After 25 years – 9/11 – An American story that is not finished

The 25th Anniversary has arrived and the files are not released

In An American Story, the 9/11‑skeptical novel by the British science‑fiction writer Christopher Priest (also known for The Prestige), the republican President in the book decides—after the 2024 presidential election—to establish a truth commission. Amnesty is offered to anyone who comes forward and tells what they know. That is fiction. In reality, the actual President, Donald Trump, has not declassified the 9/11 files, even though he promised to do so in the same FOX interview where he also pledged to release the Epstein files.

Much is the same this year as on every previous anniversary. For more than twenty years, Popular Mechanics has served as a semi‑official debunker of all critics of the official account and the 9/11 Commission Report. A former editor‑in‑chief of Popular Mechanics, now writing for The Wall Street Journal, publishes a hit piece on skeptics—“truthers,” as they are derogatorily called—on the day before the anniversary: “No Place for 9/11 Truthers on the 25th Anniversary – Conspiracy claims have found fresh expression today, but not one survives scrutiny.” (James B. Meigs). In November 2025, Meigs attacked Tucker Carlson’s TV documentary series The 9/11 Files in his usual self‑assured tone, presenting himself as the bearer of logic and science in contrast to the “crackpot truthers.” Meigs repeats the obvious: science is based on evidence, while “truthers” are believers in conspiracy theories rather than critical, scientifically minded people. According to him, all anomalies and claims raised over the years have been efficiently debunked by the master‑debunkers at Popular Mechanics—and by Meigs personally.

However, in 2018, when Christopher Priest wrote the afterword to An American Story, he explained that he takes the “truthers” seriously. He recommends that readers consult the following groups: the Consensus 9/11 Panel, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Priest writes that these groups are often dismissed as “truthers” or “conspiracy theorists,” as if concern with truth or fact were somehow disreputable or irrational.

Priest could have been addressing Meigs directly, but he is really attacking the broader discourse that dismisses all skeptics of the official 9/11 account as psychologically driven conspiracy believers. There is, after all, a substantial amount of quasi‑psychological literature describing “conspiracy theorists” as a personality type.

Science is about evidence, and any true—or even plausible—theory must be corroborated and must withstand attempts at falsification. If we apply these standards to the official theory, we immediately encounter problems. Especially now, in the days leading up to the anniversary, German public service media and the BBC have published updated podcasts and TV programs about the mysterious Saudi national Omar al‑Bayoumi and what is now called “the Saudi connection.” The suspicion is that al‑Bayoumi was a Saudi spy who helped two of the hijackers find an apartment, provided money, and acted as a guarantor. The series repeats claims made before: that al‑Bayoumi may have been working for senior Saudi officials, which—if true—would undermine the official story and raise the question of whether Saudi Arabia facilitated or even planned the operation.

What is remarkable in the new documentaries is that the possibility of CIA involvement with al‑Bayoumi is edited out. The spotlight is placed entirely on Saudi Arabia. Yet information pointing to CIA steering or cooperation with Saudi intelligence has been reported before, including in Seth Hettena’s 2023 SpyTalk article “Exclusive: FBI Agents Accuse CIA of 9/11 Coverup,” which even made it into Swedish news via Omni.

For the 25th Anniversary, the “Saudi connection” and the ongoing efforts by families to sue the Saudi government for complicity in 9/11 dominate the news in the UK, US, and Germany. The peculiar thing is that the possibility of CIA involvement is quietly removed from the narrative. Either way—whether Saudi officials helped or planned the attacks, or whether American intelligence used Saudi operatives to infiltrate al‑Qaida and then lost control—the story changes dramatically. It shifts from “19 hijackers acting alone” to a scenario involving Saudi or CIA assistance for reasons still unknown.

This is precisely the theme of An American Story: that the world has been told a story to believe in—the story of the 19 al‑Qaida hijackers—and that this story is probably not the truth but a narrative. An American story.

Interestingly, on 11 September 2001, Danish NATO generals, architects, and reporters dismissed the American story live on Danish public service television. They said it could not have been Bin Laden, that the operation was too large, that it required a state actor, and possibly inside help. An architect insisted that WTC 1 and 2 must have been taken down by explosives, and the news anchor claimed to have information about explosions. This broadcast has never been commented on in mainstream media; it lives an eerie afterlife on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeKlEne2XQ DR Ekstra – 11 September 2001

Stranger than fiction.

Another uncommented claim comes from Michael Meacher in 2015. Meacher, former Labour MP and Environment Minister, said that conspiracies do exist, governments do terrible things, and that if there ever was an “evil trio,” Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld fit the bill. He also said he believes there was some kind of conspiracy on 9/11 and that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a plane. He added that Obama could have opened the papers and revealed the truth, but “I don’t think that is going to happen.”

Trump promised to open the 9/11 files on FOX News before the election.

So, Mr. President — Release the files.