NEW PAGES:

JFK and the Moon Race

JFK and the Unspeakable
includes audio files

DOTS TO CONNECT:

• Peak Oil
• Climate Change
• 9/11
• World War IV
• Media
• Homeland Security
• Fake Elections

RELATED WEBSITES:

Global Permaculture.org
Permatopia.com

Unanswered Questions about 9/11

related page:

• 9/11 families demand answers

on this page:

• introduction to "unanswered questions"
• phony evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory

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 different story:

- 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 stolen.

- 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 9/11/2001)

- why was the CIA was running a simulation of a plane hitting the National Reconnaissance Office HQ (near Dulles) on 9/11

- 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).

- why the General in charge of Air Defense received a PROMOTION to run the "domestic" use of the US military (the "Northern Command," established October 2002)

- 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

- the anthrax attacks traced back to Fort Detrick - www.oilempire.us/anthrax.html

- 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.

The 9/11 Families Steering Committee has the most comprehensive list of credible questions, which is posted at

www.911independentcommission.org

Most of their questions were ignored or only partially addressed by the official 9/11 Commission.

www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo2.php

Mondo Washington
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 photo op?
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 response?
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 they?
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 later.
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

www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/puzzlePieces.html
Extra Pieces of the Puzzle of 911 Published Passenger Lists
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001
From: John Judge
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.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Monday, December 08, 2003

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.

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 explosion, etc.

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
http://globalist.org/world_regions/asia/palestine-israel/020407_shamir_islamic_terror.html
http://www.israelshamir.net

www.911truth.org/statement.html
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.

www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/puzzlePieces.html

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 they?
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".

Thanks for thinking - John Judge

from Jim Garrison's interview by Playboy magazine, October 1967
www.maebrussell.com/Garrison/Garrison%20Playboy%20Intvw%202.html

... 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.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com
Sunday, June 09, 2002

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 and then.
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 11?