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bin Laden was executed under a CIA finding and was independent of other operations requires a detailed examination of historical documents and reports related to the operation.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