THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.

PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS.

PART 1

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). (news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm )

People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn't matter how angry the USA might have been, it's just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn't possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so.

And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making.

Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it's reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone's guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden's guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It's not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnal and logistics of the investigation. This will be discussed in more detail in part 2, and again, cross referenced back to this point. But it is clear already, that at the very least, USA authorities didn't care who did September 11. They were happy to use it as oppotunity to attack anyone at whom it was convenient to point the finger, and we have information which alleges that they were already making plans for Afghanistan.

These 3 points, when taken together, form a compelling scenario that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to September 11. This does not, in itself provide absolute proof that the USA was involved in organising September 11, that will come in part 2, but it does already put it forward as the most plausible explanation. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then, in order to believe that the USA was not involved in organising September 11, we have to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened to occur at a time which could not have been better, from a propaganda point of view, for a war which the USA had already planned. While this is possible, it isn't really probable. It's just too convenient.

It will clarify things, to list the possible scenarios, that arise at this point, assuming that we accept that plans were already in place to attack Afghanistan:

1) The USA had nothing to do with the September 11 attack, and was genuinely suprised by it, but saw the propaganda oppotunities for its forthcoming war, and considered this to be more important than identifying the real culprits.

2) The USA did not have anything to do with organising the attacks, but knew in advance that they were coming, and deliberately allowed them to happen, for propaganda reasons.

3)The USA was actively involved in planning September 11, as part of an integrated plan, which involved the coming war in Afghanistan.

While I have not yet presented specific evidence for any of these scenarios, common sense tells us, if we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was preplanned, then scenario 3 is the only plausible explanation. Scenarios 1 and 2 require us to believe that the convenient timing of the terrorist attacks was just by chance. In respect of scenario 2, it might be suggested that the date of mid October was itself, planned around the terrorist attack which they knew was coming. But this doesn't make a lot of sense either, because the date of mid October is explained in a far more plausible manner, by the allegations of Niaz Naik, and we would have to believe that US intelligence about an attack which they were not involved in was so specific, that by July, two months before Sept 11, they were already planning the date of their attack on Afghanistan around it. This is highly improbable. If we accept that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, then Scenario 3 is the only credible explanation. For us to deny that the attack on Afghanistan was already planned, we must believe 1) That Niaz Naik is lying. 2) That the US was able to organise the attack within a time which defies accepeted military logistics, and 3) That since they cannot possibly have known who the real culprit was, within a few hours, they chose Afghanistan simply because they wanted to be seen to be doing something, and Bin Laden was an easy scapegoat.

The evidence which is presented in part 2, will interweave with these scenarios with constant cross referencing, and demonstrates conclusively that active collusion by US authorties in the planning of the attacks is the only possible explanation.

PART 2

On the morning of September 11, the largest aviation crisis in the history of the world took place. Before continuing, it is relevant to examine the standard proceedures which take place in the event of a hijacking, the approach of an unauthorised or unidentified aircraft, the failure of communications, or any other unscheduled aviation activity, regardless of whether any immediate threat is perceived. The air force is alerted and jet fighters are put into the air immediately. According to a report on a Russian website, the commander in chief of the Russian air force says that such a situation can be responded to in about 1 minute. In fact, he said that the terrorist attack on Sept 11, should have been impossible to carry out, if normal security proceedures were in place, and claimed that Russia itself had easily dealt with a similar situation there, although he declined to give any details. (httpp://emperors-clothes. com/news/airf. htm ) The purpose of interception is to closely shadow the plane, thus giving exact information about its movements, possibly keeping radio contact, and perhaps learning more of the pilots situation or intentions. It also provides the oppotunity, but not the obligation, to force down or shoot down the plane, if it becomes apparrent that it's intentions are hostile. Interception itself, is not an agressive move. There are standardised signals, which are part of the aviation code, which an airforce pilot will give to a civillian airliner if radio contact is unavailable. When pilots are off course and disorientated, the fighter pilot will guide them back to the correct course. But the airforce also has a record of having previously forced down, or shot down civillian aircraft which were behaving in a manner which was considered to be a deliberate agressive flouting of aviation rules, likely to present a danger. While the end result of September 11, large commercial airliners flying into buildings, is unprecedented, the events leading up to the crashes are routine. Planes off course, transponders not working, reports of hijackings. Such events are handled regularly by the US airforce with expert efficiency. Normally, interception of these planes would have been well and truly in place, before it became apparrent that their intentions were hostile. What is unusual about September 11 , is that these normal airforce proceedures, activated automatically, and without the need for high level authority simply didn't happen. The routine proceedures were waived for every one of the planes involved.

The 4 hijacked planes were all being tracked on Federal Aviation Authority radar, and air traffic controllers across the country were in communication with each other. Since no junoir officer would have the authority to override the interception routines. the failure to activate them, can only have come from orders to that effect, from the very highest levels. In the case of the plane which struck the pentagon, United Airlines flight 77, It should have been intercepted, as it approached Washington, by fighters from Andrews airbase, a mere 10 miles from the pentagon. In fact in should have been intercepted a lot earlier than that. By 9.05 at the very latest, the Pentagon knew that two hijacked planes, had struck the world trade centre, and that at least one more hijacked plane was at large. It may not have been clear by this time, that flight 77 was headed to Washington, but it was clear that a terrorist attack of massive proportions was taking place, and that at least one more plane probably had intentions to strike somewhere. The fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground. By 9.25 at the very latest, it was clear that this plane was headed to Washington. The Andrews airbase fighters stayed on the ground, and whichever squadron was responsible for covering the area where the plane was originally hijacked, had also failed to activate. At 9.41, just 2 minutes before the plane struck the pentagon, two F16 fighters from Langley airbase, were dispatched to intercept it. Langley airbase is 130 miles away!They had no hope whatsoever of intercepting it. Meanwhile the fighters at Andrews airbase stayed on the ground!The official story is that no fighters were available at Andrews that day. This is clearly a lie. The specific mandate of the fighters at Andrews airbase, is to protect WashingtonDC. And if none were available, how did they miraculously appear in the sky over Washinton DC, a few minutes after the pentagon was hit? And do they seriously expect us to believe that the Pentagon is only defended on a part time basis? Another official story is that, they thought at the time, that the plane was targeting the White House. So what? Isn't that even more reason to have activated the airforce? And if that's what they thought, why was the White House, not evacuated until 2 minutes after the Pentagon crash? As far as I can make out the timetable, that's about 10 minutes after the plane would have flown past the target, which they allegedly thought it was heading to! Overall, 45 minutes passed between the time that Flight 77's transponder was turned off, (which is when automatic interception proceedures should have begun, even on a normal day), and the time that it crashed into the pentagon. That there was no interception, is all the more incredible, given that at the the time it's transponder was turned off, it was already 10 minutes since one hijacked airliner, United airlines flight 175, had crashed into the world trade centre, and about 5 minutes, since it had become known, that a third plane, American airlines flight 11, had been hijacked. At 9.03, flight 11, also hit the world trade centre, and still no movement at Andrews. By 9.25, there was no doubt that flight 77 was headed to Washington, and still no movement at Andrews, and no evacuation of either the Pentagon or White House. But the Andrews fighters got into the air, and the evacuation of the White House took place, just for show it would seem, immediately after flight 77 had completed it's mission. So this plane, at a time when a security crisis of huge proportions was taking place, was able to turn off its transponder, change course, and fly 300 miles, being tracked by radar the whole way, without being intercepted. And then approach the nations capital, fly past the white house, and crash into the pentagon, without even being challenged. At 10.10, it was known that a fourth plane, United airlines flight 93 had been hijacked. This was also spared the normal practice of interception. It crashed in Pensalvania at 10.37. (Note:There is some discrepency between different information sources, about the exact times involved with this one, I will confirm the exact time in a further update, once I can establish it for certain. )It's difficult to say exactly what the official stories are, concerning the failure to intercept the two planes which hit the WTC, because the stories keep changing, but it is has been admitted by Norad that it was alerted to a hijacking as early as 8.35, but didn't activate any airforce action until after the pentagon was hit, while at the same time admitting that interception of civilian aircraft by jet fighters is a routine proceedure. Their story regarding flight 93 is that they could have shot it down if they had wanted to. This is most unconvincing. If they "could have shot it down", then why hadn't they at least gone through the routine proceedure of intercepting it and checking it out? They had 27 minutes to do so, and after all, there had already been 3 suicide crashes that morning. Exactly how were they going to shoot it down? With a plane which wasn't there? With a long range missile, when interception by fighters would have been far more safe, and would have also provided the possibility of forcing it down, and also given the oppotunity to check with greater certainty that that was the only option? And when were they going to shoot it down? How long were they going to wait? Vice president Cheney, in response to questioning about this bizarre scenario, has deliberately tried to confuse interception with shooting down, trying to create the impression, that the reason nothing was done, was because officials were agonizingly biting their nails, over whether to take the dramatic step of shooting down a plane full of innocent civillians. Cheny knows very well that interception, while giving the oppotunity to shoot down the plane, does not commit one to that action. And also, at the same time that Cheny is spinning this smokescreen, they're telling us that the only reason interception didn't happen in the case of flight 77, is because no fighters were available at Andrews. Make up your minds!And also, that in the case of flight 93, that they "could have shot it down" even though no interception had taken place, which could only be interpreted as meaning that they were prepared to use a missile. If that's the case why such agonising over the process of interception? And how does Cheney's statement reconcile, with Norad's admission that interception is a routine proceedure?

There is no possible explanation for these events, and the extraordinarily garbled confusion of unconvincing cover up stories, except that to say that someone very high up in the Airforce or the Bush Administration was determined to nobble the air force and make sure that the attacks were successful. We will now turn our attention the president, and demonstrate conclusivley that he was involved.

At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children. It is curious to say the least, that 14 minutes later, at 9.00, it seems that no one had informed the president of the emergency which was unfolding across the nation. Not only had the world trade centre been hit, air traffic controllers were aware of at least one more hijacked plane at large, and may have been aware of 2 by this time. It must have also been apparent by this time that the air force was standing idly by, waiving normal proceedures of intervention. At 9.00, the president had settled down with second grade children, and was reading about a litttle girls's pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear. According to reporters at the scene, the president "turned briefly sombre. " Others who claim to have seen footage of this event describe his reaction as more like a nod of confirmation to something which he had been expecting. It becomes even more unbelievable. The president did not react by leaving the school, convening an emergency meeting, and intervening to ensure that the airforce did it's job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class, at the same time as, at 9.06, the NY police department was broadcasting "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon" (NY Daily News Sept 12). The situation, then, at 9.05, is that at least 3 planes have been hijacked this morning, and are known to be on terrorist suicide missions, two have already struck their targets, with spectacular effect, at least one is known to be still in the air, the airforce is doing nothing, and the President, who has apparently only just been informed, decides to continue reading to children about a little girl's pet goat!

He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes!

In an interview for newsweek, Bush recalls the moment he was told. "I'm the commander in chief, and the country had just come under attack. " So why did he continue to find pet goats such a fascinating subject for the next 24 minutes? Doesn't this prove that at the very best, he's unfit to be in charge on matters of national security, and at the worst, indictable for treason?

By 9.30 the president had had enough of pet goats and decided that it might be time to say something about the terrorist attacks, but not to do anything about them. Rather than calling an emergency meeting, or taking direct command of the airforce, or at least demanding to know what the hell was going on with the airforce, he decided to stay at the school, and give a television address to the nation, to tell them what everybody already knew, that there had been an "apparrent terrorist attack". A totally useless response, a blatant evasion of his duty to do everything possible to take command of the situation, even at the same time as flight 77, known, more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked ,had now reached Washington, being tracked by radar, and the Andrews fighters were still on the ground. Bush either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care. By 9.35, as the president was wasting his time with the pointless address to the nation, the third plane was over Washington, had flown past the white house and, all the time being tracked by radar, done a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, which is not being evacuated, even though staff there have already heard about the twin attacks on the World trade centre, and were already nervous about also being a target, even before this plane approached Washington.

Forty minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that, yet another plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce. He was clearly involved in active collusion to ensure that the attacks were a success. To suggest that such actions were simply a result of incompetence and confusion is not credible. But for those who wish to cling to this implausible explanation of incompetence, I now cross reference back to part 1, and the point about it not being credible that the USA could organise the attack on Afghanistan in a mere 25 days. If we are asked to believe that the USA military is so razor sharp, that it can execute an operation of this type within a time that defies what is known to be logistically possible, then how can we be simultaneously expected to believe that the same country is capable of such a staggering, inconceivable level of incompetence, in instituting routine domestic security measures? It allowed, without even a challenge, the success of an attack, which the commander in chief of the Russian airforce claims, should have been impossible to carry out. Was this blundering, useless, confused thing, called the US airforce, suddenly, in the space of 25 days, transformed into a lethal, efficient fighting force, that has reduced the Taliban to nothing, in impressively quick time? The two scenarios are mutually exclusive. To give any credence whatsoever to the posibilty that the highly successful, and well organised attack on Afghanistan was organised in 25 days, as a response to September 11, we must then, on the balance of the evidence, accept the events of September 11 as conclusive proof of collusion, which creates the thorny problem of why there was a retaliatory response to something which USA authorities were themselves involved in. Or alternatively, if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the possibility that the events of September 11 were innocent incompetence on a staggering scale, we must be highly suspicious, to say the least, that the attack on Afghanistan was already into an advanced stage of planning by Sept 11, in which case we are again asking ourselves to believe that the most spectacular terrorist attack in history just happened, by co-incidence, to take place at a time which could not have been more convenient, from a propaganda point of view, for the already planned war. Just the raw facts of what actually happened on the morning of September 11 are by themselves enough to conclusively prove that USA authorities were involved in collusion. But there is a deeper pattern to the evidence which hammers this home even harder.

The pattern that is emerging, so far, is that if we wish to believe that USA authorities are innocent of any involvement in Septemeber 11, and that the attack on Afghanistan is genuinely a response to the events of that day, we find ourselves, in every aspect so far examined, in the awkward position of having to continually choose, one after the other, the scenario which common sense tells us is the least likely, rather than the most, further complicated by a tangle of mutually exclusive scenarios, whereas, when we postulate the opposite theory, everything falls into place, as perfectly obvious events. In the light of this evidence, there appears to be no rational, objective basis why we should not be suggesting with some confidence that USA authorities were involved in September 11, and had pre planned the attack on Afghanistan. The only basis for refusing to do so, seems to be based on preconceived bias, rather than a genuine attempt to examine the evidence objectively. And if it is to be claimed that the evidence for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do that to its own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Northwoods" document demonstrates that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but the favoured option was the shooting down of a US civilian airliner. (emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm )

And there's plenty more: The problem of the mutually exclusive scenarios regarding the competance, or lack of, concerning the US air force, repeats itself in relation to US intelligence services. How is it that they can have had no warning whatsoever of the largest, most difficult and complicated terrorist attack in the history of the world, but then be allegedly able to nail the culprit, almost beyond doubt, in less than a day, and beyond any doubt at all in 2 days? If they genuinely had no warning of the attack, then we can only assume that they are lying, when within 2 days, thay claim to be so confident of Bin Laden's guilt, that they are already threatening to attack Afghanistan, in response. Or if they had some forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, if they were allegedly on the alert for "something" from Bin Laden, then the inaction of the president and the airforce on the morning of Semptember 11 is confirmed even more conclusively, if that's possible, as collusion rather than incompetence. Strong supporting evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a curious aside to the Pentagon attack. The plane which flew into the Pentagon, had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot to cripple the Pentagon's key operations and kill many important senior staff. But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle just a week before. (Source, CNN TV report on the morning of Sept 12, Australian time) All the important people and operations had moved to other side, and the unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Very little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon. They swapped sides a week before the attack! This is powerful evidence that someone very high up in the Pentagon knew that the attack was coming. Once again, to postulate otherwise means choosing the least likely explanation on the basis of a preconceived conclusion. How many times are we prepared to do that?

Now, we turn in detail, to the totally unsubstantiated allegations against Osama Bin Laden:

Remember that from day 1, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. We had, in fact, up until mid December, nothing but the continued repetition of his name, as if by repeating something often enough, we can somehow make it true.

Then came the video tape, which, is a complete joke. This is an age of technology where film of crystal clear quality can show Forest Gump shaking hands with JFK, where simulated cyclones can be animated into a movie set, where dinasours, extinct for 200 million years can be shown so clearly, that you would swear they were there. All this is done with such startling reality, that the only way we know it's not true is that we have pre-existing knowledge that it's a fake.

By comparison, the video tape of Bin Laden, is of such poor quality that we have no way of even knowing for sure whether it's actually him on the tape. In feature movies of top quality, it is common practice to use a stand-in to replace the real actor for much of the filming. An extra of similar hight and build, is given the same clothing and hair style, and the two are virtually indistinguisable. Such a substitution would be even easier on a poor quality video. And when the main charachter has a long beard, a headress, and loose clothing, it's an absolute snap. On the Bin Laden tape, the poor quality prevents any analysis of whether the dialogue is genuinely live, or overdubbed. We also have had to rely on translations of dubious independence. The timeline of when and where the tape was allegedly made, and where it was allegedly found is also, although possible, somewhat perplexing.

Allegedly, it was made in Kandahar on November 9, and found in a house in Jalalbad. Jalalabad fell to anti-taliban forces on November 14. This means that there was only 4 days in which the newly made tape could have been taken from Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was already under fierce seige and serious threat by then. So, we are asked to believe that upon making the tape, someone almost immediately, for no apparrent reason, took it to Jalalbad, which was about to fall, and then conveniently left it there, to be found by anti taliban forces. It's not impossible, but it does have the strong smell of a set up. Also, according to the Weekend Australian of Dec 15/16, the sequence of real time events had been reversed on the tape. This means it must have been edited. Why, and by whom? (A question not examineed by the press of course, although I suppose we should be grateful that at least it was reported.) Also, did the date stamp of Nov 9, as reported on television, refer to the date of the filming, or the date that the edited version was finalised? If it was the former, which would seem to be more likely, then this leaves even less time for it to have been taken from the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was on the point of being overrun. It's highly supicious. Or was it edited by US authorities? They've been forced to admit that the "translation" they've released is doctored. Of course they don't state it in those terms but try to cloud it in euphemisms. "The tape is NOT a verbatim translation of every word spoken during the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow" says a department of defense spokesman. "The translation is what it is. We made it very clear that it's not a literal translation" says the pentagon. But will the pentagon work at a more complete translation? No. Will the full transcript be released to the public? No. (news. ninemsn. com. au/world/story_23359. asp )

To be objective, none of this proves that the tape is a fake, but equally, it's authenticity can hardly be claimed as proven either. And even if it is genuine, we've been given a selectively edited version of it. If this is the only evidence against Bin Laden, then the case is in an awful lot of trouble. And what other evidence is there?

It's no surprise, therefore that no formal charges have been laid against Bin Laden. The normal practice of the law is that it's neccesary to actually have evidence, in order to lay charges.

The irony, is that if the tape is genuine, it only serves to prove that Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind behind the attacks. While it would indicate that he had some prior knowledge of it, and was therefore, by definition involved in some capacity, he clearly states(if we accept the tape as clearly stating anything) that he was told about the impending the attack 5 days before it happened. If that's the case, he can't possibly have been the main organiser. Who told him about it? Presumably the person(s) who actually organised it, still unknown, but definitely not Bin Laden. In all the frenzied outrage against Bin Laden that this convenient tape has engendered, it seems that very few people have actually viewed the tape carefully enough to ask the important question that flows from Bin Laden's admission to have been told about the attack 5 days in advance. Who actually organised it?

Tape or no tape, if we think clearly and logically about the likelihood of Bin Laden being involved, we actually find that it's impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the USA knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made about the ridiculously short span of time which passed, before Bin Laden was pronounced guilty, and the fact that this sets up mutually exclusive scenarios. If he was involved, then it can't have been a surprise, which in turn proves beyond any doubt that the inaction of the airforce and the president on September 11 was collusion, rather than incompetence. But the evidence doesn't end there. It is curious to say the least, that no other suspect was ever even contemplated, however briefly (even though the US has plenty of enemies.) This becomes downright suspicious if we think clearly about the logistics of actually setting up a real inquiry into the events of September 11. Firstly, let's put it in context. It took 17 years to catch the unabomber, and it took 7 weeks of investigation into September 11 merely to confirm the nationalities of the 19 alleged hijackers, while the person who masterminded the whole thing was allegedly known within a few hours. I don't think so!

Now, imagine that we're actually trying to set up an inquiry into September 11 in the first minutes after the attack, while the dust is still settling. And it would have had to have been literally, in the first minutes, because they claim to have had him nailed within a few hours. Who did this terrible thing? While a list of suspects might spring to mind, it's not as if we could walk outside and see the letters "Bin Laden" written in clouds up in the sky. Was not Saddam Hussein also a suspect? Libya? A Palestinian group? Cuba? Russia? China? Local right wing militias? Anti-globalisation fanatics? Syria? Someone completely unknown and unexpected? etc etc. The list of possibilites which would spring to mind would be huge. Bin Laden would have only been one of these. Where do we start, in setting up such an inquiry? Firstly, we obviously need to recruit people with aviation expertise to the inquiry. But they must also be people with appropriate security clearances. Start drawing up a list of possible people who might be useful in this context. We need people with architectural expertise, to examine the exact nature of the collapse of the world trade centre. Was it only the planes which caused the collapse, or were explosives also used? Again start making a list. We need people who's main field is airport security. Did someone in the airports deliberately let the hijackers through? Start drawing up a list. We need people with financial expertise to try to trace where some of the considerable funds needed for this operation came from. Start drawing up a list. We need to examine immigration records and cross reference these with the granting of pilot's licences. We need an urgent review of internal security, in case it was an "inside job. " Such a review is a delicate operation to say the least.

As you can see, it's quite a task, simply to start drawing up the lists of possible suspects, possible personnel for the inquiry, and the main angles of investigation for the inquiry.

Then all of these people have to contacted, and gotten together in a group, or at least hooked up with communications to each other. But hang on! Aircraft are grounded. Even the president's having trouble getting around. Many communication networks are down, many financial instutions closed, and large parts of New York and Washington are inaccessible. And the whole country's crawling with security blockades. How do we get hold of the people we want? How do we get them all together, and start delegating responsibilities? Did they all miraculously happen to have been hanging out together, in the one place, which was also the place where the inquiry co-ordinater was hanging out, so there was no need to wait till people could get back from other assignments, in various parts of the US, or overseas?

To have even drawn up a list of possible suspects, prospective personnel, and basic strategies for the inquiry, within 2 days, would have been an astonishing, perhaps impossible task, under these circumstances. To have actually held a meeting of the senior agents to be involved in the inquiry, within less than 3 days would probably have been impossible. And yet, by this time, the US had already claimed to have held it's "inquiry" , and established Bin Laden's guilt. How? Was anything, ever, more obviously, a set up?

And then, once the basic parameters of the inquiry were established, and the nuts and bolts of the everyday research and investigation were begun, in however many weeks it would have taken to get to that stage, it's not as if all the inquiry personnel just sit around and say "what do we think? Bin Laden?" and everyone says "yeah", so the team leader phones the president and says "Bin Laden" and the president says"that's good enough for me" and immediately threatens to attack Afghanistan. Extensive field work, and computer work would have to be done. The reports would have to be written up, summarised, checked for security clearances, printed, and given to the president and his top advisers, who would have to read at least the summaries, and then discuss them with the invetsigation panel. And all this was done in less than 12 hours, in a country which was in chaos and confusion at the time? This is one of the most preposterous suggestions of this whole affair.

And even in the unlikely event that any evidence whatsoever, could have been gathered in this time, it's one thing to start to focus on a main suspect and feel that you may be getting close to a conclusion, but it's another altogether to be so certain that you're threatening a war over it. It simply isn't possible. And even if it was, it again sets up the mutually exclusive scenario, of how someone could have organised such a huge operation in total secrecy, such that it took authorities completely by surprise, but at the same time have left his "fingerprints everywhere", evidence lying around in copious quantities, to the extent that guilt was obvious within a few hours, even under the difficult circumstances that Amercia found itself in, for several days after the attack.

Tony Blair confirmed that this whole thing is a lie, with a careless statement made at the beginning of November in response to polls showing that support for the war was falling in Britain. He said. "There is no doubt about Bin Laden's guilt. The evidence against him, first a trickle, then a flow, has now become a torrent. " (World news page on nine MSN website)This statement was made nearly two months after Septemeber 11. The key words are "trickle", "flow" "now" and "torrent". Since they were already procaliaming Bin Laden almost certainly guilty, within a few hours, Blair is inadverdently admitting that it was a lie. Did the evidence progess from "trickle"to "flow" to "torrent" all in a few hours? This would seem a very strange way to describe such a process, especially, when the phrase was not employed until nearly two months later, and was described as "has NOW become a torrent. " So, he is inadverdantly admitting that they were already declaring Bin Laden guilty, and threatening Afghanistan, at a time when the evidence was still only a "trickle". His words after all, not mine!(They somehow knew at the time that it would become a "torrent" "later?) But a "torrent" of evidence is apparently still not sufficient to lay any formal charges, or release any of this "torrent" to the public?

An important question remains to be cleared up. The pilots were obviously on a suicide mission, which is known to be a common theme amongst Middle Eastern, Islamic terrorists, but totally foreign to American culture. It is difficult to believe that Americans, or those loyal to the US would knowingly participate in a suicide mission. But this doesn't present any real problem for the scenario which has been postulated. The obvious explanation is that some of the hijackers were genuinely hostile to the USA, and were participating in an attack which they thought would damage the US, unaware that they were pawns in a double play, and were part of a larger CIA plan. In fact, in late November, media reports began to emerge, that some of the hijackers may not have been aware that they were about to participate in a suicide mission. I don't know how this evidence has emerged, or what the basis of it is, but that's what's been reported. (ABC Newsradio report) This would fit very neatly with the rest of the information we have. Some of those who were not aware that they would be committing suicide, would have been the CIA operatives, probably ordered to set up the terrorists and take part in the hijacking, while being kept in the dark about the full extent of the plans, while those who were knowingly committing suicide, were those genuinely hostile to the USA. (If this is the case, the final moments of the black box flight recorder data, would make interesting listening, to say the least. Is this why it's being kept so quiet?).

It is clear that this could not have been organised without the use of pawns, who thought that they were about to strike a blow against the US. This is where Bin Laden fits in. He deceived and sacrificed his own people in the same way that the Americans involved, deceived and sacrificed their's. The evidence that Bin Laden and the CIA are in active co-operation in this atrocity will become clearer in part 3. This might also explain the otherwise incomprensible scenario of Bin Laden producing an incriminating video tape, and then immediately taking it to a place where it was sure to fall into American hands.

PART 3

In fact, there is plenty of evidence to implicate Bin Laden, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Adminsitration, the CIA , George Bush senior, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and it's allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family, who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the rest of it could not be further from the truth.

Bin Laden is well known as being a CIA operative. He had a close working relationship with the CIA in the 1980's. This isn't denied by anyone. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie.

For a start, many of the US military installations in the Middle east, to which Bin Laden allegedly has a violent objection, were actually built by Bin Laden's construction company. There is a continuous history of close business ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, stretching back more than a decade, and continuing to this day. (Wall Street Journal Sept 27 2001 and www.thedubyareport.com/bushbin.html ) The Bush Administration has attempted to throw a smokescreen over this by claiming that the rest of Bin Laden's family has disowned him, but as we shall see, this isn't true. The Bin Ladens are significant investors in the huge arms dealing firm Carlyle group which, by it's own boast, stands to make a lot of money from the Afghanistan war. George Bush senior is a significant figure in Carlyle group. Other major investors, or senior executives include ex British PM, John Major, James A Baker, who was secretary of defence, under President Bush Sr., Colin Powell, and former secretary of defence and deputy CIA director Frank Carlucci, who is a fomer college classmate of current defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A quote from Carlyle's company profile at hoover's online.

"Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list. " "Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. " (www.hoovers.com/premium/profile/6/0, 2147, 42166, 00. html )

Neither can it be claimed that Bush senior was unaware of the Bin Laden's shareholding. He has met the Bin Laden family at least twice, in 1998 and in 2000, long after Bin Laden had already been officially declared by the USA as the most wanted man in the world, for alleged terrorist activities. Why was George Bush Sr. meeting with this man's family, when the official story was that the Clinton administration had already declared its determination to eliminate Al Qaida and Bin Laden at any cost and by any means neccesary?

In 1995, US authorities named Bin Laden as a co-conspiritor in the 1993, WTC bombing. But a year after this accusation, when the Sudanese government had Bin Laden in custody and offered to extradite him to the US, the US govenement said it was not interested and told the Sudanese government to let him go to Afghanistan. Since then, the US government has declared Bin Laden as the main suspect in terrorist attacks on two US embassies, and for attacks against a US warship and a US military barracks in the the Middle East (one of those which Bin Laden's construction company helped to build). And yet he was allowed to invest, via his family, in Carlyle group and George Bush senior was meeting with his family as recently as 2000. It is a lie that Bin Laden is estranged from his family. Bin Laden is known to have talked regularly with his mother and with other family members during this time of alleged estragement. In fact when Bin Laden was hospitalised in Dubai, in July 2001, he is known to have been visited by family members. And what was the most wanted terrorist in the world doing in a Dubai hospital anyway? Why wasn't he immediately arrested, instead of being given hospital treatment, and then allowed to go free? During this hospitalisation, he was also allegedly visited by the local CIA agent, and by several prominent Saudis and Emiratis, also US allies. (Le Figero Nov 1 2001)

Furthermore, Bin Laden's Al Qaida network, is known to have fought alongside Nato forces, in the Kosovo liberation army, a terrorist group supported by the CIA. ( www.thedubyareport.com/terrupdt.html and www.emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm )It is no co-incidence that the Australian, David Hicks, who has been arrested for fighting for the Taliban, has fought for Al Qaida in both the Kosovo Liberation army, and the Taliban. So it appears that Bin Laden's Al Qaida is our enemy in Afghanistan, but our ally in Yugoslavia. Apparrently, Al Qaida is a liberation force in Yugoslavia, but a terrorist group everywhere else. Furthermore, Pakistan, another of our allies in the "war against terror" has also long been a supporter of Al Qaida, and it is no coincidence that David Hicks also received training in Pakistan. And we already know that Sept 11 was at least partially funded by a Pakistani sheik, highly placed in the Pakistan secret service. He has not been indicted or even pursued. Given that it was known that Bin Laden's family visited him in hospital in Dubai, it is curious that the Bush admistration and the media continue with the lie that he is estranged from his family. While this may be merely curious, it is scandalous that several members of the Bin Laden family were in the US on September 11, and were allowed to leave a few days later, without any questioning, given that the US had already declared Bin Laden guilty without trial (or even charge).

The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida, and has expressed frustration at the apparrent refusal to allow it to fully investigate the events of September 11. (news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm ) It will be no surprise if Bin Laden miraculously escapes to another country, giving the US the excuse to attack there. At the time of writing an update to this, (Dec 20 2001), my guess is Iran. Let's see if I'm right.

PART 4

Some miscellaneous peices of information, and observations, which contribute to the scenario outlined above. Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the black box data. This is highly unusual. Is this information being censored? A possible reason for this has already been alluded to.

In the first few hours after the attacks, there were immediately reports on CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold off before hand. There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may have profited from their actions. For "terrorists", subsitute, "Bin Laden". Within a few hours, the media was already into an unquestioning hysteria of Bin Laden bashing. Bin Laden must have been insider trading, we were told. A tautological loop had already been established. Whoever had done the terrorist attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the attacks, then it must have been Bin Laden who was insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks. We were assuured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital question. The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who knew about the terrorist attacks before hand, which gives us a pretty good idea about who did it. Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the media, almost as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been made. Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Laden's guilt. And it is information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security implications. And yet this aspect of the investigation (if it is still proceeding at all) is being kept very quiet. One can only assume, that it began to turn up answers which US authorities did not want anyone to know. Given what we know about the close business relationship of the Bush and Bin Laden families, this is hardly surprising.

However, one financial fact which is known, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani secret service (our allies in the "war against terror") wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the Sept 11 group, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report)Although this fact is known, and publicly available, the USA is quite uninterested in pursuing any action against this person, in spite of President Bush's huffing and puffing that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our allies, it seems. The Sheik was forced to resign his position, once his involvement in September 11 became known. Forced to resign? No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over? No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state? On the contrary, the USA is becoming quite cozy with the only country in the world (apart from itself), against whom there is incontravertible evidence of having been involved in September 11. The USA has been prepared to pound Afghanistan into the ground, despite having not a shred of evidence against Bin Laden, while showing a total lack of interest, in pursuing an individual whose complicity in September 11 has become a matter of public record, not denied by anyone. The US is also totally uninterested in pursuing the country which harbours him. In fact it considers that country to be a close ally in the war AGAINST terrorism!

On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have been achieved by the hijackers, had they really wanted to do the maximum possible damage. It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USA's government in one hit, could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11. Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies. It is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out, because they thought the security would be too tight, considering that they were confident enough to go for the pentagon.

In the final analysis, in spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official. No damage was done to military capability, and no damage to power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies. In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the US was(allegedly) able to organise a war in record time, despite having had a plane crashed into the pentagon. (Funny about how that reshuffle a week before, meant that the Pentagon was able to get on with business, almost unhampered!) While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage to general public was enormous, in the larger scheme things, the attacks, while giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USA's ability to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing the targets more sensibly.


IMPLICATIONS

It needs to be realised that the war in South Asia is more than just a continuation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to have murdered (as of 1990 )a minimum of 6 million civillians around the world, in covert CIA operations ,over the previous 30 years, and to have , at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries. ("The Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell) Up until now, people in the West have been safe. The game has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of terrorism against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.

Consider the following domestic developments since September 11.

In the USA: Laws for indefinite detention without trial, charge or evidence, laws which any Third World dictator would be proud of. Unlimited power to monitor and freeze finances. Unlimited power to monitor and intercept email and internet traffic. Hugely increased funding for covert law enforcement agencies, as well as sweeping new powers of arrest, surveillance and telephone tapping. "Terrorist" organisations to be defined according to political belief not according to any evidence that they are prepared to use terrorism. My understanding is that anti-globalisation activists, such as Naomi Klein, can now be classified as terrorists under the new laws. I have been told that the president of the American Greens party is now banned from air travel. Foreigners accused of terrorism to be tried in military, rather than civilian courts, with no public scrutiny of the trial, and no right of appeal, and the power to monitor conversations between the accused and their solicitors. (That's if they even get a trial)

In Britain: Tony Blair has attempted to introduce similar laws. The House of Lords has frustrated some of them, but nevertheless sweeping rollbacks of civil liberties have been acheived. A senior member of the British cabinet recently described civil liberties as an "airy fairy thing of the past, in the post-

September 11 world. "In Australia: laws for 48 hours detention of anyone, without legal representation, even if they are not suspected of terrorism, but may have information which might be useful. At the time of writing this, it had been recently announced that the Australian government will shortly freeze the finances of 200 individuals and organizations, decreed by the US PRESIDENT as being supporters of terrorism. My understanding is that there will be no charges, evidence, trial or right of appeal. In the west now, anybody who is accused of terrorism, automatically loses all civil rights, and anybody can be arbitarily accused.

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would approve enthusiastically.

All of this would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When you realise that these laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling.

And on the subject of the USA president, it should be noted that for the first time ever, the man who won the US election was not appointed president, while the man who LOST it, was. When this is added to the extraordinary resources which were poured into George W Bush's republican nomination push, against other candidates, who were far better qualified to take on Gore, followed by an election which was clearly rigged, it becomes obvious that George W Bush was always going to be president, no matter what. It is therefore clear that this plan goes back well before November 2000. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically planned by then, I can't say, but it's clear that the wider agenda had been. Note that the current, unelected president is the son of a man who is a major shareholder in the huge arms corporation Carlyle group, which is set to profit from this war, the same man who is an ex-director of the CIA which helped to put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, and the same man who was meeting with Osama Bin Laden's (not estranged) family, presumably for business purposes, as recently as 2000. The scandalous aspect here, is that the President is the presumed heir to a fortune being amassed on the back of this war, and it would appear that the alleged target of the war is also set to make a tidy profit. Along with the secretary of state. A conflict, scripted by the protaganists, where they are the only people who don't get hurt.

WHY?

The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . In fact Donald Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost defence budgets. I'll bet that Carlyle group, and Rumsfeld's old buddy, the chairman of the company, will get a tidy share of it. Colin Powell appears to have the snout in the trough as well, unless he's severed all his former ties with Carlyle group and disposed of his shareholding, in which case I apologise. Can someone find out if this is the case?The president's father will certainly be making a lot of money, out of increased European defence budgets. (Incidently, Bush senior's grandfather was also an arms dealer, and didn't mind doing business with the Nazis.) (emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm ) But the wider agenda is the pursuit of the huge unexploited reserves of oil and gas under the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran, I would suggest, not for much longer if the USA has it's way. It has been US policy since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan. Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves. For years now, US covert foreign policy has been to sponsor terrorist organisations in the south of the former Soviet Union, in order to nibble away the area of Russian territory which borders the Caspian sea, and Afghanistan. This process is now almost complete with breakaway governments having been succesfully formed in Kazakshtan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygyzstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Only the the area to the North of the last two, now needs to be broken off, for Russia to lose it's territorial rights to the Caspian Sea. Please note that I have no problem, in principle with local regional governments being formed to free people from the hegemeony of large powers such as Russia, but the reality is that the local breakaway movements, which may have been genuine in their origin, have been distorted into self-interested terrorist movements by covert CIA action, and the new autonomous countries will now simply become subject to US hegemony, rather than Russian, and rather than being genuine expressions of local culture, identity and self determination, will be dominated by local tyrants and terrorists doing corrupt deals for the sake of their own power. The US is more than happy to talk business, in fact that's the whole idea of setting up these local tyrants. Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, at the time, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, proudly described his policy achievements in Afghanistan, in the following terms:

The USA, by stirring up local uprisings, did everything possible to goad the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, and once it had achieved this, then backed the other side (The Taliban). This had a twofold purpose. It wasted Soviet resources in a long war of attrition, which they couldn't win, and it destabilised a part of the world which was strategically important, to the USA

Some direct quotes from Brzezinski:

"We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. "

"Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it?The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to president Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR it's Vietnam war."

( emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm )

So, the 20-year civil war which has ravaged Afghanistan, and caused such apalling death, poverty and misery, was a deliberate policy on the part of the USA, who backed the Taliban all the way through, and is now giving them, their final "reward. " Furthermore, the last quote from Brzezenski is a tacit admission that much of the antagonism towards the West, amongst Muslims, was deliberately engineered by the US, as part of its destabilisation plans for the Middle East and South Asia. I won't go into this, any further, but considerable coverage is given to this aspect of the history, at the first website referred to, at the end of this document. This US plan is so far-reaching that they may find it neccesary to pound the whole of South Asia into the ground, in order to achieve it. One way or another, they must control all of the aforementioned countries, as well as Iran and Pakistan. Some are likley to cave in out of a combination of intimidation and bribery, as is so far the case in Pakistan. Others may need to be attacked. The September 11 events gave the USA a blank cheque to attack any country in the world, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". The three latest countries(at the time of writing this) to be named as targets in the war against terror, are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, three countries we've heard very little about, previously, in relation to terrorism. But surpise, surprise, one only needs to glance at a map of the world, to see their strategic significance. Somalia and Yemen, between them, form both sides of the mouth of the gulf of Aden, which is the entrance to the Red Sea, and the Suez Canal, and therefore, the shortest route, between Europe, and the Indian ocean, where it borders South Asia. Control of these countries, by the US would also place extra pressure on Saudi Arabia, and Eygpt to continue with US-friendly policies. Sudan forms most of the southern edge of the Red Sea. Iraq is strategic because it borders Iran on the west. The September 11 attacks also give the US and allies such as Britain, a blank cheque to roll back civil liberties to the extent that any of their own citizens, who might make a fuss, can be silenced, simply by uttering the word "terrorist". It also places extreme pressure on other allies, such as Australia to do the same. Presumably, they remember the bitter lesson they learned about the power of domestic opposition, during the Vietnam war. When President Bush said "You are with us or against us," it was a thinly veiled warning to every other country in the world, including Australia, that unless the US recieves absolute unquestioning obedience, anybody is fair game.

Doubtless, all world leaders, including Australia's, have heard the message loud and clear. It would also appear that the ALP heard it loud and clear. During the election campaign, Kim Beazley was falling over himself, to make it clear that an ALP government would obey the US totally, and without question. His motivation may well have been more than simply oppotunistic electoral popularity. The USA's actions in Afghanistan, are not only directly stategic, they are delivering a stark warning to every other country in the world, that they must be obeyed.

SOURCES

Anything which I've neglected to directly reference, can be found with full referencing on the web sites mentioned below, except for some things which were heard on the radio. Where possible, I've tried to write down at least some clues for these, so that a persistent searcher may be able to find them in Archives. This is not desig