Had the now infamous 28-page section of the United States Congressional and Senate inquiry report into the 9/11 attacks — discussing the alleged Saudi involvement — been released in 2002 (when the report was issued), there would not have been hue and cry among some politicians and the media.

The American decision to mark as classified a section of that report and then sit on it for 14 years only fueled conspiracy theories and led to speculation that the George W. Bush administration had something to hide because of Bush’s close friendship with then Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

When the section was finally released, what was contained in the report? A big fat nothing. It’s a section light on facts and written with enough qualifiers that it renders the information useless. Some hijackers “may” have been in contact with “possible” Saudi government operatives. And it only gets more vague.

The section in question focuses on three hijackers who lived in Southern California and had contacts with other Saudis, including one Saudi man who was a neighbor of two of the hijackers. The Saudi neighbor allegedly told an FBI undercover agent that he had helped the hijackers and was a supporter of Osama Bin Laden. He said, “he even received funds from Prince Bandar.”

Yet the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found the information unreliable, unverifiable and possibly fabricated. Law authorities had no evidence that warranted further investigation. Whatever skeptical Saudis feel about the American judicial system, or for that matter American conspiracy theorists and western right-wing extremists with an ax to grind, one thing can be said about American law-enforcement procedures and the courts is that prosecutors can’t go after someone based on “may haves,” “could haves” and “possibly.”

The checks and balances in place prevent railroading the innocent. It’s always a marvel to watch the American flag-waving civil servants and politicians claim that America is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but have so little faith in its judicial system.

The conclusion of the report states emphatically that there is no evidence that the Saudi government had any connection or knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis or that those hijackers received Saudi government-sanctioned funding to carry out terrorist acts.

However, there are reasons why some individuals and the conservative media keep alive the allegations that Saudi Arabia financed the hijackings.

One, families of the 3,000 victims of 9/11 have filed lawsuits and are seeking damages against Saudi Arabia. It only makes financial sense they further fan the flames that there was some kind of conspiracy by the United States and Saudi Arabia to conduct a cover-up.

Two, conservative western media have been piling pressure on Saudi Arabia since last year, as Iran’s star has risen and it became the darling of the Obama administration. It serves the narrative of the conservative media to demonize Saudi Arabia as the “exporter of Wahhabi Islam and terrorism.”

Aside from former Sen. Bob Graham, who in retirement after serving on the House Intelligence Committee has made the prosecution of the Saudi government his own personal great white whale, the American public gave a huge collective yawn over the contents of the 28-page section.

It has been more than a decade since the investigation concluded and no further evidence has surfaced, nor will it. It’s time to move on.