devoted a front page article to the evidence that it believed was forthcoming, citing statements by government officials that “the evidence reaches from the southern tip of Manhattan to the foothills of the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan.”

But the same afternoon, Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer met with the media and said Powell’s statement of a white paper had been “misinterpreted.” There was no plan to release the information. “It is classified.”

A reporter had the audacity to ask, “Is there any plan to present to the public evidence so the average citizen, not just Americans but people all over the world, can understand the case against bin Laden”?

Fleischer’s response was predictably condescending: “In a democracy it is always important to provide the maximum amount of information possible. But I think American people understand that there are going to be times when that information cannot immediately be forthcoming.”

On one issue, Fleischer spoke truthfully: the white paper was not immediately forthcoming. In fact, it has never been produced. No white paper exists in the public domain containing forensic evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.

The arrogance, hypocrisy, and disregard for human life of this man and the entire Bush administration cannot be overstated. American troops were about to be sent to war. Many would die or be seriously injured for life. Afghan civilians, considered collateral damage, would be killed in large numbers as always happens in war. Yet no soldier, American citizen, or Afghan citizen was allowed to see the evidence cited to justify why the United States was about to invade one of the poorest countries in the world.

It gets worse.

The NATO alliance was formed following WWll, ostensibly to protect East European countries from naked aggression by the Soviet Union. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack against any member nation is an attack against all member nations, was invoked for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001. And it wasn’t a small NATO country that needed help; it was the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world.

On Sept. 12, 2001, NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson summoned the North Atlantic Council to meet in Brussels. All 19 members agreed that the attack on the U.S. was an attack from abroad. All Robertson needed to invoke Article 5 was the responsible party with evidence to wage war on the perpetrators. He soon got what he needed, or so he thought.

U.S. State Department representative Frank Taylor met in secret with all NATO representatives on Oct. 2, 2001 and provided documents that supposedly contained “clear and compelling” evidence of bin Laden’s guilt to the Secretary General. After the meeting, Robertson met with the press and predictably said the evidence provided by Taylor was classified. In all, 29 countries joined the U.S. in the invasion of Afghanistan, including Britain, France, and Canada. They joined in the invasion of this tiny impoverished country based on “evidence” that the public could not see.

It gets even worse.

A revelation from the FBI

On June 5, 2006, investigative reporter Ed Haas from the Muckraker Report noticed from bin Laden’s Most Wanted Page on the FBI’s website that he was wanted for several crimes but not for 9/11. He eventually spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity of the FBI and the exchange went like this:

Haas: “Why is there no mention of 9/11 on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page?”

Tomb: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s web page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Haas: “How is this possible”?

Tomb: “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered it is turned over to the Department of Justice who then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a grand jury. In the case of bin Laden he has not been formally indicted and charged because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

So how does this work? Bremer, hours after the towers were destroyed, blamed bin Laden. Bush, later that day, blamed bin Laden. Powell days later on national television claimed to have solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. Taylor supposedly turned over “clear and compelling evidence” of bin Laden’s guilt to the head of the NATO Alliance a few weeks after 9/11. Yet, the chief law enforcement agency in the United States, the FBI, admitted years later that they have “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

It should also be mentioned that a “confession video” by bin Laden was found in Afghanistan in December 2001, which was immediately used to bolster the claim of bin Laden’s guilt. The video was soon debunked by a leading expert on bin Laden, professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, who called the tape “bogus.”

This also begs the question as to why, if authentic, the tape was not used on bin Laden’s Most Wanted Page in the FBI file. One also has to wonder why this evidence, unlike all the other evidence the Bush administration claimed to have in its possession, was widely disseminated to the public while the rest remained classified.

And it gets worse yet!

Bush refuses to show proof

The evidence presented to NATO by Frank Taylor was in document form and immediately classified by U.S. and NATO authorities.

Before the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, the country’s Taliban government offered to extradite bin Laden pending receipt of evidence of his guilt. But Bush refused the offer.

Could Bush have avoided the Global War on Terror by turning over the “clear and compelling” evidence in the Frank Taylor documents? The simple answer is no. There was no evidence to turn over.

The State Department documents were declassified in 2008 with little fanfare. Dr. Niels Harrit, a former professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen—now a researcher and writer active in the 9/11 Truth Movement—found them, and in an article on the Global Research website exposed them for public scrutiny.

According to Harrit’s assessment, “There is absolutely no forensic evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.” He goes on: “Only a small part of the introductory text deals with 9/11. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.”

There isn’t now, nor was there ever, any evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11!

An addendum to the story, and certainly red meat for conspiracy theorists, seems to make the government’s case against bin Laden even more contrived. In a segment on NBC Nightly News with Dan Rather on Jan. 28, 2002, foreign correspondent Barry Peterson, standing in front of a military hospital in Pakistan, reported that bin Laden was getting a dialysis treatment on Sept. 10, 2001, a day prior to 9/11. According to Peterson, “He [bin Laden] arrived at the hospital in Rawalpindi under heavy security provided by the Pakistan secret service (ISI).”

If the report is accurate, it would be reasonable to wonder how an NBC News crew tracked down bin Laden while George Bush with 19 intelligence agencies at his disposal, never had a clue about his whereabouts.

We might also ask why Pakistan, an ally of the United States, didn’t turn bin Laden over to U.S. authorities after escorting him to one of his hospital visits. And we might wonder how bin Laden commuted from the mountains in Tora Bora to a hospital and back three times a week for kidney dialysis treatments.

And, years later, we might wonder why there is not a shred of evidence that supports the claim that bin Laden was killed in a Navy Seals raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011, as was reported and heralded by the Obama administration.

Public enemy number one

In a press conference at the White House on Sept. 13, 2001, President Bush said, “The most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority, and we won’t rest until we find him.” It is important to note that by that date the government had still not declared publicly that there was evidence against bin Laden. He was guilty by decree only.

On March 13, 2002, less than seven months after the beginning of the Global War on Terror, justified by 9/11 and the accusations against bin Laden, Bush said this: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It is not our priority.”

Then, in a speech delivered to a group of military officers on Sept. 5, 2006, Bush compared bin Laden to Lenin and Hitler. He said: “The world had ignored the writings of Lenin and Hitler and paid a terrible price. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them.

Imagine if Winston Churchill had said that, “I really don’t care, it’s not that important, he is not our priority” when speaking about Hitler during the Battle of Britain? The absurd comparison to Hitler and the disparity, going back and forth from monster to afterthought and back to monster when speaking about bin Laden, in my view, speaks volumes.

Most citizens of the United States are decent and law abiding. Most pay their taxes willingly in a timely fashion. Most try to raise their families and teach them the difference between right and wrong. Most Americans are patriotic. Most would never harm anyone unless provoked. Most have integrity, decency, and values. Many have worn the uniform and taken an oath to serve and protect. So is it inappropriate to ask why our government and the press treat all of us like children? The bin Laden story is a testament to this along with the entire Global War on Terror, a complete fraud that has caused so much devastation to our reputation in the world and to the lives of millions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

If there is no clear, compelling evidence against the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, would it be fair to say that the Global War on Terror in its entirety, including the invasions, the bombings, the drone strikes, the millions killed, the tens of millions of refugees, all of the families destroyed, all of the despair and loss of hope the United States has brought to bear in so many parts of the world, is a fraud?

One would think.

Geoffrey O’Neill is a former Marine officer, Vietnam veteran, former business owner, and unexceptional American citizen who believes in the right of all people to live in peace and with dignity with their families. Geoffrey can be reached at

33 thoughts on “The World ‘Knows’ Bin Laden Did 9/11 — So Why Isn’t There Any Evidence?

    1. Amanda,

      Over 1,000,000 Iraqis and near 5,000 American soldiers perished due to Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc. and their illegal war of aggression, but at least blah, blah, blah. If you feel regretful and wish to have your unenlightened comment deleted, please let us know. It’s your choice…


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Soldiers go into their careers willingly, knowing and accepting the risks they are taking.
        Like I said, the less Islamic fundamentalists, the better.


        1. Amanda,

          One finds it absolutely astonishing to find people whose perspectives fail miserably in taking account of the essential and obvious, in this instance the overlooking of historic level war crimes, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, the displacement of millions, and the destruction of an entire nation.


          1. Islam is directly responsible for the destruction of Islamic nations, and that case is no different. There should be no Islamic nations to begin with because the religion of Islam is cancer.


            1. Amanda,

              Please consider responding to the following questions to establish deeper understanding for the benefit of ourselves and those who pass this way (if you so choose): 1) How is Islam directly responsible for the destruction of Islamic nations?, 2) How did the idea that secular, multi-religious Iraq is “Islamic” become part of your perception?, 3) What led to the belief that “Islam is cancer”?, 4) Have you an understanding of the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, and the violent, extremist category of Wahhabism?, and 5) Have you read the Quran?


              1. Are you seriously defending Islam right now ? You are the one who needs to answer those questions and get some clarity on the religion.
                Anyone who believes in prophecy is a fucking moron and religion drives the ignorance that fuels it.

                Women must be married, and must be virgins until they are (but men don’t have to be, who they can have sex with no one knows), they must cover themselves up in public, they must pray regularly, they must follow a plethora of nonsensical arbitrary rules made up by the psychotic street preacher who invented Islam.

                I could go on and on but honestly you need to wake up to this disgusting culture and stand against it if you have any intellectual honesty or backbone at all.

                Read the Quran, it sucks more than the Bible does and that’s saying something.


                1. Amanda,

                  Our questions were posed in a genuine, consciously non-offensive effort to build greater understanding. After becoming aware of your disdain for both the Quran and Bible, with all due respect, could you share the books/writings which have been most beneficial and/or enlightening thus far in your life experience? We are sincerely interested … Thank you.


                  1. No I think what’s important here is establishing WHY some people find it appropriate to apologize for Islam (or any Abrahamic religion) versus WHY some people find it inappropriate;

                    It seems like you are putting emphasis on personal experience, which has nothing to do with religious doctrines;
                    Islam is fundamentally at it’s core a barbaric stone age ideology that is dangerous to society in so many ways, and I SHOULD NOT have to discuss my personal life experience in order to acknowledge that.

                    Islam is Islam in secular and non-secular nations, and frankly it should be eradicated (by the people) from all nations.


                    1. Amanda,

                      We’re not asking for you to divulge your deepest, darkest, most embarrassing secrets ever, but simply recommendations of what you perceive as good books to read. 🙂 In particular, the books you’ve read which led you to conclude that “personal experience … has nothing to do with religious doctrines”, “Islam … barbaric stone age ideology .. should be eradicated”, etc..

                      It seems we’ve reached that old “agree to disagree” point, which conjures up images from the Paul Newman prison movie “Cool Hand Luke”, where actor Strothers Martin playing the mean prison warden delivers the classic lines, “What we haa-ve he-ah, … is a failure to communicate” and, after Luke’s umpteenth escape attempt, the warden takes the whip to him, “Never, never … NEVER!” Please don’t whup me, dear Miranda. 🙂 We’re for you, not against you.


                    2. So you are familiar with all Abrahamic doctrines and still disagree that they are horrible? Do you care to share why you support and promote these religions ?


                    3. The books that have led to my (and all secular/agnostic advocates’) conclusions regarding Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the bible, quran, and torah. Which seems appropriate to me..


                    4. Amanda,

                      One of the rules we try to follow is never arguing about, nor pressuring others toward acceptance of, any particular spiritual or religious beliefs, because this represents each person’s unique, respected path and therefore out of bounds. That said, the stance you’re taking will most assuredly result in your soul’s eternal damnation in hell! 🙂 Just kidding, Amanda.

                      We would share the perspective of Voltaire when he suggested that where religions disagree there is falsity, and where religions agree (overlapping concepts) there is truth, or true religion if you will. Some like to see the variety of religions or beliefs as facets on a single diamond of truth, so to speak. Of course, billions of words are recorded on the topics of philosophy and religion and spirituality, for example, we resonate with concepts described in “The Life Divine” by Sri Aurobindo based on his knowledge of Hinduism in India, reflective of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita and so on. We also resonate with Native American spirituality, as well as the amazing personal accounts of those who’ve “died” and returned to tell about it … the near death experience.

                      Again, just kidding on that hell thing. 🙂 Thanks for the back and forth.



                    5. So you do disagree then that Abrahamic religions are unnecessary and harmful to society?

                      And the reason you have for supporting these religions is that people’s “paths” and alleged experiences should be respected? How is that even an argument?


                    6. But Jerry don’t you see how dishonest that is?

                      You are silencing open discourse and a free market of flowing ideas for the sake of feelings, that’s pathetic and no one benefits from it.


                    7. Amanda,

                      You are free to make any statements or proclamations you wish and they will appear here without censor, but … we reiterate our preference for reasoned, detailed, positive discussion over unproductive simplistic arguing.


                    8. Are you suggesting that my questions to you were not reasoned or part of positive discussion? And that my points are unproductive and simplistic?

                      Or that discussing the nature of religious doctrine as a subject matter in general is not reasoned or positive for discussion and is unproductive/simplistic?


                    9. Amanda,

                      Our talk has gone off into the weeds, marked by petty and irrelevant wastes of words, and far removed from the profound information about 9/11 in the excellent article written by Geoffrey O’Neill …


                    10. I said one less dead Muslim fundamentalist is good and you started defending Islam and when I asked why you just said because you respect people’s religions; I don’t think that’s a good reason to avoid discussion.


                    11. I already have, and I asked why you disagree and you just said because you don’t want to talk about it.. Well why did you write about it then if you aren’t going to respond to comments


                    12. Hi Jerry and Amanda, I’m glad to see the discussion returning to the topic at hand. This isn’t my blog, but Amanda, if you want to debate religious doctrine, there are a lot of great blogs on WordPress that do just that. I’ve been on a few (can’t remember the links now, unfortunately) but religious doctrine bores me to tears, so I left… quietly. I had all those links on my old Windows system but when I switched to Linux, I let all that go, deciding to start from scratch. Anyway, a search will quickly bring you there, and there are some fantastic brains on some of those places you’d probably be very at home with. You’re a self-professed agnostic, so hey, go to it! Shake ’em up and have fun. Take care o’ you.


            2. The Burning Blogger Of Bedlam

              Amanda, it’s scary that people like you think stuff like that. I hope you find someone a bit more intelligent and nuanced to talk to more regularly.


  1. Great article Jerry. I left a comment on Geof’s web page… and a follow. I see you are contending with a brainwashed Islamophobe… good luck with that. You demonstrate more patience than I would probably, but at the same time you are showing that EXTREMISM based on insufferable ignorance is alive and well, and not just in Islamic nations…! As I wrote on Geof’s page, within days of the “attack” it became painfully obvious that the event had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists. In my opinion, which hasn’t changed since that terrible week, the blame, if the system allowed the truth to come out, would soon be sticking like glue to Zionist agents.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sha’Tara,

      Hello. Yes … Geoff’s writing is extraordinary, and leaves one wondering how his profound contribution combined with the equally amazing revelations since 2001 hasn’t already broke the dam of lies wide open. The actions of the “Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry” are bulletproof in terms of the eventuality of seeing a Grand Jury in New York state for examination of their massive compilation of evidence, as U.S. law necessitates a legal response wholly favorable to the Lawyers’ goal of gaining real traction. Of course, the U.S. Attorney in New York will likely delay and stonewall, heavy public pressure directed at that office would assist in hastening the process, but there is nothing which can stop the Lawyers Committee from reaching the Grand Jury stage.

      Thank you.


      Liked by 1 person

  2. What would be awesome would be for a coming together of truth: an impeachment of Trump to shake up the believers, then the opening of the dam exposing the war criminals, Kissinger, Bush, Obama and their various retinues of sycophantic liars. I would especially like to see the Nobel Peace Prize creeps get indicted for war crimes, indictments that are well deserved as the evidence is all there, not like chasing after the Osama bin Laden chimera.


    1. Sha’Tara,

      We’re fully on board with that positive vision. Fortunately, more and more (and more) people around the world are speaking out against liars, destroyers and murderers of innocents, and that this long-practiced criminality is fully rejected – no longer acceptable on Earth.


Comments are closed.