Baltimore IMC : http://www.baltimoreimc.org
Baltimore IMC
Email this article
Never submitted beyond preview stage

Announcement :: U.S. Government

Gerard Holmgren's updated 911 evidence kit (Part II)

Author

Date Created

  • 02 Jul 2004
The evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job.






THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11


compiled by Gerard Holmgren 


Last updated May 16  2004.   earlier
version posted at href="http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=50">http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=50 


The following compilation presents documents and research from various
sources demonstrating that the events of Sept 11 were planned and carried out by
the US govt and its agencies. This compilation is my own creation and it cannot
be assumed that the individual authors of the research below necessarily
agree with each other on all details.


The compilation is divided into three main sections.


1) "Let it happen on purpose" evidence (LIHOP).


This presents research which takes as its founding assumption that we are
basically being told the truth about which planes were hijacked, where they went
and who hijacked them, and goes on to demonstrate that even if this were true,
then the govt and its agencies must have known about it beforehand, and must
have taken active steps to deliberately allow it to happen.


2) "Totally self inflicted" evidence (TSI).


This section demonstrates that the LIHOP evidence only scratches the
surface, and that the govt claims about which planes were hijacked, were
they went and who hijacked them is total fiction, and that the govt and its
agencies must have organized the entire event.


3) Background and historical evidence.


This section does not present direct evidence of govt involvement
specifically in the events of Sept 11, but demonstrates that the phenomonen of
"Islamic terror", both real and imaginary, has been deliberately built up by
successive US govts and agencies for more than two decades, in the interests of
creating an enemy in the minds of the population. It also demonstrates that
behind the scenes, the US govt and its agencies actively co-operate with their
alleged Islamic enemies, and that there is sound historical precedent for the
govt and its agencies having an active policy of committing or deliberately
allowing terrorist attacks against their own people for the purpose of
furthering this kind of agenda.


Before presenting the evidence, lets briefly summarize the basics of the
claims made about Sept 11 by the govt and the media..


American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number
N334AA, with 92 people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5
Arab men, while on route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by 8.25
AM or earlier, and hit the Nth tower of the WTC at 8.45, or according to some
sources, 8.46.


United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number
N612UA, with 65 people aboard,including the hijackers , was hijacked by 5
Arab men, while flying the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at
about 8.55 AM and hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03.


The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact
damage.


American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number
N644AA, with 64 people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5
Arab men while on route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be
hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at a time which in different
sources, varies between 9.38 and 9.45.


United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA,
with either 44 or 45 people aboard ( depending upon which sources you use
), including the hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF , was
hijacked by 4 Arab men. It was known to be hijacked about 9.45, and crashed in
PA at a time which varies from 10.00 to 10.10, depending on the source, after
the passengers attempted to take back control of the plane from the
hijackers.


As we'll see in section 2 , (TSI) none of this is true, except for the
fact that the towers collapsed, and we will demonstrate that this was a
controlled demolition.


But for the purposes of Section 1 (LIHOP), lets assume that these
claims are basically true. The LIHOP section will demonstrate that the govt
must have deliberately allowed the attacks to happen.


The Web pages below  have been backed up. If any links are dead, the
backed up page can be mailed on request.Some of the links below duplicate
information. The duplicates are included as insurance against a single source
link disappearing.

 


SECTION 1. THE GOVT DELIBERATELY LET IT
HAPPEN.


1.1 AIRFORCE STANDOWN


If one accepts the story as above, then the airforce
must have been stood down in order to ensure the success of the
attacks.




It has become popular mythology  in the media that
fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is
completely untrue as the following research shows.

 

1.1.1 Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers,
by Illarion Bykov and Jared
Israel, 14 Nov 2001
href="http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm">http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

 

1.1.2 Guilty for 9/11 Mr. Cheney's Cover up
-- Part 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov
2001


1.1.3 9-ll:Ho hum, nothing urgent, by George
Szamuely, Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel,
Jan 2002
  href="http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm">http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm

 

1.1.4 Frequently asked questions on 9/11

Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "


 



 

 

1.1.6 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story
impossible


 

Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is
a routine proceedure.

Here's an example of how routine it is.

 

1.1.7 Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane.  Netscape
news. May 15 2003.

href="http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/af-intercept/jeb-bush-plane-intercepted.txt">http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/af-intercept/jeb-bush-plane-intercepted.txt

 

The proceedures were already in place before Sept 11
2001.

It happened  67 times in the 10 months between September
2000 and June 2001.

 

(Items 1.1.8 to 1.1.11
are alternative sources for the same story)

 

1.1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated
Press Aug 13 2002.


1.1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14
2002


1.1.10 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.


1.1. 11 Military now notified immediately of unusual
air traffic events. Aug 12 2002

href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap">http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap


It is impossible to believe that such a total and systematic
failure of routine air defence proceedures was simply due to incompetence. And
even if one were to propose this, why has there been no inquiry into this aspect
of Sept 11, and why has not one official been sacked or even reprimanded for
criminal negligence ?

 

I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race
tracks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2  The complicit behavior of
G.W.Bush

 

An examination of the movements of Geroge W. Bush on
the morning of Sept 11, and the subsequent lies told by Bush, the govt and the
media to try to cover up his movements demonstrates that Bush had prior
knowledge of the attacks , pretended to know less than he did once they began,
and conspired to ensure that nothing was done to minimize or prevent
them.


It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush
was already at Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC
crash. This is a lie.

 

1.2.1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by
Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
href="http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm">http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

 

This is not the only lie which has been told about his movements
that morning. See how many times the story has changed.

 

1.2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve
Grey.



(Read the section called "A tangle of lies")

 

1.2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1. A strange
press conference.

By Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White  Sept 25 2002.


 

1.2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White
House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves
by Jared Israel and
Francisco Gil-White [7 October 2002]


 

Bush claims to have seen the 1st WTC impact live on TV while
at Booker school and to have thought at the time that it was an accident.
We know that this is a lie - a) because he hadn't yet arrived at the school
when it happened. b) because the first impact was not broadcast live. No footage
of it was shown until the following day

 

1.2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's Claim that
he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted
12 September 2002]


 

Why did the President - after being told "America is under
attack" continue to listen to schoolchildren reading for another 25 minutes ?
Why was he cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at least one
more hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV footage which
proves treason at the top level.

 


 


Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair. Bush is lying
about where he was, what he was doing and what he knew during the crucial period
between 8.45 and 9.45 A.M. on Sept 11.

 

1.3 OTHER EVIDENCE OF GOVT
FOREKNOWLEDGE

 


In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported on US TV
networks that investigators were already looking into huge volumes of
insider trading on airline stocks in the weeks leading up to the attacks.
Investigative and regulatory authorities could easily find out who placed these
trades, apparently attempting to profit from foreknowledge.

Why has this story since completely disappeared? More than two
years later, we see no sign of any inquiry. If
the executive director of the CIA had previously managed the firm which handled
much of the trade, are we expected to believe that authorities can't find out
who was responsible? Clearly, they don't want to know - or at least ,don't want
us to know.


 


Was an urban rescue team sent
to New York the night before the
attacks?
1.3.2 href="http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm">http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm


 


Attorney General, John Ashcroft was warned in July 2001 not to fly
commercial anymore.


Ashcroft flying high. CBS News July 26 2001.


1.3.4  href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml


San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a travel warning on Sept
10.


Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel. San francisco
Chronicle Sept 12 2001


1.3.5 href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL


National Security Advisor Rice and WhiteHouse spokesman Fleischer
lied in saying that nobody had ever conceived of planes being used in this
manner. Their statements are in this article,

 



Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry
ABC News May 16 2002

1.3.6 href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

 




when the 1994 extract from Time magazine, quoted in article
1.2.1 demonstrates that the potential problem had been recognized for
decades.

And there are other examples of this possibility having been widely
recognized prior to Sept 11.

1.3.7 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001

href="http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm">http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm

 


In article 1.3.6 Rice also lied in saying that any
threat had been overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The
statement she made is in this press briefing.


1.3.8 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr.
Condoleezza Rice
The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT


href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html


But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers.


1.3.9 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob
Woodward and Dan Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.


href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17¬Found=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17¬Found=true


1.3.9 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official
story of 9 11 attacks.

Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.


 




1.4: THE COVER
UP

 

In spite of the magnitude of the attacks, and the fact that even
the official story recognizes catastrophic failures of intelligence, while
trying to gloss over the similarly catastrophic failures of
standard airline security and air defence proceedures, the White
House has fought tooth and nail against any serious inquiry into Sept 11.
Even the watered down inquiries which have taken place so far have been bitterly
opposed by the White House and only conceded due to tremendous public pressure.
They have been almost completely restricted to the issue
of "intelligence failures" prior to the attacks, leaving the glaring issues of
the air force stand down, and Bush's  complicity and subsequent lies, as
well as the insider trading unaddressed.

 

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes  CNN Jan 29 2002.



 

Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002


 

Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry 
Reuters newswire UK May 26 2002
1.4.3
href="http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1680">http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1680

 

Bush and Cheney Block 9-11
Investigation  By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm


 

Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry
ABC News May 16 2002


1.3:6  href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

 

1.4.5 Bush opposes 9/11 query panel. CBS
News. May 23 2002.

href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

 

1.4.6 9/11 Panel asks what briefers told
Bush. White House retreats on independent probe.

       Dana Priest and Dana
Milbank. Washington Post Sept 21 2002. Page  A01

href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46446-2002Sep20¬Found=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46446-2002Sep20¬Found=true

 

1.4.7 White House refuses to release Sept
11 info. by Frank Davies Miami Herald May 5 2003

href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp">http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 

Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush by Gail Sheehy  Aug 22
2003

1.4.8 href="http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816">http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816

 

F.A.A. Official Scrapped Tape of 9/11 Controllers'
Statements
By Matthew L. Wald NY times. May 6 2004.

1.4.9 href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?hp">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?hp
1.4.10
href="http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148">http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=148

class=blueLead>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECTION 2.  THE GOVT DIDN'T JUST "ALLOW IT TO
HAPPEN" - IT PLANNED, ORGANIZED AND CARRIED OUT THE ATTACKS
ITSELF.

 

The evidence in section 1 demonstrated that even if we
uncritically accept the govt claims about 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes and
deliberately crashing them, we have overwhelming proof that the govt must
have known about the attacks beforehand and been deliberately
complicit in allowing them to happen. As strong as this evidence is, it only
scratches the surface. The following evidence will demonstrate that the official
story of the hijackings is total fiction.

 

 2.1 The Fictitious
Hijackers

 

Even without any direct documentation, some critical thinking about
the story of the hijackings reveals it as an absurdity. In the event of a
hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit code accessible from
several different places, in order to alert ATC (air traffic control) to a
hijacking. No such distress code was received from any of the allegedly hijacked
planes. We are expected to believe that hijackers took over a plane by the
crude method of threatening the passengers and crew with boxcutters, but somehow
managed to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a
chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane - but on all four.
This alone is almost impossible. Then we are expected to believe that all four
pilots were able to navigate the planes successfully to their targets, in spite
of their training being restricted to Cessnas and flight simulators, that with
the exception of the plane which was allegedly brought down by the
passengers,  they were able to exhibit breathtaking piloting skills in
being able to hit small targets accurately at high speed, and that none of the
hijackers in any of the four groups got cold feet about committing suicide in
such a horrible fashion. In a miraculous co-incidence, the ringleader's luggage
was somehow left behind at the airport, and was found to contain instructions to
the hijackers. This has the credibility of a cartoon script. Nevertheless,
there is solid documented proof that no such hijackings took
place.

 

If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there no Arabic names on
any of the passenger lists? If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the "
innocents " on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?

 





UAL 93 (allegedly Pensylvannia crash)

 

The perplexing puzzle of the published passenger lists. By Gary North. Oct
13 2001.


 

2.1.6 STILL No Arabs On Flight 77 By Thomas R. Olmsted,
MD. June 23 2003.


 

If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic aliases (19
obviously Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate ?
), why did the FBI claim that they were traced through the use of credit cards
to buy tickets and rent cars in their own names? By what means were the
false IDs traced so quickly to their real IDs ? Why, nearly 3 years later is
their no confirmation of which names they are alleged to have actually
used?

 

If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as
claimed in this article

 


why is there no airport security footage of them? Where is the
airport security footage of any of the 19 ? Were they invisible? How did
they (allegedly) get on board with knives, guns, and electronic guidance
systems, while being searched, but somehow avoiding security cameras and not
being on the passenger lists?

What aliases are they alleged to have been using when they
were searched,and if they were not using aliases, why are they not on the
passenger lists?

 

 

There are numerous media reports that some of the alleged
hijackers are still alive.

(Some of the links from 2.1.8 through 2.1.18 are alternative
sources for similar stories)

 

Hijack "suspects" alive and well.  BBC News. Sept 23, 2001


 

7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks.  by Dick
Fojut March 4 2002


 

Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media
October 2001


 

Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher
J. Petherick American Free Press. 


 

Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!


 

Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now?  At least 9 of
them survived 9/11.


 

Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed
Adeeb.


 

Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune


 

Revealed: The men with stolen identities.  UK Telegraph news. By David
Harrison. Sept 23 2001.


 

Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger


 

Doubts emerge over identies of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept
20. 2001.


 

In spite of all this, the same 19 names and faces of the alleged
hijackers have been consistently pushed through the mainstream media ever
since the FBI first "identified" them.

 

According to this article

FBI Agent: Hijackers probably used gas. by Adam Tanner.


 

the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the
passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves -
unless they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on
board with masks, gas, guns,knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite of
being searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were not on
the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside
the airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly
the things! ) and then exhibited breath taking displays of skilled
piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports were
conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the planes and
occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but used their real passports
?

 


If the hijackers of AA 11 went on a 25 minute killing and
threatening spree before gaining control of the cokpit, then why was no distress
code sent from the plane? Why had the plane already turned off course before the
hijackers got into the cockpit?

 

face=Arial>2.1.20  9/11 Redux: (The
Observer¹s Cut) American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined  By David L.
Graham


 

2.1.21 Media Published fake passenger lists for American
Airlines flight 11. By Gerard Holmgren. May 16, 2004


If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the planes and
airport security systems failed due to incompetence ( not once but 19
times! ), where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into
racehorse doping scandals.

 

The question arises " then who were the suicide pilots ? " 
Nobody - because we will now demonstrate that the objects which hit the
Pentagon and the WTC were not passenger jets. 

size=3>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2. 2  The Pentagon
hoax

 

It is alleged that that American Airlines 77, a hijacked Boeing
757, crashed into the Pentagon. This is clearly not true. A Boeing
757 has a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft. The tail
height is about 40 ft. The hole in the Pentagon wall was about 40 ft wide, about
25 ft high, and only the outer ring of the building - about 40 ft deep
- collapsed. And yet there is no sign of any aircraft debris - either
inside or outside the building. And no damage to the lawn outside. A giant plane
has supposedly passed through a hole many times smaller than itself and then
vanished without a trace. 

 

This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall



 

proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon
was not AA 77.

 

For a quick overview of the impossibility of the
official story


 


 

For a full physical analysis of the
crash scene

 

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by
Gerard Holmgren Oct  2002


2.2.4 href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTCDEMO/wot/holmgren/index.html"> size=2>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTCDEMO/wot/holmgren/index.html
size=2>


Eyewitness evidence does not confirm a large
passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. 


Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by
Gerard Holmgren June 2002




 

 

 

2.3 What hit WTC towers? 

 

They are alleged to have been AA 11 and UA 175,
both Boeing 767's.  A close viewing of the videos reveals that
neither object was a Boeing 767.

 


 

size=2>

 



Given that a close examination of the 2nd WTC crash
video demonstrates that it cannot be a real plane, but the incident was shown
live, here is the documentation that realistic looking objects can easily
be edited into a live broadcast in real time.

 

2.3.3 Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato
 MIT's Technology review. July/August 2000


 


2.3.4 Having demonstrated that none of the
objects which hit the three buildings were the planes alleged by the govt
to have been involved , then where did those planes go? size=2> Official aviation records records say that AA11 and
AA77 did not exist .

 

"What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77
on Sept 11, 2001. by Gerard Holmgren Nov 13 2003.


 


If one were to use media reports to support the existance of
AA 11, one would have to suggest that there were two such flights that
day.

 


 

Although official aviation records confirm that UA 93
and UA 175 did exist, they also indicate that the planes never crashed. On the
date that this compilation was last updated , both aircraft were still
registered as valid.

 

 Go to the FAA aircraft registry

 

and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA
(UA 175 on Sept 11). Why is neither plane listed as destroyed? In addition to
the video evidence establishing that UA 175 did not hit the WTC, this would
indicate that UA 93 is not what crashed in PA.

 

 

 

2.4 What was shot down in PA?

 

The mystery of the PA crash (allegedly UA 93) is
less well understood than the other three planes. Nevertheless, the aircraft
registry search as above indicates that the UA 93 did not
crash.

There are also indications that whatever did crash in
PA was shot down.

 


What did happen to Flight 93? by Richard Wallace. The Daily Mirror sept 13,
2002




2.4.1  href="http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html">http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html


2.4.2  href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143


2.4.3  href="http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm">http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-three/flight-93-shot-down.htm 


2.4a Are phone calls from planes, of
the type allegedly made by passengers on Sept 11 possible ?





Project Achillies Report Part 1. Jan 23 2003 by A.K.
Dewdney.


Preliminary low altitude cellphone experiment.


2.4a.1  href="http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_1_030123.html"> size=2>http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_1_030123.html


Project Achillies Report  Part 2. Feb 25 2003


2.4a.2  href="http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html"> size=2>http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html


This article concerns the economics of airphones. Note
that it refers several times to the competition for business from cellphones and
that all such references take it as given that cellphones do not work while the
plane is in flight.


Permanet,nearlynet and wireless data. by Clay Shirky March 28
2003.


2.4a.3 href="http://www.shirky.com/writings/permanet.html"> size=2>http://www.shirky.com/writings/permanet.html


 



2.5 The World Trade Centre Towers and the WTC 7
building were brought down with  controlled
dmolitions.

 

According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a
combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals this as a
physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn't like to talk so much
about the identical collpase of WTC 7 - a 47 story building which was not hit by
anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no steel framed skyscraper has
ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept 11, it allegedly happened 3 times -
all three buildings collapsing miraculaously straight down so as not to damage
any of the valuable nearby real estate.Why was the debris rushed away for
recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert opinions
indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ?

 


2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on
Why the WTC collapsed by John Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26,
2001.


 


 

2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J.
McMichael Nov 25 2001


2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2
by J.McMichael


 


Selling out the investigation by Bill manning   Fire
Engineering Magazine Jan 2002

 


 

2.5.6 A firefighter says "we think there were
bombs set in the building"


 

2.5.7 Documentary footage from the scene of
the WTC attacks,and eyewitness accounts from firefighters at the scene reveal
serious flaws in the official accounts.


 

2.5.8  Evidence of explosives in South
WTC Tower collapse


 

2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the
World trade Center?


 

2.5.10 Where's the inferno?



 

WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August
2003


 

Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct
2001, the  book in question was written in 1999,
and argued that the WTC was built as a "prepackaged ruin". It was a
financial and logistical disaster occupying valuable real estate.

 

The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5
2001.

Excerpt from "Divided we stand" by Eric
Darton


 

Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns
at a maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that
burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards )
somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a
controlled demolition ?

 

Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban
housefires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion
completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about
burning jet fuel melting steel?



2. 6  Where is the evidence against Bin
laden?

 


It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the
attacks. This simply isn't true.

 


     Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger
at Jews. Annanova news.


 

      Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks
holy war.  ABC news online Sept 17 2001.


     

      Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS
Online Milwaukee Jornal Sentinal Sept 16 2001


 

      Bin laden Denies US attack says paper.
Middle East News


 

      Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN
sept 17 2001


    

      Bin Laden denies role in attacks. 
newsday.com  Sept 17 2001


 

      Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in
attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.


 


      Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in
USA were committed by some American terrorist group. Pravda
Sept 12   2001


 

 

Bin laden's supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape
released by the Pentagon. The tape is a fake,and the translation is
fraudulent.First here is general evidence that such confession
tapes released by those doing the accusing have no credibility.
Video technology now makes it difficult to
distinguish between a real video confession and a fake.

 


When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington
Post Feb 1 1999 


 

Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald.
May 16 2002


 

Here is specific evidence that the tape is a fake.


 

For further doubts about the authenitcity of the video and other
indications of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin
Laden


Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.


(Read the section called "Evidence please!")

 


If the govt was genuinely surprised by the attacks, how it did they
manage to name the  mastermind within a few hours? And yet,
nearly 3 years later, no formal charges have been laid against the
accused.

 


 


2. 7 In September 2001, when
Bush was threatening an invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation
for Sept 11, it slipped his mind to tell us that the invasion had already
been planned before Sept 11.


 

"Us planned attack on Taleban" BBC News report by George
Arney. Sept 18, 2001.


 

U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given
strategy two days before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16
2002


 


US planned to hit Bin
Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie  UK.
Telegraph.


 

US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11  
By Bob Drogin. LA Times May 18 2002


 


After intially denying any prior warnings, the White
House later changed its story, citing warnings of  'non-specific" threats
as its explanation for why the invasion of Afghanistan had already been planned
prior to Sept 11. We are expected to believe that it was so interested
in Bin Laden that it had planned a pre-emptive war against him, but was
somehow unaware of the specifics of the Sept 11 plot. Notwithstanding the
difficulties with this story, it has some explaining to do in relation
to

a) why the Clinton administration had
already turned down an offer for the extradition of Bin laden in 1996 -
after naming him as wanted for the 1993 WTC
bombing. 

b) allegations that Bin Laden had met
with the local CIA station chief in Dubai in July 2001 -
after the US had already begun its planning for the war against him.

c) why key members of the Bush administration and their close
associates maintained business relationships with the Bin Laden
family. This leads us on to section 3.

 

SECTION 3: HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND
INFORMATION.

 

3.1 US GOVT AND ISLAMIC TERROR - BEST OF
ENEMIES

 

The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin
Laden so much that they wanted to get him first. So why didn't they arrest
him when they had the chance in July 2001, according to this press report?

 

(Note: There is a discrepency in the date of the report
between 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, which at this stage, I can't
explain.)

 


CIA  agent allegedly met Bin Laden in July. By Alexandra
Richard.  Le Figero. Oct 31 , 2001. Translated from French by Tiphiane
Dickson. 



 

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin laden in July. By Anthony
Sampson. The Guardian Nov 1 , 2001.


 


The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an
American Hospital last July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated courtesy
of Tiphaine Dickson, Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001


 

 

Here's more research indicating that the US and Islamic terror
groups are not always the enemies they pretend to be. And that the US govt
covertly has a close relationship with Bin Laden.

 

Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared
Israel

 
 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software