the archeology of 9/11 evidence introduction to "unanswered
questions" phony evidence in support of the
official conspiracy theory
" . . .By far the most usual way of handling phenomena
so novel that they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions
is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for
- William James
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar
- M. Planck
"Theories have four stages of acceptance: i) this
is worthless nonsense; ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point
of view; iii) this is true, but quite unimportant; iv) I always said
-J.B.S. Haldane, 1963. . .
"We are being told to accept an assemblage of facts
that would not stand up in a court of law to prove the guilt of a man,
bin Laden and his organization, that somehow succeeded in penetrating
the most restricted airspace in the world approximately 55 minutes after
the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. These facts, while
not sufficient to prevent the day that changed the world, nonetheless
were more than sufficient to identify the culprit in less than the next
24 hours; who was then the justification for embarking on a war that,
according to Dick Cheney, "may never end. At least, not in our
lifetime"; and who less than a year later has dropped off the world
stage slowing down this lifetime war, on his behalf, not one iota. Whose
interests are advanced by this monumental campaign to trade our liberty
I feel that people cannot have an entire barrel of facts
and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to sort it all out...the
tendency is to throw up their hands in despair, confusion and frustration.
Which is just what Bush and Co. would like everyone to do. What I tried
to do was to sort through and identify the most tangible facts, then
present these, along with all the factual connections between people,
places and things, then allow people to ponder it for themselves. I
did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy theory,"
but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that message will
be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that people 1.
are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them credit
for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly presented.
That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in the mainstream
media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts plainly and
work even harder to disguise the truth.
(from 2003 - before the organization 911truth.org was created)
That's why we say that this investigation must be more
a movement of concerned citizens than just a mechanical weighing of
facts. In the light of our ongoing march to war, and the wholesale sacrifice
of the Bill of Rights for an illusory security, this movement is both
urgent and timely. Some may say, "What's to discover? Usama Bin Laden and
his network hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings."
To you we say, "Study the evidence. We think you will be amazed
and shocked at how flimsy the "official" explanations actually
are - and how the media seems prepared to not take a closer look. We have no time for those who would
dismiss our misgivings as "conspiracy theory" (a term most
often used by people who haven't done their homework).
We demand evidence, credible inquiry, commitment to find the truth,
and a faith in the ability of the people to reason things out. If no
one else is going to step forward, then we must.
Citizens, friends, our nation has been swept up in a tide of vengeance
and price-tag patriotism. We have been given no meaningful opportunity
to publicly discuss the stubborn mysteries surrounding 9/11. We are
being denied our right to direct the course of our democracy -even as
our civil liberties are being stripped away; and beneath all this, there
lies a dark day, whose real meaning has yet to be unveiled.
of 9/11: unearthing the evidence
Sifting through the volumes of 9/11 evidence is analogous
to archeology. Only some of the evidence for the distant ancestors of
all living beings has been unearthed and catalogued. However, the fact
that the currently known fossil record is incomplete does not prevent
science from attempting to determine patterns and draw tentative conclusions
about the history of life on Earth, knowing that additional evidence is
likely to alter the story as we gain further knowledge. The early days
of archeology saw spectacular forgeries "revealed" by unscrupulous
advocates of particular theories, which parallels current efforts to distract
and discredit 9/11 skeptics with disinformation. It is unlikely that any
story of 9/11 is completely true, and hopefully enough of the documentation
will be made public in the years to come - and enough whistleblowers step
forward - so that historians will be able to more fully explain what happened
to the United States of America.
Whatever details future archeologists of truth will unearth
are unlikely to discredit the Reichstag Fire paradigm for understanding
9/11 - they merely will add to our understanding of the details of how
the "Reichstag" was burned. The real issue is to explain
why the attacks were perpetrated.
For most North Americans, 9/11 is a "cut and dried"
story - evil Arab terrorists attacked the US, there's nothing more to
learn. At worst, in many people's minds, there was an "intelligence
failure" of missed warnings that need to be addressed to prevent
a repeat (the excuse for the new Homeland Security behemoth). However,
there are lots of "unanswered questions" that suggest a much
- a flight school drop out managed to execute a high speed, high G fighter
pilot maneuver into the nearly empty, under reconstruction part of the
Pentagon despite the refusal to rent him a single engine plane the previous
month (they said he had no flying skills),
- that the hijackers left behind an Arabic language flight manual in
their rental car in Boston (similar to evidence planted to incriminate
Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin despite the physical impossibility of
the claim that he was the "lone gunman")
- The BBC reported that several of the alleged hijackers were still
alive, protesting their innocence and saying that their identities were
- why the "black boxes" couldn't be found from the planes
yet a paper passport of a hijacker somehow survived the fireballs and
was found on the streets of lower manhattan
- why Bush thought that reading to second graders was more important
for him than to respond to the alleged surprise attacks (at 9:05 am on
- why numerous warnings from allied governments
were supposedly ignored (at least a dozen countries, possibly more, warned
the US that 9/11 was coming)
- the absolute failure to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion,
despite decades of well-established military and FAA procedures. The fact
that Bush stayed in a second grade classroom reading about a "Girl
and her pet goat" instead of cancelling the event and pretending
to be commander-in-chief is damning evidence of prior knowledge by Bush,
his staff, the secret service and the military hierarchy (or at least
a faction of it). http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
- why the General in charge of Air Defense
received a PROMOTION to run the "domestic" use of the US military
(the "Northern Command," established
- why the planes that eventually were scrambled traveled much, much
slower than they are capable of traveling, especially in an emergency
(ie. after the second tower was hit but before the Pentagon)
- why the part of the Pentagon that was hit
was the only part that had almost no one in it, and the part that had
been recently strengthened against such an attack
- why the CEO of Fiduciary (in the towers) just happened to be at a
breakfast "fundraiser" sponsored by Warren Buffett at Offutt
AFB (strange place for a charity fundraiser) on 9/11,
the same base that Bush went to in the afternoon
- On the morning of 9/11, Sen. Graham met with the head of Pakistan's
ISI (their CIA), who is alleged to have sent $100,000 to Mohammed Atta,
the alleged leader of the alleged terrorists ("alleged" because
several of those names were identity thefts - the people named are still
alive, according to the BBC and several other media sources).
- why Bush showed no reaction when told of the attacks, and kept reading
to second graders (and why his aide, Andrew Card, didn't even wait to
ask for a reply from the "President")
- why Bush had anti-aircraft missiles set up around Genoa, Italy during
the July 2001 G-8 summit (due to concerns about a 9-11 type attack) but
not around the Capitol despite numerous warnings that 9-11 was coming
- long standing ties between the CIA, Pakistan's ISI, the Saudis, al-Qaeda,
and between the Bush and Bin Laden families
- repeated pattern of manufactured pretexts for galvanizing support for
imperial wars - the blowing up of the Maine (1898), Pearl Harbor (which
was allowed to happen, FDR had prior knowledge due to communication intercepts),
the Gulf of Tonkin (1964), Operation Northwoods (1962 Pentagon plan to
stage terror attacks on US citizens to justify invasion of Cuba), the
encouragement of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (1990), the first
WTC attack in 1993 (which the FBI knew about in advance), Oklahoma City
in 1995 (in which there was also "prior knowledge" at the very
least) - www.oilempire.us/parallels.html
- why the director of the "commission" to investigate
9/11 is a business partner of Osama bin Laden's brother in law (Gov Thomas
Kean, formerly of New Jersey, is a director of Amerada Hess, which is
invested in the Saudi consortium to build the fabled pipeline across Afghanistan
...) Even Fortune magazine has picked up on that.
- why the Bush regime interfered with the investigation of al-Qaeda
before 9/11, something that FBI whistleblowers, journalist Greg Palast
and FBI counterterrorism director John O'Neill charged.
Another "four Arab men" were reported to have had a heated argument
in the parking area around Logan airport with a passenger who later recalled
them when he heard one of the planes was hijacked from there, and led
the FBI back to their rented car. The four men, part of the list of 19,
were reported to have come into the US via Canada and then rented a car
in Boston which they drove to Logan airport. Presumably this story is
based on use of 4 passports or ID cards at the border and the car rental
agency. In the car the FBI reportedly found a copy of the Koran in a suitcase,
a flight manual for the type of plane hijacked written in Arabic, and
one of several instruction letters to the hijackers also in Arabic.
This story and its details strike me as completely false and planted evidence
for a number of reasons. The "road rage" part may not have happened,
since the person leading the FBI to false evidence may have been part
of the game. No one seriously involved in such an operation would risk
such notice, no devout Muslim would put a Koran in a suitcase, and no
sensible person would deliver a flight manual in Arabic to the airport
and fail to take it onto the plane for use, it seems to me. If the incident
happened as reported, did the four men using these ID's actually board
the plane? Or did they just stage an incident to take the FBI by the nose
to the planted evidence? ....
The sophistication of the events of September 11 suggest to anyone who
knows about covert operations that this had to be state sponsored, at
a level of resources and training and planning that the al'Quaida are
not capable of, nor the Taliban. In any covert operation, far more time
and effort is put into the cover story than into the event. Given the
sophistication of the event, we should expect a sophisticated cover story.
In the past, covert operations have often used a bait and switch approach.
First we are given a plausible patsy, but the evidence is meant to be
transparent and fall apart after buying some time. This is false sponsorship.
However, when the first layer erodes, there is a second layer of even
more plausible but equally false sponsorship, including organizations
or countries that either willingly or unwittingly contributed or been
involved for their own reasons to the plan and will take credit, at least
silently, at first, and can be used to take blame later. They will still
not be the authors.
For instance, even if all those on the planes were Arab/Afghanis linked
to al'Quaida and bin Laden, that does not tell us the real sponsor of
the event. After all, bin Laden has had many sponsors in many countries,
including Pakistani ISI and American CIA for starters. False sponsorship
is key to a good cover story.
There have been three bumps in the history of the discussion of the
truth of what happened on November 22, 1963:
the Garrison investigation of the late 1960's, the official investigations
of the mid-1970's, and the release of the Oliver Stone film and the
resulting forced disgorging of some secret documents during the 1990's.
Between those bumps there have been long stretches of wheel-spinning,
where absence of new information meant that conspiracy buffs spent their
time constructing dream palaces in the air of their own imaginations.
Those who conspire must love this, as the buffs themselves create
the forest of misleading data in which the truth can easily hide. The
main problem of conspiracy research now is separating the disinformation
from the truth, with by far the greatest collection of disinformation
created by well-meaning but misguided 'researchers' who, in the absence
of new data, let their imaginations run wild. It is sad to see exactly
the same thing happening in the field of discussion of September 11.
The Bush Administration has successfully managed to completely stonewall
even the rather suspicious official investigation, and I have not seen
any new important revelations in at least a year. People who rode hobbyhorses
in the months after September 11 are still riding the same hobbyhorses,
in love with their own theories more than the truth (my personal hobbyhorse
is that November 22 and September 11 were arranged by the same two American
institutional groups). Now we're even beginning to see the beginnings
of the grand meta-theories, with the attack blamed on some secret conspiracy
involving Israel (with the happy Israeli witnesses making a video of
the attack paralleling the fact that Yitzhak Rabin was in Texas at Fort
Bliss on November 22, 1963; it's as if Israel makes a point of sending
witnesses whenever they hear about such things), or, in a possible attempt
to shield Israel, weird conspiracy chestnuts like the Bilderbergers
or the Illuminati (whatever happened to the Rockefellers, who used to
be blamed for everything?). These meta-theories are worse than useless,
serving as a method of appearing to discuss the case while simply constructing
a wall of smoke. There is significant real information readily available
if the American political situation would allow it to be released. I'd
like to start with testimony from the pilots who just missed reaching
the targets on time, and ask them who arranged for them to be so near
and yet so far.
Evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory
The perpetrators of the 9/11 are still unknown to us.
The instant recovery of a hijacker’s passport intact on the place
of jet crush should be counted among the most spectacular miracles of
all times, well ahead of Daniel’s trip into the fiery furnace. The
old Babylonian furnace surely did not develop the temperature of burning
jet fuel. Arab-language flying manuals in the trunk of a car, inaudible
videotapes and other conveniently recovered exhibits make Moscow trials
of 1937 a bright example of justice incorrupt. The prisoners of Afghani
war have been kept away from prying eyes, in the limbo of Guantanamo,
lest they disclose the greatest secret of all: their innocence."
Islamic Terror? What Islamic Terror?"
by Israel Shamir
be mindful of the fundamental contradictions that misrepresent
the very foundations of Bush II's purported "war" on terrorism.
Our U.S. intelligence agencies, funded annually for decades with increasingly
extravagant budgets, claim they were unable to prevent the 9-11 bombings
due to the lack of correlated intelligence gathered. Yet within the span
of less than a day, these same agencies asserted the identity of those
responsible with such certainty as to preclude any serious investigation
of other possible perpetrators. Whose interests are truly served by such
investigations and their near instantaneous conclusions?
Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie
The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication
The view that the official conspiracy theory (19
hijackers, an evil man in a cave, and perhaps a few accomplices) did 9-11
by themselves and caught the government by surprise has zero evidence
to justify it. It's reminiscent of the JFK assassination coverup, where
Lee Harvey Oswald's bio was immediately given to the media (and in at
least one case, before the assassination happened, according to Col. Fletcher
Prouty, who was then the Pentagon liaison officer to the CIA). The phony
evidence "found" in the immediate wake of 911 is symptomatic
of this type of propaganda campaign - the paper passport on the streets
of NYC even though the black boxes weren't found, the Arabic flight manual
found in the Boston airport parking lot that was supposedly left behind
by the terrorists, the "wag the dog" stories of flight 93 even
though the aircraft left debris scattered over 8 miles indicating a mid-air
originally on thewaronfreedom.com - not online anymore?
We're told that three of the supposedly devout Moslem
suicide pilots were making a nuisance of themselves in a strip bar the
night before the attacks, leaving behind "credit card receipts,
photocopied driver's license, business cards, and most amazingly, a
copy of a Koran ..."
The "chilling" final letter of instruction linking the terrorists
is somehow found in the wreckage of two planes, and in a piece of luggage
that got left behind. World renowned middle east corrrespondent Robert
Fisk describes the authors of the document as being "surprisingly
unfamiliar with their own religion ... an almost Christian view."
Later, we discover that six of the hijackers are still alive, one has
been dead for two years - their identities stolen. Yet their faces continue
to appear in the press. ... Five of the hijackers lived at and/or "trained
at American military bases." None of the "black boxes"
survived the four crashes, but one of the hijacker's passports was supposedly
found on the streets of New York City.
As to Smoking Gun, I feel that people cannot have an entire
barrel of facts and red herrings dumped in their laps and expect to
sort it all out...the tendency is to throw up their hands in despair,
confusion and frustration. Which is just what Bush and Co. would like
everyone to do. What I tried to do was to sort through and identify
the most tangible facts, then present these, along with all the factual
connections between people, places and things, then allow people to
ponder it for themselves. I did not set out to "sell" a "conspiracy
theory," but if the facts presented happen scream conspiracy, that
message will be heard loud and clear. One thing I have learned is that
people 1. are generally quicker on the uptake than the media gives them
credit for, and 2. generally recognize the truth when they see it plainly
presented. That is why the corporate powers that be and their pals in
the mainstream media work very hard to avoid presenting important facts
plainly and work even harder to disguise the truth.
I lean towards the theory that the 19 Arab hijackers are a complete
fiction, which raises very hard questions about the integrity of these
so called warnings which were ignored. I'm not saying that they shouldn't
be looked at, because this piece of the puzzle is far from clear, but
my point is -- how could there have been warnings about the hijackers,
if they never existed.
by James Ridgeway
Grilled to Order
What we’d Like to ask when Bush and Cheney take the hot seat
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM
Related Info: John Kerry Must Go Note to Democrats: it's not too late
to draft someone-anyone-else
So Many Questions . . . But where are the answers? Bush and Cheney's private
chat is a public disgrace.
On Thursday, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will sit together
and speak—off the record and in private—to the 9-11 Commission.
Bush and Cheney can make a record of the interview, but the commission,
under a bizarre agreement, is prohibited from doing so.
By refusing to appear separately or in public, the two may have taken
the panel for a ride, but they can't avoid the tough questions forever.
Both give every sign of having been asleep at the switch on 9-11. Worse,
for months they have been engaged in collusion to obstruct justice by
thwarting first congressional and then commission investigations. Sooner
or later, both must be served with subpoenas, sworn to tell the truth,
and ordered to testify under threat of impeachment and/or criminal prosecution.
Let's start with Bush. Here's the setup: Morning, September 11, 2001.
At 8:40 NORAD is notified Flight 11 has been hijacked. At 8:43 NORAD
is notified Flight 175 is hijacked. At 9, Bush arrives at the Booker
Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, where he takes a call from Condoleezza
Rice before entering an elementary school classroom for a photo op.
Certainly by that moment Rice must have known that one plane had hit
the World Trade Center and another had been hijacked.
Now a few simple questions for our president, the last six from the
Family Steering Committee, whose members lost loved ones on 9-11:
1. What did you know about the emerging crisis before speaking to Rice?
2. Who told you? What was your response?
3. What did Rice tell you?
4. And why, after speaking to her, did you go ahead with a meaningless
5. Why was Flight 77 allowed to plow into the Pentagon 52 minutes after
Flight 11 had smashed into the WTC?
6. Given the warnings on hijackings and flying bombs, why were there
only 14 fighter planes assigned to cover the entire U.S., with only
seven airborne that morning?
7. A briefing prepared for senior U.S. officials in early July 2001
stated: "Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last
five months, we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist
attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The
attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against
U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack
will occur with little or no warning." As the weeks went by, senior
officials continued to receive intelligence information warning of an
imminent Al Qaeda attack.
Did you receive such warnings before 9-11? If so, what did you do in
8. Mr. President, European security forces were widely reported to have
prepared elaborate measures to prevent a possible bin Laden attempt
to assassinate you at the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001. According
to German intelligence sources, the plot involved bin Laden paying German
neo-Nazis to fly remote-controlled model aircraft packed with Semtex
into the conference hall and blow the leaders of the industrialized
world to smithereens. The reports were taken so seriously that you stayed
overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, according to CNN, and other
world leaders stayed on a luxury ship. Two days before the summit began,
the BBC reported: "The huge force of officers and equipment which
has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning
that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an
air attack on some of the world leaders present."
Italy surrounded the summit with anti-aircraft batteries, kept fighters
overhead, and closed off local airspace. No attack occurred. U.S. officials
at the time stated that the warnings were "unsubstantiated,"
but after 9-11 reversed themselves and took credit for preventing an
attack. Were you aware of the planned Al Qaeda attack on Genoa using
planes as weapons? If so, what did you do to safeguard the homeland
and U.S. facilities overseas?
9. As commander in chief on the morning of 9-11, why didn't you return
immediately to Washington, D.C., or the National Military Command Center
once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically
what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed
you of this fact?
10. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, elementary
school for a press conference after you had finished listening to the
children read, when, as a terrorist target, your presence potentially
jeopardized their lives?
11. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September
11? Was Air Force One at any time during the day a target of the terrorists?
Was Air Force One's code ever breached on September 11?
12. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military
escort, even after ample time had elapsed for military jets to arrive?
13. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding
foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible
redacted 28 pages from the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report?
What actions have you personally taken since 9-11 to thwart foreign
sponsorship of terrorism?
14. Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United
States when commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for
only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially when two of those
same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism?
Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege and
protection, when protection wasn't available to American families whose
loved ones were killed on 9-11?
Now for the vice president:
1. Mr. Cheney, we know—more or less—what Bush did on 9-11.
What did you do? A chronology, please.
2. Did you receive any orders from Bush that morning? If so, what were
3. Did you issue any orders, either in your own or in the president's
name, to civilian and/or military agencies of the U.S. government that
day? If so, what were they?
4. Before 9-11, Bush entrusted you to head a task force to work alongside
the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office
is supposed to oversee a "national effort" to coordinate all
federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. You told the press,
"One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a
terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area,
oftentimes referred to as homeland defense."
The focus was to be on state-funded terrorists using weapons of mass
destruction, and you mentioned neither bin Laden nor Al Qaeda. Your
task force was supposed to report to Congress by October 1, 2001, after
a review by the National Security Council. Bush stated that he would
"periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council
to review these efforts." Yet neither your review nor Bush's seems
to have taken place before 9-11. Your deadline was a couple of weeks
What had you done up to then? How many meetings had you held? Who were
the members of your task force?
Additional reporting: Alicia Ng and Phoebe St John
That's why we say that this investigation must be more a movement of concerned
citizens than just a mechanical weighing of facts. In the light of our
ongoing march to war, and the wholesale sacrifice of the Bill of Rights
for an illusory security, this movement is both urgent and timely.
Some may say, "What's to discover? Usama Bin Laden and his network
hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings."
To you we say, "Study the evidence. We think you will be amazed and
shocked at how flimsy the "official" explanations actually are
- and how the media seems prepared to not take a closer look.
We have no time for those who would dismiss
our misgivings as "conspiracy theory" (a term most often used
by people who haven't done their homework).
We demand evidence, credible inquiry, commitment to find the truth, and
a faith in the ability of the people to reason things out. If no one else
is going to step forward, then we must.
Citizens, friends, our nation has been swept up in a tide of vengeance
and price-tag patriotism. We have been given no meaningful opportunity
to publicly discuss the stubborn mysteries surrounding 9/11. We are being
denied our right to direct the course of our democracy -even as our civil
liberties are being stripped away; and beneath all this, there lies a
dark day, whose real meaning has yet to be unveiled.
Extra pieces of the puzzle:
* All printed and electronic media references I saw or heard reported
on September 11 and 12 about the cell phone conversations and their
content mentioned "guys with knives . . . boxknives . . . bombs"
doing the hijacking. They did not mention Arabs.
On September 13 the NYT carried a story of a call received by Mrs. Glick,
wife of one of the men who reportedly decided to "do something"
on the plane that went down in Pennsyvania. Mrs. Glick mentioned a detail
from her husband's call (or the NYT added one) about "four Arab
men in red headbands". Red headbands? Another puzzle in my book,
or a stereotypically racist canard. Soon after, we got the official
list of 19 names of the hijackers.
* Another "four Arab men" were reported to have had a heated
argument in the parking area around Logan airport with a passenger who
later recalled them when he heard one of the planes was hijacked from
there, and led the FBI back to their rented car. The four men, part
of the list of 19, were reported to have come into the US via Canada
and then rented a car in Boston which they drove to Logan airport. Presumably
this story is based on use of 4 passports or ID cards at the border
and the car rental agency. In the car the FBI reportedly found a copy
of the Koran in a suitcase, a flight manual for the type of plane hijacked
written in Arabic, and one of several instruction letters to the hijackers
also in Arabic.
This story and its details strike me as completely false and planted
evidence for a number of reasons. The "road rage" part may
not have happened, since the person leading the FBI to false evidence
may have been part of the game. No one seriously involved in such an
operation would risk such notice, no devout Muslim would put a Koran
in a suitcase, and no sensible person would deliver a flight manual
in Arabic to the airport and fail to take it onto the plane for use,
it seems to me. If the incident happened as reported, did the four men
using these ID's actually board the plane? Or did they just
stage an incident to take the FBI by the nose to the planted evidence?
* Since the 19 names were first put out there, two of them named as
pilots at were later found to be dead for some time. Another group of
people were reported in Saudi Arabia to be the actual people on the
ID's but still living there and uninvolved on September 11. Those ID's
that were traced back for history here in the US led to a pattern of
very aggressive behavior that got many of them noticed and reported
to authorities at both CIA and FBI. At least one was reported to have
been on an FBI "watch list". Some had been to "flight
training" schools, which could not actually have trained them well
enough to do what was done by those planes on September 11.
I suggest you ask any pilot that has flown one what it takes to bank
into a building at 550 miles an hour, or to dive in a 270 degree turn
from 5000 feet to fly so low that streetlamps are clipped off, into
a building. There are two options: Military or experienced civilian
pilots (many are military anyway) piloted these planes. The planes were
flown on remote control.
* The sophistication of the events of September 11 suggest to anyone
who knows about covert operations that this had to be state sponsored,
at a level of resources and training and planning that the al'Quaida
are not capable of, nor the Taliban. In any covert operation,
far more time and effort is put into the cover story than into the event.
Given the sophistication of the event, we should expect a sophisticated
cover story. In the past, covert operations have often used a bait and switch
approach. First we are given a plausible patsy, but the evidence is
meant to be transparent and fall apart after buying some time. This
is false sponsorship. However, when the first layer erodes, there is
a second layer of even more plausible but equally false sponsorship,
including organizations or countries that either willingly or unwittingly
contributed or been involved for their own reasons to the plan and will
take credit, at least silently, at first, and can be used to take blame
later. They will still not be the authors.
For instance, even if all those on the planes were Arab/Afghanis linked
to al'Quaida and bin Laden, that does not tell us the real sponsor of
the event. After all, bin Laden has had many sponsors in many countries,
including Pakistani ISI and American CIA for starters. False sponsorship
is key to a good cover story.
Right now it looks like layer two will be Iraq, among other countries.
This was apparent to me the week of the event in early statements about
"state sponsorship" by James Woolsey (former CIA director)
and by a conservative think tank member at the Johns Hopkins Center
for Advanced International Studies. The academic laid out many of the
same items I noticed, but ended up saying it was Iraq. I talked to him
subsequently and he admitted he has no proof about Iraq as the sponsor,
only suspicion. Iraq has been named more recently as the source of the
anthrax, but the type discovered is US manufacture with some foreign
distribution, not easy to get hold of in Iraq.
* Finally, the BBC and other media reported on an airline attendant
on flight #11 who called on a cell phone to report to American Airlines
the seat numbers of the "hijackers". The seat numbers given,
according to these articles, did not match the seats assigned to the
"Arab terrorists". This is interesting given your information
that suggests they had no seat numbers, eh? Whose seat numbers were
So, the bottom line is, we still do not know who hijacked the planes
or how. We do not know who piloted the planes so expertly into the buildings
or how that was accomplished. And we do not know how they got onto the
flights, if they did. Your food service/cleaning crew speculation is
a good one but as I said, flight attendants count and know which seats
are assigned. Ever try to sit in the wrong one?
Who were the "guys with box knives"? Were their identities
removed from the passenger lists because they were NOT among the 19
named? Were they even Arabs? And did they actually fly the planes into
the buildings? I for one am very suspicious of mass suicide pacts and
have, with detailed work, deconstructed many of the recently reported
ones from Jonestown forward, and back as far as Massada. Almost all
are actually mass murders.
If there were 19 in the plot, perhaps only one in each plane knew they
were all to die. You can get a pilot to kamikaze, we know that much.
But a whole crew? I know, for the "greater glory of Allah against
the infidels", or for a preacher in Guyana, or for a UFO cult in
California, or for a sun cult in France. Right. Just don't check the
details. Which leaves two unexplored options: mind control or remote
control. But those are "conspiracy theories" aren't they.
Sorry, I forgot. Is bin Laden and his thugs a conspiracy theory? Does
it require a modicum of proof?
The secret evidence was viewed by foreign leaders, who are more qualified
than the American public, and even they called it "circumstantial"
and "not enough to take into court" but they agreed it was
"sufficient" to go to WAR. Probably true, the first casualty
of war is always the truth, and you don't need much "evidence"
to get a war going. Ask Goering. But you can't even get the secret evidence
to work if you can't put the suspects on the planes now can you? It's
tough. You can't put Oswald on the 6th floor of the Book Depository
either, or James Earl Ray in the bathroom window, or Sirhan's bullets
into RFK; not if you pay attention to details anyway.
Oh, dear, have I revealed that I am not a "coincidence theorist"?
Let's just stick to the evidence, it will lead us where we need to go
if we ever get to see it. For now the lack of it is enough for me. Good
luck on a great puzzle. As my old pal Penn Jones used to say, "Take
any one piece and research the hell out of it. It will eventually show
you the whole".
... it is true that before the assassination, a calculated effort was
made to implicate Oswald in the events to come. A young man approximating
Oswald's description and using Oswald's name -- we believe we have discovered
his identity -- engaged in a variety of activities designed to create
such a strong impression of Oswald's instability and culpability in
people's minds that they would recall him as a suspicious character
after the President was murdered. In one instance, a man went to an
auto salesroom, gave his name as Lee Oswald, test-drove a car at 80
miles an hour -- Oswald couldn't drive -- and, after creating an ineradicable
impression on the salesman by his speeding, gratuitously remarked that
he might go back to the Soviet Union and was expecting to come into
a large sum of money. Parenthetically, the salesman who described this
"second Oswald" was subsequently beaten almost to death by
unknown assailants outside his showroom. He later fled Dallas and last
year was found dead; it was officially declared a suicide. In another
instance, this "second Oswald" visited a shooting range in
Dallas and gave a virtuoso demonstration of marksmanship, hitting not
only his own bull's-eye but the bull's-eyes of neighboring targets as
well -- thus leaving an unforgettable impression of his skill with a
rifle. The real Oswald, of course, was a mediocre shot, and there is
no evidence that he had fired a rifle since the day he left the Marines.
Consequently, the fact that he couldn't hit the side of a barn had to
be offset, which accounts for the tableau at the rifle range. I could
go on and on recounting similar instances, but there is no doubt that
there was indeed a "second Oswald." Now, the Warren Commission
recognized that the individual involved in all these activities could
not be Lee Oswald; but they never took the next step and inquired why
these incidents of impersonation occurred so systematically prior to
the assassination. As it turned out, of course, the organizers of the
conspiracy needn't have bothered to go to all this trouble of laying
a false trail incriminating Oswald. They should have realized, since
Oswald was a "self-proclaimed Marxist," that it wasn't necessary
to produce any additional evidence to convict him in the eyes of the
mass media; any other facts would simply be redundant in the face of
such a convincing confession of guilt.
Mohamed Atta apparently visited a U. S. government office (Department
of Agriculture) to apply for a $650,000 loan to buy a cropdusting airplane.
An interesting point is that he is supposed to have visited the office
in the spring of 2000, about 17 months before September 11, 2001, i.
e., the end of April (or perhaps May), but he is officially supposed
to have arrived in the United States in June 2000! While discussing
this doomed mission with the loan officer who turned him down because
it did not make sense, Atta made many odd statements, all of which are
an obvious attempt to leave the impression that he was really and truly
a crazed fundamentalist Islamic terrorist. He lays it on so thick, I
don't know how he managed to keep from laughing:
1. He almost refused to deal with her, because she is a woman.
2. He admired a picture of Washington, D. C. that she had hanging on
the wall of her office to a ridiculous degree, pointing specifically
to the White House and the Pentagon, and then offered to buy it with
theatrical flourish by throwing a wad of money down on the desk. When
she refused to sell it to him she recounts: "I believe he said,
'How would America like it if another country destroyed that city and
some of the monuments in it' like the cities in his country had been
destroyed?" This is very weird, as Atta is supposed to come from
Egypt, where cities haven't been destroyed for a long time.
3. He gave her evil, terrorist looks with his 'very scary' black eyes.
4. She said he referred to a safe in her office and she recounts: "He
asked me what would prevent him from going behind my desk and cutting
my throat and making off with the millions of dollars in that safe."
5. He talked of the massive size of the chemical tank he wanted to install,
filling the whole inside of the plane except for the pilot's seat.
6. He became 'very agitated' when he found out that there was an application
process and she presumably wouldn't just hand him $650,000 in cash there
7. He asked her about security at the World Trade Center and what she
knew of Phoenix, Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles, and was particularly
interested in open-topped Texas Stadium.
8. He mentioned Osama bin Laden, who she had never heard of, and said
that bin Laden "would someday be known as the world's greatest
leader." Of course, seeing as he was in the United States on a
student visa, how he ever thought he would be entitled to such a loan
is beyond belief. He knew he wasn't allowed to stay to ever be able
to use the airplane for any plausibly legitimate purpose. Even if he
mistakenly thought he could get away with this, what was his reasoning
for sending three other terrorists to the same office on the much the
same mission? In one case, he put on glasses as a disguise and pretended
to be the accountant of one of the other hijacker-applicants, another
obvious attempt to draw attention to himself. The whole thing must have
sounded like a Monty Python sketch (it reminds me of the Dead Parrot
sketch when Michael Palin puts on the fake mustache). The ridiculous
overacting left the bureaucrat completely unsuspicious. I imagine if
he had asked her if it would be OK for him to fill the plane full of
explosives and fly it into the World Trade Center, she would have replied
that she would strongly object to that as blowing up the collateral
would be a breach of one of the terms of his loan agreement. If this
isn't some kind of hoax, what we have here is another example of Atta
creating his 'legend', filling out his terrorist personal identity before
a witness who would surely remember him. Notice again that he appears
to have no fear that this bureaucrat will report him before September
11 and end the terrorist project he has spent so much work on. One question:
why has it taken this long for this story to come out when she is supposed
to have informed the authorities about the incident shortly after September
Group Pledges to Monitor 9/11 Government Commission:
"9/11 CitizensWatch" Says Unanswered Questions Must be Addressed;
Group Includes Victims’ Family Members and Other Americans New York -- March 31: The government's 9/11 National Commission opened
today. A new non-partisan group called 9/11 CitizensWatch presented "unanswered
questions" from 9/11. [see page 2 below] It says it will work with both
the National Commission and independent researchers to get to the bottom of
the September 11 tragedy.
"We honor the victims by learning the truth," said Kyle Hence of 9/11
CitizensWatch, "and by learning the truth of what happened that day and
why, we help ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. The fact is, a
global community of independent researchers has been investigating 9/11 for
eighteen months, and is finding a great deal of evidence that conflicts with
the official story. We welcome the federal government in finally joining this
historic truth-finding effort, and we plan to constructively engage the National
Commission and act as a liaison to the independent research community."
The announcement by CitizensWatch was made at a lunchtime press conference Monday
in the U.S. Customs House in New York City, where the National Commission was
holding its first open hearings. Independent researcher Allan Wood of the "Complete
9/11 Timeline" research project; Andrew Rice, who lost his brother
David on September 11; and Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary
of Housing under the first President Bush; spoke at the press conference. CitizensWatch
says it will issue periodic statements about the Commission’s work and
the work of independent researchers, and that it supports the formation of a
fully independent 9/11 Commission.
"9/11 CitizensWatch is a hub for the most credible, well-sourced, well-documented
research on 9/11," explained John Judge, "We will sift through the
research and bring the strongest to the public. We have a research standard
of excellence, we will continue to address the unanswered questions, and we
hope that the National Commission does, as well. We believe it is our collective
responsibility and obligation as Americans to get to the bottom of what happened
on Sep. 11, 2001."
"What disturbs me," said former Wall St. Investment banker Catherine
Austin Fitts, "is that in the aftermath of 9/11 the DoD was somehow
able to avoid the problem of $2.3 trillion in ‘undocumentable adjustments.’
Cooked books at the Pentagon compromises our economic and national security."
Said Ryan Amundson, who lost his brother Craig in the terrorist attack on the
Pentagon, "I desperately want to be able to trust the government, but as
long as these questions remain unanswered I will always have doubt in my mind."
Unanswered Questions from 9/11 (Presented at 9/11 CitizensWatch Press Conference;
Customs House, NYC, March 31)
1) Why in the months before 9/11 did FBI headquarters consistently obstruct
field agent investigations of potential terrorists or terrorist financiers?
2) Why were many detailed warnings from the intelligence services of Britain,
Germany, Israel, Egypt, Russia, Italy, and other foreign governments ignored?
3) Why were some prominent travelers warned not to fly on 9/11?
4) Why in the days immediately before 9/11 were there massive spikes in the
number of "puts" on the stocks of airline and insurance companies?
5) Why did the chief of Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approve
over $100,000 in wire transfers to Mohammed Atta prior to the attacks?
6) Why in the 1 hour and 20 minutes after the onset of a multiple hijacking,
with hundreds dead or dying in the Twin Towers, and a third jet hurtling to
our nation’s capitol did no USAF, Navy or Air National Guard fighter defend
7) From investigator and former NBC reporter/producer Daniel Hopsicker’s
Florida investigation: Why do eyewitness accounts of the behavior and movements
of lead hijacker Mohammed Atta conflict with the findings of the government
8) Why in the wake of the most cataclysmic intelligence and air defense failures
in American history have no government officials or Pentagon brass been held
accountable for the September 11 tragedy?
9) Why, in the wake of the most cataclysmic intelligence and air defense failures
in American history, have responsible government officials and Pentagon brass
been rewarded with promotions?
10) Why did the Bush/Cheney Administration for over a year stonewall victims’
family members demands for a full independent investigation?
11) Why, after 9/11. are new government contracts being issued to private government
contractors who have never been accountable for $3.3 trillion of "undocumentable
adjustments" in the accounting and information systems they manage?