Missing links. Nafeez Ahmed tries to cover up his 9/11 trutherism

Posted on Updated on

I wrote a piece about Nafeez Ahmed yesterday, drawing attention to the questionable nature of all of his journalism and why the Guardian newspaper is giving him a platform. Part of my piece referenced his long history of conspiracy theorist ranting about September 11th, with him frequently implying that the US government had a hand in on the whole shameful business.

To provide evidence that Mr. Ahmed is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist I linked to a piece he wrote, entitled “Interrogating 9/11.” This piece was published on his website on the 11th of September 2006. In the day since I linked to it he has removed the piece from his website. If you search Google for “Nafeez Ahmed Interrogating 9/11” you can still see the piece prominently located at the top of your google search, but click and you find that the page no longer exists.

However the web is written in ink, as a character in The Social Network observed. Mr. Ahmed’s conspiracy theorist ranting is still available for all to read via archive.is here. Mr. Ahmed obviously wants people to take him seriously, and not recognise that he is a crank with a conspiracy theorist bent. This explains why he would remove this article from his website. Behaviour like this should be unacceptable for someone who claims to be a journalist.

That Mr. Ahmed is given a platform by the Guardian is bad enough, that he is allowed to continue behaving in this fashion is far, far worse.


26 thoughts on “Missing links. Nafeez Ahmed tries to cover up his 9/11 trutherism

    Bill Heintz said:
    March 17, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    What happens on the internet, stays on the internet …

    Internet Archive Wayback Machine:


    roddycampbell said:
    March 18, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    The Google cache link doesn’t work any more? Or just me?


      Robert Wilson said:
      March 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm

      It’s fine for me. Try again.


    Gareth said:
    March 19, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Robert Wilson

    “Conspiracy theorist ranting”
    “9/11 conspiracy theorist”
    “Mr. Ahmed’s conspiracy theorist ranting”
    “he is a crank with a conspiracy theorist bent”

    Tedious and repetitive ad hominem.

    It’s obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Do yourself a favour:

    The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

    “Nafeez Ahmed’s understanding of the post 9/11 power game, its lies, illusions and dangers, is no less than brilliant. Everyone should read this wise and powerfully illuminating book.” – John Pilger


      Robert Wilson said:
      March 19, 2014 at 5:41 pm

      Thanks, post me a copy and I will shred it so that we can ship it to China for recyling.


        Gareth said:
        March 20, 2014 at 3:28 pm

        Robert Wilson

        Here you go, knock yourself out: a pdf of Ahmed’s 2002 book, ‘The War on Freedom: How and why America was attacked on September 11th 2001’. As well as being a finalist for the 2003 Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award, the book was among 99 others made available to each 9/11 Commissioner of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States to use during their investigations (see No. 28: http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/special-collections/9-11-commission.html).


        “This riveting and thoroughly documented study is a ‘must’ resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the World Trade Center of New York on September 11, 2001 and ‘America’s New War’ since. It connects together over 10 years of relevant covert actions and decisions by top-level U.S. security-state operations, and organises the whole into a coherent and devastating exposé of the real meaning and construction of the historic turn of ‘the war against terrorism’ now rewriting laws and constitutions across borders. For those who have seen or filed facts on these matters from web disclosures and scattered revelations of newspapers, this volume provides the detailed documentation in a definitive and masterful record.”

        Professor John McMurtry, Department of Philosophy, University of Ontario; Fellow at the Royal Society of Canada; Chair of Jurists, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Tribunal at the Alternative World Summit in Toronto, 1989 (Canada)

        “The material you have collected is immensely important and useful. You look at the right subjects and report a number of things I had missed entirely. We need more people doing the important research that you have done.”

        Professor Peter Dale Scott, Co-Founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of California, Berkeley (United States)


        Robert Wilson said:
        March 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm

        Perhaps “Gareth” you can tell us who you really are, instead of hiding behind a fake email and IP address. The information in your comment isn’t exactly something that can be found out with a rapid google search. So, put the sock puppetry away and tell us who you are.


      Paul T said:
      July 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm

      You hit the nail firmly on the head. The tactics employed by the pro govs are becoming clearer by the minute. There are thousands of contradicting elements to 911 not just one or two(or even fifty).

      I do not claim to know who done it but what I do know is that there is no way on this earth it happened how the gov said it did, absolutely no way.

      Keep fighting the good fight pal, we’ll get there.


    Donough shanahan said:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    I am also not getting any joy off your link though the kink in the comments works.


      Robert Wilson said:
      March 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm

      Thanks Donough. This piece of work appears to have requested that Google remove it from their Cache. Fortunately an emailer has pointed me to archive.is which has a copy, so he cannot keep this hidden.


    Roguelement451 said:
    March 20, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Thanks guys , must go post the missing link on The Guardian


    Roguelement451 said:
    March 20, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    As expected , the moderators are declining to post the link .
    Alarmist Pucks.


    betapug said:
    March 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Nafeez Ahmed Bio: ……….. etc, etc etc,……………………..Adviser: British FCO, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, UK Defence Academy, Metropolitan Police Service, Home Office Channel Project, UK Parliamentary Select Committee for Communities on Prevent, and so on. Testified in US Congress (2005).



      Robert Wilson said:
      March 20, 2014 at 7:06 pm

      I wouldn’t be that alarmed by his bio. He hypes almost everything he has done. For example, on his website he says his work has been reviewed by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair. He does not point out that Hitchens was drawing attention to Ahmed being a conspiracy theorist and a “contemptible” human being. Similarly he claims his work has been “used” by various organisations. This just means he has submitted a copy of his work to them. He is an intellectual charlatan.


    Dan Olner (@DanOlner) said:
    March 23, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Ooo, he really lost me at: “in yet another bizarre anomaly that the 9/11 Commissioners simply ignored, most of these individuals were notoriously incapable of flying properly according to their own flight instructors. // But Hanjour’s flight into the Pentagon, as is well-known, was described by pilots as one of the most sophisticated flying operations they had ever seen.”

    That and a few other little “how do you explain THAT then eh?” factoids – insinuation through anecdote.


    […] The article is by no means Ahmed’s first attempt to exculpate Islamist terrorists’ actions by implying that the West is, in fact, mainly to blame. He is also a 9/11 Truther. […]


    […] The article is by no means Ahmed’s first attempt to exculpate Islamist terrorists’ actions by implying that the West is, in fact, mainly to blame. He is also a 9/11 Truther. […]


    […] The article is by no means Ahmed’s first attempt to exculpate Islamist terrorists’ actions by implying that the West is, in fact, mainly to blame. He is also a 9/11 Truther. […]


    julesbollocks said:
    May 11, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    I don’t get it, why the attack on Nafeez? Being someone who loves to see conspiracies debunked and having had some very long and pointless arguments with truffers the link you post demonstrates that Nafeez is curious and open-mined. When it comes to 9/11 then caution is always advised given how easily any kind of questioning can lead to the implication of being a nut job. But the article is fair given its date- there are question marks [like the appearance of a hi-jackers passport in the street]. And sensibly Nafeez gives no conclusions.

    Some of the material Nafeez writes in his blog is interesting, some of the sources fascinating- and sometimes it is just dull, the hazards of doing investigative reporting I suppose.

    Yet compared to say David Rose or Matt Ridley who will state myth as fact and take scientists research and words out of context Nafeez would appear to be a rather minor irritation to someone like yourself given your articles exploding energy myths.

    best J Dingle


    Paul Clark said:
    May 16, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Smearing an AGW believer as a 9-11 truther is the same tactic warmists use when they invoke the tobacco controversy to smear skeptics, or when they call Dr Roy Spencer a creationist. These are separate issues that don’t relate to climate. Let’s stick to the high road.


    Syd Walker (@SydWalker) said:
    May 18, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Unfortunately I haven’t read Nafeez Ahmed’s book about 9/11.. there are only so many hours in the day.

    However, your two hit-pieces on Mr Ahmed essentially amount to an argument – without any rationale provided – that the official Government conspiracy theory re 9/11 is beyond criticism.

    It’s rather a strange position to hold. Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the views of Lynn Margulis on the matter before deriding us in a thoroughly arrogant and contemptuous way. Or would you like to argue with more than 2000 qualified architects and engineers, who demand a new inquiry into 9/11 despite possible negative consequences for their careers?

    Personally, I think Dr Graeme MacQueen gives the clearest and most devastating general expositions on this subject – and Dr Alan Sabrovsky is strongest on the important subject of the most likely perpetrators.

    When you show you’ve done real homework on the complex issue of 9/11 – and can do more than taunt ‘victims’ using crude rhetorical tricks – your readers may take more seriously what appears to be a rather odd attempt to vilify another academic for no apparent reason.

    References follow..

    Margulis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og

    Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    MacQueen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Bu-0-eKJI

    Sabrovsky: http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/10/911-and-israel-exclusive-interview-dr-alan-sabrosky/

    Or, in 30 seconds for those with a serious case of attention deficit disorder..

    Liked by 1 person

      Paul Clark said:
      May 19, 2014 at 11:40 am

      To me the video clearly shows three buildings falling by controlled demolition on Sep 11 2001. But at the end of the day the evidence is irrelevant to some people. It’s that they simply can’t can’t wrap their head around the truth — their paradigm bubble would burst.

      Too many implications; too many hard truths to face up to. Even intelligent people I admire such as @HockeySchtick1 smear people with another government-made label: “truther”.

      Building 2 top-down explosive demolition:

      Building 7 conventional bottom-up demolition:

      It’s the only time in history three steel reinforced buildings crumbled to powder at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, due to office fires (and plane impacts buildings 1 & 2 were designed to withstand).

      Liked by 1 person

    Syd Walker (@SydWalker) said:
    May 18, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    Thanks for publishing my comment.

    I’d like to make one more brief point. The term “conspiracy theorist”, which you use rather freely, is an expression that merits some analysis.

    It seems to have come into common parlance during the 1960s, possibly cultivated quite deliberately by the CIA in its COINTELPRO program. At least in its original usage it had some meaning, as at the time a crucial issue was who killed JFK; the official narrative was a “lone nut” killed him – so people who doubted that theory could legitimately be called “conspiracy theorists”.

    These days, it’s simply used to refer – in a derogatory way – to any theory a particular author considers silly and deserving of ridicule. The mass media is the dominant force in most public debates, so it is usually able to define what’s popularly considered a CT and what is not.

    In the case of 9/11, of course, the government theory itself is a “conspiracy theory” if the term is to retain any relation at all to the meaning of its component words. No-one believes the entire 9/11 atrocity was perpetrated by one person, acting alone.

    It’s surprising – but sadly very common – that someone who’s sufficiently intelligent to grapple with the complexities of a doctorate uses language is such a sloppy way on important matters such as 9/11.

    Liked by 1 person

    nick said:
    July 13, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Robert needs to stop throwing out childish insults, lol ..”conspiracy theorist” .. almost comical in fact. Who’s he kidding ? himself or his paymaster? Bet he hasn’t spent 5mins looking at the ae911truth website .. or watched documentaries like “911 press for truth” etc .. oh well, you can’t win em all, maybe he should stick with sports.


    Victoria said:
    September 16, 2014 at 2:34 am

    Thanks for sharing your info. I really appreciate
    your efforts and I am waiting for your next write ups thanks once again.


    Petros Diveris said:
    December 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Your link is to his only site. This means that you are trying to deceive us when you say he tried to erase the article.


Comments are closed.