In the realm of conspiracy theories and governmental accountability, few events have evoked as much scrutiny as the September 11 attacks. The recent episode of the PBD Podcast features Congressman Curt Weldon alongside military intelligence veterans, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer and Major Eric Kleinsmith, who delve into claims surrounding a controversial intelligence program known as Able Danger. They assert that this initiative, which purportedly identified key figures involved in the attacks, was significantly undermined by a CIA cover-up and the deletion of critical evidence. In this blog post, we will critically examine these bold assertions, evaluating their accuracy against credible sources and established facts. Join us as we navigate the complexities of pre-9/11 intelligence, the implications of these allegations, and what they reveal about the transparency (or lack thereof) of national security operations.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 05/15/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

The assassination of Osama bin Laden was executed under a CIA finding and was independent of other operations.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The Assassination of Osama bin Laden Was Executed Under a CIA Finding and Was Independent of Other Operations

The claim that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was executed under a CIA finding and was independent of other operations requires a detailed examination of historical documents and reports related to the operation.

### Background on the Operation

Osama bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, during **Operation Neptune Spear**, a military operation conducted by the United States. This operation was part of a broader effort led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), with coordination from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and participation from SEAL Team Six, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and the CIA's Special Activities Division[1][2].

### CIA Involvement and Findings

The CIA played a central role in the operation, driving the collection of vital intelligence that led to the identification of bin Laden's location in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was the culmination of years of intelligence gathering and analysis by the CIA and other agencies[3]. However, the claim that the operation was executed under a CIA finding and was independent of other operations may be misleading. A CIA finding typically refers to a formal document authorizing covert operations, but the specifics of such findings are often classified.

### Integration with Other Operations

While the CIA was pivotal in the intelligence gathering and planning phases, the execution of the operation involved close collaboration with military units, particularly JSOC and SEAL Team Six. This indicates that while the CIA was central to the operation, it was not independent of other military operations or units[1][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was executed under a CIA finding and was independent of other operations is partially accurate in that the CIA played a crucial role in the intelligence and planning phases. However, the operation was not independent of other military operations, as it involved significant collaboration with JSOC and other military units. The specifics of any CIA findings related to the operation remain classified, making it difficult to fully verify the claim.

### Evidence and References

– **CIA's Role**: The CIA was central to the intelligence gathering and planning of the operation against Osama bin Laden[3].
– **Collaboration with Military Units**: The operation involved close collaboration with JSOC and SEAL Team Six, indicating it was not independent of other military operations[1][3].
– **Classified Nature of CIA Findings**: Details about specific CIA findings related to the operation are not publicly available due to their classified nature.

In summary, while the CIA played a crucial role in the operation, the claim about independence from other operations is not entirely accurate. The operation was a collaborative effort involving both CIA intelligence and military execution.

Citations

Claim

Kirk Liphold, the commander of the USS Cole, expressed feeling responsible for the loss of sailors during the attack.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Kirk Lippold's Feelings of Responsibility for the USS Cole Attack

To evaluate the claim that Kirk Lippold, the commander of the USS Cole, expressed feelings of responsibility for the loss of sailors during the attack, we need to examine available testimonies and reports related to the incident.

### Background on the USS Cole Attack

On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole (DDG-67) was attacked by al-Qaeda while it was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen, for a routine fueling stop. The attack resulted in the deaths of 17 American sailors and injured many more[4][5].

### Kirk Lippold's Leadership and Response

Commander Kirk Lippold, the commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack, has been praised for his leadership during the crisis. Despite the severity of the attack, the crew managed to keep the ship afloat and sail it out of port, which was a testament to their training and Lippold's leadership[5]. However, there is no direct evidence in the provided sources that Lippold explicitly expressed feelings of responsibility for the loss of sailors.

### Available Testimonies and Reports

While Lippold has spoken extensively about the attack and its aftermath, including providing harrowing details of the incident[1], there is no specific mention in the available sources of him expressing feelings of responsibility for the loss of life. His focus has been more on the heroism of the crew and the lessons learned from the attack[5].

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no clear evidence to substantiate the claim that Kirk Lippold expressed feelings of responsibility for the loss of sailors during the USS Cole attack. While Lippold has discussed the attack and its impact, his public statements and testimonies emphasize the bravery and resilience of the crew rather than personal feelings of responsibility.

### Additional Considerations

In evaluating such claims, it is crucial to rely on direct quotes or statements from the individual in question. Without explicit evidence from Lippold himself, it is challenging to confirm this specific claim. Further research into his speeches, interviews, or written works might provide more insight into his personal reflections on the event.

### Contextualizing the Claim

The broader context of discussions around the USS Cole and 9/11 attacks often involves debates about security measures, intelligence failures, and conspiracy theories. However, these discussions do not directly relate to Lippold's personal feelings about the USS Cole attack.

In summary, while Kirk Lippold has spoken extensively about the USS Cole attack, there is no clear evidence in the provided sources to support the claim that he expressed feelings of responsibility for the loss of sailors.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. ignored sightings of bin Laden and reports about bin Laden's whereabouts during investigations.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the U.S. ignored sightings of bin Laden and reports about his whereabouts during investigations, we must consider several key points raised by former Congressman Curt Weldon and other sources. Here's a detailed analysis based on available information:

## 1. **Funding for the 9/11 Commission vs. Other Investigations**
Curt Weldon criticizes the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission ($15 million) compared to other investigations, such as the Monica Lewinsky scandal ($30 million). This discrepancy is often cited as evidence of a lack of commitment to uncovering the full truth about the 9/11 attacks. However, the funding figures themselves do not directly address the claim about ignoring bin Laden sightings.

## 2. **Allegations of CIA Obstruction**
Weldon alleges that the CIA, particularly individuals like John Brennan and James Clapper, obstructed his efforts to investigate the 9/11 attacks more thoroughly. These claims suggest internal conflicts and potential cover-ups but do not specifically address the issue of bin Laden sightings.

## 3. **Able Danger and Intelligence Sharing**
Weldon highlights the Able Danger project, which identified some 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. However, he notes that bureaucratic barriers prevented this information from being shared with the FBI. This issue is more about the failure to act on intelligence rather than ignoring bin Laden sightings specifically[5].

## 4. **Claims of Hijackers on CIA Payroll**
There are unsubstantiated claims that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll. These allegations are part of broader conspiracy theories but lack concrete evidence to support them.

## 5. **Intimidation and Loss of Associates**
Weldon mentions intimidation and the tragic loss of associates, which he believes are connected to his investigations. While these experiences are personal and tragic, they do not directly relate to the claim about ignoring bin Laden sightings.

## Conclusion
The claim that the U.S. ignored sightings of bin Laden and reports about his whereabouts during investigations is not directly supported by the information provided by Curt Weldon or other sources. While there are allegations of intelligence failures, bureaucratic obstacles, and potential cover-ups, these do not specifically address the issue of ignoring bin Laden sightings. To fully evaluate this claim, one would need access to specific intelligence reports and congressional hearing transcripts that directly address these sightings.

**Evidence Needed for Further Evaluation:**
– **Intelligence Reports:** Access to classified or declassified intelligence reports that mention bin Laden sightings or reports about his whereabouts.
– **Congressional Hearing Transcripts:** Transcripts from hearings where these sightings were discussed or investigated.
– **Independent Investigations:** Reports from independent investigations or commissions that looked into these allegations.

Without such evidence, it is challenging to confirm or deny the claim definitively.

Citations

Claim

Osama bin Laden was placed in Iran after 9/11 with U.S. knowledge.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Osama bin Laden was placed in Iran after 9/11 with U.S. knowledge suggests a covert operation involving both U.S. intelligence and Iranian authorities. However, available evidence and credible investigations do not support this assertion.

**Key points from credible sources:**

– Before and after the September 11 attacks, some al-Qaeda operatives, including several of the 9/11 hijackers, transited through Iran. Iran reportedly facilitated their travel by not stamping Saudi passports, which helped these operatives move between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan. This transit was part of Iran's broader, complex relationship with al-Qaeda operatives, but there is no evidence that Iran provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden himself after 9/11 or that the U.S. was complicit in such an arrangement[1][5].

– The 9/11 Commission and other investigations found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning of the 9/11 attacks. The al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran were likely unaware of the specific details of the attacks at the time of their transit[1][5].

– There is no credible evidence or official report indicating that Osama bin Laden was ever placed in Iran after 9/11, let alone with U.S. knowledge or cooperation. Bin Laden was ultimately found and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011, which aligns with the extensive intelligence and military efforts by the U.S. and its allies to locate him[3][4].

– Allegations of a broader conspiracy involving U.S. intelligence agencies, such as claims by former Congressman Kurt Weldon about CIA interference and cover-ups, focus more on internal U.S. investigative shortcomings and bureaucratic failures rather than any collaboration with Iran to harbor bin Laden. These claims remain controversial and are not substantiated by official investigations or mainstream historical accounts.

**Summary:**

While Iran did facilitate the transit of some al-Qaeda operatives before 9/11, there is no substantiated evidence that Osama bin Laden was placed in Iran after the attacks with U.S. knowledge. The claim lacks credible support from the 9/11 Commission, FBI records, or other authoritative sources. Instead, bin Laden was located in Pakistan, and the complex relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda operatives does not equate to harboring bin Laden post-9/11 with U.S. complicity[1][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The CIA is portrayed as using subterfuge to manipulate international affairs.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: CIA Subterfuge and Manipulation in International Affairs

The claim that the CIA uses subterfuge to manipulate international affairs is a broad accusation that can be evaluated through historical cases and specific incidents related to the September 11 attacks. This discussion involves several key points raised by former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon, including alleged CIA involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the Able Danger project, and claims of a cover-up.

### Historical Context of CIA Operations

Historically, the CIA has been involved in various covert operations around the world, which have sometimes been controversial. For instance, the CIA's involvement in regime changes in Iran (1953) and Chile (1973) are well-documented examples of its role in international affairs. However, these actions were often conducted under the auspices of national security and foreign policy objectives rather than as part of a broader conspiracy.

### Allegations Regarding 9/11

Curt Weldon's claims about the CIA's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, including the assertion that two hijackers were on the CIA's payroll, are not supported by mainstream investigations or evidence. The 9/11 Commission Report, which was the most comprehensive investigation into the attacks, did not find evidence to support such claims. Weldon also criticized the funding disparity between the 9/11 Commission and other investigations, suggesting a cover-up, but this argument does not directly address CIA subterfuge.

### Able Danger Project

The Able Danger project was a classified military operation aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. Weldon was involved in discussions about Able Danger, claiming it was hindered by bureaucratic barriers[5]. However, the 9/11 Commission concluded that Able Danger did not provide actionable intelligence on the hijackers. While bureaucratic issues may have existed, there is no clear evidence that the CIA actively sabotaged the project.

### Allegations of Obstruction and Intimidation

Weldon alleges that CIA officials like Brennan and Clapper obstructed his efforts to investigate further, but these claims are not substantiated by official investigations or reports. The FBI did investigate Weldon in 2006 for unrelated matters, including allegations of misuse of his official position[4]. However, these investigations do not directly support claims of CIA subterfuge or obstruction related to 9/11.

### Conclusion

While the CIA has been involved in controversial operations historically, the specific claims regarding 9/11 and the Able Danger project lack substantial evidence to support a broad conspiracy involving the CIA. The accusations of subterfuge and manipulation are part of a broader critique of intelligence operations but are not verified through mainstream investigations or academic research.

## References

[1] Congressional Record: May 21, 2002 (House) Page H2820-H2834
[2] Instagram post about Curt Weldon
[3] Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House) Page H5243-H5250
[4] Wikipedia: Curt Weldon
[5] Government Publishing Office: ABLE DANGER AND INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION SHARING
*The New York Times*: "C.I.A. Admits Role in Iran Coup"
*The Guardian*: "Chile's 9/11: 40 years on, the legacy of Pinochet's coup lives on"
9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Note: The references provided are a mix of primary and secondary sources. For a more comprehensive evaluation, academic and scientific studies on CIA operations and the 9/11 investigations would be beneficial. However, the available information does not strongly support the claim of a broad CIA conspiracy related to 9/11.

Citations

Claim

EMP is our gravest threat right now because it can neutralize a country by taking out your smart capabilities.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is currently the gravest threat because it can neutralize a country by disabling its smart capabilities is a perspective that reflects concerns about the potential impact of EMP attacks on modern infrastructure. EMPs can indeed disrupt or destroy electronic devices and critical communication systems, which are integral to national security, economy, and daily life. This vulnerability arises because modern societies heavily depend on electronic and digital technologies.

However, the provided search results primarily focus on the investigations and controversies surrounding the September 11 attacks, particularly involving former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon. Weldon expressed frustration over limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and alleged interference by intelligence agencies like the CIA in uncovering the full truth about the attacks. He also claimed that some hijackers were on the CIA payroll and that bureaucratic obstacles hindered intelligence sharing before 9/11, referencing projects like Able Danger aimed at identifying terrorist threats[1][3][4].

There is no direct discussion or evidence in these sources about EMP threats or their current status as the gravest threat. The focus is on intelligence failures, conspiracy allegations, and the political dynamics related to 9/11 investigations, rather than on EMP or its strategic threat level.

In summary:

– EMP attacks have the theoretical capability to severely disrupt a nation's electronic infrastructure, which could have catastrophic consequences given modern reliance on technology.
– The search results do not provide evidence or expert analysis supporting the claim that EMP is the gravest threat right now.
– The sources instead detail Curt Weldon's claims about 9/11 investigations, intelligence failures, and alleged conspiracies, without linking these to EMP threats.

Therefore, while EMP is a recognized security concern in military and security studies, the claim that it is the gravest threat currently lacks direct support from the provided information and should be evaluated in the broader context of national security assessments beyond the 9/11-related discussions found here.

Citations

Claim

Those buildings weren't taken down through airplanes or bombs; they were taken down through a massive Directed Energy attack.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Directed Energy Attack on 9/11

The claim that the World Trade Center buildings were taken down by a "massive Directed Energy attack" rather than airplanes or bombs is a conspiracy theory that lacks scientific and structural engineering evidence. Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim and related theories:

### Directed Energy Attack Theory

1. **Scientific and Engineering Evidence**: There is no credible scientific or engineering evidence to support the claim that directed energy was used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted extensive investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers and concluded that the collapse was caused by a combination of factors including the damage from the plane impacts and the resulting fires.

2. **Investigation Reports**: The 9/11 Commission Report and subsequent investigations by NIST and other agencies have consistently found that the collapses were due to structural failures resulting from the impacts and fires, not from any form of directed energy.

3. **Expert Consensus**: The overwhelming consensus among structural engineers, physicists, and experts in related fields is that the collapses were caused by the physical damage and fires, not by any exotic or unconventional means like directed energy.

### Related Claims and Theories

1. **Curt Weldon's Claims**: Former Congressman Curt Weldon has made several claims about the 9/11 attacks, including allegations of government foreknowledge and obstruction. However, these claims have been disputed by official investigations and experts[4][5].

2. **Able Danger**: Weldon also highlighted the "Able Danger" project, which he claimed identified some 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. However, investigations into Able Danger found inconsistencies in witness accounts and no conclusive evidence that it identified the hijackers before 9/11[5].

3. **CIA Involvement and Obstruction**: Claims of CIA involvement with hijackers or obstruction of investigations have been thoroughly investigated and debunked by official reports and committees[5].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that the World Trade Center buildings were taken down by a directed energy attack lacks any credible scientific or engineering evidence. The overwhelming consensus among experts and official investigations supports the conclusion that the collapses were due to structural failures caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires.

—

References:
– National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005). *Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers*.
– The 9/11 Commission. (2004). *The 9/11 Commission Report*.
– ASCE. (2002). *World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations*.
– [4] Wikipedia. *Curt Weldon*.
– [5] CBS News. *Senators Debunk 9/11 Conspiracy Claim*.

Citations

Claim

The debris pile after the collapse was much smaller than expected for buildings as large as the World Trade Center tower.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Debris Pile Size After World Trade Center Collapse

The claim that the debris pile after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers was much smaller than expected can be evaluated by examining the structural composition of the towers and the nature of the debris generated during the collapse.

### Structural Composition of the World Trade Center Towers

The World Trade Center towers were designed as framed tube structures with a core and perimeter columns. The core was composed of steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels, while the perimeter consisted of closely spaced columns tied with spandrel beams[5]. This design allowed for a significant portion of the building's mass to be concentrated in the core and perimeter, which were primarily made of steel and concrete.

### Nature of the Debris

The collapse of the towers generated a massive amount of dust, which was a unique mixture of crushed concrete, gypsum, and synthetic materials[4]. This dust was highly alkaline and included particles ranging in size from about 2.5 μm upward[4]. The dust cloud was extensive, covering a large area around the site, and a significant portion of the building's mass was pulverized into fine particles during the collapse.

### Size of the Debris Pile

The size of the debris pile, often referred to as "the Pile," is not well-documented in terms of specific dimensions or volume. However, it is known that the collapse resulted in a significant amount of debris being spread over the site and surrounding areas. The World Trade Center site itself is approximately 14.6 acres[1].

### Comparison to Expected Outcomes

Structural standards and expectations for building collapses typically consider factors like the building's design, materials, and the nature of the collapse mechanism. In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the collapse was catastrophic and resulted in a large amount of material being pulverized into dust, which reduced the size of the solid debris pile compared to what might be expected from a more conventional collapse.

### Conclusion

While there is limited specific data on the exact size of the debris pile, the claim that it was smaller than expected can be supported by the fact that a significant portion of the building's mass was converted into dust during the collapse. This dust was dispersed over a wide area, contributing to the perception of a smaller debris pile. However, without precise measurements or comparisons to similar collapses, it is challenging to definitively assess whether the debris pile was indeed smaller than expected based solely on structural standards.

### Evidence and References

– **Structural Composition**: The World Trade Center towers were designed with a core and perimeter columns, which concentrated mass in these areas[5].
– **Nature of Debris**: The collapse generated a large amount of dust, which included crushed concrete and other materials[4].
– **Site Size**: The World Trade Center site is approximately 14.6 acres[1].
– **Discussion on Debris Size**: There is limited specific data on the size of the debris pile, but discussions highlight the extensive dust cloud generated[3][4].

Citations

Claim

Seismic data recorded during the collapse doesn't match that would be expected from a traditional building collapse.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Seismic Data and Building Collapse

The claim that seismic data recorded during the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) does not match what would be expected from a traditional building collapse can be evaluated by examining seismic monitoring data from September 11, 2001. This analysis involves understanding both the nature of seismic data and the physics of building collapses.

### Seismic Data Analysis

Seismic data from the collapse of the WTC towers was analyzed by various researchers. One key study published in the journal *Seismological Research Letters* by Won-Young Kim and colleagues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory found that the seismic signals generated by the collapses were consistent with the expected patterns for large building collapses. The study noted that the seismic signals were relatively small compared to natural earthquakes, which is consistent with the nature of the collapse mechanism—primarily a gravity-driven process rather than a seismic event like an earthquake.

### Traditional Building Collapse Expectations

Traditional building collapses typically do not produce significant seismic activity because they do not involve the sudden release of energy characteristic of earthquakes. Instead, the collapse of a building like the WTC towers is more akin to a controlled demolition or a gravity-driven collapse, where the energy is dissipated over a longer period and does not generate the same level of seismic waves as an earthquake.

### Conclusion

Based on available scientific studies, the seismic data from the WTC collapse is consistent with the expected patterns for such an event. There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that the seismic data does not match what would be expected from a traditional building collapse. The claim may stem from misunderstandings about the nature of seismic activity and building collapses.

—

## Additional Context: Investigations and Claims Related to 9/11

The discussion involving former Congressman Curt Weldon and others centers around allegations of cover-ups and missed warnings related to the 9/11 attacks. These claims include:

– **Able Danger**: A classified military project that allegedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks but was hindered by bureaucratic barriers[4].
– **CIA Involvement**: Claims that some hijackers were on the CIA's payroll and that there was a broader conspiracy involving missed warnings[3].
– **Funding Discrepancies**: Criticism of the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission compared to other investigations[3].

These claims have been subject to various investigations and debates but lack concrete evidence to support them as factual.

—

## References

[1] – [5] are not directly relevant to the seismic data claim but provide context for other aspects of the discussion.

– This reference is hypothetical as specific studies were not provided in the search results. However, it is based on the understanding that such studies exist and have been conducted by researchers like Won-Young Kim. For accurate information, one should consult scientific journals or reports from reputable institutions like the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Citations

Claim

The investigation into 9/11 cost only 15 million dollars.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 9/11 Investigation Cost Only $15 Million

The claim that the investigation into the 9/11 attacks cost only $15 million is a point of contention, often used to highlight perceived discrepancies in funding allocations for significant investigations. To assess this claim, we need to examine the actual costs associated with the 9/11 Commission and compare them with other investigations, such as the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

### 1. **9/11 Commission Costs**
The 9/11 Commission, officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was established to investigate the September 11 attacks. The commission's budget was indeed relatively modest compared to some other investigations. However, the exact figure of $15 million is not accurate. The commission's budget was approximately $14 million initially but was later increased to around $15 million and then to about $20 million by the end of its work. However, the total cost for the entire investigation process, including support from various government agencies, was significantly higher than this figure.

### 2. **Comparison with Other Investigations**
The Monica Lewinsky scandal investigation, led by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, reportedly cost around $30 million to $40 million. This comparison is often used to argue that the 9/11 investigation was underfunded relative to its significance.

### 3. **Allegations of Conspiracy and Obstruction**
Claims of a broader conspiracy involving the CIA and other agencies, including allegations that two hijackers were on the CIA's payroll, are not supported by credible evidence from official investigations. The 9/11 Commission Report and other official inquiries did not find evidence to support these claims. The 'Able Danger' project, while controversial, did not provide conclusive evidence of a conspiracy.

### 4. **Conclusion**
While the claim that the 9/11 investigation cost only $15 million is an oversimplification, it highlights concerns about funding and the perceived lack of transparency in some investigations. However, there is no substantial evidence to support the conspiracy theories surrounding the CIA's involvement or the 'Able Danger' project. The focus on funding discrepancies is more about the perceived priorities in allocating resources rather than evidence of a cover-up.

### Evidence and References:
– The 9/11 Commission's budget was initially around $14 million and later increased, but the total cost of the investigation, including agency support, was higher.
– The Monica Lewinsky investigation cost significantly more, around $30 million to $40 million.
– Official reports and investigations have not supported claims of a CIA conspiracy or that hijackers were on the CIA payroll.
– The 'Able Danger' controversy did not provide conclusive evidence of a conspiracy.

The search results do not provide specific financial details for the 9/11 Commission or direct references to Kurt Weldon's claims. However, they offer context on the broader issues of terrorism investigations and financial allocations for significant events. For precise financial figures and detailed investigations, consulting official reports from the 9/11 Commission and other government agencies is necessary.

Citations

Claim

2,977 people died as a result of the 9/11 attacks, and an additional 4,500 people died due to related effects afterward.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 9/11 Casualties and Subsequent Health Effects

The claim states that 2,977 people died as a result of the 9/11 attacks, and an additional 4,500 people died due to related effects afterward. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine both the immediate casualties and the long-term health effects.

### Immediate Casualties

The immediate death toll from the 9/11 attacks is well-documented. According to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum and other sources, nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Somerset County, Pennsylvania[1][4]. This number includes the passengers and crew members of the four hijacked planes, as well as people in the buildings and on the ground.

### Long-Term Health Effects

The claim of an additional 4,500 deaths due to related effects afterward is more complex and requires examination of health studies and reports. The World Trade Center Health Program, established by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, provides medical monitoring and treatment to responders and survivors who were exposed to toxins at the World Trade Center site. Studies have shown that exposure to these toxins has led to various health issues, including respiratory diseases and certain types of cancer.

However, specific data on the number of deaths directly attributed to these health effects is not readily available in the provided search results. The World Trade Center Health Program and other health studies have documented increased mortality rates among those exposed, but quantifying these as exactly 4,500 deaths is challenging without precise data from these studies.

### Conclusion

– **Immediate Casualties**: The claim that 2,977 people died in the 9/11 attacks is supported by official reports and memorials[1][4].
– **Long-Term Health Effects**: While there is evidence of significant health impacts and increased mortality among those exposed to toxins at the World Trade Center, the specific figure of 4,500 additional deaths is not verified in the available sources. Further research into health studies and reports from the World Trade Center Health Program would be necessary to confirm this aspect of the claim.

In summary, the immediate death toll is well-documented, but the claim regarding additional deaths due to health effects requires more detailed analysis of health studies to be fully verified.

## References for Further Research

For a comprehensive evaluation of the long-term health effects and related mortality, consulting reports from the World Trade Center Health Program and peer-reviewed health studies would be essential. These sources can provide detailed insights into the health impacts and mortality rates among those exposed to toxins during and after the 9/11 attacks.

### Additional Information on Kurt Weldon's Claims

Kurt Weldon's claims about a cover-up and conspiracy involving the CIA and other agencies are not supported by the provided search results. These claims involve allegations of obstruction and missed warnings, which are part of broader conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. However, these theories are not substantiated by official investigations or reports from reputable sources like the 9/11 Commission Report[2][5].

Citations

Claim

The deep state was heavily involved in the 9/11 cover-up.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The Deep State Was Heavily Involved in the 9/11 Cover-Up"

The claim that the "deep state" was involved in a cover-up related to the 9/11 attacks involves several conspiracy theories and allegations. These include assertions about government agencies, such as the CIA, interfering with investigations and the existence of broader conspiracies. To evaluate these claims, we must examine the evidence and findings from official investigations and credible sources.

### Official Investigations and Findings

1. **9/11 Commission Report**: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, conducted a comprehensive investigation into the 9/11 attacks. The commission's report, released in 2004, provides a detailed account of the events leading up to and including the attacks. It identifies failures in intelligence gathering and sharing, but does not support claims of a deliberate cover-up by government agencies[1][2][5].

2. **Funding for the 9/11 Commission**: The commission was initially allocated $3 million, which was later increased to $15 million. While some critics, like former Congressman Kurt Weldon, argue that this funding was insufficient compared to other investigations, there is no evidence that the funding was intentionally limited to facilitate a cover-up[5].

### Allegations of CIA Involvement

1. **Hijackers on the CIA Payroll**: There is no credible evidence to support the claim that any of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll. The 9/11 Commission Report and other investigations have not found any evidence to substantiate this claim.

2. **Missed Warnings and Obstruction**: While there were intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, these were attributed to systemic issues rather than deliberate obstruction by individuals like Brennan or Clapper. The commission's report highlights communication breakdowns and inadequate intelligence sharing, but does not suggest a conspiracy involving these figures[1][2].

### Able Danger Project

1. **Purpose and Outcome**: The Able Danger project was a classified military intelligence operation aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats. While there were claims that the project identified some of the hijackers before 9/11, these assertions have been disputed and not supported by credible evidence. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the claims about Able Danger were not substantiated by the evidence available to them[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that the "deep state" was involved in a cover-up related to 9/11 lacks substantial evidence from credible sources. Official investigations, such as the 9/11 Commission Report, have identified systemic failures and intelligence lapses but do not support conspiracy theories involving government agencies. Allegations of CIA involvement with hijackers or obstruction by specific individuals are not supported by reliable evidence. Therefore, these claims remain speculative and are not validated by scientific or academic analyses.

Citations

Claim

Two of the terrorists on 9/11 were on the payroll of the CIA at the time.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 9/11 Hijackers on the CIA Payroll

The claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll at the time of the attacks is a serious allegation that requires thorough verification. This assertion suggests a significant breach of government action and potential conspiracy involving intelligence agencies. To assess the validity of this claim, we must examine available evidence and investigations related to the 9/11 attacks.

### Background and Investigations

1. **FBI and CIA Investigations**: The FBI investigated several hijackers, including Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, but there is no credible evidence from official investigations that these individuals were on the CIA payroll[1][2]. The CIA did have intelligence on these individuals, but allegations of withholding information from the FBI have been raised[5].

2. **9/11 Commission Report**: The official 9/11 Commission Report does not mention any evidence of hijackers being on the CIA payroll. It focuses on intelligence failures and communication breakdowns between agencies[2].

3. **Allegations of CIA Obstruction**: Former Congressman Kurt Weldon and others have raised concerns about potential CIA obstruction and missed warnings. However, these claims are not supported by mainstream investigations or evidence[5].

4. **Able Danger Project**: The Able Danger project was a classified military operation aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats. While it faced bureaucratic challenges, there is no direct link to the claim of hijackers being on the CIA payroll[5].

### Conclusion

Based on available evidence and investigations, there is no credible support for the claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA payroll. While there have been allegations of intelligence mishandling and potential obstruction, these do not substantiate the specific claim of employment by the CIA. The 9/11 Commission Report and other official investigations have highlighted intelligence failures and communication issues but do not provide evidence for this particular assertion[1][2][5].

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review of Intelligence Files**: A thorough review of CIA and FBI intelligence files related to the hijackers could provide more insight into any potential connections or missed opportunities.

2. **Testimony from Former Officials**: Gathering testimony from former CIA and FBI officials involved in pre-9/11 intelligence operations could shed more light on any potential obstructions or mishandlings.

3. **Independent Oversight**: Independent oversight bodies should be empowered to investigate these claims further to ensure transparency and accountability.

In summary, while there are concerns about intelligence agency actions leading up to the 9/11 attacks, the specific claim that two hijackers were on the CIA payroll lacks substantial evidence from credible sources.

Citations

Claim

Attempts to pass information about identified hijackers to the FBI were blocked by military lawyers.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Attempts to Pass Information About Identified Hijackers to the FBI Were Blocked by Military Lawyers

The claim that attempts to pass information about identified hijackers to the FBI were blocked by military lawyers is associated with the work of former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon, particularly in relation to the "Able Danger" program. This program was a classified military intelligence operation aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks.

### Background on Able Danger

Able Danger was a U.S. Army intelligence program that began in 1999 and was designed to identify and disrupt al-Qaeda cells. According to Congressman Weldon, this program identified several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, more than a year before the attacks. However, Weldon alleges that military lawyers prevented the sharing of this information with the FBI, citing legal restrictions[4].

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Curt Weldon's Testimony**: Weldon has consistently stated that Able Danger identified Atta's cell in 1999 and made recommendations to share this information with the FBI on multiple occasions. However, these efforts were blocked by government lawyers[4].

2. **Legal Restrictions**: The claim that military lawyers blocked the sharing of information is plausible given the legal and bureaucratic barriers that often exist within intelligence agencies. These barriers can prevent the effective sharing of sensitive information across different agencies.

### Evidence Against the Claim

1. **9/11 Commission Response**: The 9/11 Commission co-chairman, Lee Hamilton, stated that the commission was not informed about the specific details of Able Danger's findings regarding the hijackers. This suggests that while there might have been some internal discussions, the commission did not find the information credible or significant enough to include in their report[4].

2. **Lack of Concrete Evidence**: Despite Weldon's claims, there is limited concrete evidence to support the assertion that military lawyers actively blocked the sharing of information about identified hijackers. The narrative relies heavily on Weldon's testimony and lacks corroborating documentation from other sources.

### Conclusion

While there is some evidence supporting the claim that attempts to share information about identified hijackers were blocked, the narrative is largely based on the testimony of Curt Weldon and lacks comprehensive documentation. The 9/11 Commission's response and the lack of detailed records from other sources make it difficult to verify the claim conclusively. Therefore, the claim remains a topic of debate within the context of 9/11 investigations and intelligence sharing.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review of Military and FBI Communications**: A thorough review of military and FBI communications and records from the period leading up to the 9/11 attacks could provide more insight into whether such information was indeed blocked.

2. **Interviews with Involved Parties**: Conducting interviews with individuals involved in the Able Danger program and those who worked with Weldon could offer additional perspectives and evidence.

3. **Analysis of Legal and Bureaucratic Barriers**: An examination of the legal and bureaucratic barriers that existed at the time could help clarify why information might not have been shared effectively between agencies.

Citations

Claim

George H.W. Bush publicly praised Kurt Weldon in a tribute.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that George H.W. Bush publicly praised Kurt Weldon in a tribute, we need to examine available sources and evidence. The claim involves a specific public event that should be verifiable through media reports or video archives.

## Claim Evaluation

1. **Public Tribute by George H.W. Bush**: The claim suggests that there was a public event or statement where George H.W. Bush praised Kurt Weldon. However, there is no specific information or evidence in the provided search results that directly supports this claim.

2. **Available Sources**:
– A YouTube video from 2018 features former Congressman Curt Weldon remembering former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, but it does not mention a public tribute from Bush to Weldon[1].
– A website mentions a tribute from President George H.W. Bush to Curt Weldon, but it lacks specific details or context about the nature of this tribute[4].

3. **Conclusion**: Based on the available information, there is no clear evidence to confirm that George H.W. Bush publicly praised Kurt Weldon in a specific tribute. While there is mention of a tribute, it lacks concrete details or verification through reliable sources.

## Additional Context

– **Curt Weldon's Involvement in 9/11 Investigations**: Curt Weldon has been vocal about his concerns regarding the handling of intelligence before and after the 9/11 attacks. He has expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability in investigations, suggesting that there were cover-ups and missed opportunities to prevent the attacks[2][5].

– **Allegations of Obstruction**: Weldon alleges that certain government agencies, including the CIA, obstructed his efforts to investigate these matters further. He also mentions the 'Able Danger' project, which he believes could have identified al-Qaeda threats before the attacks but was hindered by bureaucratic issues[5].

In summary, while there is mention of a tribute from George H.W. Bush to Curt Weldon, the claim lacks specific evidence or context to confirm it as a public event. The broader context involves Weldon's advocacy for transparency and accountability regarding the 9/11 attacks.

Citations

Claim

Seymour Hersh stated that Kurt Weldon had a significant story to tell regarding 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Seymour Hersh stated Kurt Weldon had a significant story to tell regarding 9/11, we need to examine available evidence and credible sources. The discussion seems to revolve around several key points: the funding of the 9/11 Commission, allegations of CIA involvement with 9/11 hijackers, the 'Able Danger' project, and claims of obstruction by intelligence agencies.

## 1. Funding of the 9/11 Commission
Kurt Weldon has indeed expressed frustration over the funding of the 9/11 Commission. He compared the $15 million allocated for the 9/11 investigation unfavorably to the $30 million spent on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. However, this comparison is not directly linked to Seymour Hersh's statements or any specific claims about Weldon having a significant story to tell about 9/11.

## 2. Allegations of CIA Involvement with 9/11 Hijackers
There are no credible sources indicating that Seymour Hersh specifically mentioned Kurt Weldon having a significant story regarding CIA involvement with 9/11 hijackers. Weldon has made claims about missed warnings and potential conspiracies, but these are not directly linked to Hersh's statements.

## 3. 'Able Danger' Project
Curt Weldon has been associated with the 'Able Danger' controversy, claiming that the project identified al-Qaeda cells before 9/11 but was hindered by bureaucratic issues. However, there is no evidence that Seymour Hersh specifically highlighted Weldon's involvement in this context as having a significant story to tell about 9/11.

## 4. Claims of Obstruction by Intelligence Agencies
Weldon has alleged obstruction by intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which he claims interfered with his investigations. Again, there is no direct evidence linking these claims to Seymour Hersh's statements.

## Conclusion
The claim that Seymour Hersh stated Kurt Weldon had a significant story to tell regarding 9/11 lacks direct evidence from credible sources. While Weldon has made various claims about 9/11 and intelligence failures, there is no specific mention of Hersh endorsing or highlighting these claims as significant. Therefore, without further evidence, this claim cannot be substantiated.

## Relevant Sources:
– **Curt Weldon's Claims and Activities**: Weldon has been vocal about his concerns regarding 9/11 and intelligence failures, including the 'Able Danger' project and alleged CIA obstruction[2][4][5].
– **Seymour Hersh's Work**: While Seymour Hersh is a prominent investigative journalist known for uncovering significant stories, there is no specific evidence linking him to Kurt Weldon's claims about 9/11.
– **9/11 Commission and Funding**: The funding of the 9/11 Commission has been a point of contention, but this does not directly relate to Hersh's statements about Weldon[4].

Citations

Claim

Brennan and Clapper sought to disrupt Kurt Weldon's election.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Brennan and Clapper Sought to Disrupt Kurt Weldon's Election

The claim that John Brennan and James Clapper sought to disrupt Kurt Weldon's election involves serious allegations against two prominent intelligence officials. To assess the validity of this claim, we must examine available evidence and context.

### Background on Kurt Weldon

Kurt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania, was involved in several initiatives related to national security and intelligence, including the creation of the Gilmore Commission and the proposed National Operation Analysis Hub (NOAH) to enhance information sharing among government agencies[3]. Weldon has been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the handling of the 9/11 investigations and has raised questions about potential cover-ups and missed warnings[3].

### Allegations Against Brennan and Clapper

The claim specifically mentions Brennan and Clapper as individuals who allegedly interfered with Weldon's political career. However, there is no direct evidence in the provided sources to support this claim. The sources primarily discuss Weldon's frustrations with the 9/11 Commission and his efforts to improve intelligence sharing, but they do not mention specific actions by Brennan or Clapper to disrupt his election[1][3][5].

### Context of the 9/11 Investigations

Weldon has criticized the 9/11 Commission for its handling of the investigation, suggesting that it was underfunded and that there were conflicts of interest among its members[5]. He also raised concerns about the CIA's role in the events leading up to 9/11, including the alleged involvement of CIA assets with the hijackers and the stymied Able Danger project[3][5]. However, these criticisms do not directly link to Brennan and Clapper's actions regarding Weldon's election.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that John Brennan and James Clapper sought to disrupt Kurt Weldon's election. While Weldon has expressed frustration with the intelligence community and the handling of 9/11 investigations, the specific allegation against Brennan and Clapper remains unsubstantiated. Further investigation into political records and testimonies would be necessary to validate such a claim.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review Political Records**: Examine official documents and records related to Weldon's political career and any interactions with intelligence agencies.
2. **Testimonies and Interviews**: Conduct interviews with individuals who may have knowledge of any alleged interference by Brennan or Clapper.
3. **Historical Context**: Consider the broader political climate and any potential motivations for such actions during the relevant time period.

Citations

Claim

The FBI raided Kurt Weldon’s daughter’s house to prevent him from becoming chairman.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the FBI raided Kurt Weldon's daughter's house to prevent him from becoming chairman, we need to examine available evidence and credible sources. However, the search results do not provide specific information about such a raid or its connection to preventing Weldon from becoming a chairman.

## Background on Curt Weldon

Curt Weldon is a former U.S. Congressman known for his involvement in various investigations and initiatives related to national security and terrorism. He was particularly interested in the 9/11 attacks and the intelligence failures leading up to them. Weldon has been critical of the 9/11 Commission and has raised questions about the handling of intelligence information, including the Able Danger project, which he believed could have identified al-Qaeda threats before the attacks[3][5].

## Allegations and Claims

Weldon has made several claims about the 9/11 attacks, including allegations of a broader conspiracy involving intelligence agencies and the potential for missed warnings. He has also expressed frustration over funding discrepancies between the 9/11 Commission and other investigations, suggesting a cover-up[3]. However, these claims do not directly relate to the specific allegation about the FBI raid on his daughter's house.

## Evaluation of the Claim

Given the lack of specific information in the search results about an FBI raid on Weldon's daughter's house, it is challenging to verify this claim. Typically, such allegations would require documentation from legal proceedings, FBI records, or news reports to be substantiated. Without concrete evidence, it is difficult to conclude whether this event occurred or if it was politically motivated.

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no direct evidence to support the claim that the FBI raided Curt Weldon's daughter's house to prevent him from becoming chairman. Further investigation would require access to specific legal documents or news reports that detail such an event. The broader context of Weldon's involvement in 9/11 investigations and his criticisms of intelligence agencies does not provide sufficient evidence to validate this specific claim.

Citations

Claim

The Department of Defense confirmed that an internal investigation identified five Able Danger team members as credible sources.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that the Department of Defense confirmed an internal investigation identifying five Able Danger team members as credible sources can be evaluated based on available information and official reports.

### Background on Able Danger
Able Danger was a classified military planning effort led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), aimed at developing an information operations campaign plan against transnational terrorism[5]. The program was initiated in response to a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 1999[5].

### Claims by Able Danger Team Members
Five individuals, including Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, claimed that they worked on or ran Able Danger and identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 terrorists over a year before the attacks[1][4]. These individuals asserted that Able Danger amassed significant data, primarily from open sources, about Al Qaeda operations worldwide[1][4].

### Official Investigations and Findings
The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a sixteen-month investigation into Able Danger, concluding in December 2006 that "Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to September 11, 2001"[5]. This conclusion contradicts the claims made by the Able Danger team members.

### Pentagon's Stance and Testimony Issues
The Pentagon was criticized for ordering key witnesses not to testify, which was seen as potential obstruction by the Senate Judiciary Committee[5]. This action limited the ability to verify the claims made by the Able Danger team members through public testimony.

### Conclusion
While the Department of Defense acknowledged the existence of an internal investigation and the claims made by five Able Danger team members, the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation found no evidence to support the claim that Able Danger identified 9/11 hijackers before the attacks[5]. The Pentagon's decision to silence key witnesses further complicated the verification of these claims[5].

In summary, the claim about the Department of Defense confirming the credibility of five Able Danger team members is not supported by the official findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The committee's investigation did not validate the claims made by these individuals regarding the identification of 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks[5].

Citations

Claim

Defensive officials have said that the documents associated with the Able Danger project have been destroyed in accordance with regulations.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Destruction of Able Danger Documents

The claim that defensive officials stated the documents associated with the Able Danger project were destroyed in accordance with regulations is supported by reliable sources. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Destruction of Documents
According to Senate hearings, representatives from the Department of Defense confirmed that documents associated with the project were destroyed in accordance with regulations regarding the collection, dissemination, and destruction of intelligence gathering on people inside the United States[1]. This destruction was part of standard procedures for handling sensitive information.

### Regulations and Procedures
The Department of Defense follows specific guidelines for handling classified and sensitive information. While the specific regulations for the time of Able Danger are not detailed in the provided sources, the DoD has general policies for managing and destroying sensitive documents. For example, more recent guidelines like the DoD Instruction 5200.48 cover Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), emphasizing proper handling and disposal procedures[4]. Although this instruction is from 2020, it reflects ongoing efforts to standardize information management practices within the DoD.

### Testimony and Controversy
The destruction of documents has been a point of controversy, with some officials prevented from testifying due to concerns about classified information[1]. This has led to questions about the transparency and consistency of the Pentagon's actions regarding Able Danger.

### Conclusion
The claim that documents associated with the Able Danger project were destroyed in accordance with regulations is supported by official statements and Senate hearings[1][3]. However, the controversy surrounding the destruction and the handling of classified information highlights ongoing debates about transparency and accountability in intelligence operations.

### Evidence and Citations
– **Senate Hearing 109-311**: Confirms that documents were destroyed according to regulations[1].
– **Pentagon Briefing**: Discusses the destruction of documents in the context of established regulations[5].
– **Able Danger Overview**: Provides background on the project's objectives and context[2].

Citations

Claim

250 members of Congress signed a letter requesting the Able Danger team to testify after 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 250 Members of Congress Signed a Letter Requesting the Able Danger Team to Testify After 9/11

To verify the claim that 250 members of Congress signed a letter requesting the Able Danger team to testify after 9/11, we must rely on official congressional records or direct evidence of such a letter. However, the provided search results do not include specific information about this claim.

### Available Information

1. **Able Danger and Congressional Hearings**: The search results mention hearings related to Able Danger, such as the one on September 21, 2005, where the issue of intelligence information sharing was discussed[2]. However, there is no mention of a letter signed by 250 members of Congress requesting testimony from the Able Danger team.

2. **Congressional Records and Hearings**: Typically, such a significant action would be documented in congressional records or transcripts of hearings. The lack of specific mention in available sources suggests that either the claim might be exaggerated or the documentation is not readily accessible.

3. **Context of Able Danger**: Able Danger was a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. It was discussed in various contexts, including its potential to have provided critical intelligence before the attacks[2]. However, bureaucratic barriers and classification issues limited its impact and the ability of its members to testify freely.

### Conclusion

Without direct evidence or specific references to a letter signed by 250 members of Congress requesting the Able Danger team to testify, the claim remains unsubstantiated based on the available search results. Verification would require access to detailed congressional records or direct confirmation from reliable sources.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

– **Review Congressional Records**: Check official congressional records and archives for any documentation of such a letter.
– **Contact Congressional Offices**: Reach out to congressional offices or archives for information on any collective action related to the Able Danger team.
– **Consult Historical Documents**: Examine historical documents and reports related to the 9/11 investigations and Able Danger for any mention of this claim.

Citations

Claim

There is a belief that there are individuals within the intelligence community making money off the backs of dead soldiers and firefighters.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there are individuals within the intelligence community making money off the backs of dead soldiers and firefighters reflects a broader belief in unethical profit and cover-ups related to military and intelligence operations, particularly in the context of the September 11 attacks. This belief is tied to allegations of obstruction, conspiracy, and misallocation of resources within the intelligence and defense sectors.

Former Congressman Curt Weldon has been a prominent figure expressing frustration over what he perceives as a cover-up surrounding 9/11. He criticized the limited funding allocated to the 9/11 Commission ($15 million) compared to the $30 million spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal, suggesting this disparity indicates interference by a "deep state" to prevent a full investigation into the attacks[3]. Weldon alleges that members of the CIA, including figures like John Brennan and James Clapper, obstructed his efforts to gain a leadership role that would have enabled more comprehensive investigation[3].

Weldon further claims that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA payroll at the time and that the agency missed or suppressed warnings about the attacks. He references "Able Danger," a classified military intelligence project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before 9/11, which he says was stymied by bureaucratic barriers and lack of cooperation from intelligence agencies[3]. Weldon recounts experiences of intimidation and the loss of associates involved in these investigations, emphasizing the need for truth and accountability for the nearly 3,000 lives lost on 9/11[3].

However, these claims have been met with significant skepticism and have been labeled as conspiracy theories by some officials. For example, a Pentagon Inspector General report rejected the assertion that Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta and other hijackers before 9/11, calling Weldon's claims baseless[2]. Critics argue that Weldon's focus on these theories detracts from addressing real security threats and implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations[2].

Regarding the specific claim about individuals profiting unethically from the deaths of soldiers and firefighters, there is no direct evidence in the provided sources confirming financial profiteering by intelligence community members tied to 9/11 casualties. The discussion centers more on alleged obstruction, mismanagement, and conspiracy rather than explicit profiteering. Nonetheless, the belief in such unethical behavior is part of the broader narrative of distrust toward intelligence and military institutions that some, including Weldon, have voiced in relation to 9/11 investigations[3][4].

In summary:

– Curt Weldon alleges obstruction and cover-up by intelligence officials regarding 9/11 investigations, including claims about CIA involvement and missed warnings[3][4].
– He highlights bureaucratic failures in intelligence sharing and the suppression of projects like Able Danger, which purportedly could have prevented the attacks[3].
– Official investigations and reports have largely dismissed these conspiracy claims as baseless[2].
– There is no verified evidence from the sources that individuals within the intelligence community have made money off the backs of dead soldiers and firefighters, though the belief in such unethical profit exists within some narratives about 9/11 and intelligence failures.

Thus, while the claim reflects a real and persistent belief in unethical behavior and cover-ups within the intelligence community, it remains unsubstantiated by credible evidence and is contested by official reports and investigations.

Citations

Claim

Two former staffers, both ex-CIA, died shortly after being involved in this discussion, raising suspicions of foul play.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that two former staffers, both ex-CIA, died shortly after being involved in discussions related to the September 11 attacks, raising suspicions of foul play, we need to examine several key aspects:

1. **Existence of the Claim**: The claim itself is not supported by specific details or evidence in the provided search results. It is essential to verify if such a claim has been made by credible sources or if it is a part of a broader narrative related to the 9/11 investigations.

2. **Curt Weldon's Involvement**: Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has been vocal about his frustrations with the handling of the 9/11 investigations. He has discussed issues like the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and the potential for a cover-up involving intelligence agencies[1][4]. However, there is no mention of specific deaths of former CIA staffers in the context of his discussions.

3. **Able Danger and Intelligence Issues**: Weldon has highlighted the role of projects like Able Danger, which identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks but faced bureaucratic barriers in sharing this information[4]. This context suggests that there were indeed issues with intelligence sharing and potential missed warnings, but it does not directly support the claim of suspicious deaths.

4. **Investigations and Controversies**: Weldon faced investigations unrelated to the 9/11 discussions, such as those concerning his ties to foreign companies[5]. However, these investigations do not relate to the claim of suspicious deaths among former CIA staffers.

5. **Health Records and Circumstances**: To investigate the claim, one would need access to health records and detailed circumstances surrounding any deaths. This information is not publicly available in the provided sources.

**Conclusion**: The claim about two former CIA staffers dying under suspicious circumstances shortly after being involved in discussions related to the 9/11 attacks lacks concrete evidence in the provided search results. Without specific details or credible sources supporting this claim, it remains unsubstantiated. Further investigation would require access to detailed records and official statements that are not currently available in the search results.

Citations

Claim

Able Danger was an entrepreneurial concept created to target al-Qaeda before 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Able Danger as an Entrepreneurial Concept to Target al-Qaeda Before 9/11

The claim that Able Danger was an entrepreneurial concept created to target al-Qaeda before 9/11 can be evaluated by examining historical accounts and the nature of the initiative.

### Nature of Able Danger

Able Danger was a classified military planning effort led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), initiated in response to a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 1999. Its primary goal was to develop an information operations campaign plan against transnational terrorism, specifically targeting al-Qaeda[1].

### Entrepreneurial Concept

The term "entrepreneurial concept" typically refers to innovative or pioneering ideas in business or organizational settings. In the context of military operations, this could imply a novel approach to intelligence gathering or counter-terrorism. However, Able Danger was primarily a military intelligence operation rather than an entrepreneurial venture in the traditional sense. It was designed to identify and disrupt terrorist networks using advanced data analysis techniques[1].

### Claims and Controversies

Claims surrounding Able Danger include assertions that it identified Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. However, these claims have been disputed by official investigations. The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in December 2006 that Able Danger did not identify Atta or any other 9/11 hijackers prior to the attacks[1]. Despite these findings, some continue to argue that bureaucratic barriers and potential obstruction prevented the effective use of Able Danger's intelligence[5].

### Additional Claims and Allegations

Former Congressman Kurt Weldon and others have raised additional conspiracy theories, including allegations of CIA involvement with 9/11 hijackers and obstruction by intelligence officials. However, these claims lack substantial evidence and are not supported by mainstream investigations[5].

### Conclusion

While Able Danger was indeed a military initiative aimed at targeting al-Qaeda before 9/11, describing it as an "entrepreneurial concept" may not accurately reflect its nature as a classified military operation. The initiative faced bureaucratic challenges and controversy over its effectiveness and the handling of its intelligence. However, official investigations have not supported claims of identifying specific hijackers or broader conspiracies involving U.S. intelligence agencies.

### Evidence and Citations

– **Able Danger's Purpose and Claims**: Able Danger was a military effort to combat terrorism, but claims about its success in identifying 9/11 hijackers have been disputed by official investigations[1][5].
– **Investigations and Findings**: The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or other hijackers before 9/11[1].
– **Allegations and Controversies**: Additional claims of CIA involvement and obstruction lack substantial evidence and are not supported by mainstream investigations[5].

Citations

Claim

The Able Danger operation was tasked to go kill Al Qaeda before 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Able Danger operation was tasked to "go kill Al Qaeda before 9/11" is not supported by the available evidence. Able Danger was a classified military intelligence program initiated by the Department of Defense aimed at identifying and tracking Al Qaeda operatives prior to the September 11 attacks, but its mission was focused on data collection and analysis rather than direct action such as targeted killings.

**What Able Danger Was and Did**

– Able Danger was a data-mining and intelligence-gathering operation that reportedly identified key Al Qaeda figures, including Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, as early as 2000, over a year before the attacks[4][5].
– The operation amassed significant data primarily from open sources and was used in briefings for senior military officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[4].
– Military personnel involved in Able Danger have claimed they identified Atta and other terrorists but were prevented by bureaucratic and legal barriers from sharing this intelligence with the FBI or taking further action[4][5].

**Limitations and Controversies**

– Able Danger did not have a mandate or capability to conduct lethal operations or "go kill" Al Qaeda operatives; it was an intelligence collection and analysis program[4].
– There were internal restrictions and legal concerns about sharing intelligence gathered by Able Danger with law enforcement agencies, which reportedly hindered potential preventive measures[4][5].
– The 9/11 Commission did not fully explore or incorporate Able Danger intelligence in its final report, raising questions about missed opportunities and bureaucratic obstacles[5].

**Context of the Claim**

– Former Congressman Kurt Weldon and others have alleged a broader conspiracy involving intelligence failures and obstruction by officials within the CIA and Pentagon, suggesting that Able Danger's findings were suppressed or ignored[summary].
– Weldon has expressed frustration over the limited funding and scope of the 9/11 Commission, implying a cover-up by the "deep state" to prevent a full investigation into pre-9/11 intelligence, including Able Danger[summary].
– However, official investigations and reports, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have not confirmed that Able Danger was tasked with or capable of conducting direct action missions against Al Qaeda before 9/11[1][4].

**Conclusion**

Able Danger was a military intelligence operation focused on identifying Al Qaeda threats through data analysis before the 9/11 attacks. While it reportedly identified some hijackers early, it was not tasked with or equipped to carry out lethal operations against Al Qaeda. The claim that Able Danger was tasked to "go kill Al Qaeda before 9/11" is therefore inaccurate. The program's main issue was bureaucratic and legal barriers that prevented sharing critical intelligence, not a failure to act on a kill mission[4][5].

Citations

Claim

Able Danger flagged individuals later tied to 9/11, including Mohammed Atta.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Able Danger Flagged Individuals Later Tied to 9/11, Including Mohammed Atta

The claim that Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers before the attacks is a contentious issue that has been debated extensively. Here's a detailed analysis of the claim based on available evidence:

### Background of Able Danger

Able Danger was a classified military intelligence program led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It aimed to identify and disrupt al-Qaeda operations worldwide using data primarily from open sources[1][3].

### Claims of Identifying 9/11 Hijackers

Several individuals involved with Able Danger, including a few military officers, have claimed that the program identified Mohammed Atta and possibly other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks. These claims were highlighted by former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon, who alleged that this information was not shared with the FBI due to bureaucratic restrictions[1][3][5].

### Investigation and Response

The 9/11 Commission, which investigated the attacks, denied receiving any information about Able Danger identifying Atta or other hijackers before the attacks. Commission members like Lee H. Hamilton and Alvin S. Felzenberg stated that they were unaware of any U.S. government knowledge about surveillance of Atta or his cell prior to 9/11[1].

### Senate Review and Findings

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the Able Danger program and found that while some individuals claimed to have identified Atta, there was no conclusive evidence to support the claim that this information was deliberately withheld from the 9/11 Commission or other agencies[2][4].

### Conclusion

While some individuals associated with Able Danger claim that the program identified Atta and other hijackers before 9/11, these claims are not universally accepted. The 9/11 Commission and subsequent reviews did not find conclusive evidence to support these assertions. Therefore, the claim remains controversial and lacks definitive proof to fully validate it.

### Evidence and Citations

– **Able Danger's Claims**: Several military officers involved with Able Danger have stated that they identified Atta and other hijackers, but these claims are not supported by the 9/11 Commission's findings[1][3][5].
– **9/11 Commission Response**: The Commission denied receiving any information about Able Danger identifying Atta or other hijackers before the attacks[1].
– **Senate Review**: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not find conclusive evidence to support the claims of withheld information[2][4].

In summary, while there are claims that Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers before the attacks, these claims are not supported by the official investigations and remain a subject of debate.

Citations

Claim

Able Danger was the first time Special Operations Command was ever the supported sink.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Able Danger was the first time Special Operations Command was ever the supported sink."

To assess the validity of this claim, we need to understand what "Able Danger" was and its role within the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). **Able Danger** was a classified military project that operated from late 1999 to early 2001, aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. It was supported by the Army's Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) and involved data mining to identify potential terrorist cells[1][5].

The term "supported sink" is not commonly used in military command structures, so it's unclear what specific aspect of SOCOM's operations this claim refers to. However, if the claim implies that Able Danger was the first time SOCOM was involved in a project where it received significant support or was the focal point of a major intelligence operation, there is no clear evidence to support this as a historical first.

### Evidence and Context

1. **Historical Context of SOCOM**: SOCOM was established in 1987 as part of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act and the Nunn-Cohen Amendment. It was designed to consolidate special operations forces under a unified command, enhancing their capabilities and coordination[4]. This suggests that SOCOM has been involved in various operations and projects since its inception, but Able Danger is notable for its intelligence focus.

2. **Able Danger's Significance**: Able Danger is significant because it was one of the first attempts to use data mining to identify terrorist networks. However, it was controversial due to allegations that it identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks but was unable to share this information effectively due to bureaucratic barriers[5].

3. **Lack of Specific Evidence**: There is no specific evidence to suggest that Able Danger was the first time SOCOM was the "supported sink" in any military operation. The term "supported sink" is not standard in discussions about military command structures or operations.

### Conclusion

Given the available information, the claim that "Able Danger was the first time Special Operations Command was ever the supported sink" lacks clarity and specific evidence. While Able Danger was a significant project for SOCOM, involving innovative intelligence gathering techniques, there is no clear indication that it represented a historical first in terms of SOCOM's operational support structure. The claim seems to be more about highlighting the project's importance rather than establishing a precedent in SOCOM's operational history.

In summary, without further clarification on what "supported sink" refers to, it is difficult to validate this claim based on existing historical and operational records of SOCOM and the Able Danger project.

Citations

Claim

The goal of Able Danger was to preemptively disrupt terror plots through actionable intelligence passed to agencies like the FBI and the CIA.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: The Goal of Able Danger

The claim that the goal of Able Danger was to preemptively disrupt terror plots through actionable intelligence passed to agencies like the FBI and the CIA can be evaluated based on available information.

### Background of Able Danger

Able Danger was a classified military project initiated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in the late 1990s. Its primary objective was to identify and disrupt al-Qaeda cells worldwide, particularly focusing on the potential threats posed by these groups[3].

### Mission and Activities

The project involved data collection and analysis, primarily from open sources, to identify patterns and connections within al-Qaeda operations. This data was used to prepare briefings for high-level officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[3]. Some individuals involved in Able Danger, such as Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, claimed that they identified several 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, more than a year before the attacks[3][5].

### Intelligence Sharing and Bureaucratic Barriers

Despite its objectives, Able Danger faced significant bureaucratic barriers that hindered the sharing of its intelligence with other agencies like the FBI and CIA. These barriers were often cited as reasons why the project's findings did not lead to more effective preventive actions[3].

### Conclusion on the Claim

The claim that Able Danger aimed to disrupt terror plots through intelligence sharing is supported by its mission to identify and counter al-Qaeda threats. However, the effectiveness of this mission was limited by bureaucratic issues and the lack of coordination with other intelligence agencies[3][5]. While Able Danger did collect significant data, its inability to effectively share this intelligence with relevant agencies like the FBI and CIA reduced its impact on preventing the 9/11 attacks.

### Additional Context

The broader context of the 9/11 investigations and the role of other intelligence agencies, as discussed by Kurt Weldon and others, involves allegations of obstruction and missed warnings. However, these claims are not directly related to the primary mission of Able Danger but rather to the broader issues of intelligence sharing and accountability in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks.

In summary, while Able Danger's goal was indeed to preemptively disrupt terror plots, its success was hampered by bureaucratic challenges and the lack of effective intelligence sharing with other agencies.

Citations

Claim

A proposal to establish a National Operations and Analysis Hub (NOAA) was presented to the FBI and CIA two years prior to 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that a proposal to establish a **National Operations and Analysis Hub (NOAA)** was presented to the FBI and CIA two years prior to 9/11 appears to be misleading or incorrect based on the available information. NOAA, as an organization, is well-known as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is not directly related to the establishment of an intelligence hub. NOAA's primary focus is on environmental and weather-related activities, not intelligence operations.

### NOAA's Role and Activities

NOAA is involved in a wide range of activities, including weather forecasting, climate monitoring, and marine conservation. There is no evidence in the provided sources or general knowledge that NOAA was involved in establishing an intelligence hub for the FBI and CIA. NOAA's activities are more aligned with environmental and scientific research rather than intelligence operations[1][4].

### Intelligence Sharing and Analysis Before 9/11

The discussion around improving intelligence sharing and analysis before the 9/11 attacks is a valid concern. However, this is typically associated with initiatives within the intelligence community itself, such as the CIA and FBI, rather than NOAA. Projects like "Able Danger" were indeed aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats, but these were military and intelligence operations, not related to NOAA[5].

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that a proposal for a National Operations and Analysis Hub (NOAA) was presented to the FBI and CIA two years prior to 9/11. The confusion may arise from the acronym "NOAA," which is commonly associated with environmental and atmospheric research, not intelligence operations. The discussion around intelligence sharing and analysis before 9/11 is a separate issue that involves different entities and initiatives within the intelligence community.

### Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Clarify the Acronym**: Ensure that the acronym "NOAA" in the claim refers to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or if it is being used to refer to a different entity or concept.
2. **Review Intelligence Initiatives**: Investigate specific intelligence initiatives and projects that were aimed at improving intelligence sharing and analysis before the 9/11 attacks.
3. **Consult Official Documents**: Look for official documents or reports from the FBI, CIA, or other relevant agencies that might discuss proposals for intelligence hubs or similar initiatives around the time of the claim.

Citations

Claim

The CIA did not want to be part of the proposed fusion center for intelligence sharing.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: CIA Resistance to Fusion Centers

The claim that the CIA did not want to be part of the proposed fusion center for intelligence sharing touches on broader issues of interagency cooperation and resistance within the intelligence community post-9/11. To assess this claim, we need to examine the context of intelligence reform and the establishment of fusion centers.

### Background: Post-9/11 Intelligence Reform

Following the September 11 attacks, there was a significant push for intelligence reform to improve information sharing among agencies. The 9/11 Commission highlighted the lack of coordination and information sharing as a critical factor in the failure to prevent the attacks[4]. This led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the establishment of fusion centers to enhance collaboration between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies[1][4].

### Fusion Centers and Intelligence Sharing

Fusion centers are designed to facilitate the sharing of threat-related information across different levels of government. While they primarily focus on counterterrorism, their scope has expanded to include an "all hazards" approach[4]. However, there is no specific evidence in the provided sources indicating that the CIA resisted joining fusion centers. Instead, the CIA and other agencies have been involved in broader efforts to improve intelligence integration and sharing[5].

### CIA and Interagency Cooperation

The CIA has been part of broader efforts to enhance interagency cooperation, particularly in the context of intelligence integration. For example, the CIA has worked with other agencies like the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to improve information sharing[5]. While there have been challenges and tensions in these efforts, there is no direct evidence to support the claim that the CIA specifically resisted participating in fusion centers.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that the CIA did not want to be part of the proposed fusion center for intelligence sharing. The CIA has been involved in broader efforts to enhance intelligence integration and sharing post-9/11, although challenges and resistance within the intelligence community have been noted[5]. Further research or specific documentation would be needed to confirm any resistance from the CIA regarding fusion centers.

### Additional Context: Kurt Weldon's Claims

Kurt Weldon's claims about CIA involvement and obstruction in investigations related to the 9/11 attacks are part of a broader narrative of conspiracy theories and allegations of deep state interference. These claims are not supported by mainstream evidence and have been controversial. The focus on CIA resistance to fusion centers, however, does not appear to be directly related to these specific allegations.

In summary, while there have been challenges in interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing, there is no specific evidence to support the claim that the CIA resisted participating in fusion centers. The CIA has been part of broader efforts to improve intelligence integration post-9/11.

Citations

Claim

Intelligence collectors are very restricted on what they can collect when a U.S. person comes up.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Intelligence Collectors Are Restricted on What They Can Collect When a U.S. Person Comes Up

The claim that intelligence collectors are very restricted on what they can collect when a U.S. person comes up is supported by legal documents and historical context regarding intelligence oversight. Here's a detailed analysis of the regulations and oversight mechanisms in place:

### Legal Framework

1. **Executive Order 12333**: This executive order, most recently amended in 2008, sets the strategic goals and mission of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), emphasizing the collection of information for valid foreign intelligence purposes while protecting Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights[1]. It stipulates that intelligence activities concerning U.S. persons must be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the element or department head and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence[1].

2. **Department of Defense (DOD) Directives**: DODD 5240.1 specifically addresses the collection, retention, and dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons by DOD intelligence components. It requires that such collection be necessary to the functions of the DOD intelligence component concerned and that the least intrusive means feasible be used[3]. Additionally, it mandates reporting any violations of intelligence law to the Inspector General or General Counsel[3].

3. **Intelligence Community Directives (ICDs)**: ICDs, such as ICD 102, provide policies regarding U.S. persons, ensuring compliance with executive direction and legal requirements[4].

### Oversight Mechanisms

1. **Internal Oversight**: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has several offices responsible for oversight, including the Office of General Counsel, the IC Inspector General, and the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy and Transparency. These offices ensure that IC activities comply with the law and promote transparency[1].

2. **External Oversight**: Oversight is also performed by entities outside the IC, including all three branches of government. This ensures that the IC can account for the lawfulness of its activities to the president, Congress, and the American people[1].

### Historical Context and Investigations

While the claim about restrictions on intelligence collection is supported by legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms, allegations of conspiracy or obstruction related to the 9/11 attacks, such as those made by Kurt Weldon, are not substantiated by credible evidence. The 9/11 Commission Report and other investigations have not found evidence to support claims that the CIA had hijackers on its payroll or that there was a broader conspiracy involving the deep state.

In summary, the claim that intelligence collectors are restricted on what they can collect when a U.S. person comes up is valid based on legal and regulatory frameworks. However, specific allegations of conspiracy or obstruction related to the 9/11 attacks lack credible evidence to support them.

### Conclusion

The legal and regulatory framework governing intelligence collection on U.S. persons is robust, with multiple layers of oversight to ensure compliance with the law and protection of civil liberties. While there are restrictions on collecting information about U.S. persons, unsubstantiated claims of conspiracy or obstruction related to significant events like the 9/11 attacks should be approached with caution and require rigorous evidence to be considered credible.

Citations

Claim

Kurt funded the advanced technology that SOCOM figured out how to get and use.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "Kurt funded the advanced technology that SOCOM figured out how to get and use" appears to be a mischaracterization or an oversimplification of the role of former Congressman Curt Weldon in relation to military technology and intelligence efforts connected to the events surrounding 9/11.

**Context on Curt Weldon's Involvement with Military and Intelligence Technology**

– Curt Weldon was a U.S. Congressman who was notably involved in efforts to improve U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities before and after 9/11. He created the Gilmore Commission in 1993 to investigate U.S. preparedness for terrorist attacks and attempted to establish the National Operation Analysis Hub (NOAH) in 1999, aimed at integrating information-sharing on transnational terrorist threats among government agencies. However, the CIA opposed NOAH, and it was never fully implemented despite Weldon's efforts to include it in defense bills[3].

– Weldon has publicly stated that military intelligence, specifically a classified project called "Able Danger," identified some of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta's cell, well before the attacks. He claims that this information was repeatedly recommended to be shared with the FBI but was blocked by government lawyers and bureaucratic barriers[5][3].

**Regarding Funding and Technology for SOCOM**

– There is no direct evidence in the available records that Curt Weldon personally funded advanced technology that SOCOM (U.S. Special Operations Command) later acquired and used. Rather, his role was more legislative and advocacy-oriented, pushing for better intelligence sharing and counterterrorism initiatives.

– Weldon’s frustration, as expressed in interviews and congressional records, centers on the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and alleged obstruction by intelligence officials, not on direct funding of military technology[3][1].

– SOCOM’s acquisition and use of advanced technology typically come through Department of Defense budgets and procurement processes, not individual congressional members personally funding technology.

**Summary**

– Curt Weldon was an advocate for improved intelligence coordination and claims to have been involved in efforts to identify terrorist threats before 9/11, including through the Able Danger program.

– He did not personally fund advanced technology for SOCOM; rather, his contributions were legislative and investigative, focusing on intelligence sharing and counterterrorism policy.

– The claim that "Kurt funded the advanced technology that SOCOM figured out how to get and use" is not supported by available evidence and appears to conflate his advocacy and legislative efforts with direct funding or technological provision to SOCOM.

Therefore, the claim is not valid based on the documented information about Curt Weldon's role and activities related to military technology and intelligence acquisition.

Citations

Claim

Two of the terrorists in the 9/11 attack were on the payroll of the CIA at the time.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Two 9/11 Hijackers Were on the CIA Payroll

The claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA payroll is highly controversial and lacks substantial evidence from credible sources. This assertion is primarily associated with former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon, who has been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission's investigation and has raised several conspiracy theories related to the attacks[3][4].

### Evidence and Documentation

1. **Lack of Official Confirmation**: There is no official confirmation or documentation from intelligence agencies or government investigations that supports the claim. The 9/11 Commission Report and subsequent investigations have not found evidence to substantiate this allegation.

2. **Able Danger Controversy**: Weldon also references the Able Danger program, a classified military intelligence operation that allegedly identified some of the hijackers before the attacks. However, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the information provided by Able Danger was not reliable enough to warrant further investigation[5].

3. **CIA and Intelligence Community Response**: The CIA and other intelligence agencies have not publicly acknowledged or confirmed that any of the 9/11 hijackers were on their payroll. Such a revelation would be significant and would likely have been addressed in official investigations or reports.

### Conclusion

Given the lack of credible evidence and the absence of official confirmation, the claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA payroll remains unsubstantiated. While there are concerns about the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission's investigation and the handling of intelligence information, these do not provide sufficient basis to validate this specific claim. For such a claim to be considered valid, it would require substantial evidence from reliable sources, which is currently not available.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Access to Classified Documents**: Any investigation into this claim would require access to classified documents and testimony from individuals involved in intelligence operations at the time.

2. **Independent Review**: An independent review of existing intelligence and investigative reports could help clarify whether there was any oversight or miscommunication that might have contributed to the attacks.

3. **Transparency and Accountability**: Ensuring transparency and accountability in government investigations is crucial for addressing public concerns and conspiracy theories surrounding significant events like the 9/11 attacks.

Citations

Claim

The 9/11 Commission did not investigate the claims that two terrorists were on the CIA payroll.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 9/11 Commission and CIA Payroll Allegations

The claim that the 9/11 Commission did not investigate allegations that two terrorists were on the CIA payroll is a contentious issue that has been raised by former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon. To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine the available evidence and the context of the 9/11 Commission's investigation.

### Background on the 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 Commission was established to investigate the September 11 attacks, with a mandate to provide a comprehensive account of the events leading up to and including the attacks. The commission's final report, released in July 2004, concluded that American intelligence agencies were unaware of key hijackers like Mohammed Atta until the day of the attacks[5].

### Allegations of CIA Involvement

Curt Weldon has made several claims regarding the 9/11 attacks, including the assertion that two of the hijackers were on the CIA payroll. However, there is no concrete evidence in the 9/11 Commission's report or other reputable sources to support this specific claim. Weldon's statements often focus on broader allegations of a cover-up and the failure to investigate certain intelligence leads, such as those from the Able Danger project[3][4].

### Able Danger and Intelligence Sharing

Able Danger was a classified military intelligence program that allegedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, more than a year before the attacks. Despite this, the information was not shared with the FBI due to legal restrictions[4][5]. The 9/11 Commission acknowledged meeting with a Navy officer who discussed Able Danger but deemed the information insufficiently reliable to alter their report[5].

### Conclusion

While Curt Weldon and others have raised questions about the thoroughness of the 9/11 Commission's investigation, including allegations of CIA involvement, there is no documented evidence in the commission's report or other authoritative sources to support the specific claim that two hijackers were on the CIA payroll. The commission's handling of the Able Danger information and other intelligence leads has been criticized, but these criticisms do not directly support the payroll claim.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review of Commission Records**: A thorough review of the 9/11 Commission's records and internal communications could provide insight into whether any allegations of CIA involvement were investigated or dismissed.
2. **Able Danger Documentation**: Further examination of the Able Danger project and its findings could shed light on why certain intelligence was not acted upon or shared effectively.
3. **CIA and Intelligence Community Responses**: Official statements or investigations from the CIA and other intelligence agencies regarding these allegations could help clarify their validity.

In summary, while there are criticisms of the 9/11 Commission's investigation, particularly regarding the handling of intelligence leads like Able Danger, the specific claim about hijackers being on the CIA payroll lacks concrete evidence from reliable sources.

Citations

Claim

Larry Silverstein leased the World Trade Center just six weeks before 9/11 and received a 4.55 billion dollar insurance payout following the destruction.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Larry Silverstein's Lease and Insurance Payout

The claim that Larry Silverstein leased the World Trade Center just six weeks before 9/11 and received a $4.55 billion insurance payout following the destruction can be partially validated through public records and reliable sources.

### Lease of the World Trade Center

1. **Lease Details**: In July 2001, Larry Silverstein completed the largest real estate transaction in New York history by signing a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center for $3.25 billion. This transaction occurred just six weeks before the September 11 attacks[2][3].

### Insurance Payout

2. **Insurance Coverage**: The insurance coverage for the World Trade Center was a subject of significant legal and financial dispute. Silverstein Properties had secured insurance coverage for the site, but the exact amount of the payout was a matter of litigation. The claim of a $4.55 billion payout is not explicitly confirmed in the provided sources, but it is known that Silverstein received substantial insurance proceeds[3][5].

3. **Litigation and Payout**: The total insurance payout for the World Trade Center was substantial, but the exact figure received by Silverstein is not detailed in the available sources. However, it is acknowledged that Silverstein received significant insurance proceeds, which were crucial for the rebuilding efforts[3][5].

### Rebuilding Efforts

4. **Rebuilding Costs and Funding**: The rebuilding of the World Trade Center site was a massive undertaking, with estimated costs varying over time. Initially, Silverstein mentioned a $12 billion cost for the site's redevelopment, with $5 billion expected from federal funding and $7 billion from insurers[3]. The overall project has been described as costing $30 billion[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that Larry Silverstein leased the World Trade Center just six weeks before 9/11 is accurate. However, the specific insurance payout of $4.55 billion is not directly confirmed by the available sources. Silverstein did receive substantial insurance proceeds, which were crucial for the rebuilding efforts following the 9/11 attacks.

### Additional Context

– **Investigations and Controversies**: The discussion around the 9/11 attacks includes various controversies and conspiracy theories. However, these are separate from the factual aspects of Silverstein's lease and insurance payout.
– **Public Records and Transparency**: Public records and legal proceedings provide the basis for understanding the financial and legal aspects of the World Trade Center's lease and insurance. These records are essential for validating claims related to these events.

Citations

Claim

The Gilmore Commission report recommendations were largely adopted by the 9/11 Commission.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Gilmore Commission Recommendations and the 9/11 Commission

The claim that the Gilmore Commission report recommendations were largely adopted by the 9/11 Commission requires a thorough examination of both commissions' reports and their thematic areas. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Overview of the Commissions

– **Gilmore Commission**: The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, commonly known as the Gilmore Commission, focused on assessing and improving the U.S. response to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction at the federal, state, and local levels[1]. Their final report, "Forging America's New Normalcy: Securing Our Homeland, Protecting Our Liberty," was released in December 2003[1].

– **9/11 Commission**: Established by congressional legislation and signed into law by President George W. Bush in late 2002, the 9/11 Commission aimed to investigate the September 11 attacks and provide recommendations to prevent future terrorist attacks[5]. The commission's report highlighted key areas such as international anti-terrorism policy, institutional steps to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks, intelligence issues, and congressional oversight[3].

### Comparison of Recommendations

While both commissions addressed aspects of terrorism and homeland security, their focus areas differ:

– **Gilmore Commission**: Focused on domestic response capabilities, particularly at the state and local levels, and the integration of these capabilities with federal efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction[1].

– **9/11 Commission**: Emphasized international anti-terrorism policy, intelligence reform, and institutional changes to enhance national security and prevent future attacks[3][5].

### Adoption of Recommendations

There is no direct evidence that the 9/11 Commission explicitly adopted the Gilmore Commission's recommendations. However, both commissions contributed to the broader discussion on enhancing homeland security and counter-terrorism efforts. The 9/11 Commission's recommendations were more comprehensive and focused on systemic changes in intelligence and international policy, whereas the Gilmore Commission's work was more specialized towards domestic response capabilities[3][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that the Gilmore Commission's recommendations were largely adopted by the 9/11 Commission lacks concrete evidence. While both commissions contributed to the national dialogue on terrorism and security, their focus areas and recommendations were distinct. The 9/11 Commission's report was more influential in shaping national policy and reforms post-9/11, whereas the Gilmore Commission's work was more specialized and focused on domestic response capabilities[1][3][5].

### Additional Context

The discussion around the 9/11 Commission and other related investigations often involves claims of oversight or conspiracy, such as those mentioned by Kurt Weldon. However, these claims are not supported by mainstream evidence and are often controversial. The focus of this evaluation remains on the comparison of commission reports and their recommendations rather than unsubstantiated claims.

Citations

Claim

The Pentagon reported missing 2.3 trillion dollars the day before 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: The Pentagon Reported Missing $2.3 Trillion the Day Before 9/11

The claim that the Pentagon reported missing $2.3 trillion the day before 9/11 is based on a statement made by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. On September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld acknowledged that the Pentagon's financial systems were outdated and unable to track $2.3 trillion in transactions due to incompatible technological systems[2][4][5].

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Rumsfeld's Statement**: Rumsfeld's announcement highlighted the Pentagon's inability to account for a significant portion of its transactions, which was attributed to the use of outdated financial systems and incompatible technology[2][4].

2. **Financial Systems Issues**: The Pentagon's financial management issues have been long-standing, with the department being unable to pass an independent audit for decades[4]. This lack of transparency and accountability has contributed to the difficulty in tracking large sums of money.

3. **Media Coverage**: The issue was covered by major news outlets, including CBS, which reported on the problem of missing funds at the Pentagon[1].

### Additional Context

– **Audit Issues**: The Pentagon remains the only federal department that has not passed an independent audit, despite congressional requirements[4]. This has led to ongoing concerns about financial management and transparency.

– **Historical Context**: The announcement by Rumsfeld occurred just before the 9/11 attacks, which overshadowed the financial issues at the Pentagon. However, the financial management problems have persisted over the years[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that the Pentagon reported missing $2.3 trillion the day before 9/11 is supported by public statements from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and ongoing financial management issues within the Pentagon. While the claim is accurate in terms of Rumsfeld's statement, it is essential to understand the broader context of the Pentagon's financial challenges and the lack of transparency in its accounting practices.

## Additional Information on 9/11 Investigations and Allegations

The discussion around Kurt Weldon's claims and the broader conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks involve separate issues not directly related to the Pentagon's financial discrepancies. These claims include allegations of CIA involvement with the hijackers and bureaucratic obstacles to investigations, which are not supported by mainstream evidence and are part of ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Citations

Claim

Some insurers had to pay double after a jury ruled it was considered two separate terrorist attacks.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Insurance Payouts for 9/11 as Two Separate Attacks

The claim that some insurers had to pay double after a jury ruled the 9/11 attacks as two separate terrorist attacks can be evaluated by examining legal documents and insurance disputes related to the aftermath of 9/11.

### Background on Insurance Disputes

Following the 9/11 attacks, there were significant insurance disputes regarding the classification of the attacks. The primary issue was whether the attacks on the Twin Towers should be considered as one or two separate events. This classification was crucial because it affected how insurance payouts were calculated.

### Legal Rulings and Insurance Payouts

In the case of the World Trade Center, the leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, argued that the attacks should be considered as two separate events, which would have entitled him to double the insurance payout. This argument was based on the fact that two separate planes hit the Twin Towers. However, the insurance companies initially resisted this interpretation, arguing that it was a single event.

**Silverstein Properties vs. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation**

In a notable legal case, Silverstein Properties sought to have the attacks recognized as two separate events. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Silverstein, determining that the attacks were indeed two separate occurrences. This ruling allowed Silverstein to receive nearly double the insurance payout he would have received if the attacks were considered a single event.

### Conclusion

The claim that some insurers had to pay double after a jury ruled the 9/11 attacks as two separate terrorist attacks is **supported** by legal documents and court rulings. The case involving Silverstein Properties and Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation is a key example where the court's decision led to increased insurance payouts due to the classification of the attacks as separate events.

## Additional Context: Investigations and Controversies Surrounding 9/11

While the insurance claim is supported, other aspects of the discussion, such as allegations of CIA involvement with hijackers or broader conspiracies, are not substantiated by reliable sources. Claims about the CIA's role or the existence of a deep state conspiracy are speculative and lack concrete evidence from credible sources.

### Able Danger and Intelligence Failures

The mention of "Able Danger," a military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats, highlights concerns about intelligence failures and bureaucratic barriers. However, these claims are often controversial and not universally accepted as factual.

### Conclusion on Additional Claims

While there are valid concerns about intelligence failures and bureaucratic issues related to 9/11, claims of CIA involvement with hijackers or a deep state conspiracy are not supported by reliable evidence. The focus on these speculative claims can distract from the verified issues related to intelligence sharing and preparedness.

In summary, the claim about insurance payouts is supported by legal evidence, but other claims regarding CIA involvement or conspiracies lack substantial evidence from credible sources.

Citations

Claim

There were years of legal battles over whether the attacks counted as one or two occurrences for insurance claims.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Legal Battles Over 9/11 Insurance Claims

The claim that there were years of legal battles over whether the 9/11 attacks counted as one or two occurrences for insurance claims is supported by historical evidence. Following the 9/11 attacks, there were significant legal disputes regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center (WTC) site. The primary issue was whether the attacks should be considered as one event or two separate events for insurance purposes. This distinction was crucial because it affected the amount of insurance payout.

### Background

The World Trade Center was insured for $3.55 billion under a policy that covered terrorist attacks. The policy had a limit of $3.55 billion per occurrence. The question of whether the attacks on the Twin Towers constituted one or two occurrences was central to determining the total insurance payout.

### Legal Disputes

The legal battles centered around the interpretation of the insurance policy's language regarding "occurrences." The insurers argued that the attacks were two separate events, as the planes hit the towers at different times. Conversely, the leaseholder of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, contended that the attacks were part of a single, coordinated terrorist operation and thus should be considered one occurrence.

### Court Rulings

In 2004, a federal court ruled in favor of Silverstein, determining that the attacks were indeed two separate occurrences. This ruling allowed for a higher insurance payout, as each occurrence was covered up to the policy limit. However, this decision was later appealed and ultimately upheld by a federal appeals court in 2006, confirming that the attacks were to be treated as two occurrences for insurance purposes.

### Conclusion

The claim that there were legal battles over whether the 9/11 attacks counted as one or two occurrences for insurance claims is accurate. These disputes were a significant part of the legal aftermath of the attacks, reflecting the complexities and challenges in interpreting insurance policies in the face of unprecedented events.

—

## Additional Information: Investigations and Claims Surrounding 9/11

The discussion around Rep. Curt Weldon's claims and the broader context of 9/11 investigations involves several key points:

1. **Funding for the 9/11 Commission**: Weldon and others have criticized the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission compared to other investigations, suggesting a lack of commitment to uncovering the truth.

2. **Able Danger and Intelligence Failures**: Weldon has been vocal about the potential of the Able Danger project to identify al-Qaeda threats before 9/11. He claims that bureaucratic and intelligence failures prevented effective action.

3. **Allegations of CIA Involvement**: Some theories suggest that certain hijackers may have had connections to the CIA, though these claims are not supported by mainstream evidence.

4. **Conspiracy Theories and Obstruction**: Weldon alleges obstruction by CIA officials and claims of a broader conspiracy, though these remain unsubstantiated.

These claims highlight ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks, but they are not universally accepted and often lack concrete evidence to support them.

Citations

Claim

General Lambert stated he knew who was responsible for 9/11 within seconds of the attack due to a top secret program.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: General Lambert's Knowledge of 9/11 Responsibility

The claim that General Lambert knew who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks within seconds due to a top-secret program lacks concrete evidence and credible sources to support it. Here's a detailed analysis of the claim and related information:

### Claim Analysis

1. **Lack of Evidence**: There is no documented statement or evidence from General Lambert or any reliable source indicating that he knew the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks immediately after they occurred. The claim seems to be unsubstantiated and lacks the backing of credible sources.

2. **Intelligence and Investigations**: The 9/11 attacks were attributed to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden by intelligence agencies, including the CIA, based on extensive investigations and intercepts[2]. However, there is no mention of a top-secret program that would have allowed General Lambert to identify the perpetrators instantly.

3. **Able Danger and Other Claims**: The mention of "Able Danger," a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats, is relevant but does not directly support the claim about General Lambert's immediate knowledge. Able Danger was indeed a project focused on al-Qaeda, but it faced bureaucratic challenges and did not provide immediate identification of the 9/11 hijackers[4].

### Additional Information and Context

1. **Kurt Weldon's Allegations**: Former Congressman Kurt Weldon's allegations about CIA obstruction and potential conspiracies involving the CIA and deep state entities are controversial and not widely supported by mainstream investigations. Weldon's claims about two hijackers being on the CIA's payroll and broader conspiracies are speculative and lack concrete evidence.

2. **Funding Discrepancies**: The comparison between the funding for the 9/11 Commission and the Monica Lewinsky scandal is often cited as an example of perceived priorities in investigations. However, this does not directly relate to the claim about General Lambert's knowledge.

3. **Saudi Arabia and Other Investigations**: Recent investigations and evidence, such as the video involving Bayoumi, have raised questions about potential Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. However, these investigations do not support the specific claim about General Lambert's immediate knowledge[5].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that General Lambert knew who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks within seconds due to a top-secret program is unsubstantiated and lacks credible evidence. The discussions around 9/11 investigations and controversies highlight ongoing debates and speculations but do not provide a basis for this specific claim. Reliable sources and mainstream investigations attribute the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, based on extensive intelligence and evidence[1][2].

Citations

Claim

The data removal in Garland was partly caused by the Able Danger team coming up with data regarding Chinese acquisition of American technology.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Able Danger and Data Removal in Garland

The claim that data removal in Garland was partly caused by the Able Danger team coming up with data regarding Chinese acquisition of American technology lacks concrete evidence and appears to be speculative. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available information:

### Background on Able Danger

**Able Danger** was a classified military intelligence project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. It was primarily focused on using open-source intelligence to track terrorist networks. However, there is no widely recognized or credible evidence linking Able Danger directly to investigations involving Chinese acquisition of American technology or data removal incidents in Garland.

### Context of Data Removal and National Security

Data removal practices in the context of national security often involve sensitive information that could compromise ongoing investigations or operations. However, these practices are typically governed by strict protocols and oversight to ensure they align with legal and ethical standards.

### Available Information on Able Danger and 9/11 Investigations

– **Able Danger's Focus**: The project was centered on al-Qaeda, not Chinese activities. There is no prominent evidence suggesting it was involved in investigating Chinese acquisition of American technology[5].
– **9/11 Investigations**: The 9/11 Commission and other investigations focused on the events leading up to the attacks, including intelligence failures and potential warnings missed by agencies like the CIA. However, these investigations did not prominently feature Able Danger's involvement with Chinese technology acquisition[3][5].

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that data removal in Garland was linked to Able Danger's findings on Chinese acquisition of American technology. The claim appears speculative and lacks concrete backing from reliable sources.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Verify Sources**: Any claims about data removal should be verified through official documents or statements from relevant authorities.
2. **Contextualize Information**: Ensure that any information about Able Danger or similar projects is placed within the correct context of their original objectives and findings.
3. **Consult Official Reports**: Refer to official reports and investigations related to national security and intelligence efforts for accurate information.

In summary, while Able Danger was a significant project related to counter-terrorism efforts, there is no clear evidence linking it to data removal incidents involving Chinese technology acquisition. Further investigation should focus on verifying claims through credible sources and official reports.

Citations

Claim

Subpoenas were issued by Dan Burton after the Able Danger team uncovered data linking American officials to facilitating Chinese technology acquisition.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim suggests that subpoenas were issued by Dan Burton after the Able Danger team uncovered data linking American officials to facilitating Chinese technology acquisition. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine historical records of subpoenas and congressional hearings related to both Able Danger and investigations involving Chinese technology acquisition.

### Able Danger and Its Objectives

Able Danger was a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. It was known for its data collection and analysis, primarily from open sources, about Al Qaeda operations worldwide[2]. However, there is no direct evidence linking Able Danger's findings to American officials facilitating Chinese technology acquisition.

### Congressional Involvement and Subpoenas

Dan Burton, as Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was involved in various investigations, including those related to government oversight and potential espionage[4]. However, there is no specific mention of subpoenas issued by Dan Burton in relation to Able Danger uncovering data about American officials facilitating Chinese technology acquisition.

### Chinese Technology Acquisition Investigations

The House report on establishing a select committee to investigate U.S. national security and military/commercial concerns with the People's Republic of China indicates congressional interest in Chinese espionage and technology transfer issues[1]. However, this does not directly link to the specific claim about subpoenas related to Able Danger's findings.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that subpoenas were issued by Dan Burton after the Able Danger team uncovered data linking American officials to facilitating Chinese technology acquisition. The discussions around Able Danger primarily focus on its role in identifying al-Qaeda threats, while investigations into Chinese technology acquisition were part of broader national security concerns.

### Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Review Congressional Records**: Examine the records of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during Dan Burton's chairmanship for any mentions of subpoenas related to Able Danger or Chinese technology acquisition.
2. **Able Danger Testimonies**: Investigate testimonies from individuals involved in Able Danger to see if they ever mentioned such findings or investigations.
3. **Historical Context**: Consider the broader historical context of U.S.-China relations and national security investigations during the relevant period.

Citations

Claim

The decision to delete data was compelled by a cease and desist order related to collecting information about U.S. persons.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Decision to Delete Data Compelled by a Cease and Desist Order

The claim that the decision to delete data was compelled by a cease and desist order related to collecting information about U.S. persons involves legal and operational constraints faced by intelligence operations. This scenario is often discussed in the context of the Able Danger program, a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks.

### Background on Able Danger

Able Danger was a U.S. Army intelligence program that allegedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, more than a year before the attacks. However, the program faced legal and bureaucratic barriers that prevented it from sharing this information with the FBI[5].

### Legal Constraints

The legal constraints faced by Able Danger and similar intelligence operations often involve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other laws that regulate the collection of information on U.S. persons. These laws are designed to protect civil liberties and ensure that intelligence agencies do not infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens.

### The Role of Cease and Desist Orders

While specific details about cease and desist orders related to Able Danger are not widely documented, the program's inability to share information with the FBI was reportedly due to legal restrictions. According to Congressman Curt Weldon, government lawyers advised against sharing the data, citing legal barriers[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that data deletion was compelled by a cease and desist order related to collecting information on U.S. persons is plausible within the context of legal constraints faced by intelligence operations. However, specific documentation or testimonies directly linking a cease and desist order to the deletion of data in the context of Able Danger or similar programs are not readily available in public sources.

### Evidence and Testimonies

– **Able Danger and Legal Barriers**: Congressman Curt Weldon has highlighted that legal restrictions prevented the sharing of critical intelligence with the FBI, which could have potentially prevented the 9/11 attacks[5].
– **Legal Framework**: The legal framework governing intelligence operations, including FISA, imposes strict guidelines on collecting and sharing information about U.S. persons, which can lead to operational constraints[5].

In summary, while the claim about cease and desist orders is consistent with the broader context of legal constraints faced by intelligence operations, specific evidence directly supporting this claim in the context of Able Danger or similar programs is not readily available in public records.

Citations

Claim

Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 and owned substantial shares in it, which he sold after leaving his position.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Dick Cheney's Tenure and Stock Ownership at Halliburton

The claim that Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 and owned substantial shares in it, which he sold after leaving his position, can be verified through various reliable sources.

### Dick Cheney's Role at Halliburton

Dick Cheney joined Halliburton in 1995 as CEO and became Chairman and CEO from 1996 until he left in 2000 to run as Vice President under George W. Bush[1][3][5]. During his tenure, Halliburton expanded its operations significantly, including increasing its offshore tax havens and engaging in major mergers and contracts[2][4].

### Stock Ownership and Sale

Cheney received stock options from Halliburton during his tenure, which is a common practice for executives. Upon leaving Halliburton in August 2000, Cheney received a retirement package worth more than $33.7 million. He also sold company stock worth $30 million under public pressure[4].

### Verifiability Through Financial Disclosures and Corporate Records

Financial disclosures and corporate records would typically include details about executive compensation, stock options, and sales. These documents are crucial for verifying the specifics of Cheney's stock ownership and sale. While the exact details of his stock holdings and sales might require access to specific financial records, the general fact of his stock ownership and sale is supported by public reports and news articles[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 and owned substantial shares in it, which he sold after leaving his position, is supported by reliable sources. Cheney's tenure and financial transactions are well-documented, providing a basis for verifying the claim through financial disclosures and corporate records.

## Additional Context: The 9/11 Investigations and Allegations

The discussion around the 9/11 investigations and allegations of a cover-up or conspiracy involving deep state actors, including claims about CIA involvement and the 'Able Danger' project, are separate from the claim about Dick Cheney's role at Halliburton. These allegations are not directly related to Cheney's tenure at Halliburton but reflect broader concerns about government transparency and accountability in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Citations

Claim

Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives in 2004, which included information related to Able Danger.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Fact-Check: Did Sandy Berger Steal Classified Documents from the National Archives in 2004, Including Information Related to Able Danger?

### **Summary of the Claim**
The claim asserts that Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor under President Clinton, stole classified documents from the National Archives in 2004, and that these documents included information related to the "Able Danger" project—a classified military initiative aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks.

### **Evaluation of the Claim**

#### **1. Did Sandy Berger Steal Classified Documents from the National Archives?**
– **Yes, this is confirmed.** In 2003, Sandy Berger was investigated and later admitted to unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from the National Archives. He took five classified copies of a report commissioned from Richard Clarke, which covered internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. Berger removed these documents by concealing them in his clothing during multiple visits to the Archives in September and October 2003. He later lied to investigators about the removal of the documents[2][3][5].
– **Legal Outcome:** In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to two years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and lost his security clearance for three years[2][3][5].

#### **2. Did the Stolen Documents Include Information Related to "Able Danger"?**
– **No direct evidence supports this.** The documents Berger removed were specifically identified as copies of a report by Richard Clarke, focusing on the Clinton Administration's handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots. There is no credible evidence in official reports, legal records, or reputable news sources that the stolen documents contained information about the "Able Danger" project[2][3][5].
– **Context:** "Able Danger" was a separate, classified military intelligence project. While some conspiracy theories and political narratives have linked Berger's actions to broader cover-ups or obstruction of 9/11 investigations, there is no substantiated connection between the documents Berger stole and the "Able Danger" project in the public record[2][3][5].

#### **3. Broader Context: 9/11 Commission, Funding, and Allegations**
– **Funding Discrepancy:** The claim references Kurt Weldon's frustration over the 9/11 Commission's limited funding compared to the Monica Lewinsky investigation. While this is a matter of public record and political debate, it does not directly relate to the specifics of Berger's actions or the content of the stolen documents[1][2].
– **Allegations of Obstruction and Conspiracy:** Weldon and others have alleged broader conspiracies, including claims that two hijackers were on the CIA's payroll and that bureaucratic barriers prevented the "Able Danger" project from being fully investigated. These claims are not supported by the official 9/11 Commission report or subsequent investigations, and there is no evidence linking Berger's theft to these allegations[1][2][3].

### **Conclusion**

– **The claim that Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives in 2004 is accurate.** He admitted to removing and retaining classified documents in 2003, was convicted, and faced legal penalties[2][3][5].
– **There is no credible evidence that the stolen documents included information related to the "Able Danger" project.** The official record and legal proceedings confirm that the documents pertained to the Clinton Administration's handling of the 2000 millennium attack plots, not to "Able Danger"[2][3][5].
– **Allegations of a broader cover-up or obstruction related to the 9/11 Commission and "Able Danger" are not substantiated by the available evidence regarding Berger's actions.**[1][2][3]

### **Sources Cited**
– [2] Wikipedia: Sandy Berger
– [3] National Archives: Notable Thefts
– [5] Parent Advocates: Sandy Berger Admits Stealing and Shredding Classified Documents

—

**Final Verdict:**
**Partially True.** Sandy Berger did steal classified documents from the National Archives, but there is no evidence that these documents included information related to the "Able Danger" project. The broader conspiracy claims are not supported by the available evidence.

Citations

Claim

The documents stolen by Sandy Berger were intended to conceal information relevant to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the documents stolen by Sandy Berger were intended to conceal information relevant to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 is supported by the nature and context of the documents he took, though direct proof of his motivation to conceal specific intelligence failures is not explicitly documented in official reports.

Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives in 2003, during his visits related to the 9/11 Commission investigation. He was seen hiding documents in his socks and under his pants and later admitted to unlawfully removing and retaining classified materials[1][2][4]. The stolen documents were described by officials as highly classified and included critical assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of millennium terror threats, as well as identification of vulnerabilities in U.S. security at airports and seaports[5]. These documents were clearly relevant to understanding the broader context of terrorism threats and intelligence assessments prior to 9/11.

The fact that Berger lied about taking the documents and attempted to conceal them suggests an intent to withhold or control sensitive information from the 9/11 Commission or public scrutiny[5]. However, official investigations and reports do not explicitly state that Berger's motive was to cover up intelligence failures. Rather, the documents' content and Berger's actions have fueled speculation and allegations that there was an effort to obscure or limit full disclosure of intelligence shortcomings related to 9/11.

Additional context from critics and some former officials, such as former Congressman Kurt Weldon, points to broader claims of obstruction and cover-up involving intelligence agencies and government officials, including allegations that some 9/11 hijackers were on CIA payrolls and that bureaucratic barriers hindered pre-9/11 threat identification efforts like the Able Danger project. These claims underscore a narrative of deep-state interference and limited transparency in the investigation of 9/11 intelligence failures, though these remain contested and not conclusively proven[summary].

In summary, while Berger's theft of classified documents related to terrorism threats and vulnerabilities strongly suggests an attempt to withhold sensitive information pertinent to 9/11 investigations, there is no definitive public evidence explicitly proving that his actions were intended solely to conceal intelligence failures. The stolen documents were indeed relevant to understanding pre-9/11 intelligence, and Berger's conduct has been widely criticized as obstructive to the 9/11 Commission's work[1][2][4][5].

Citations

Claim

9/11 could have been prevented according to the speaker's assertions and they worked closely with relevant groups after the event.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that 9/11 could have been prevented according to the speaker's assertions, and that they worked closely with relevant groups after the event, is primarily based on the statements and experiences of former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon. Weldon has been a vocal critic of the official 9/11 investigation and has alleged that critical intelligence was available before the attacks but was ignored or suppressed by government agencies.

## Key Points Supporting the Claim

– **Pre-9/11 Intelligence and Able Danger:** Weldon asserts that a classified military intelligence project called Able Danger identified several of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, as potential threats well before the attacks, as early as 1999 and 2000. According to Weldon, Able Danger repeatedly recommended sharing this information with the FBI, but legal and bureaucratic barriers prevented this from happening[4].

– **CIA Involvement and Obstruction:** Weldon claims that two of the hijackers were actually on the CIA payroll at the time of the attacks, suggesting a deeper conspiracy or at least significant intelligence failures. He also alleges that senior CIA officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, obstructed his efforts to gain a leadership role that would have allowed him to investigate these issues more thoroughly[3].

– **Limited 9/11 Commission Funding and Investigation:** Weldon criticizes the 9/11 Commission for having insufficient funding ($15 million) compared to other investigations like the Monica Lewinsky scandal ($30 million), implying a deliberate cover-up by what he calls the "deep state." He believes the Commission ignored or suppressed critical evidence, including the Able Danger episode, and that the investigation was incomplete and compromised[3][4][5].

– **Post-9/11 Efforts and Intimidation:** After the attacks, Weldon worked closely with military and intelligence groups to uncover the truth, but he faced intimidation and the tragic loss of associates involved in these efforts. He emphasizes the need for accountability and transparency regarding the failures that led to the tragedy[3].

## Summary

Curt Weldon's assertions reflect a retrospective viewpoint that 9/11 could have been prevented if intelligence had been properly shared and acted upon. He highlights bureaucratic and possibly intentional obstruction within U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, and criticizes the official 9/11 Commission for an incomplete investigation. Weldon's claims are supported by his involvement with military intelligence projects like Able Danger and his efforts to push for further congressional investigations into the matter[3][4][5].

While these claims remain controversial and have been disputed by other officials and investigations, they underscore ongoing debates about intelligence failures and accountability related to the September 11 attacks.

Citations

Claim

Anwar al Awlaki was a controlled asset of the FBI who moved two of the 9/11 hijackers around.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Anwar al-Awlaki was a controlled asset of the FBI who moved two of the 9/11 hijackers around is not supported by reliable evidence. Here's a detailed evaluation of the claim and related information:

## Background on Anwar al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American cleric who became a prominent figure in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011[1][2]. There is no credible evidence to suggest that he was a controlled asset of the FBI.

## Connections to 9/11 Hijackers
Al-Awlaki did have interactions with some of the 9/11 hijackers. For example, he met with Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar at his mosque in San Diego, California[5]. However, these interactions were part of his role as a cleric and not as an FBI asset.

## FBI and CIA Investigations
The FBI and CIA have extensively investigated the 9/11 attacks, including any potential connections between al-Awlaki and the hijackers. While there were missed opportunities and controversies surrounding these investigations, there is no evidence to support the claim that al-Awlaki was an FBI asset involved in moving hijackers[5].

## Claims of Conspiracy and Obstruction
Former U.S. Congressman Kurt Weldon and others have raised concerns about potential cover-ups and obstructions within the CIA and other agencies regarding the 9/11 investigations. However, these claims are not supported by concrete evidence linking al-Awlaki to being an FBI asset or directly involved in moving hijackers.

## Conclusion
In conclusion, the claim that Anwar al-Awlaki was a controlled asset of the FBI who moved two of the 9/11 hijackers around lacks credible evidence. While al-Awlaki did interact with some hijackers, these interactions were part of his clerical role, and there is no reliable source indicating he was an FBI asset. The broader discussions about potential conspiracies and obstructions in the 9/11 investigations are speculative and not supported by concrete evidence related to al-Awlaki's role.

Citations

Claim

15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: 15 out of the 19 Hijackers Were Saudi Nationals

The claim that 15 out of the 19 hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks were Saudi nationals can be verified through official reports and reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Nationality Distribution**: According to Wikipedia, which summarizes information from various official sources, 15 of the hijackers were indeed from Saudi Arabia[4]. This aligns with other reports and investigations into the nationalities of the hijackers.

2. **9/11 Commission Report and Other Official Sources**: While the 9/11 Commission Report itself does not explicitly state the nationality distribution, it does provide detailed information about the hijackers and their backgrounds[1]. However, the report does not directly address the nationality breakdown. Other sources, including the FBI and Congressional reports, consistently indicate that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

3. **Entry into the United States**: The hijackers obtained visas primarily in Saudi Arabia, with some exceptions in other countries like the United Arab Emirates and Berlin[2]. This further supports the notion that a significant number of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence from reliable sources, the claim that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals is **verified**. This conclusion is supported by consistent reports across various official and academic sources.

### Additional Context

The discussion around the 9/11 attacks often involves conspiracy theories and allegations of cover-ups, as mentioned in the context provided. However, these claims are not supported by mainstream investigations or official reports. The focus on the nationality of the hijackers is a factual aspect that can be confirmed through official documentation and reports.

### References

– [1] The 9/11 Commission Report
– [2] Entry of the 9/11 Hijackers into the United States
– [3] 9-11 Review Commission Report (Unclassified) – FBI
– [4] Hijackers in the September 11 attacks – Wikipedia

Citations

Claim

The 9/11 Commission acknowledged that some hijackers transitioned through Iran without having their passports stamped.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Hijackers Transitioning Through Iran Without Passport Stamps

The claim that some 9/11 hijackers transitioned through Iran without having their passports stamped is supported by evidence from the 9/11 Commission and other reliable sources. Here's a detailed analysis:

### Evidence from the 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 Commission Report does not explicitly detail the movements of all hijackers through Iran, but it does mention that several hijackers traveled through Iran. According to Ramzi Binalshibh, an al-Qaeda operative, at least eight hijackers transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan. Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, confirmed that the hijackers took advantage of Iran's practice of not stamping Saudi passports[5].

### Iranian Practice of Not Stamping Passports

Iran's practice of not stamping the passports of certain travelers, particularly those from Saudi Arabia, was a significant factor. This practice allowed individuals to travel through Iran without leaving a clear record of their entry or exit. While the 9/11 Commission Report does not delve deeply into the specifics of this practice, it is acknowledged by other sources that this was a method used by some hijackers to avoid detection[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that some 9/11 hijackers transitioned through Iran without having their passports stamped is supported by statements from key figures involved in the planning of the attacks. However, the extent to which this was a deliberate strategy to evade detection or simply a convenience offered by Iranian policies is not fully detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report. Nonetheless, it is clear that some hijackers did travel through Iran, taking advantage of the lack of passport stamps for Saudi nationals.

### Additional Claims and Controversies

Other claims, such as allegations of CIA involvement with hijackers or broader conspiracies, are not supported by the 9/11 Commission Report or other credible sources. These claims, including those related to 'Able Danger' and alleged CIA obstruction, are part of ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the 9/11 attacks but lack concrete evidence from authoritative investigations[4][5].

In summary, while the claim about hijackers transitioning through Iran without passport stamps is supported, other conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks remain unsubstantiated by mainstream investigations.

Citations

Claim

The deeper investigation into Saudi involvement was left out of the original 9/11 report and later addressed in the 28 pages declassified in 2016.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim suggests that a deeper investigation into Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks was omitted from the original report but was later addressed in the declassified "28 pages" in 2016. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the content and context of these declassified pages and the broader investigation into Saudi connections.

### The "28 Pages" and Saudi Involvement

1. **Declassification and Content**: The "28 pages" were declassified in 2016 by the Obama Administration, following a review to protect sources and methods[1][5]. These pages were part of the 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. The declassified version provides insights into potential Saudi connections to the 9/11 hijackers, though it does not establish direct Saudi government involvement[1][5].

2. **Saudi Connections**: The declassified pages suggest that some individuals with ties to the Saudi government may have provided support to the hijackers, but there is no conclusive evidence of official Saudi government complicity[5]. The Saudi government has consistently denied any involvement and welcomed the declassification to address allegations[4][5].

### Additional Claims and Context

1. **Funding Discrepancies and Allegations of Cover-Up**: Former Congressman Kurt Weldon's claims about funding discrepancies and alleged cover-ups by the deep state, including CIA obstruction, are not supported by mainstream investigations or reports. The 9/11 Commission and other inquiries did not find evidence to support these claims.

2. **CIA Involvement and 'Able Danger'**: Claims about hijackers being on the CIA payroll or the existence of a broader conspiracy involving the CIA are not substantiated by credible evidence. The 'Able Danger' project was a classified effort to identify al-Qaeda threats, but allegations of its being stymied by bureaucratic barriers or directly linked to missed warnings are controversial and not widely accepted as factual.

### Conclusion

The claim that the "28 pages" provide insights into Saudi connections to the 9/11 attacks is supported by the fact that these pages were declassified to shed light on potential Saudi links. However, the declassified documents do not establish direct Saudi government involvement in the attacks[1][5]. Other claims about CIA involvement and broader conspiracies lack substantial evidence and are not widely accepted by mainstream investigations.

### Evidence and References

– **Declassification of the "28 Pages"**: The Obama Administration declassified these pages in 2016 to provide more information on potential Saudi connections[1][5].
– **Saudi Government Involvement**: Neither the congressional inquiry nor the 9/11 Commission found evidence of direct Saudi government support for the attacks[5].
– **CIA and 'Able Danger' Claims**: These are not supported by mainstream investigations or credible evidence.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. government was involved in a controlled operation that went wrong in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim of U.S. Government Involvement in a Controlled Operation Related to 9/11

The claim that the U.S. government was involved in a controlled operation that went wrong in relation to the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory that has been circulating for years. This theory often involves allegations of internal government involvement, cover-ups, and obstruction of investigations. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine the available evidence and statements from key figures like former Congressman Curt Weldon.

### Curt Weldon's Claims and Experiences

Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has been vocal about his frustrations with the handling of 9/11 investigations. He has expressed concerns about the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and alleged that certain government agencies, particularly the CIA, obstructed his efforts to investigate further[1][3]. Weldon also claims that some of the 9/11 hijackers were identified by a military intelligence unit called Able Danger more than a year before the attacks, but this information was not shared with the FBI due to bureaucratic barriers[5].

### Allegations of CIA Involvement and Obstruction

Weldon and others have suggested that some hijackers might have been on the CIA's payroll, implying a broader conspiracy involving the agency. However, these claims are not supported by credible evidence from official investigations or mainstream sources. The CIA has faced criticism for its handling of intelligence leading up to 9/11, but there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that the agency was directly involved in the attacks or that hijackers were on its payroll.

### The Able Danger Project

Able Danger was a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before 9/11. Weldon has highlighted that this project identified some of the hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, but was hindered by legal restrictions that prevented sharing this information with the FBI[5]. While this highlights issues with intelligence sharing, it does not directly support claims of a controlled operation gone wrong.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while there are legitimate concerns about intelligence failures and bureaucratic obstacles leading up to 9/11, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the U.S. government was involved in a controlled operation that went wrong. The official investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report, have not found evidence of such involvement. Claims of CIA obstruction and conspiracy remain unsubstantiated and are often based on unverified sources or speculation.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review Official Reports**: The 9/11 Commission Report and other official investigations provide a comprehensive overview of the events leading up to 9/11. These reports highlight intelligence failures and bureaucratic issues but do not support claims of a controlled operation.

2. **Examine Intelligence Sharing**: The failure to share intelligence between agencies, such as the case with Able Danger, is a critical area for further investigation. Understanding these failures can help improve future intelligence operations.

3. **Evaluate Claims of Obstruction**: Allegations of obstruction by government agencies should be scrutinized through official channels and evidence-based investigations.

By focusing on verifiable evidence and official reports, it is possible to address concerns about 9/11 without resorting to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Citations

Claim

There were allegations that at least two of the 9/11 individuals were under control of the CIA.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Allegations of CIA Involvement with 9/11 Hijackers

The claim that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were under CIA control is a contentious issue that has been raised by former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon, among others. This assertion is part of a broader narrative questioning the thoroughness of investigations into the 9/11 attacks and suggesting a potential cover-up involving U.S. intelligence agencies.

### Background: Curt Weldon's Claims

Curt Weldon has been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission's investigation, suggesting that it was incomplete and that there was a cover-up involving elements of the U.S. government[3][4]. He specifically alleges that two of the hijackers were on the CIA payroll, which he claims as evidence of a deeper conspiracy[3].

### Examination of CIA Records and Investigations

To verify such claims, examining CIA records and investigations related to the 9/11 attacks is crucial. However, the CIA has not publicly confirmed that any of the hijackers were on its payroll. The 9/11 Commission Report does not support this claim either.

### Able Danger and Intelligence Sharing

Weldon also highlights the role of "Able Danger," a military intelligence project that allegedly identified some of the hijackers before the attacks. He notes that attempts to share this information with the FBI were blocked by government lawyers[4]. This aspect of the story suggests bureaucratic barriers rather than a direct CIA-hijacker connection.

### Conclusion on the Claim

While Curt Weldon and others have raised these allegations, there is no concrete evidence from reliable sources to support the claim that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA payroll. The narrative of a cover-up and missed warnings is more aligned with criticisms of bureaucratic inefficiencies and potential intelligence failures rather than direct CIA involvement with the hijackers.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Access to Classified Records**: For a thorough evaluation, access to classified CIA records and documents related to the 9/11 investigations would be necessary.
2. **Independent Review**: An independent review of the intelligence sharing processes and any potential obstructions during the pre-9/11 period could provide clarity.
3. **Transparency and Accountability**: Ensuring transparency and accountability in government investigations is crucial for addressing such claims and building public trust.

In summary, while there are allegations and criticisms regarding the handling of intelligence before the 9/11 attacks, there is no substantial evidence to confirm that any of the hijackers were under CIA control. The narrative remains speculative without concrete evidence from reliable sources.

Citations

Claim

The government kind of knew this was going to happen and allowed the 9/11 attack to happen.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Government Foreknowledge and Complicity in the 9/11 Attacks

The claim that the government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed them to happen is a serious accusation that has been extensively investigated and debated. To evaluate this claim, we must consider official investigations, historical accounts, and available evidence.

### Official Investigations

1. **9/11 Commission Report**: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, conducted a comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The commission's report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks or allowed them to happen[1][4]. The report highlighted failures in intelligence gathering and communication but did not support claims of intentional government complicity.

2. **Funding and Scope of Investigations**: Former Congressman Kurt Weldon criticized the funding allocated to the 9/11 Commission ($15 million) compared to other investigations, suggesting a cover-up. However, the commission's work was bipartisan and extensive, involving numerous interviews and document reviews[5]. While funding comparisons might raise questions about priorities, they do not directly support claims of government complicity.

### Allegations of CIA Involvement

1. **Hijackers on CIA Payroll**: Claims that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll are unsubstantiated and lack credible evidence. Official investigations have not supported these allegations, and there is no reliable source confirming such involvement.

2. **Able Danger**: The Able Danger project was a classified military operation aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats. While bureaucratic issues may have hindered its effectiveness, there is no evidence linking it to a broader conspiracy involving government foreknowledge or complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

### Whistleblower Statements and Intimidation Claims

1. **Kurt Weldon's Claims**: Weldon's allegations of obstruction by CIA officials and his personal experiences of intimidation are anecdotal and have not been substantiated by official investigations. While his frustration with the investigation process is understandable, it does not provide concrete evidence of government complicity.

2. **Need for Truth and Accountability**: The desire for truth and accountability is legitimate, especially given the tragic nature of the 9/11 attacks. However, this desire must be balanced with evidence-based conclusions rather than unsubstantiated claims.

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence and official investigations, there is no credible support for the claim that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed them to happen. While there were intelligence failures and bureaucratic issues, these do not constitute evidence of intentional complicity. Claims of CIA involvement and broader conspiracies remain unsubstantiated and lack concrete evidence to support them. Therefore, these allegations should be treated with skepticism until supported by reliable and trustworthy sources.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. has plausible deniability for bin Laden's placement in Iran because they arranged it through other countries.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the U.S. has plausible deniability for Osama bin Laden's placement in Iran because they arranged it through other countries is not supported by credible evidence in the provided search results or mainstream investigations related to the September 11 attacks.

The search results primarily focus on former Congressman Curt Weldon's allegations about intelligence failures and cover-ups surrounding the 9/11 attacks, including claims that some hijackers were on CIA payrolls and that intelligence sharing was obstructed. Weldon highlights bureaucratic barriers, such as the FBI being prevented from receiving intelligence from military sources like the Able Danger project, which identified some hijackers well before 9/11. He also alleges interference by CIA officials in congressional investigations and suggests a broader conspiracy or deep state cover-up to obscure the truth about the attacks[1][2][3][4].

However, none of these sources or Weldon's statements mention or provide evidence that the U.S. government arranged for bin Laden to be placed in Iran through other countries or that the U.S. has plausible deniability regarding his presence there. The discussions center on intelligence failures, lack of information sharing, and obstruction within U.S. agencies rather than any deliberate placement or arrangement involving Iran.

In summary:

– Curt Weldon and others argue there were intelligence failures and possible cover-ups related to 9/11, including missed warnings and obstruction of investigations[1][2][3][4].
– There is no credible evidence or claim in these sources that the U.S. arranged bin Laden's placement in Iran or that the U.S. has plausible deniability based on such arrangements.
– The claim implies a calculated U.S. government decision involving Iran, but this is not substantiated by the available information.

Therefore, the assertion that the U.S. has plausible deniability for bin Laden's placement in Iran due to arrangements through other countries appears to be unfounded based on the current evidence and investigations referenced.

Citations

Claim

A person who worked for the U.S. government for 50 years confirmed bin Laden was in Iran with U.S. knowledge.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Osama bin Laden in Iran with U.S. Knowledge

The claim that Osama bin Laden was in Iran with U.S. knowledge is not supported by widely recognized or credible sources. This section will focus on evaluating the validity of such claims and the broader context of U.S. intelligence operations related to the September 11 attacks.

### Background on U.S. Intelligence and September 11

Former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon has been vocal about alleged cover-ups and intelligence failures related to the 9/11 attacks. He has discussed issues such as the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and the role of the CIA in potentially obstructing investigations[3][4]. However, these discussions primarily revolve around the CIA's handling of intelligence and potential conspiracies involving the hijackers, rather than bin Laden's presence in Iran.

### Able Danger and Intelligence Failures

Weldon has also highlighted the role of "Able Danger," a military intelligence project that allegedly identified some 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. However, this information was not effectively shared due to bureaucratic and legal barriers[4]. While this points to potential intelligence failures, it does not directly address the claim about bin Laden in Iran.

### Osama bin Laden's Known Locations

Osama bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan during the period leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government and international intelligence agencies have extensively documented his presence in Afghanistan, where he was sheltered by the Taliban. There is no credible evidence to suggest that he was in Iran with U.S. knowledge.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that Osama bin Laden was in Iran with U.S. knowledge lacks substantial evidence from reliable sources. The discussions around U.S. intelligence and the 9/11 attacks primarily focus on issues like intelligence sharing, potential conspiracies, and the role of projects like Able Danger, rather than bin Laden's alleged presence in Iran.

## Additional Considerations

– **Credibility of Sources**: Claims about sensitive intelligence operations should be evaluated based on credible sources. In this case, there is no widely recognized evidence supporting the claim about bin Laden in Iran.
– **Context of U.S. Intelligence Operations**: The context provided by figures like Curt Weldon highlights issues within U.S. intelligence but does not support the specific claim about bin Laden's location.
– **Need for Further Investigation**: While there are ongoing debates about the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence before 9/11, any investigation into covert operations should be grounded in verifiable evidence.

## References

While the search results do not provide direct references to the claim about Osama bin Laden in Iran, they highlight broader issues related to U.S. intelligence and the 9/11 attacks. For a comprehensive evaluation, it is essential to consult academic and government reports on U.S. intelligence operations during that period.

[1][2][3][4] provide context on U.S. intelligence discussions but do not address the specific claim about bin Laden in Iran.

Citations

Claim

The deal to place bin Laden in Iran was cut with the head of the IRGC.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "The deal to place bin Laden in Iran was cut with the head of the IRGC."

The claim that a deal was made to place Osama bin Laden in Iran, specifically with the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), lacks substantial evidence from reliable sources. This assertion suggests a complex and secretive agreement between U.S. and Iranian authorities, which would typically be documented in diplomatic records or intelligence reports. However, there is no widely recognized or credible source that supports this specific claim.

### Background on Relevant Figures and Events

1. **Curt Weldon and 9/11 Investigations**: Former Congressman Curt Weldon has been vocal about his concerns regarding the handling of intelligence before and after the 9/11 attacks. He has highlighted issues such as the lack of information sharing between agencies and the potential identification of hijackers by military intelligence units like Able Danger[3][4]. However, his statements do not mention any deal involving bin Laden and Iran.

2. **Able Danger and Intelligence Sharing**: Able Danger was a classified military project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats. Weldon and others have argued that this project identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks, but bureaucratic barriers prevented effective action[4]. There is no mention of Iran or the IRGC in these discussions.

3. **Osama bin Laden and Iran**: There have been reports and speculations about potential connections between al-Qaeda and Iran, but these are generally related to broader geopolitical dynamics rather than specific deals involving bin Laden's placement in Iran. Bin Laden was killed in a U.S. operation in Pakistan in 2011.

### Conclusion

Given the lack of credible sources supporting the claim about a deal between U.S. authorities and the IRGC regarding Osama bin Laden, this assertion appears to be unsubstantiated. Diplomatic records and intelligence reports would typically provide evidence of such significant agreements, but none have been publicly disclosed or widely acknowledged in this context.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Diplomatic Records**: Investigate official diplomatic communications and intelligence reports for any mention of agreements or discussions involving bin Laden and Iran.
– **Historical Context**: Examine the broader geopolitical context and relations between the U.S. and Iran during the relevant period to understand potential motivations or opportunities for such a deal.
– **Credible Sources**: Rely on reputable news outlets, academic journals, and government reports for information, as these sources are more likely to provide accurate and reliable data.

Citations

Claim

Ahmadinejad was pressed publicly about bin Laden's presence, denying it categorically.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim regarding Ahmadinejad's public denial of bin Laden's presence in Iran, we need to focus on verifiable historical news reports and archives. However, the provided search results do not directly address this claim. Instead, they focus on Curt Weldon's statements and controversies related to the 9/11 attacks and investigations.

## Evaluation of the Claim Regarding Ahmadinejad

1. **Lack of Direct Evidence**: The search results do not provide any direct evidence or references to a specific public diplomatic exchange where Ahmadinejad was pressed about bin Laden's presence in Iran. To verify this claim, one would need to consult historical news archives or official diplomatic records.

2. **Contextual Background**: Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was known for his controversial statements and diplomatic interactions. However, without specific references to such an exchange, it's challenging to confirm the claim.

## Evaluation of Curt Weldon's Claims

1. **Funding Discrepancy**: Weldon criticizes the funding allocated to the 9/11 Commission ($15 million) compared to other investigations like the Monica Lewinsky scandal ($30 million). This discrepancy is often cited as evidence of a perceived lack of seriousness in investigating the 9/11 attacks[3].

2. **Allegations of CIA Obstruction**: Weldon alleges that CIA members obstructed his efforts to investigate the 9/11 attacks more thoroughly. He claims that some hijackers were on the CIA's payroll and that there was a broader conspiracy involving missed warnings[3].

3. **Able Danger Project**: Weldon also discusses the Able Danger project, which he claims identified Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks but was hindered by bureaucratic barriers[5].

4. **Criticism and Controversies**: Weldon's claims have been criticized, and he has faced controversies, including allegations of steering contracts to his daughter and associates[5].

## Conclusion

– **Ahmadinejad's Denial**: Without specific references or evidence from historical news reports or archives, the claim about Ahmadinejad's public denial of bin Laden's presence in Iran cannot be verified from the provided search results.

– **Curt Weldon's Claims**: Weldon's assertions about the 9/11 investigations and alleged CIA obstruction are part of ongoing debates and criticisms surrounding the handling of the 9/11 attacks. However, these claims are controversial and not universally accepted. The Able Danger project and Weldon's other allegations have been subject to scrutiny and criticism[4][5].

Citations

Claim

Iranian authorities detained some of bin Laden's family members after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Iranian authorities detained some of Osama bin Laden's family members after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan is a historical assertion that can be examined through government and news reports related to anti-terrorism operations involving Iran. However, the provided search results primarily focus on Curt Weldon's allegations and investigations concerning the 9/11 attacks, intelligence failures, and conspiracy theories, rather than direct evidence or official confirmation about the detention of bin Laden's family members by Iranian authorities.

### Context on Curt Weldon's Claims and 9/11 Investigations

– Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has publicly expressed frustration over the limited funding and scope of the 9/11 Commission, suggesting that intelligence agencies, including the CIA, obstructed investigations into the attacks. He alleges that some hijackers were on the CIA payroll and that critical intelligence was withheld or ignored prior to 9/11[1][2][3][5].
– Weldon highlights the "Able Danger" military intelligence project, which reportedly identified some of the hijackers well before the attacks but was prevented from sharing this information with the FBI due to bureaucratic and legal barriers[5].
– These claims emphasize a broader narrative of intelligence failures and possible cover-ups but do not directly address Iran's role or the detention of bin Laden's family members.

### Regarding Bin Laden's Family Detention by Iran

– The search results do not provide direct evidence or official reports confirming that Iranian authorities detained members of bin Laden's family after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
– Historically, some reports outside these search results have indicated that Iran detained or held under surveillance certain members of bin Laden's extended family or associates after 2001, as Iran sought to manage its complex relationship with al-Qaeda and the U.S. However, these details are not covered in the provided documents.
– The focus of the available information is on U.S. intelligence and congressional investigations into 9/11, not on Iran's actions post-invasion.

### Summary

While Curt Weldon's statements and investigations reveal significant concerns about intelligence handling and possible conspiracies related to the 9/11 attacks, the claim about Iranian authorities detaining some of bin Laden's family members after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan is not substantiated by the provided search results. To verify this claim, one would need to consult additional sources such as government reports, credible news investigations, or academic research specifically addressing Iran's post-2001 counterterrorism activities and interactions with bin Laden's family.

In conclusion, based on the current search results, there is no direct confirmation or detailed evidence supporting the claim that Iranian authorities detained bin Laden's family members after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

There were multiple flights of cash from the U.S. to Iran, including a notable $400 million delivery.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim about multiple flights of cash from the U.S. to Iran, including a notable $400 million delivery, is not directly related to the discussions involving former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon and the September 11 attacks. However, this claim can be evaluated separately based on available information.

## Claim Evaluation: Flights of Cash to Iran

The claim about flights of cash to Iran, specifically a $400 million delivery, likely refers to a controversial transaction that occurred in 2016. During the Obama administration, the U.S. government did indeed transfer $400 million in cash to Iran on January 17, 2016. This transaction was part of a settlement related to a decades-old arms deal between the U.S. and Iran, which was finalized as part of the nuclear deal (JCPOA) negotiations. The cash was delivered on the same day that Iran released four American prisoners, leading to accusations that it was a ransom payment, which the U.S. government denied.

## Discussion on 9/11 and Curt Weldon

Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has been vocal about his concerns regarding the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent investigations. He has expressed frustration over what he perceives as inadequate funding for the 9/11 Commission and alleged interference by government agencies, particularly the CIA, in uncovering the truth about the attacks[1][3][5].

### Key Points from Weldon's Claims:
– **Able Danger**: Weldon has highlighted the existence of a military intelligence project called Able Danger, which he claims identified some of the 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks. However, this information was allegedly not shared with the FBI due to bureaucratic barriers[5].
– **CIA Obstruction**: Weldon alleges that the CIA obstructed his efforts to investigate further, including claims that some hijackers were on the CIA's payroll[3].
– **Cover-Up Allegations**: He suggests a broader conspiracy involving government agencies and criticizes the lack of transparency and accountability in the investigations[3].

## Conclusion

The claim about cash deliveries to Iran is supported by evidence related to the 2016 transaction. However, the discussions involving Curt Weldon and the 9/11 attacks are based on his personal claims and experiences, which have been controversial and not universally accepted. While Weldon's assertions about Able Danger and CIA obstruction have been part of public discourse, they remain unsubstantiated by mainstream investigations and reports.

## References

[1] Congressional Record: May 21, 2002 (House) Page H2820-H2834
[2] Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House) Page H5243-H5250
[3] Podcast Notes: Tucker Carlson Show
[4] Wikipedia: Curt Weldon
[5] VOA News: Congressman Wants Another Look at 9/11 Commission Probe
The New York Times: U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed
The Wall Street Journal: U.S. Sent $400 Million to Iran as Prisoners Were Freed

Citations

Claim

The U.S. was aware of and helped facilitate the placement of bin Laden in Iran.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. Awareness and Facilitation of Bin Laden's Placement in Iran

The claim that the U.S. was aware of and helped facilitate the placement of Osama bin Laden in Iran lacks substantial evidence from reliable sources. This section will examine the available information and assess the validity of such assertions.

### Background on Osama bin Laden and Iran

Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, was primarily based in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the period leading up to and following the 9/11 attacks. There is no credible evidence to suggest that he was placed in Iran with U.S. assistance. Bin Laden's movements and activities were closely monitored by intelligence agencies, but there is no documented evidence of U.S. involvement in relocating him to Iran.

### Investigations and Intelligence Operations

Former Congressman Curt Weldon has been vocal about alleged intelligence failures and cover-ups related to the 9/11 attacks. He has discussed issues such as the Able Danger project, which identified some hijackers before the attacks, and the lack of information sharing between agencies[3][5]. However, these discussions do not provide evidence supporting the claim about bin Laden's placement in Iran.

### Claims of Collusion and Cover-Up

Weldon and others have raised concerns about potential collusion and cover-ups involving U.S. intelligence agencies. These claims include allegations that some hijackers were on the CIA's payroll and that there was a broader conspiracy[3]. However, these assertions are not supported by mainstream investigations or credible sources.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that the U.S. was aware of and helped facilitate the placement of Osama bin Laden in Iran. The discussions around 9/11 investigations focus on intelligence failures, information sharing issues, and potential conspiracies, but none of these directly relate to bin Laden's alleged placement in Iran.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review of Intelligence Reports**: A thorough review of declassified intelligence reports and documents related to bin Laden's movements and activities could provide clarity.
2. **Examination of Government Statements**: Analyzing official statements and testimonies from key figures in the intelligence community could help identify any inconsistencies or potential cover-ups.
3. **Independent Investigations**: Conducting independent investigations with access to classified information could help verify or refute claims of collusion and intelligence failures.

In summary, while there are ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the events leading up to and following the 9/11 attacks, the specific claim about U.S. involvement in placing bin Laden in Iran remains unsubstantiated by credible evidence.

Citations

Claim

The Iranian government has denied harboring bin Laden, as captured in interviews.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim regarding the Iranian government's denial of harboring Osama bin Laden and the broader context of discussions around the September 11 attacks, it's essential to break down the components of the claim and assess them individually.

## Iranian Government's Denial of Harboring Osama bin Laden

The claim that the Iranian government has denied harboring Osama bin Laden is not directly supported by the provided search results. However, it is well-documented that Iran has consistently denied any involvement with al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. For instance, Iran has historically been at odds with Sunni extremist groups like al-Qaeda, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that Iran harbored bin Laden. While there are reports of some al-Qaeda members finding refuge in Iran, these are often nuanced and involve complex political dynamics rather than direct support from the Iranian government.

## Implications of Denial by Iranian Leadership

The implications of such denials in international forums can be significant, as they reflect Iran's efforts to distance itself from extremist groups. However, without specific interview footage or transcripts, it's challenging to assess the exact nature of these denials.

## Discussion Around September 11 Attacks

Former U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon has been vocal about his frustrations with the investigations into the September 11 attacks. He argues that the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission compared to other investigations suggests a cover-up. Weldon also claims that certain individuals within the CIA obstructed his efforts to investigate further[3][5].

### Claims About CIA Involvement and Hijackers

Weldon and others have made unsubstantiated claims that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll. There is no credible evidence to support this claim, and it remains speculative.

### Able Danger Project

The Able Danger project was a classified military intelligence effort aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks. Weldon has highlighted that this project identified some of the hijackers more than a year before the attacks but was hindered by bureaucratic barriers[5]. However, the extent to which this project could have prevented the attacks is debated.

### Weldon's Experiences and Allegations

Weldon recounts experiences of intimidation and tragic losses among his associates, emphasizing the need for truth and accountability. While these personal experiences are compelling, they do not provide concrete evidence of a broader conspiracy involving the CIA or other agencies.

## Conclusion

In summary, while the Iranian government has likely denied any involvement with Osama bin Laden, specific evidence from interviews is not provided in the search results. The discussions around the September 11 attacks, particularly those involving Curt Weldon, highlight ongoing debates about the effectiveness of investigations and potential cover-ups. However, many of Weldon's claims remain unsubstantiated and require further evidence to be considered credible.

Citations

Claim

Hurricane Aaron was present in the Atlantic Ocean on 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Hurricane Aaron in the Atlantic Ocean on 9/11

The claim that Hurricane Aaron was present in the Atlantic Ocean on September 11, 2001, can be evaluated by examining historical meteorological records from that period.

### Evidence from Meteorological Records

1. **Hurricane Names for 2001**: The 2001 Atlantic hurricane season included several named storms, but there is no record of a Hurricane Aaron. The named storms for that season included Allison, Barry, Chantal, Dean, Erin, Felix, Gabrielle, Humberto, Iris, Jerry, Karen, Lorenzo, Michelle, Noel, and Olga[2][5].

2. **Active Storms Around 9/11**: On September 11, 2001, Hurricane Erin was active in the Atlantic Ocean. Erin reached its peak intensity on September 9, 2001, with winds of 120 mph (190 km/h)[1][3]. However, there is no mention of a Hurricane Aaron in any reliable meteorological records for that date.

3. **Conclusion**: Based on the available data and historical records, there is no evidence to support the claim that Hurricane Aaron was present in the Atlantic Ocean on September 11, 2001. The claim appears to be unfounded and contradicts documented meteorological history.

### Additional Context

– **Investigations and Controversies**: The discussion around the 9/11 attacks involves various conspiracy theories and allegations of government cover-ups. However, these claims are not supported by credible evidence and are often disputed by official investigations and reports.

– **Meteorological Validation**: Meteorological records are a reliable source for validating historical weather events. In this case, they clearly indicate that Hurricane Aaron did not exist in the Atlantic Ocean on 9/11.

In summary, the claim about Hurricane Aaron on 9/11 lacks any basis in factual meteorological records and should be considered unfounded.

Citations

Claim

There are firefighters who heard explosions in the buildings on 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Firefighters Heard Explosions in the Buildings on 9/11

The claim that firefighters heard explosions in the buildings on 9/11 is a topic of ongoing debate and speculation. This claim is often linked to conspiracy theories surrounding the events of September 11, 2001. To evaluate its validity, we must consider eyewitness accounts, official reports, and scientific evidence.

### Eyewitness Accounts

1. **Firefighter Testimonies**: Some firefighters and first responders have reported hearing what sounded like explosions or unusual noises during the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. However, these accounts are anecdotal and can be influenced by the chaotic environment and stress of the situation.

2. **Official Investigations**: The official investigations into the 9/11 attacks, including those by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the 9/11 Commission, did not find evidence to support the claim that explosions caused the collapse of the buildings. These investigations concluded that the collapses were primarily due to structural damage from the plane impacts and subsequent fires.

### Scientific Evidence

1. **Structural Analysis**: NIST conducted extensive structural analyses and concluded that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by a combination of factors, including the impact of the planes and the resulting fires, which weakened the structural integrity of the buildings.

2. **Audio and Video Evidence**: While some audio and video recordings from the day of the attacks include sounds that could be interpreted as explosions, these have been extensively analyzed and attributed to other causes, such as the collapse of structural elements or other noises associated with the disaster.

### Conclusion

The claim that firefighters heard explosions in the buildings on 9/11 is based on eyewitness accounts but lacks substantial scientific evidence to support the idea that these were caused by anything other than the structural failures and fires resulting from the plane impacts. Official investigations have not found evidence to support the presence of deliberate explosions.

—

## Additional Information: Curt Weldon's Claims

Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has made several claims related to the 9/11 attacks, including allegations of a cover-up and missed warnings. He has also discussed the Able Danger project, which he claims identified some of the hijackers before the attacks but was hindered by bureaucratic barriers[5].

1. **Able Danger**: Weldon's assertions about Able Danger have been controversial. While it is true that Able Danger was a military intelligence project aimed at identifying al-Qaeda threats, the extent to which it identified specific hijackers before 9/11 remains a matter of debate. Official investigations have not fully corroborated Weldon's claims about the project's findings[5].

2. **CIA Involvement**: Claims that two of the 9/11 hijackers were on the CIA's payroll are unsubstantiated and have not been supported by credible evidence. Such allegations are often part of broader conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

3. **Investigations and Funding**: Weldon has criticized the funding allocated to the 9/11 Commission compared to other investigations, suggesting a cover-up. However, this criticism does not directly address the scientific evidence regarding the causes of the building collapses.

### Conclusion

While Curt Weldon's claims highlight concerns about intelligence failures and potential bureaucratic obstructions, they do not provide substantial evidence to support the claim that firefighters heard explosions caused by anything other than the structural failures and fires resulting from the plane impacts.

—

### References

[1] Congressional Record: May 21, 2002 (House) Page H2820-H2834
[2] Congressional Record: June 27, 2005 (House) Page H5243-H5250
[3] Podcast Notes: Tucker Carlson Show
[4] Wikipedia: Curt Weldon
[5] VOA News: Congressman Wants Another Look at 9/11 Commission Probe
NIST: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (Note: This reference is not directly provided in the search results but is a well-known source for scientific evidence on the 9/11 building collapses.)

Citations

Claim

There was deliberate involvement in what I've seen to cover it up regarding 9/11.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim of Deliberate Involvement in Covering Up 9/11

The claim of deliberate involvement in covering up aspects of the 9/11 attacks is a complex and contentious issue, often fueled by subjective interpretations and conspiracy theories. To evaluate this claim, we must examine the available evidence and statements from credible sources.

### Background on Curt Weldon and His Claims

Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman, has been vocal about his concerns regarding the handling of intelligence before and after the 9/11 attacks. He has highlighted issues such as the limited funding for the 9/11 Commission and the alleged obstruction by certain government agencies, particularly the CIA[1][3][5].

### Able Danger and Intelligence Sharing

Weldon has emphasized the role of **Able Danger**, a military intelligence project that he claims identified some of the 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks. However, he notes that bureaucratic barriers prevented the sharing of this information with the FBI[5]. This lack of interagency cooperation is a recurring theme in discussions about potential missed opportunities to prevent the attacks.

### Allegations of CIA Involvement

Some theories suggest that certain hijackers might have been on the CIA's payroll, although these claims are not supported by mainstream evidence. Weldon's allegations against specific CIA officials, such as Brennan and Clapper, are part of broader conspiracy narratives that often lack concrete evidence[3].

### Investigation and Funding Discrepancies

Weldon criticizes the funding disparity between the 9/11 Commission and other investigations, like the Monica Lewinsky scandal, suggesting this could indicate a cover-up. However, this comparison might not account for the complexity and scope of each investigation[3].

### Conclusion

While Weldon's claims highlight legitimate concerns about intelligence sharing and bureaucratic inefficiencies, the evidence supporting deliberate cover-ups by government agencies is largely anecdotal and not conclusively proven. The 9/11 Commission Report and other official investigations have not substantiated these conspiracy theories. Therefore, while there are valid questions about the handling of intelligence and potential missed opportunities, the claim of deliberate involvement in a cover-up remains speculative without further concrete evidence.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Interagency Cooperation**: Investigate the barriers to intelligence sharing between agencies like the CIA and FBI.
2. **Able Danger**: Conduct a thorough review of the Able Danger project and its findings.
3. **Funding and Resource Allocation**: Examine the funding and resource allocation for investigations into major national security incidents.

These steps could help clarify the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks and address ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability.

Citations

Claim

Melania Trump announced a stamp specifically for Barbara Bush.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Melania Trump Announced a Stamp Specifically for Barbara Bush

The claim that Melania Trump announced a stamp specifically for Barbara Bush can be verified through official announcements and press releases from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and other reputable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **White House Announcement**: On May 8, 2025, First Lady Melania Trump hosted a ceremony at the White House to unveil a USPS commemorative stamp honoring former First Lady Barbara Bush. This event was attended by members of the Bush family and other dignitaries[1][2].

2. **USPS Press Release**: The USPS officially announced the unveiling of the Barbara Bush stamp, with a dedication ceremony scheduled for June 10, 2025, in Kennebunkport, ME, marking the centennial of Barbara Bush's birth[4].

3. **Media Coverage**: Various news outlets, including ABC News and Associated Press, reported on the event, confirming Melania Trump's role in unveiling the stamp[2][3].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from official sources and media coverage, the claim that Melania Trump announced a stamp specifically for Barbara Bush is **true**. The stamp was unveiled at the White House, and a formal dedication ceremony is planned for later in the year[1][2][4].

This fact-checking process demonstrates the importance of relying on credible sources to verify claims, especially those involving public figures and official events.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!