| Subject: Re: A Valuable Update of 9/11 Info! |
| From: Sir Artio! |
| Date: 06/04/2004, 22:39 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct |
In article <c4v7ef$1n37$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, President, USA Exile Govt.
says...
Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
NOTE: Gerard Holmgren deserves enormous credit for providing such a
helpful compendium. -- kl, pp
From: "Gary Kohls" <gkohls@cpinternet.com>
Date: April 4, 2004 5:59:03 AM GMT+07:00
Subject: Now Read This - and decide for yourself - conspiracy
"theory" or provable conspiracy? 911 revisited: Bush as "incompetent
liar" and "treason at the top."
Bush claims to have seen the 1st WTC impact live on TV while at
Booker school and to have thought at the time that it was an
accident. We know that this is a lie - a) because he hadn't yet
arrived at the school when it happened. b) because the first impact
was not broadcast live. No footage of it was shown until the
following day.
1.2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV
Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
Why did the President - after being told "America is under attack" -
continue to listen to schoolchildren reading for another 25 minutes?
Why was he cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at
least one more hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV
footage which proves treason at the top level.
1.2:6 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htm
___________________________________________
* SECTION 1 - THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11 - Gerard
Holmgren, Sat Apr 3 14:06
? SECTION 2. THE GOVT DIDN'T JUST "ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN"
- Gerard Holmgren, Sat Apr 3 14:07
? 2. 6 Where is the evidence against Bin laden? -
Gerard Holmgren, Sat Apr 3 14:10
===============================================================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sept 11 Evidence Compilation
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:03:36 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@nettrade.com.au>
To: <apfn@apfn.org>
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
Compiled by Gerard Holmgren
Last updated April 2 2004.
The following compilation presents documents and research from
various sources demonstrating that the events of Sept 11 were planned
and carried out by the US govt and its agencies. This compilation is
my own creation and it cannot be assumed that the individual authors
of the research below necessarily agree with each other on all
details.
The compilation is divided into three main sections.
1) "Let it happen on purpose" evidence (LIHOP).
This presents research which takes as its founding assumption that
we are basically being told the truth about which planes were
hijacked, where they went and who hijacked them, and goes on to
demonstrate that even if this were true, then the govt and its
agencies must have known about it beforehand, and must have taken
active steps to deliberately allow it to happen.
2) "Totally self inflicted" evidence (TSI).
This section demonstrates that the LIHOP evidence only scratches the
surface, and that the govt claims about which planes were hijacked,
were they went and who hijacked them is total fiction, and that the
govt and its agencies must have organized the entire event.
3) Background and historical evidence.
This section does not present direct evidence of govt involvement
specifically in the events of Sept 11, but demonstrates that the
phenomonen of "Islamic terror", both real and imaginary, has been
deliberately built up by successive US govts and agencies for more
than two decades, in the interests of creating an enemy in the minds
of the population. It also demonstrates that behind the scenes, the
US govt and its agencies actively co-operate with their alleged
Islamic enemies, and that there is sound historical precedent for the
govt and its agencies having an active policy of committing or
deliberately allowing terrorist attacks against their own people for
the purpose of furthering this kind of agenda.
Before presenting the evidence, lets briefly summarize the basics of
the claims made about Sept 11 by the govt and the media..
American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with
92 people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arab men,
while on route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by 8.25
AM or earlier, and hit the Nth tower of the WTC at 8.45, or according
to some sources, 8.46.
United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65
people aboard,including the hijackers , was hijacked by 5 Arab men,
while flying the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at
about 8.55 AM and hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03.
The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.
American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with
64 people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arab men
while on route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be
hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at a time which in
different sources, varies between 9.38 and 9.45.
United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with
either 44 or 45 people aboard ( depending upon which sources you use
), including the hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF ,
was hijacked by 4 Arab men. It was known to be hijacked about 9.45,
and crashed in PA at a time which varies from 10.00 to 10.10,
depending on the source, after the passengers attempted to take back
control of the plane from the hijackers.
As we'll see in section 2 , (TSI) none of this is true, except for
the fact that the towers collapsed, and we will demonstrate that this
was a controlled demolition.
But for the purposes of Section 1 (LIHOP), lets assume that these
claims are basically true. The LIHOP section will demonstrate that
the govt must have deliberately allowed the attacks to happen.
The Web pages below have been backed up. If any links are dead, the
backed up page can be mailed on request.Some of the links below
duplicate information. The duplicates are included as insurance
against a single source link disappearing.
SECTION 1. THE GOVT DELIBERATELY LET IT HAPPEN.
1.1 AIRFORCE STAND-DOWN
If one accepts the story as above, then the airforce must have been
stood down in order to ensure the success of the attacks.
It has become popular mythology in the media that fighter jets were
scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue
as the following research shows.
1.1.1 Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion
Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
1.1.2 Guilty for 9/11 Mr. Cheney's Cover up -- Part 2 of Guilty For
9-11, 20 Nov
2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
1.1.3 9-ll:Ho hum, nothing urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002
http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
1.1.4 Frequently asked questions on 9/11
Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
1.1.5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001
http://www.nypress.com/14/50/taki/bunker.cfm
1.1.6 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine proceedure.
Here's an example of how routine it is.
1.1.7 Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15 2003.
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/af-intercept/jeb-bush-plane-intercepted.txt
The proceedures were already in place before Sept 11 2001.
It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.
(Items 1.1.8 to 1.1.11 are alternative sources for the same story)
1.1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press Aug 13 2002.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/ap081302.html
1.1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/14/attack/main518632.shtml
1.1.10 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront020813.html
1.1. 11 Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic
events. Aug 12 2002
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap
It is impossible to believe that such a total and systematic failure
of routine air defence proceedures was simply due to incompetence.
And even if one were to propose this, why has there been no inquiry
into this aspect of Sept 11, and why has not one official been sacked
or even reprimanded for criminal negligence ?
I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2 The complicit behavior of G.W.Bush
An examination of the movements of Geroge W. Bush on the morning of
Sept 11, and the subsequent lies told by Bush, the govt and the media
to try to cover up his movements demonstrates that Bush had prior
knowledge of the attacks , pretended to know less than he did once
they began, and conspired to ensure that nothing was done to minimize
or prevent them.
It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush was
already at Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC
crash. This is a lie.
1.2.1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by Illarion Bykov
and Jared Israel.
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm
This is not the only lie which has been told about his movements that
morning. See how many times the story has changed.
1.2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/newswire/display/922/index.php
(Read the section called "A tangle of lies")
1.2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1. A strange press conference.
By Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White Sept 25 2002.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif1.htm
1.2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves
by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White [7 October 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/calif2.htm
Bush claims to have seen the 1st WTC impact live on TV while at
Booker school and to have thought at the time that it was an
accident. We know that this is a lie - a) because he hadn't yet
arrived at the school when it happened. b) because the first impact
was not broadcast live. No footage of it was shown until the
following day
1.2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that he Saw TV
Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
Why did the President - after being told "America is under attack"
continue to listen to schoolchildren reading for another 25 minutes ?
Why was he cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at
least one more hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV
footage which proves treason at the top level.
1.2:6 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htm
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair. Bush is lying about
where he was, what he was doing and what he knew during the crucial
period between 8.45 and 9.45 A.M. on Sept 11.
1.3 OTHER EVIDENCE OF GOVT FOREKNOWLEDGE
In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported on US TV
networks that investigators were already looking into huge volumes of
insider trading on airline stocks in the weeks leading up to the
attacks. Investigative and regulatory authorities could easily find
out who placed these trades, apparently attempting to profit from
foreknowledge.
Why has this story since completely disappeared? More than two
years later, we see no sign of any inquiry. If the executive director
of the CIA had previously managed the firm which handled much of the
trade, are we expected to believe that authorities can't find out who
was responsible? Clearly, they don't want to know - or at least
,don't want us to know.
Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, UK
independent 14 Oct 2001
1.3.1 http://propagandamatrix.com/mystery_of_terror_insider_dealers.htm
Was an urban rescue team sent to New York the night before the
attacks?
1.3.2 http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm
1.3:3 http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jun02/062602.htm
Attorney General, John Ashcroft was warned in July 2001 not to fly
commercial anymore.
Ashcroft flying high. CBS News July 26 2001.
1.3.4 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a travel warning on Sept 10.
Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel. San
Francisco Chronicle Sept 12 2001
1.3.5
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL
National Security Advisor Rice and WhiteHouse spokesman Fleischer
lied in saying that nobody had ever conceived of planes being used in
this manner. Their statements are in this article,
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public
Inquiry ABC News May 16 2002
1.3.6 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
when the 1994 extract from Time magazine, quoted in article
1.2.1 demonstrates that the potential problem had been recognized for
decades.
And there are other examples of this possibility having been widely
recognized prior to Sept 11.
1.3.7 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001
http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm
In article 1.3.6 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had
been overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she
made is in this press briefing.
1.3.8 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice
The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html
But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers.
1.3.9 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Woodward and
Dan Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17¬Found=true
1.3.9 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9
11 attacks.
Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html
1.4: THE COVER UP
In spite of the magnitude of the attacks, and the fact that even the
official story recognizes catastrophic failures of intelligence,
while trying to gloss over the similarly catastrophic failures of
standard airline security and air defence proceedures, the White
House has fought tooth and nail against any serious inquiry into Sept
11. Even the watered down inquiries which have taken place so far
have been bitterly opposed by the White House and only conceded due
to tremendous public pressure. They have been almost completely
restricted to the issue of "intelligence failures" prior to the
attacks, leaving the glaring issues of the air force stand down, and
Bush's complicity and subsequent lies, as well as the insider
trading unaddressed.
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002.
1.4.1 http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/
Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002
1.4.2 http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/president.gop.senators/
Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry Reuters newswire
UK May 26 2002
1.4.3 http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1680
Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm
1.4.4 http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_Cheney_Block_911_Investigation_.shtml
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public
Inquiry ABC News May 16 2002
1.3:6 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html
1.4.5 Bush opposes 9/11 query panel. CBS News. May 23 2002.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
1.4.6 9/11 Panel asks what briefers told Bush. White House retreats
on independent probe.
Dana Priest and Dana Milbank. Washington Post Sept 21 2002. Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46446-2002Sep20¬Found=true
1.4.7 White House refuses to release Sept 11 info. by Frank Davies
Miami Herald May 5 2003
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush by Gail Sheehy Aug 22 2003
1.4.8 http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2. THE GOVT DIDN'T JUST "ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN" - IT
PLANNED, ORGANIZED AND CARRIED OUT THE ATTACKS ITSELF.
The evidence in section 1 demonstrated that even if we uncritically
accept the govt claims about 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes and
deliberately crashing them, we have overwhelming proof that the govt
must have known about the attacks beforehand and been deliberately
complicit in allowing them to happen. As strong as this evidence is,
it only scratches the surface. The following evidence will
demonstrate that the official story of the hijackings is total
fiction.
2.1 The Ficticious Hijackers
Even without any direct documentation, some critical thinking about
the story of the hijackings reveals it as an absurdity. In the event
of a hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit code
accessible from several different places, in order to alert ATC (air
traffic control) to a hijacking. No such distress code was received
>from any of the allegedly hijacked planes. We are expected to believe
that hijackers took over a plane by the crude method of threatening
the passengers and crew with boxcutters, but somehow managed to take
control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch
in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane - but on all four. This
alone is almost impossible. Then we are expected to believe that all
four pilots were able to navigate the planes successfully to their
targets, in spite of their training being restricted to Cessnas and
flight simulators, that with the exception of the plane which was
allegedly brought down by the passengers, they were able to exhibit
breathtaking piloting skills in being able to hit small targets
accurately at high speed, and that none of the hijackers in any of
the four groups got cold feet about committing suicide in such a
horrible fashion. In a miraculous co-incidence, the ringleader's
luggage was somehow left behind at the airport, and was found to
contain instructions to the hijackers. This has the credibility of a
cartoon script. Nevertheless, there is solid documented proof that no
such hijackings took place.
If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there no Arabic names on any
of the passenger lists? If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the
" innocents " on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?
2.1.1 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (allegedly first WTC crash.)
2.1.2 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
AA 77 (allegedly Pentagon crash)
2.1.3 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
UAL 175 (allegedly 2nd WTC crash)
2.1.4 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
UAL 93 (allegedly Pensylvannia crash)
The perplexing puzzle of the published passenger lists. By Gary
North. Oct 13 2001.
2.1.5 http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm
2.1.6 STILL No Arabs On Flight 77 By Thomas R. Olmsted, MD. June 23 2003.
http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm
If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic aliases (19
obviously Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100%
success rate ? ), why did the FBI claim that they were traced through
the use of credit cards to buy tickets and rent cars in their own
names? By what means were the false IDs traced so quickly to their
real IDs ? Why, nearly 3 years later is their no confirmation of
which names they are alleged to have actually used?
If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as
claimed in this article
2.1.7 http://www.policetalk.com/9_hijackers.html
why is there no airport security footage of them? Where is the
airport security footage of any of the 19 ? Were they invisible? How
did they (allegedly) get on board with knives, guns, and electronic
guidance systems, while being searched, but somehow avoiding security
cameras and not being on the passenger lists?
What aliases are they alleged to have been using when they were
searched,and if they were not using aliases, why are they not on the
passenger lists?
There are numerous media reports that some of the alleged hijackers
are still alive.
(Some of the links from 2.1.8 through 2.1.18 are alternative sources
for similar stories)
Hijack "suspects" alive and well. BBC News. Sept 23, 2001
2.1.8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick
Fojut March 4 2002
2.1.9 http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm
Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim
Media October 2001
2.1.10http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm
Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by
Christopher J. Petherick American Free Press.
2.1.11http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html
Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!
2.1.12 http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html
Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of
them survived 9/11.
2.1.13 http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.
2.1.14 http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html
Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune
2.1.15 http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/092001_news_trail.shtml
Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By
David Harrison. Sept 23 2001.
2.1.16 http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger
2.1.17 http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
Doubts emerge over identies of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online
Sept 20. 2001.
2.1.18 http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/21/article12.shtml
In spite of all this, the same 19 names and faces of the alleged
hijackers have been consistently pushed through the mainstream media
ever since the FBI first "identified" them.
According to this article
FBI Agent: Hijackers probably used gas. by Adam Tanner.
2.1.19 http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/911-gas-theory.txt
the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the
passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected
themselves - unless they had masks. The story gets better all the
time. They somehow got on board with masks, gas, guns,knives and
electronic guidance systems, in spite of being searched, didn't show
up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the passenger
lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the
airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly
the things! ) and then exhibited breath taking displays of skilled
piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports
were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated
the planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but
used their real passports ?
If the hijackers of AA 11 went on a 25 minute killing and threatening
spree before gaining control of the cokpit, then why was no distress
code sent from the plane? Why had the plane already turned off course
before the hijackers got into the cockpit?
2.1.20 9/11 Redux: (The Observer?s Cut) American Airlines Flight 11,
Reexamined By David L. Graham
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/redux.html
If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the planes and airport
security systems failed due to incompetence ( not once but 19 times!
), where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into
racehorse doping scandals.
The question arises " then who were the suicide pilots ? " Nobody -
because we will now demonstrate that the objects which hit the
Pentagon and the WTC were not passenger jets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2 The Pentagon hoax
It is alleged that that American Airlines 77, a hijacked Boeing 757,
crashed into the Pentagon. This is clearly not true. A Boeing
757 has a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft. The tail height
is about 40 ft. The hole in the Pentagon wall was about 40 ft wide,
about 25 ft high, and only the outer ring of the building - about 40
ft deep - collapsed. And yet there is no sign of any aircraft debris
- either inside or outside the building. And no damage to the lawn
outside. A giant plane has supposedly passed through a hole many
times smaller than itself and then vanished without a trace.
This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall
2.2:1 http://www.crc-internet.org/june2a.htm
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was not AA 77.
For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story
2.2.2 http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
2.2.3 The amazing Pentalawn.
http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11).htm
For a full physical analysis of the crash scene
Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard
Holmgren Oct 2002
2.2.4 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTCDEMO/wot/holmgren/index.html
Eyewitness evidence does not confirm a large passenger jet hitting
the Pentagon.
Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by Gerard
Holmgren June 2002
2.2.5
http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast
2.3 What hit WTC towers?
They are alleged to have been AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767's. A
close viewing of the videos reveals that neither object was a Boeing
767.
2.3.1 http://thewebfairy.com/911
2.3.2 The 9/11 video video footage of the planes striking the WTC
was fake. By Scott Loughrey
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html
Given that a close examination of the 2nd WTC crash video,
demonstrates that it cannot be a real plane, but the incident was
shown live, here is the documentation that realistic looking objects
can easily be edited into a live broadcast in real time.
2.3.3 Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato MIT's Technology review.
July/August 2000
http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp
2.3.4 Having demonstrated that none of the objects which hit the
three buildings were the planes alleged by the govt to have been
involved , then where did those planes go? Official aviation records
records say that AA11 and AA77 did not exist .
"What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept
11, 2001. by Gerard Holmgren Nov 13 2003.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast
Although official aviation records confirm that UA 93 and UA 175 did
exist, they also indicate that the planes never crashed. On the date
that this compilation was last updated , both aircraft were still
registered as valid.
Go to the FAA aircraft registry
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA
(UA 175 on Sept 11). Why is neither plane listed as destroyed? In
addition to the video evidence establishing that UA 175 did not hit
the WTC, this would indicate that UA 93 is not what crashed in PA.
2.4 What was shot down in PA?
The mystery of the PA crash (allegedly UA 93) is less well understood
than the other three planes. Nevertheless, the aircraft registry
search as above indicates that the UA 93 did not crash.
There are also indications that whatever did crash in PA was shot down.
What did happen to Flight 93? by Richard Wallace. The Daily Mirror
sept 13, 2002
2.4.1 http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html
2.4.2 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143
2.4.3 http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm
2.4a Are phone calls from planes, of the type allegedly made by
passengers on Sept 11 possible ?
Project Achillies Report Part 1. Jan 23 2003 by A.K. Dewdney.
Preliminary low altitude cellphone experiment.
2.4a.1 http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_1_030123.html
Project Achillies Report Part 2. Feb 25 2003
2.4a.2 http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html
This article concerns the economics of airphones. Note that it refers
several times to the competition for business from cellphones and
that all such references take it as given that cellphones do not work
while the plane is in flight.
Permanet,nearlynet and wireless data. by Clay Shirky March 28 2003.
2.4a.3 http://www.shirky.com/writings/permanet.html
2.5 The World Trade Centre Towers and the WTC 7 building were brought
down with controlled dmolitions.
According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a
combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals
this as a physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn't like
to talk so much about the identical collpase of WTC 7 - a 47 story
building which was not hit by anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no
steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept
11, it allegedly happened 3 times - all three buildings collapsing
miraculaously straight down so as not to damage any of the
valuable nearby real estate.Why was the debris rushed away for
recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert
opinions indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ?
2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed
by John Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26, 2001.
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the
WTC collapse, see
2.5:2 http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael
http://serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm
Selling out the investigation by Bill manning Fire Engineering
Magazine Jan 2002
2.5.5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
2.5.6 A firefighter says "we think there were bombs set in the building"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.html
2.5.7 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks,and
eyewitness accounts from firefighters at the scene reveal serious
flaws in the official accounts.
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/912.shtml
2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php
2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/how-hot.htm
2.5.10 Where's the inferno?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm
WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August 2003
5.17 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html
Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct
2001, the book in question was written in 1999, and argued that the
WTC was built as a "prepackaged ruin". It was a financial and
logistical disaster occupying valuable real estate.
The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5 2001.
Excerpt from "Divided we stand" by Eric Darton
5.18 http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2001/nf2001105_5320.htm
Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a
maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that
burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels
upwards ) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner
identical to that of a controlled demolition ?
Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban
housefires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled
implosion completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing
ridiculous stories about burning jet fuel melting steel?
2. 6 Where is the evidence against Bin laden?
It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the
attacks. This simply isn't true.
Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews. Annanova news.
2.6.1
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news
online Sept 17 2001.
2.6:2 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm
Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS Online Milwaukee
Jornal Sentinal Sept 16 2001
2.6.3 http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp
Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News
2.6:4 http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm
Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN sept 17 2001
2.6.5 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com Sept 17 2001
2.6.6 http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story
Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.
2.6:7 http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/denies-reuters-taliban.htm
Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed
by some American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001
http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html
Bin laden's supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape
released by the Pentagon. The tape is a fake,and the translation is
fraudulent.First here is general evidence that such confession tapes
released by those doing the accusing have no credibility. Video
technology now makes it difficult to distinguish between a real video
confession and a fake.
When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin.
Washington Post Feb 1 1999
2.6.8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning
Herald. May 16 2002
2.6:9 http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html
Here is specific evidence that the tape is a fake.
2.6.10 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/19305.html
For further doubts about the authenitcity of the video and other
indications of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin
Laden
Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
(Read the section called "Evidence please!")
1.2.2http://hamilton.indymedia.org/newswire/display/922/index.php
If the govt was genuinely surprised by the attacks, how it did they
manage to name the mastermind within a few hours? And yet, nearly 3
years later, no formal charges have been laid against the accused.
2. 7 In September 2001, when Bush was threatening an invasion of
Afghanistan in retaliation for Sept 11, it slipped his mind to tell
us that the invasion had already been planned before Sept 11.
"Us planned attack on Taleban" BBC News report by George Arney. Sept 18, 2001.
2.7.1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy two
days before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16 2002
2.7.2 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/msnbc051602.html
US planned to hit Bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie
UK. Telegraph.
2.7.3
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml
US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11 By Bob Drogin. LA Times
May 18 2002
2.7.4 http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/usplansbefore9-11.htm
After intially denying any prior warnings, the White House later
changed its story, citing warnings of 'non-specific" threats as its
explanation for why the invasion of Afghanistan had already been
planned prior to Sept 11. We are expected to believe that it was
so interested in Bin Laden that it had planned a pre-emptive war
against him, but was somehow unaware of the specifics of the Sept 11
plot. Notwithstanding the difficulties with this story, it has some
explaining to do in relation to
a) why the Clinton administration had already turned down an offer
for the extradition of Bin laden in 1996 - after naming him as wanted
for the 1993 WTC bombing.
b) allegations that Bin Laden had met with the local CIA station
chief in Dubai in July 2001 - after the US had already begun its
planning for the war against him.
c) why key members of the Bush adnimistration and their close
associates maintained business relationships with the Bin Laden
family. This leads us on to section 3.
SECTION 3: HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
3.1 US GOVT AND ISLAMIC TERROR - BEST OF ENEMIES
The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin Laden so much that
they wanted to get him first. So why didn't they arrest him when they
had the chance in July 2001, according to this press report?
(Note: There is a discrepency in the date of the report between 3.1.1
and 3.1.3, which at this stage, I can't explain.)
CIA agent allegedly met Bin Laden in July. By Alexandra Richard. Le
Figaro. Oct 31 , 2001. Translated from French by Tiphiane Dickson.
3.1:1 http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin laden in July. By Anthony Sampson.
The Guardian Nov 1 , 2001.
3.1.2 http://guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American
Hospital last July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated
courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson, Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001
3.1.3 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
Here's more research indicating that the US and Islamic terror groups
are not always the enemies they pretend to be. And that the US govt
covertly has a close relationship with Bin Laden.
Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared Israel
3.1.4 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
BushLaden by Jared Israel
3.1.5 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm
Addition to the above article
3.1.6 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen2-i.htm
Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connection " has now turned into a
scandal " Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
3.1.7 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm
Bush and the media cover up the Jihad schoolbook scandal by Jared Israel
3.1.8 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
3.1.9 Bin laden. Terrorist monster:Take two ! by Jared Israel. Oct 9 2001
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm
3.1.9 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's
Brother in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 december 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO212A.html
Has someone been sitting on the FBI? Transcript of a BBC Newsnight
Report on "the questionable links of the bin Laden Family," 6 Nov 2001
3.1.10 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BBC111A.html
3.11 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probetrans.htm (added comments
by Jared Israel)
Bush thwarted FBI probe against Bin Ladens, Hindustan Times, 7 Nov 2001
3.1.12 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HIN111A.html
US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil', Irish Times, by Lara
Marlowe, 19 Nov 2001
3.1.13 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR111A.html
3.1.14 http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news369.htm
Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were
Told, 'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie'
By Brian Ross and Vic Walker. ABC News Dec 19 2002
3.1.20
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/FBI_whistleblowers021219.html
After capuring one of the six most wanted Taliban leaders, the US
then let him go. "By mistake " of course, because of "flawed
intelligence."
3.1.21 US let captured Taliban general go , by Rowan Scarborough
.Washington Times ,Dec 19 2002
http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/dec/18us.htm
3.1.22 Soliders say US let Taliban general go Dec 18 2002.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_121802_terror.html
Taliban leader let off "by mistake". The Hindu Dec 19 2002.
3.1.23
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/12/19/stories/2002121903021400.htm
3.1.24 FBI agent Robert Wright says FBI assigned to intelligence
operations continue to protect terrorists from criminal
investigations and prosecutions. Judicial Watch Sept 11, 2002.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml
Bin Laden in the Balkans - Collection of mainstream media articles.
Compiled by Jared Israel
3.1.25 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm
The Creation called Osama. by Shamsul Islam The Hindu Sept 27 2001
3.1.26 http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm
Washington's backing of Afghan terrorists: deliberate policy.
3.1.27 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm
Afghan Taliban camps were built by Nato.
3.1.28 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm
CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban
3.1.29 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm
Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA. by Jared Israel
3.1.30 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo, by Umberto Pascali. The
executive Intelligence Review 2 Nov 2001
3.3.31 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAS111A.html
Which Terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA? by Jared Israel
3.1.32 http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/kla-aq.htm
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser [Posted 6 October 2001]
Ex- National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan war and
Islamism were made in Washington
3.1.33 http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
3.2 In 1962, the joint chiefs of staff approved a military plan to
commit terrorist acts against the US and frame Cuba.The plan was
never actually implemented but it makes interesting reading.
Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S.
Cities to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, ABC News Nov 7 2001
3.2.1 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National
Security Archive, 30 Apr 2001
3.2.2 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared Israel.
3.2.3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm
Scanned images of the actual document.
3.2.4 Page i http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm
3.2.5 Page ii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-ii.htm
3.2.6 Page iii http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-iii.htm
3.2.7 Page 1 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-1.htm
3.2.8 Page 2 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm
3.2.9 Page 3 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm
3.2.10 Page 4 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-4.htm
3.2.11 Page 5 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-5.htm
3.2.12 Page 6 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-6.htm
3.2.13 Page 7 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-7.htm
3.2.14 Page 8 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm
3.2.15 Page 9 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm
3.2.16 Page 10 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm
3.2.17 Page 11 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-11.htm
3.2.18 Page 12 http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-12.htm
US military schemes- ominously like 9/11.
3.2.19 http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/bamford.htm
If such tactics were considered normal and acceptable practice by the
Government in 1962, what evidence is there that things have changed?
Henry Kissinger is reported to have advocated a similar strategy in 1992
3.2:20 http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19481.html
CLICK: Rice to Address 9/11 Panel on April 8
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN - A NETWORK OF NETWORKERS' - FOUNDED 21 FEB 1993