September 11th and the National Debt

For the victim’s families, the costs of the September 11th attacks were incomprehensibly high. There were many other costs apart from precious human lives, however, and people often forget just how much we are all paying on an ongoing basis due to the attacks which originated the “Global War on Terror.” 
An organization linked to former CIA director James Woolsey estimated that the damages associated with the attacks were on the order of $2 trillion. Those costs included losses in property damage, lost production of goods and services, and losses on Wall Street. [1] Others have estimated the damages to be much lower, [2] and some have reported that the stock market was largely unaffected by the attacks. [3] The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was given an amount closer to the lower estimates in order to help rebuild the immediate area.[4]
The current US military costs resulting from the wars that were started in response to the September 11th attacks are over $1 trillion.[5] Of course, other countries have also incurred significant costs to support the US led wars. A few years ago, mainstream media sources were estimating that the Iraq War alone would cost the US more than $3 trillion.[6] If the same logic is applied to the Afghanistan war, using the same rate, that war will cost the US at least $1 trillion. Of course, there is no end in sight for US military operations in either of these occupied countries, so these figures should be seen as minimum estimates. Additionally, these war cost estimates are called incremental costs, meaning that they are above “military salaries, training and support activities, and weapons procurement” as well as military construction.[7]
These direct damages and military response outlays do not reflect many other costs that arose from September 11th, including those related to the countless actions taken around the world to protect us from terrorism. Examples include the extra layers of security at ports and borders, higher transportation costs, higher insurance costs, new budgets for “homeland security” and other related agencies, and the costs of inefficiencies arising from the permanent change to a terrorism-first policy mindset in our local, state and federal governments.  
An important fact to remember about all these trillions of dollars is that we never had any of that money to spend. We have borrowed all the money we have used to conduct the War on Terror, and the interest on those loans is not discussed. This runaway spending spree was an additional driving factor behind the economic meltdown of 2008, and the nearly $2 trillion dollars in bailouts that followed.
As a result of the crimes of September 11th, we also failed to investigate the enormous losses reported just the day before. On September 10th, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld disclosed that – “"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."[8] Instead of investigating these enormous losses, retrieving the monies lost and taking corrective action, no action was taken at all. To the contrary, we pumped trillions more into a new, runaway terrorism industrial complex.
If we were to make a reasonable estimate of what US citizens have committed to paying as a result of the crimes of September 11th and the War on Terror, that estimate would be on the order of the entire national debt that existed prior to September 11, 2001.  The national debt in September 2000 was $ 5.7 trillion and, corrected for inflation, had begun dropping for the first time since 1980.[9] The US national debt is now approaching $14 trillion, two and one third times as large as it was before 9/11.
It seems that there is no undoing the harm that the exorbitant expenditures from the War on Terror have caused to the United States. The terrorism industrial complex will need to be funded into the indefinite future, and there is no one who has a plan to even begin paying off the debts we have incurred to date.  In effect, we have sold our country and our children’s futures to foreign interests in an attempt to save ourselves from terrorism since September 11th.

That should be enough reason for any true American to call for a new investigation into the events of 9/11.

[1] Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?,
[2] Amy Zalman, Economic Impact of Terrorism and the September 11 Attacks,,
[3] Olivia A. Jackson, The Impact of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on the US Economy, The Journal of 9/11 Studies, March 2008,
[4] Josh Rogers, Whitehead says Liberty Bonds won’t be wasted Downtown, Downtown Express, Volume 16, Issue 20, October 14 - 20, 2003,
[5] National Priorities Project, Total Cost of Wars Since 2001,
[6] Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More, The Washington Post, March 9, 2008,
[7] Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, Congressional Research Service, September 2, 2010,
[8] CBS Evening News, The War On Waste: Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion, January 22, 2002,
[9] Ed Hall, U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ, 6 February 2008,

Kevin, this military spending

Kevin, this military spending is precisely what the US economy is about. Michael Hudson writes about this quite profusely:

Us Treasury sales fuels the US Global military machine, making a weak dollar appear to be strong because of the guns holding its feeble legs up. 9/11 was an eminently successful strategy for furthering the rise of US military might- a might that is viscerally tied to the survival of its economy.

off suject but.....

duh! after years of playing one of gatekeeper's on the left and trivializing the 9-11
truth movement,Noam Chomsky has this to say (below) ,....Noam i have a few questions for ya
Which 9-11 truther made you feel like an imbecile and compelled this statement from you?
Was it from a person like me with just one year of college behind him that you had a problem
winning a debate with over the 9-11 truth? or one of these guys "Professors Question the
9/11 Commission Report" that can be found here

Noam if Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did not carry out the attacks on 9-11 who did?
for a hint see my "ps" below

Noam a lot of people from around the world have read and listened to every word that you have wrote and said, but for the last 9 years you have mislead them if not by flat out lies then by omission,you sir now have a credibility problem, not with the 9-11 truth movement (we knew you were a bullshiter from the first time you trivialized 9-11 truth) but from the people who read and listened to you the last 9 years.So for them you need to expand on this statement by about most case's it is true "that it is better late than never"

Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says there is no evidence that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

It IS better late than never

It's true that he doesn't mention anything explicitly in support of 9/11 as having been an inside job. Still, just admitting the non-existence of evidence incriminating bin Laden for the attacks is quite significant--very different from what many in his audience are accustomed to hearing. It's a shame that there are many who are so dependent on such intellectuals in order to determine which topics and opinions are legitimate and which aren't. It's also true that we don't know how consistenly he will bring this (newly found?) awareness re bin Laden and 9/11 to bear on his future discussions on war and the Middle East. Is it just a momentary gesture?

Stil, that he would make such a statement after years of dismissing the 9/11 truth movement looks to me like another indication that all our efforts at sending out ripples through the public consciousness are bearing fruit.

I'm never going to see such gatekeeping intellectuals in the same light I once did; and I'm not suggesting that we start fawning over him in gratitude, 'Oh, thank you, thank you!' But neither do I think it makes much sense to bombard him with 'No sh*t Sherlock; what took you so long?!' kinds of messages. Just appreciate this for the positivie indication that it is--and remember it for any future occasions should you find yourself debating with someone who might be influenced by his views.

Thanks for noticing this

This statement by Chomsky seems significant to me. I posted it as a blog entry here. We'll see if it gets posted.


it would have been better to submit this as a blog entry rather than spamming multiple threads.

Something to consider next time.


Good catch, btw.


3 to 5 trillion dollars would have probably been enough

to make the U.S. nearly energy independent in a massive alternative energy buildout, if it had been spent on that instead of wars for oil. Brazil has been energy independent since 2006, due to massive use of sugar cane ethanol and flex fuel cars. We can do algae oil in the same way and the U.S. military is going to it in the next ten years in a massive way, but there doesn't seem to be any plans for the public at large.

Dick Cheney is one of the primary architects of strategies designed to keep public use of natural petroleum and gas at the forefront while doing next to nothing to build out renewable energy resources. Of course, we know due to Cheney's secret national energy policy task force that some of these strategies were secret and it would seem that 911 was part of the plan, as support of the U.S. population to use their military for wars with the clandestine purpose of resource control was needed.

Take a look at this short video about just the underhanded things which weren't secret, where Col. Lawrence Wilkerson talks about Cheney's deregulating activities and this 2:47 minute short about fracking for natural gas which Dick Cheney made exempt from oversight and Clean water and air laws.

We should not be pie in the sky when looking at this, and realize that the energy situation is real and without a sufficient amount of it there would be lots of problems. I am sure Dick Cheney was looking for what he viewed as real solutions. However, I don't believe the Machiavellian approach was called for here.

Parasite-Host Relationship

The host (the public) is made to be less than fully prosperous in order to best serve the interests of the parasite (the controlling elite).

Creating economic independence for the public apparently is not on the agenda of the controlling elite.

web of debt...

... by ellen hodgson brown is a good book for this

from being a mainstreamer, 9/11 truth made me wake up and not just question the octavian neocons but the patrician elites .... there came a point when video documentaries werent enough and i read about 9/11 (crossing the rubicon, the new pearl harbour, jesse ventura, ian henshall, ) then i also got informed from the 911truth website links to money as debt sites and bought web of debt
thru the project censored guys i found out about michael parenti and bought his book , the assassination of julius cesar- hence the roman terms above...

through my contacts with 911truth activists i have had the honour of driving in my cab: Architect Richard Gage, Senator Mike Gravel, Professor David Ray Griffin, Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney, then more recently i drove Lawyer and Author Ellen Hodgson Brown through a contact in the alternative currency world... (and Ellen autographed my book!)

all made possible through 911truth!

Great method to broach the topic of 9/11...

Good article.
The debt is common ground with public perception.
This gives us a simple dissemination tool for bringing about awareness of 9/11.

the money questions are huge

I work with Ellen Brown in education and lobbying for monetary reform and public banks.

If you're ready to understand the central issue of who gets to create a nation's money supply ("debt supply" with private and central bank systems like the Fed) and the OBVIOUS ANSWERS to unleash trillions, then I suggest Ellen's work and/or my intro article, "Open proposal to US higher education":

I watched a good documentary called fuel.

The analogy is made that when all your credit cards get maxed out as is the case of the US debt to various nations then you have two choices: 1) file for bankruptcy or 2) get your gun and go down and hold up the service station on the corner. The US has exercised option 2.

algae bio diesel, solar, wind, so many options out there to capitalize on! One fellow claims if we had used the same amount of money spent in Iraq to create wind turbines instead we would have more energy than we will ever get from Iraq's oil fields.


Thanks Joe

The thing I like most about this film is somehow it left me with a very positive feeling and outlook. Of course the real question still remains: Why exactly is the US not moving forward on a massive scale to obtain and sustain our energy needs? I guess the answer in part is that it just wasn't on the agenda for the " Cheney energy task force" eh? There really is no excuse here. We need the energy and we need the jobs and technology yesterday!

It seems that a lot of people are finally starting to "get it"

and that is a good thing.

This is the reason for Cheney's secret energy policy task force and why a deception like 911 was needed. Because if the truth about Peak oil was just put out for public debate people would have been asking what else we could do and coming up with alternative solutions that would be made very public and received support.

With the fraudulent War on Terror as their cover for clandestine wars for oil those who would deceive to maintain their profits are hoping to just keep on providing gas and oil for as long as it lasts, and slowly moving into alternatives, with nobody asking questions.

It is the slow move into alternatives that makes me say the deception was not for benevolent reasons to prevent panic.

a new thrust

I have been thinking for some time that there are limits to how many people you can persuade to look at 9/11 truth. The limit is found when a person says "I am not competent to study the science".

There are very few people however who would say they are not competent to study their financial situation, their cost of living, their job prospects, where their taxes go etc. I think Kevin has provided excellent ammunition for reaching out to the many unscientific members of the community. We should remember to use it when resistance to science is encountered.

I'm not a scientist

I hate that excuse. Then become one!


And if you had told me that on the street, I'd have walked away to get some sushi.

I am not going to become a scientist just so that I can understand your rant on the street. LeftWright makes an excellent point that if you're not dealing with a scientist or someone who can't be bothered to learn about the principles you're citing, then YOU need to be more creative to light the spark in that person. You can't expect them to just accept what you say and dedicate themselves to learning a particular scientific discipline. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.


There are lots of friendly people who won't stereotype those of us interested in science as ranting, street corner-dwelling nutters, while walking away for a snack, confident they have given us a 'life lesson'.

Pop quiz: who said:

My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot.


Is there a prize for a correct answer?

I believe his initials are CR, yes?

I'll collect my prize of a good Dutch beer in person, thanks.

It really is a shame that most modern playgrounds in the U.S. don't have seesaws anymore (some lawyers take all the fun out of life).



There is more than one way to look at science: not just to promote 9/11 truth, but to defend it, too. Frank Legge's G-force calculations are another example.

And you don't really need to be a scientist, because that's an exaggeration, but so is the claim "I'm not a scientist", because that implies the subject matter is extremely difficult, and IMO we need to encourage science education, not feed into the caricatures of scientists as boring hunched hermits with an IQ of 270.... ;-)

I'm coupling 9/11 truth to the importance of education, in more areas than just history, psychology, sociology and geostrategy, because subjects like biology, chemistry, math and physics, statistics are always stigmatized, and I've seen the consequences. (NPT, DEW, etc. etc.)

(I agree, our beer is great, but so is Belgian and German beer. I'll be happy to buy. :-)

Fair enough

But if I was Joe Shmoe who knew nothing of 9/11 truth, and you approached me with physics arguments as to why WTC 7 fell, I might say something like, 'well, you make an interesting point, but Im not an engineer, so I dont know one way or the other. You're reply would have been, "Then become an engineer!", right?

Do you not see how inconvenient and unrealistic that is? I applaud you for attempting to learn more about every subject you feel like researching, but a lot of people don't have that luxury. This is when its up to you to become more creative in getting Joe Shmoe to look deeper into 9/11. Telling someone to become a scientist probably isn't the best way to light that fire, just my opinion.

I am still in agreement with Frank and John's point that unscientific people will not be swayed by scientific arguments, and that it then falls upon the activist to find more creative ways to get those types of people interested in not only research, but ultimately activism.

Regarding Joe Shmoe

One question would be why there is no mention of WTC7 on the news, in the 911 report, did you even know about a third tower falling etc? Why do you think you haven't heard about it. Did you know the BBC reported it falling 20 minutes before it did? Check it out Joey.

"Yo, You Talkin' to Me?"


There is tons of stuff for non-scientists

Jon Gold has mountains of information for those who shy away from science, as do many others.

When someone uses the "I'm not a scientist" dodge to avoid 9/11 truth, I just switch over to the put options, awol NORAD, Sibel Edmonds, Norman Mineta, etc. and find another hook.

Be creative and have some "11 remarkable facts" cards handy, there's something about 9/11 that will interest everyone.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.