The second stop on my American trip this year is Pittsburgh, and from here I can finally visit the Shanksville memorial, where on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed to the ground when the terrorists who had taken control of it realized that they would not achieve their objective thanks to the passengers' heroic revolt.
I arrive at the memorial at around 11:30 after a one-and-a-half-hour drive from the Steel City, one hour of which is on the highway and half an hour through rural Pennsylvania. I have arranged to visit the memorial with former FBI Special Agent Matt Hoke, who responded to the scene after the disaster (and whom I interviewed in the past for this same blog); Matt's family is also with him, including his father, who is also a former FBI agent and was on duty in Cleveland that day.
Thanks to Matt, we have the privilege of taking a guided tour with an exceptional guide: Steve Clark, superintendent of the National Parks in western Pennsylvania. The first thing I notice is that a black marble walkway runs along the entire length of the memorial, following the route taken by the aircraft, and at regular intervals there are longer slabs displaying the chronology of events. At the entrance there is a raised model of the entire site showing where we are and where the rest of what we are about to see is located in relation to us. We stay there for at least an hour listening to Steve's explanation of how the federal government had to purchase the land to turn it into a National Park and how this was a unique event in history. He then explains that the design of the memorial was not created by a local architect, but by Paul Murdoch's California-based firm, because the entire nation, and not just Pennsylvania, was supposed to contribute to the rebuilding. Steve goes on to summarize the events of that morning, from the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 to the crash of United 93. From Steve's words, it immediately becomes clear what makes this site special: while in New York and Washington the resilience of a nation in responding to an attack is commemorated, here in Shanksville the heroism of the passengers who saved thousands of lives at the Capitol is commemorated.
After hearing the story of the reaction of ordinary people who decided, with the means available to them, to oppose the terrorists, we move to the observation point, where Steve points out a stone in the field marking the spot where the crash occurred, the place where the crater we have all seen was created on September 11, 2001. It is difficult to reconcile the field seen in the photos and videos of 9/11 with the meadow and the woods in front of my eyes, but thanks to Steve's explanation I am able to understand it.
We remain there for several minutes, during which Steve explains to us where and how the human remains, pieces of the aircraft, and personal belongings that survived the crash were found. We then move to the museum, where photography is not allowed. The facility is divided into various areas containing many of the objects recovered from the wreckage, such as the airphones, Ziad Jarrah's credit card, a circuit board that most likely came from a laptop computer, cutlery, pieces of seat belts, and many other everyday objects of all kinds. Looking at the graphic representation of how the passengers were arranged on the aircraft, two details stand out that would otherwise be difficult to grasp: how close the terrorists were to the cockpit and how largely empty the flight was, with only forty passengers on a 757 that can carry more than two hundred.
Matt Hoke and I
Among the exhibits are audio headsets through which visitors can listen to some of the calls made by the passengers to their families: I listen to them again and am struck by how calm and determined they sound, to the point that their voices convey more courage than fear. The museum also contains many of the passengers' personal belongings, such as clothing, sports equipment, or keychains, which their families donated to the memorial and which explain better than many words that those who died on that flight were ordinary people who had left home to live a normal day. Toward the end of the exhibition there is also a wall displaying photographs of all the passengers; in front of it there are also monitors displaying their photographs that visitors can tap with their fingers to read their stories. It is impossible not to notice that the first person at the top left of the wall is Todd Beamer himself, the man who said Let's Roll, setting the assault on the terrorists in motion.
After the museum we move to the Wall of Names, which is a few minutes' drive away but lower down, at the level of the crash site. Here the marble walkway following the aircraft's path continues, and beside it stands the wall engraved with the names of the victims. On the ground there are also small mementos that families have brought for their deceased loved ones; for example, Steve tells us, one father brought seashells for his daughter, who was passionate about them. From here we walk all the way to the gate, which is the closest point from which the stone marking the crash site can be seen.
Before leaving, we stop at the Tower of Voices, a 93-foot-tall structure, corresponding to the number of the flight, consisting of forty tubular bells, corresponding to the number of passengers, which ring naturally thanks to the wind and today also the rain, so that their voices may echo forever.
There is no doubt that this is a memorial unlike the other two, because the story it tells is different. Here, unfortunately, there are no lives saved; here there is the courage of ordinary people who changed history by saving those in Washington from the second tragedy that would have struck the capital that day. Here we commemorate those who opposed the terrorists with the means they had at their disposal, using a food cart and boiling water as weapons to fight against those who wanted to turn them into a missile aimed at civilians.
La seconda tappa del mio viaggio americano di quest'anno è Pittsburgh e da qui posso finalmente andare a visitare il memoriale di Shanksville, dove l'11 settembre 2001 il volo United Airlines 93 si schiantò al suolo quando i terroristi che ne avevano preso il controllo capirono che non avrebbero raggiunto il proprio intento grazie all'eroica rivolta dei passeggeri.
Arrivo al memoriale verso le 11:30 dopo un'ora e mezza di strada dalla Steel City di cui una di autostrada e mezza nella Pennsylvania rurale. Ho appuntamento per vedere il memoriale con l'ex agente speciale dell'FBI Matt Hoke che intervenne sulla scena dopo il disastro (e che ho intervistato in passato per questo stesso blog); insieme a Matt c'è anche la sua famiglia, tra cui il padre anche lui ex agente dell'FBI che quel giorno era in servizio a Cleveland.
Grazie a Matt abbiamo il privilegio di poter fare una visita guidata con una guida d'eccezione: il sovrintendente ai Parchi Nazionali della Pennsylvania occidentale Steve Clark. La prima cosa che noto è che per tutta la lunghezza del memoriale si estende un camminamento nero in marmo che segue la rotta percorsa dall'aereo e, a intervalli regolari, si trovano lastre più lunghe che riportano la cronologia degli eventi. All'ingresso si trova un modello in rilievo dell'intero sito che mostra dove ci troviamo e dove si trova rispetto a noi il resto di ciò che vedremo a breve. Ci fermiamo lì almeno un'ora a sentire la spiegazione di Steve che racconta come il governo federale abbia dovuto comprare quel terreno per farne un Parco Nazionale e come questo sia un evento unico nella storia. Ci spiega quindi che il design del memoriale non è stato realizzato da un architetto locale, ma dallo studio californiano di Paul Murdoch, perché tutta la nazione, e non solo la Pennsylvania, doveva contribuire alla ricostruzione. Steve prosegue riassumendo i fatti di quella mattina dal dirottamento del volo American Airlines 11 allo schianto di United 93. Dalle parole di Steve emerge subito quale sia la peculiarità che rende speciale questo sito: se a New York e a Washington si celebra la resilienza di una nazione nel reagire a un attacco, qui a Shanksville si celebra l'eroismo dei passeggeri che hanno salvato migliaia di vite al Campidoglio.
Dopo aver sentito il racconto della reazione di persone comuni che decisero con i mezzi che avevano di opporsi ai terroristi ci spostiamo nel punto di osservazione, dove Steve ci indica un masso di pietra nel prato che indica il luogo in cui è avvenuto lo schianto, quello dove l'11 settembre 2001 si è creato il cratere che tutti abbiamo visto. Si fa fatica a far combaciare il campo che si vede nelle foto e nei video dell'11/9 con il prato e con il bosco che ho davanti agli occhi, ma grazie alla spiegazione di Steve riesco a capirlo.
Rimaniamo lì molti minuti, in cui Steve ci spiega dove e come sono stati trovati i resti umani, i pezzi dell'aereo e gli oggetti personali che sono sopravvissuti allo schianto. Ci spostiamo quindi nel museo, dove non si possono fare foto. La struttura è divisa in varie zone all'interno delle quai troviamo molti degli oggetti recuperati tra le macerie, come gli airphones, la carta di credito di Ziad Jarrah, un circuito stampato che con ogni probabilità proveniva da un PC portatile, posate, pezzi di cinture di sicurezza e molti altri oggetti quotidiani tra i più disparati. Guardando la rappresentazione grafica di come fossero disposti i passeggeri sul velivolo, spiccano due dettagli che è difficile cogliere altrimenti: quanto i terroristi fossero vicini alla cabina di pilotaggio e come il volo fosse per gran parte vuoto, solo quaranta passeggeri per un 757 che ne può portare più di duecento.
Io e Matt Hoke
Tra il materiale esposto ci sono delle cuffie audio da cui si possono ascoltare alcune delle telefonate compiute dai passeggeri alle loro famiglie: le ascolto di nuovo e mi stupisco di quanto sembrino tranquilli e determinati, al punto che dallo loro voce emerge più il coraggio che la paura. Nel museo ci sono anche molti effetti personali dei passeggeri, come indumenti, attrezzatura sportiva o portachiavi, che le famiglie hanno donato al memoriale e che spiegano meglio di tante parole che i morti su quel volo erano persone comuni uscite di casa per vivere una giornata normale. Verso la fine dell'esposizione si trova anche un muro che riporta le foto di tutti i passeggeri, di fronte ad esso ci sono anche dei monitor con le loro foto su cui si può cliccare con le dita per leggerne la storia. È impossibile non notare che il primo in alto a sinistra sul muro è proprio Todd Beamer, colui che disse Let's Roll scatenando l'assalto ai terroristi.
Dopo il museo ci spostiamo al Wall of Names, che si trova a pochi minuti di guida ma più in basso, all'altezza del luogo dello schianto. Qui prosegue il camminamento di marmo che segue il percorso dell'aereo e accanto ad esso si erge il muro con incisi i nomi delle vittime. A terra si trovano anche dei piccoli ricordi che le famiglie hanno portato ai loro cari defunti, ad esempio un padre, ci spiega Steve, ha portato delle conchiglie alla figlia che ne era appassionata. Da qui arriviamo fino al cancello che è il punto più vicino da cui si possa vedere il masso che indica il luogo dello schianto.
Prima di allontanarci ci fermiamo alla Tower of Voices, una costruzione di 93 piedi, come il numero del volo, composta da quaranta campane tubolari, come il numero dei passeggeri, che suonano naturalmente grazie al vento e oggi anche alla pioggia, affinché la loro voce risuoni in eterno.
È indubbio che questo sia un memoriale diverso dagli altri due, perché è diversa la storia che racconta. Qui, purtroppo non ci sono vite salvate, qui c'è il coraggio di persone normali che hanno cambiato la storia salvando chi stava a Washington dalla seconda tragedia che avrebbe colpito la capitale quel giorno. Qui si celebra chi si è opposto ai terroristi con i mezzi che aveva, usando un carrello per le vivande e acqua bollente come armi per combattare contro chi voleva trasformarli in un missile contro dei civili.
I am in New York for the fifth time since 9/11, and it has been four years since my last visit. On this occasion as well, a stop at the 9/11 Memorial & Museum is a must for me. Every trip to New York is also an opportunity to meet the survivors and first responders I have gotten to know over the years through my research; this time I also meet fellow researcher Adam Fitzgerald, with whom I take the subway from midtown to the World Trade Center and visit the museum.
The Plaza looks very much as I remember it, and it has not changed much over the past four years. However, there are also some significant differences. The performing center north of the Plaza, toward 7 World Trade Center, has opened and has been given the name World Trade Center 6, even though it is not an office building, thus restoring the original numbering. Construction work on World Trade Center 2 has also resumed, although for now all that can be seen is the concrete framework emerging from the base; the only tenant currently expected will be American Express, but that has been enough to restart construction. World Trade Center 5, on the other hand, is still stalled, despite discussions in recent months about partially or entirely converting the structure into residential units, the cost of which is currently prohibitive.
By now I know the museum well. I have already been there three other times, so I know what awaits me once I cross the threshold on the Plaza and go down the escalators, and yet every time, emotionally, it feels like the first, because even though I have heard hundreds of accounts from survivors and first responders, the impact of hearing their stories in their own words is unimaginable. For example, this is the first time I notice that among the photographs of the victims there is Betty Ong, the flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, whose desperate words over the phone are one of the most iconic voices of the disaster that was unfolding, as well as a four-year-old girl, Juliana Valentine McCourt, who was traveling on the same plane with her mother. Just another reminder that the terrorists showed no mercy to anyone in their insane and destructive plan.
There are always new things to discover in the museum. I notice that some of the objects I remember are no longer there, such as the jacket of one of the Navy SEALs who carried out the Abbottabad operation; the guard I ask about it explains that the objects on display are changed and moved around to make room for new ones, and he does not even remember seeing it. I also notice the flag that was raised at Ground Zero after the attacks, and I do not remember seeing it during my previous visits. The section dedicated to the mission that killed bin Laden also seems more comprehensive to me, and this time there is also a brick from the compound where the terrorist was hiding.
Thanks to Adam, I also discover an important detail that I did not know about: in the museum there is a room accessible only to the victims' families where the unidentified remains of the victims are kept. We can obviously only look at it from the outside, although the guard we ask to confirm that the room exists is surprised that we know about it.
We leave after spending more than two hours in the museum, but only because we have both been there before; otherwise, the amount of time to spend there would certainly be longer. And after seeing the pain and heroism conveyed by the voices that follow one another in the testimonies preserved at the museum, crossing the museum's threshold on the way out feels like entering another dimension, because life on the Plaza has resumed at full pace and the rest of the city is moving and producing just as it did before 9/11. While the museum commemorates those who died and the courage of those who responded, the rest of the city confirms that the terrorists did not win.
Sono a New York per la quinta volta dopo l'11/9 e dopo quattro anni dall'ultima volta. Anche in questa occasione, la tappa al 9/11 Memorial & Museum è per me obbligata. Ogni viaggio a New York è anche un'occasione per incontrare i sopravvissuti e i soccorritori che ho conosciuto in questi anni grazie alle mie ricerche, questa volta incontro anche il collega ricercatore Adam Fitzgerald con cui faccio il tragitto di metropolitana da midtown al World Trade Center e con cui visito il museo.
La Plaza è molto simile a come me la ricordo e negli ultimi quattro anni non è cambiata molto, tuttavia ci sono anche differenze importanti. Il performing center a nord della Plaza, verso il World Trade Center 7, è stato aperto e gli è stato dato il nome di World Trade Center 6, nonostante non sia un edificio di uffici, ma ripristinando così la numerazione iniziale. Inoltre i lavori per la costruzione del World Trade Center 2 sono ripresi, anche se per ora si vede solo l'armatura del cemento spuntare dalla base; l'unico affittuario per ora previsto sarà American Express, ma tanto è bastato per riavviare i lavori. Il World Trade Center 5 è invece ancora fermo, nonostante ci siano state discussioni nei mesi recenti sulla destinazione parziale o totale della struttura a residenze, il cui costo è però per ora proibitivo.
Ormai conosco il museo, ci sono stato già altre tre volte e quindi so cosa mi aspetta una volta varcata la soglia sulla Plaza e scese le scale mobili, eppure ogni volta dal punto di vista emotivo sembra la prima, perché anche se ho sentito centinaia di racconti di sopravvissuti e soccorritori, la violenza con cui arriva al cuore risentire la storia dalle loro dirette parole è inimmaginabile. Mi accorgo per la prima volta, ad esempio, che tra le foto delle vittime ci sono la hostess del volo American Airlines 11 Betty Ong, le cui parole disperate al telefono sono una delle voci più iconiche del disastro che si stava compiendo, e una bambina di quattro anni, Juliana Valentine McCourt, che viaggiava sul medesimo aereo insieme alla madre. Tanto per ricordare che i terroristi non hanno fatto sconti a nessuno nel loro piano folle e distruttivo.
Nel museo ci sono sempre novità, noto che alcuni degli oggetti che ricordavo non si trovano, ad esempio la casacca di uno dei Navy SEALs che condussero l'operazione di Abbottabad; la guardia a cui chiedo dove sia mi spiega che gli oggetti esposti cambiano e vengono spostati per fare spazio a quelli nuovi, infatti neanche lui ricorda di averla vista. Noto anche la bandiera che fu issata a Ground Zero dopo gli attentati e non ricordavo di averla vista nelle visite precedenti. Anche la parte dedicata alla missione che uccise bin Laden mi sembra più completa e questa volta c'è anche un mattone del compound in cui il terrorista si nascondeva.
Grazie ad Adam scopro anche un dettaglio importante che non conoscevo: nel museo c'è una stanza a cui hanno accesso solo le famiglie delle vittime in cui sono conservati i resti non identificati delle vittime. Possiamo solo ovviamente guardarlo da fuori, anche se la guardia a cui chiediamo conferma che quella stanza esista e si stupisce che noi ne siamo a conoscenza.
Usciamo dopo aver trascorso nel museo più di due ore, ma solo perché entrambi ci siamo già stati, altrimenti il tempo da dedicare è sicuramente più lungo. E dopo aver visto il dolore e l'eroismo raccontati dalle voci che si susseguono nelle testimonianze conservate al museo, varcare in uscita la soglia del museo sembra portare in un'altra dimensione, perché sulla Plaza la vita è ripresa a pieno ritmo e il resto della città corre e produce come prima dell'11/9. Mentre il museo celebra il ricordo di chi è morto e il coraggio di chi è intervenuto, il resto della città conferma che i terroristi non hanno vinto.
In this interview, I speak with former FBI Special Agent Scott Decker about one of the most fascinating and complex criminal investigations in modern American history: Amerithrax.
In the weeks following 9/11, the United States was struck by a series of deadly anthrax attacks that killed five people, sickened seventeen others, and triggered one of the largest investigations ever conducted by the FBI.
During our conversation, we discuss how the investigation began, why investigators initially considered al-Qaeda as a possible suspect, how the FBI developed groundbreaking microbial forensic techniques to trace the anthrax spores, and why the investigation ultimately focused on Bruce Ivins.
On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers fought back against the hijackers.
In this interview, former Red Cross volunteer Cynthia Defibaugh shares her firsthand experiences responding to the crash in the aftermath of 9/11. We discuss her deployment to Shanksville, the work carried out by relief organizations, the memorials that were held, her interactions with the families of the victims, and the lasting impact the experience has had on her life.
More than two decades later, Cynthia offers a unique perspective on the response to Flight 93 and the human side of one of the most significant events in modern history.
I hosted a video interview with attorney Mark Zaid and investigative journalist Gerald Posner about conspiracy thinking in American history. Both guests have previously been interviewed on this blog on topics related to 9/11 (Mark Zaid about the Able Danger program, Gerald Posner about the Saudi involvement), and have also appeared on my channel to discuss other conspiracy theories that persist in popular culture, such as the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana.
In the interview, we explore several themes that also appear in 9/11-related conspiracy theories, such as the need for quick answers, the tendency to feel more informed than the general public, and a deep distrust in institutions.
In this new interview, historian Sean Munger breaks down the complex chain of events that led to the rise of Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11.
We talk about the Soviet-Afghan War, the formation of al-Qaeda, early attacks like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the planning of 9/11—along with the intelligence failures that allowed it to happen.
We also address one of the most important issues: what conspiracy theories get wrong when compared to the historical evidence.
I sat down with former FDNY Deputy Fire Chief Richard Alles, who was on the front lines during 9/11, for a conversation in which he shares a detailed, firsthand account of that day: what he saw and the reality of responding to an unprecedented tragedy.
We also talk about the aftermath, the long-term impact of toxic exposure at Ground Zero, and why he continues to advocate for the rights of first responders who are still suffering the consequences today, even decades later.
In this video, Adam Fitzgerald and I explain the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, leading to the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Below, I provide the English translations of the Italian articles in which I explain in detail the topics discussed in the video.
The Alleged Meeting in Prague Between Mohamed Atta and the Iraqi Consul
In the days following the 9/11 attacks, reports circulated in the press and within the U.S. administration claiming that Mohamed Atta, leader of the suicide hijacking team, had met in Prague in April 2001 with the Iraqi consul — and alleged IIS (Iraqi Intelligence Service) agent — Ahmad Samir al-Ani. The news was first published by Reuters on September 18, 2001, in an article that did not specify in which city the meeting allegedly took place and failed to indicate the source of the information. The same day, the story, containing the same vague details, was reported by the Associated Press.
On October 20, 2001, the New York Times published an article denying that there was evidence of a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi government official in Prague, citing Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross and MP Petr Nečas as sources. However, one week later the same newspaper reported that Gross himself had stated at a press conference that Atta met al-Ani in the Czech capital on April 8, 2001, and that the consul had subsequently been expelled for conducting activities unrelated to his diplomatic mandate. It later emerged that the suspicious activity carried out by al-Ani concerned the planning of an attack against the Prague headquarters of the American radio broadcaster Radio Free Europe, which at the time was located in the former Federal Assembly building.
On December 9, 2001, Dick Cheney confirmed in an interview on the television program Meet The Press that the government believed Atta had been in Prague in April and had met an Iraqi government representative there (notably, Cheney referred to Czechoslovakia rather than the Czech Republic, committing a historical error that was as striking as it was unjustifiable). The Bush administration later used the alleged meeting between Atta and al-Ani as one of the pretexts to justify the invasion of Iraq.
In reality, despite Cheney’s apparent certainty, the claim that Atta met al-Ani remained entirely anecdotal. Throughout 2002, a series of journalistic investigations reached widely differing conclusions. On May 15, the Washington Post wrote that the Czech prime minister and president had cast doubt on Gross’s statements, arguing that there was no certainty the meeting had occurred and that, even if it had, the discussion concerned a terrorist attack planned in Prague rather than the 9/11 attacks. On June 5, The Prague Post instead reported statements by Czech UN envoy Hynek Kmoníček claiming the meeting did take place.
On October 20, a new New York Times article reported that Czech President Vaclav Havel had officially informed the White House that there was no evidence of a meeting in Prague between Atta and al-Ani. Two days later, however, a spokesman for President Havel denied the report, claiming the story had been fabricated.
Alongside journalistic inquiries, numerous official investigations were conducted. As reported in Ron Suskind’s 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, on September 19, 2001 Dick Cheney asked then–CIA Director George Tenet to investigate the matter. Tenet replied two days later, informing the vice president that the CIA’s Prague office was highly skeptical that Atta had met al-Ani there: phone records and credit card transactions indicated that Atta was in the United States at the time. The CIA report Iraqi Support for Terrorism (January 2003) likewise noted serious doubts that such a meeting had occurred. Tenet himself later confirmed before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, while it could not be ruled out with absolute certainty, the CIA considered it highly unlikely that Atta had met al-Ani in Prague.
The FBI conducted a similar investigation and reached the same conclusion as the CIA: after reviewing all of Atta’s activities during that period, there was no reason to believe he had left the United States in April 2001.
The 9/11 Commission also examined the issue. In the 9/11 Commission Report, a dedicated section explained that the claims about the alleged meeting were based on a single Czech intelligence source, while the Commission’s investigation concluded that Atta was in the United States during that week. The Commission added that if Atta had traveled to Prague at that time, he would have needed to do so under a false identity — something the hijacker had never done on any other occasion.
Czech police and intelligence services also investigated the matter, and as early as December 2001 the national police chief denied that there was evidence of a meeting between the two men. The Telegraph article reporting this added an important detail that may explain the misunderstanding: a member of Prague’s Arab community claimed to have repeatedly seen al-Ani with an Iraqi car dealer — who had sold him vehicles — and who closely resembled Atta. The anonymous Czech intelligence informant may therefore have mistaken the car dealer for the terrorist. In August 2002, the head of Czech foreign intelligence also confirmed that there was no evidence of the meeting and that the hypothesis was extremely implausible. In 2014, the former head of domestic intelligence revealed in his autobiography another crucial detail: according to his account, the United States pressured the Czech government to confirm the Prague meeting between Atta and the consul in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Beyond the resemblance to the car dealer, another event may have contributed to the confusion. Mohamed Atta first entered the United States on June 3, 2000, on a flight originating from Prague. Some initial investigations suggested that Atta had attempted to enter Prague on May 30 from Bonn but was turned away due to lacking a visa; he allegedly took a bus on June 1 and then entered the Czech Republic successfully. This detail led some to believe that Atta was in a hurry to enter the country — perhaps to meet someone — to the point that he could not wait even one day to regularize his visa status. In reality, this too was a misunderstanding: as explained by the Chicago Tribune in 2004, the man who attempted to enter Prague without a visa was not the terrorist Mohamed Atta but a Pakistani businessman named Mohammed Atta (with an extra “m” in the first name). Curiously, in some journalistic reconstructions Mohamed Atta was also confused with another near namesake, the terrorist Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta.
Al-Ani was taken into U.S. custody in July 2003 and in December of that year confirmed that he had never met Mohamed Atta. The New York Times article reporting his statement also included notable denials from Abu Zubaydah (an al-Qaeda militant) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the organizer of 9/11), both of whom confirmed that al-Qaeda had no ties to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
In 2006, Dick Cheney publicly admitted that it had been a mistake. In an interview, he stated that the source of the information was unreliable and that the most obvious conclusion was that the Prague meeting had never taken place (once again referring to Czechoslovakia instead of the Czech Republic). That same year Cheney repeated on Meet The Press that there was no evidence Atta had met Iraqi officials in Prague and that the claim had been based on mistaken identity.
In September 2006, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence published the second version of its Iraq report. The document included a specific paragraph titled Muhammad Atta Meeting with IIS in Prague, reiterating that the only source reporting the meeting was a single witness connected to Czech intelligence, while CIA and FBI investigations found no corroboration. Much of the chapter, however, remains classified. A Newsweek investigation that same month, citing anonymous informants, suggested that the classified section concerned disagreements between the CIA and the White House: presidential staff reportedly wished to continue emphasizing the claim publicly — even including it in a Bush speech in March 2003 — while the agency objected because the allegation lacked supporting evidence. The same Newsweek article also reported CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano’s denial that the classification served to protect the White House.
The full contours of the affair remain unclear to this day. It is certain that no links existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq, making it extremely unlikely that Mohamed Atta ever met a representative of Saddam Hussein’s government. However, the attempts by the U.S. government to promote this improbable theory remain difficult to explain, especially considering that it was used as one of the justifications for the 2003 Iraq War.
The Habbush memo: The Fabricated Document Purporting to Prove Links Between al Qaeda and Iraq
On December 13, 2003 — the day Saddam Hussein was captured — the London newspaper The Daily Telegraph published an article by renowned journalist Con Coughlin claiming that the newspaper’s editorial staff had received from unspecified Iraqi sources a handwritten note sent by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former head of Iraqi intelligence, to President Saddam Hussein.
The note, dated July 1, 2001, stated that Mohamed Atta had participated in training in Baghdad during the summer of 2001 (therefore, reasonably, only days before the memo itself was written), conducted by the well-known Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (organizer, among other attacks, of the assault on the check-in counters of TWA and El Al airlines at the Vienna and Rome airports on December 27, 1985). In the text, al-Tikriti praised Atta’s dedication and his leadership qualities as head of the group tasked with destroying important targets.
The second part of the document also mentioned a shipment of uranium that Iraq had allegedly received by ship from Niger, implicitly referring to Saddam Hussein’s supposed nuclear weapons program — an issue President George Bush had mentioned in his 2003 State of the Union address. The letter became known as the Habbush memo, after its alleged author.
A second article in the same newspaper, again written by Coughlin — also author of the 2002 biography Saddam: King of Terror — provided further details about the letter along with the journalist’s commentary asserting that the document proved the existence of links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 hijackers, and that the Iraqi government was pursuing a program to produce weapons of mass destruction.
The article also mentioned a previous discovery of documents at Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad allegedly referring to a 1998 meeting in Iraq between an al-Qaeda envoy and Iraqi government officials. The meeting was reportedly successful to the point that Osama bin Laden himself was planning a visit to Saddam Hussein’s state.
Interviewed on the television program Meet The Press on the same day the first article was published, Coughlin stated that he had received al-Tikriti’s letter from a member of the Iraqi interim government, whose identity he did not disclose. He added that the document had been authenticated and that the handwriting matched al-Tikriti’s — a stronger claim than in the Telegraph articles themselves, where he had been more cautious, noting that it was not possible to state with certainty that the document was authentic.
A few days after publication of the two articles, the American weekly Newsweek published a piece by Michael Isikoff raising reasonable doubts about the memo and its contents. First, the article noted that the FBI had carefully reconstructed Atta’s movements and determined that during the period when the Baghdad training allegedly occurred, the terrorist was in the United States. Moreover, even the Iraqi National Congress — an opposition political organization founded in 1992 with support from the U.S. administration and long supportive of claims linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda — expressed serious doubts about the authenticity of the letter. Isikoff also asked Coughlin directly about the memo’s authenticity, but the British journalist replied that his newspaper had no way of verifying the document.
Another investigation into the Habbush memo was conducted by journalist Ron Suskind in his book The Way of the World, published on August 5, 2008. According to Suskind, the letter was a forgery deliberately produced by the CIA and the White House. He wrote that the CIA had initially intended to have Habbush himself write the letter, but that he refused; following this refusal, the agency allegedly decided to fabricate the document. Suskind cited CIA officials Robert Richer and George Tenet, as well as MI6’s Nigel Inkster, as sources. All three later denied having made the statements attributed to them in Suskind’s book.
Tenet acknowledged that the Bush administration had pressured the CIA to portray links between al-Qaeda and Iraq as stronger than supported by available evidence, but he denied that the agency had deliberately created a forged document. The CIA also issued a public and official statement denying that it had received any request to fabricate the memo.
Nigel Inkster also returned to the subject, confirming that he had spoken with Suskind but stating that he had told the journalist he was not in a position to comment on the Habbush memo because he lacked detailed knowledge of the matter.
Two days after publicity surrounding Suskind’s book, Philip Giraldi — a former CIA counterterrorism officer — wrote in an article for The American Conservative that some of his sources confirmed Suskind’s claim that the White House had ordered the creation of a forged memo. However, Suskind was allegedly mistaken regarding who carried out the forgery: according to Giraldi, it was not commissioned to the CIA but to the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit that existed for only ten months and was tasked with supplying raw intelligence on Iraq to the President. At the time, it was directed by Douglas Feith, who in 2003 also served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Ayad Allawi
On August 8, 2008, an article by Joe Conason published in the online magazine Salon offered an interesting clue supporting Suskind’s theory while simultaneously clearing Coughlin of potential accusations of participating in a forgery. The author identified Ayad Allawi — then head of the Iraqi interim government — as the source who had provided the original document to Coughlin, adding that Allawi had visited CIA headquarters in Langley just days before the first Telegraph article on the matter.
About ten days after Suskind’s book was published, Coughlin himself returned to the issue with an article strongly critical of Suskind, confirming that Allawi had indeed been the source who handed him the document but stating that their meeting had taken place in Baghdad in November 2003. In the article, Coughlin firmly reiterated that the CIA had played no role in producing the memo.
At the same time, the chairman of the United States House Judiciary Committee — the body within the House of Representatives responsible for oversight of the administration of justice — announced that he had tasked his staff with investigating the claims advanced by Ron Suskind as part of a broader inquiry into alleged abuses by the Bush administration, particularly regarding the push for a preventive war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Concerning the Habbush memo, however, the committee ultimately concluded that although the document appeared to be a forgery, it was not possible to determine who had commissioned it.
To this day, the contours of this affair remain highly unclear. It is unknown who created the memo, under what circumstances, or for what purpose. The respective roles of the White House and the CIA also remain uncertain. This too belongs among the gray areas surrounding 9/11 — areas entirely unrelated to the nonsense repeated by conspiracy theorists for more than two decades.
In this interview, retired FBI Special Agent Robert F. Clifford shares his firsthand experience working in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
We talk about intelligence and counterterrorism on the ground, collaboration with Iraqi authorities, interagency dynamics with U.S. forces, the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq, foreign fighters, early warning signs of ISIS, and the mistakes and lessons that still matter today.
A rare, ground-level perspective on Iraq — beyond headlines and hindsight.
