portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

9.11 investigation

THE TWIN COWARDS (July 28, 2002 version)

Clinton & Bush may have ordered a stand-aside policy allowing Mohamed Atta to make 9-11 happen (IF indeed Mohammed Atta ever even boarded that plane).
THE TWIN COWARDS (July 28, 2002 version)




A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by


ADRIAN MORE




According to:

1. 'Interview with Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on Official Story', conducted by Jared Israel, Spt.13, 2001:  http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm
2. International Herald Tribune, September 14, 2001, p.8: 'Investigators Looking at Florida School for Jet Pilots', by Jim Yardley, New York Times Service;
3. International Herald Tribune, Sept. 15, 2001: 'An FBI List of the 19 Hijackers Aboard the 4 Doomed Airliners', by the Associated Press;
4. International Herald Tribune, Sept.15, 2001, p.1, continued on p.3: 'Suspects Lived Openly, Hiding a Deadly Secret', by Kevin Sack and Jim Yardley;
5. International Herald Tribune, Sept.25, 2001, p.3: 'Attacks Found the FBI Ill-Equipped and Unprepared', by Joby Warrick and others, Washington Post Service;
6. International Herald Tribune, Oct.6, 2001, p.1, continued on p.7: 'Hijacker Reportedly Met Iraqi Official', by Peter Finn, Washington Post Service;
7. International Herald Tribune, Oct.17, 2001, p.9: 'Misstep by Hijackers Failed to Draw Careful Scrutiny', by Jim Yardley, New York Times Service;
8. International Herald Tribune, November 13, 2001: 'The Prague Connection: Saddam and Bin Laden', by William Safire (originally a New York Times article);
9. International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2001, p.6: 'Spain Links 8 to Hijackings', by Peter Finn and Pamela Rolfe, Washington Post Service;
10. International Herald Tribune, November 21, 2001, p.1, continued on p.7: 'Qaida and Sept.11: The Spanish Connection', by Sam Dillon, New York Times Service;
11. Associated Press, December 9, 2001, 08:54 ET: 'Investigator: Atta Visited New York', by Pat Milton;
12. International Herald Tribune, January 31, 2002, p.6: 'A Single National Security Database', by Larry Ellison;
13. International Herald Tribune, February 6, 2002, p.1: 'Iraqi Terror Hasn't Hit U.S. in Years, CIA Says', by James Risen, New York Times Service;
14. Washingtonpost.com, March 17, 2002, p.A20: 'Hijackers Visa Fiasco Points Up INS Woes', by Dan Eggen and Cheryl W. Thompson, online at:
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=article&articleid=A39121-2002Mar16&node=nation/specials/attacked/archive ;
15.  http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/atta_identity.htm by Edward Jay Epstein;
16. The New York Times, May 9, 2002: 'Mr Atta Goes to Prague', by William Safire, online at:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/09SAFI.html
17. International Herald Tribune, June 7, 2002, p.6: 'What else are we missing?', by William Safire (The New York Times), online at:  http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=60505&owner=&date=20020609153158
18. International Herald Tribune, July 12, 2002, p.3: 'U.S. and German intelligence at odds over terrorism watch', by Douglas Frantz and Desmond Butler (The New York Times), online:  http://www.iht.com/articles/64276.html




SINCE 1996: "The FBI had been developing evidence that international terrorists were using U.S. flight schools to learn to fly jumbo jets. A foiled plot in Manila to blow up U.S. airliners and later court testimony by an associate of Mr. Bin Laden's HAD TOUCHED OFF FBI INQUIRIES AT SEVERAL SCHOOLS, OFFICIALS SAY."



1998 - 2000: in this time frame, whether continuously or not I don't know, Mohamed Atta (the alleged ringleader of the Sept.11 hijackers) lives in Hamburg, Germany, and while living there he gets involved with Al Qaida - according to Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon. I do not know if Atta was a Qaida before 1998.
What connects Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon with Atta? The reported facts that:
- Garzon had 8 Qaidas arrested in Spain in November 2001 for playing "a direct role in the preparation of the Sept.11 attacks";
- Atta "twice visited Spain, in January and July 2001... It is now believed that on those trips he met with some of the... members of a Qaida cell";
- Judge Garzon's account is based in part ON YEARS OF TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS [my caps]. The document [judge Garzon's detention order] makes clear that Spanish intelligence has been WATCHING MR. YARKAS [Qaida leader in Spain] AND LISTENING TO HIM IN HIS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SUSPECTED QAIDA OPERATIVES AROUND EUROPE AND ASIA SINCE AT LEAST 1997 [my caps]."


Now, Clinton/Bush, here's my first set of questions for you on this story:
- Since Spain is a U.S. ally, HAD SPANISH INTELLIGENCE TOLD YOU, AS WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY NATURAL, THAT THEY HAD BEEN WATCHING/EAVESDROPPING ON THE QAIDA YARKAS SINCE 1997?
- As "Spanish intelligence had been watching Mr. Yarkas... since at least 1997"; and as Atta, now believed to have been a ringleader, logically would have wanted to meet his counterpart in Spain, Yarkas; was Spanish intelligence watching Yarkas, and therefore Atta too, when Atta met Qaidas in Spain in January and July 2001?
Spanish judge mr Garzon, will you finally tell humanity if, as it is logical to assume, Yarkas was among the Qaidas that Mohamed Atta met in January and July 2001?
If so, was the meeting shadowed and eavesdropped on, as you had been shadowing and eavesdropping on Yarkas since 1997?
And will you tell us, judge Garzon, if Spanish intelligence flagged the meeting, and Atta's name, to U.S. authorities in January and July 2001?
CLINTON/BUSH: TESTIFY UNDER OATH ON THESE VERY SAME POINTS!

It is utterly implausible, it is utterly unreasonable to think that Spain, a Western U.S. ally, wouldn't have informed the U.S. about a meeting of Qaidas.


Furthermore:
let's focus on the "telephone intercepts". On the "YEARS OF TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS BY THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES [my caps]". Let us focus on the all-important detail that "the document [judge Garzon's detention order for the Qaidas of Spain] makes clear that Spanish intelligence had been watching Mr. Yarkas [the Spain Qaida ringleader] AND LISTENING TO HIS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER SUSPECTED QAIDA OPERATIVES AROUND EUROPE... SINCE AT LEAST 1997 [my caps]". This means that Spanish intelligence was listening in on whatever Yarkas AND THOSE HE SPOKE WITH OVER THE PHONE said between "at least 1997" and Sept.10, 2001. And this is reported to be part of the evidence linking Spanish Qaida (with Yarkas) to "THE PREPARATION OF THE SEPT.11 ATTACKS [my caps]".
Let's read on: "The revelation marks the first direct connection made between the Sept.11 plotters, including a Hamburg-based group led by a key-figure in the hijackings, MOHAMED ATTA [my caps] and a string of Islamic terrorist cells in Europe".
"Spanish officials also said that the NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF THE ALLEGED LEADER OF THE QAIDA NETWORK IN SPAIN,... YARBAS [sic, = Yarkas as my other related source shows], APPEARED IN A DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT OF A SUSPECTED BIN LADEN ASSOCIATE IN HAMBURG AFTER SEPT.11 [my caps]." "MR. YARKAS'S PHONE NUMBER WAS FOUND BY THE GERMAN POLICE IN THE HAMBURG APARTMENT BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN USED BY TWO OF THE HIJACKERS AND SEVERAL OTHER ISLAMIC TERRORISTS TO PLOT THE SEPT.11 ATTACKS, JUDGE GARZON'S [detention] ORDER SAYS. IT [Garzon's order] LISTS AMONG MR. YARKAS'S EUROPEAN 'CONTACTS' FOUR OF THE HAMBURG APARTMENT OCCUPANTS, INCLUDING MR. ATTA, WHO PILOTED THE PLANE THAT HIT THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWER [my caps]."


Now, let's sum up and draw some probable conclusions:

1. Spanish intelligence had been tapping Yarkas's phone line since 1997;
2. Yarkas was in touch with a Hamburg Islamist cell that included Atta;
3. German police confirmed this when they searched the Hamburg apartment reportedly AFTER Sept.11;
4. but Spanish intelligence knew of the Madrid/Hamburg Qaida link BEFORE Sept.11, from eavesdropping on and shadowing Yarkas;
5. let's add the 2 Atta trips to Madrid in January and July 2001.


I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT ONE OUGHT TO LEGITIMATELY ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. SPANISH PRIME MINISTER MR AZNAR, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T YOU INFORM GERMAN POLICE AND THE U.S. ABOUT THE MADRID/HAMBURG QAIDA NETWORK BEFORE SEPT.11?
2. OR DID YOU, MR AZNAR?
3. GERMAN CHANCELOR MR SCHROEDER, WILL YOU PROCEED TO TESTIFY? DID OR DIDN'T AZNAR INFORM YOU? AND IF HE DID, AS IT WAS THE ONLY LOGICAL OPTION BETWEEN ALLIES, WHY DIDN'T YOU PLACE ALL THE HAMBURG APARTMENT OCCUPANTS INCLUDING ATTA UNDER SURVEILLANCE THERE AND THEN? OR DID YOU?
Actually, you did - according to my source nr 17: "[... ] in Germany, [... ] Mohamed Atta and other Sept.11 hijackers were members of a group in Hamburg THAT HAD BEEN UNDER SOME SURVEILLANCE FROM 1999 [my caps]
[... ] IN 1999 AND EARLY 2000, THE POLICE ALSO KEPT WATCH ON AN APARTMENT IN HAMBURG WHERE ATTA AND HIS ROOMMATES ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT MUCH OF THE PLANNING FOR THE SUICIDE HIJACKINGS [caps me]."
SO WILL YOU FINALLY, SCHROEDER, TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND ON PRIME TIME CNN AS TO WHETHER YOU TOLD CLINTON ABOUT ATTA'S GROUP IN 1999/2000?
IT'S HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE YOU DIDN'T TELL YOUR U.S. MASTERS!
THEREFORE: HOW CAN THE U.S. ESTABLISHMENT STILL BE LYING THAT ATTA WENT UNDETECTED UNTIL 911??
4. MR CLINTON/MR BUSH, WHAT DID YOU TWO KNOW ABOUT THE YARKAS PHONE TAPS BETWEEN 1997 AND SEPT.10, 2001? TESTIFY UNDER OATH!


Hot on Atta's trail around the globe, next stop Prague.


JUNE 2, 2000: "Atta, an Egyptian with ties to Islamic fundamentalists in Germany, flew to Newark, N.J., on June 2, 2000 from Prague in the Czech Republic, Czech authorities have said."
Why would Mohamed Atta want to go to Prague first? Why didn't he fly to the U.S. directly from Hamburg, Germany? My source nr 6 (of Oct.6, 2001) says: in order to meet "with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague... sources in the Czech government said".
My source nr 8 (of Nov.13, 2001) says that the Atta/Iraqi spy meeting in Prague happened on April 8, 2001, not June 2000. Were there 2 meetings? Anyway, that's totally beside my point. What really interests me about the meeting is what my source nr 13 (of FEB.6,2002) says:
"NOW SENIOR U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE MEETING BETWEEN MR. ATTA AND THE IRAQI OFFICER, AHMED KHALIL SAMIR AL-ANI, DID OCCUR".
So: the last stand of the matter, according to U.S. intelligence, as of FEB.6, 2002, is that Atta met Ani in Prague.

- I couldn't care less, in this context, whether U.S. intelligence know or not what was discussed;
- I couldn't care less, in this context, whether the 2 met once or twice and exactly when;
- I couldn't care less, in my context, if U.S. intelligence say Al-Ani was "a mid-level intelligence officer" or if he was a spymaster;
- I couldn't care less, in my context, if Atta/Ani discussed blowing up Radio Free Europe in Prague or the WTC or maybe tennis.

What I DO care for, is that "now" (FEB.6, 2002) "U.S. intelligence have concluded that the meeting did occur".

Next: how do they know? According to my sources, it was the Czechs who announced it first. For example, "the Czech prime minister , Milos Zeman, confirmed to CNN that Mr Ani and Mr Atta met in Prague". Czech intelligence had shadowed the meeting. And then they "shadowed Mr Atta to the airport for his flight to the United States."

Now, one can't help but ask the same question William Safire (a conservative!) asks in my source nr 8: "Why didn't the BIS [the Czech secret service] inform the United States about Mr Atta at that time?" Whatever Atta and Ani had discussed, here was a guy who'd just met a rogue-nation spy and was flying to the U.S.! Reason enough to tell the CIA + U.S. customs + FBI right away, especially since the Czechs are U.S. allies and since Czech president Havel is a decades-old friend of the Bushes'.

But one should also wonder, again with Safire: "WERE THE CIA AND FBI KEPT IN THE DARK... OR WERE U.S. COUNTERSPIES INFORMED BUT DID NOTHING?".



As for the subsequent allegations denying the Atta/Ani Prague meeting (Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov on "Meet the Press", March 17, 2002; columnist David Ignatius in the Washington Post, republished in International Herald Tribune, March 16, 2002): I need not respond - old William Safire (the same conservative hawk) did it for me in IHT, March 19, 2002, p.8: "No, it isn't 'wrong information'" (originally a New York Times article):
"On solid evidence: The Czech intelligence agency, BIS, had the Iraqi Embassy spy in Prague under constant visual and wiretap surveillance... Three months ago... Interior Minister Stanislav Gross issued a statement that 'BIS guarantees the information, so we stick by that information'... On corroboration of the evidence that Atta flew 7,000 miles, from Virginia Beach to Prague and back to Florida... : The FBI has car-rental and other records that Atta left for Prague on April 8, 2001, and returned on April 11. The BIS report of the meeting that Saddam's case officer had with the suicide hijacker fell precisely within those dates... On CIA assessment of evidence: James Risen reported in the New York Times last month that... 'senior American intelligence officials have concluded that the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi officer, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Al-Ani, did take place'. Congressional intelligence committees could confirm that."

And as for the latest attempts at denying the Prague meeting planted in all mainstream media by the CIA (first in Newsweek, end of April, 2002): once more: long live William Safire! I'm so lucky that this old conservative Bushiite is responding for me!
Amazing - and amusing, that my view should be defended - unwittingly - by the last person in the world I could possibly identify with!
See for yourself reader: source nr 16.
Here are some convincing highlights from it:

"A misdirection play is under way in the C.I.A.'s all-out attempt to discredit an account of a suspicious meeting in Prague [... ] They are telling favored journalists: Shoot this troublesome story down [... ] Notice how this parade of pooh-poohing never has an official's name attached to it. Rarely do you see such skillful manipulation by anonymous sources whose policy agenda is never revealed to readers.
[... ] Unreported (except on  http://www.edwardjayepstein.com , the website of my unfazed Angletonian friend) is this week's response to the hidden policy-driven doubters by the Czech interior minister, Stanislav Gross: 'I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists'. Did his agents have new information that would cast doubt on the Atta meeting [... ]? He checked with Jery Ruzek, his intelligence chief: 'The answer was that they did not. Therefore, I consider the matter closed.'
Whom do you believe - a responsible official on the scene speaking on the record, with no ax to grind, or U.S. spooks WHO MAY BE COVERING UP A MISSED SIGNAL FROM PRAGUE ABOUT SEPT.11 [my caps] [... ]?
Hard-liners can play this background game, too. A 'senior Bush administration official' [... ] tells me: 'YOU CANNOT SAY THE CZECH REPORT ABOUT A MEETING IN 2001 BETWEEN ATTA AND THE IRAQI IS DISCREDITED OR DISPROVEN IN ANY WAY. [my caps]'"

More from Safire (source nr 17):
"[... ] hard intelligence linking Mohamed Atta, [... ] with the Iraqi spymaster in Prague - a fact reaffirmed in June [2002] to the Prague Post by Hynek Kmoniček, the Czech ambassador to the United Nations."

Thanks, William! The only difference between William Safire and me on this one is that the former defends Atta's meeting in order to support the war on Saddam - I defend Atta's meeting in order to establish probable cause of Bush's complicity in 911.


Recapping so far:

IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY/PLAUSIBLE/LOGICAL THAN NOT THAT THE U.S. ESTABLISHMENT WAS INFORMED BEFORE SEPT.11 ABOUT MOHAMED ATTA'S LINKS WITH SPAIN'S QAIDA AND WITH IRAQ IN PRAGUE.

SO WHY ON EARTH WASN'T ATTA IN JAIL, OR (AT THE VERY LEAST) BEING SHADOWED BY SEPTEMBER 11?





Back in the U.S.A. now, from Prague.



JULY 2000-NOVEMBER 2000: Venice, Florida, Huffman Aviation School: Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi train here (the latter reportedly would die hitting the WTC's South Tower on Sept.11).
By the way, Clinton/Bush: was Huffman one of the "several schools" under FBI inquiry since 1996?

Source 1: Rudi Dekkers, owner of Huffman, said that Atta and Shehhi could never have flown a large jetliner into the WTC on 911 because they just didn't have the skills.

DECEMBER 26, 2000: Miami International Airport. "Mr Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, another hijacker-in-training, taxied a small private plane toward a runway when, unexpectedly, it stalled. Unable to restart the engine, the two men shut the plane down, FLIPPED OFF THE LIGHTS AND BY ONE ACCOUNT, WALKED OFF... THE STRANGE INCIDENT, WHICH HAPPENED ON A BUSY TRAVEL DAY [THE DAY AFTER XMAS] AT THE NINTH-BUSIEST PASSENGER AIRPORT IN THE COUNTRY, IS ESPECIALLY NOTABLE BECAUSE OF HOW CLOSE IT BROUGHT THE TWO MEN TO OFFICIAL SCRUTINY.
ACCORDING TO ONE FORMER FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR, A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL PLACED AN ANGRY CALL THE MORNING AFTER THE DEC. 26 INCIDENT [i.e. on Dec. 27, 2000], THREATENING TO INVESTIGATE THE MAINTENANCE RECORD OF THE PLANE AS WELL AS THE TWO PILOTS... A SPOKESMAN FOR THE AVIATION AGENCY REFUSED TO COMMENT ON WHETHER ANY OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST THE TWO TERRORISTS, citing the ongoing... investigation into the hijackings."
BUT:
"A CURRENT EMPLOYEE AT HUFFMAN CONFIRMED THAT THE FLIGHT SCHOOL DID FORWARD THE AGENCY THE PLANE'S MAINTENANCE RECORDS."

Therefore, it is to be assumed that the Federal Aviation Agency DID INDEED follow through on its threat of launching an investigation: the maintenance-record part was looked into but - WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PILOTS?

They had angered the FAA with reckless behavior that had endangered airport safety on Dec.26, 2000:
- they had flipped off the lights at "5:45pm" (not exactly broad daylight anymore);
- they had abandoned the plane in the middle of a runway "without radioing the tower and were walking across the airfield", as an "irritated official in the flight tower" explained over the phone to Dale Kraus, then the general manager at Huffman Aviation.
It is therefore logical to assume that the FAA followed through on its "angry" threat to investigate maintenance - and the two pilots.

Clinton/Bush, can humanity finally, over 10 months after Sept.11, be told if the FAA placed Atta/Al-Shehhi under investigation over the Dec.26, 2000 incident?
And if the FAA did investigate them, DID IT INFORM THE FBI (which would have been only natural, feds-to-feds crosschecking)?



APRIL 2001: Broward County, Florida: Mohamed Atta is "ticketed for driving without a license. He failed to show up for court, AND A BENCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR HIS ARREST [my caps]; [a 'bench warrant' is "a warrant issued by a judge for the arrest of a person who is in contempt of court", according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law]. But with more than 200,000 warrants pending on minor offenses in Broward County, he was never picked up".

What a convenient explanation. Yet, even if true, the "200,000" pending warrants fail to explain why Atta wasn't arrested.

First, quick recap/refocusing.


By April 2001, Mohamed Atta had already screwed up so much that the claim he went undetected as a suspicious person until Sept.11 is utterly ridiculous:
1. on December 26, 2000 he had so blatantly endangered Miami airport safety that by April he may have been under FAA investigation, though FAA won't comment;
2. if indeed he had been under FAA scrutiny, crosschecking with the FBI would have been routine;
3. the FBI had "several" U.S. flight schools under terrorism-related inquiry since 1996;
4. Atta had flown to Spain in January 2001 to meet Qaidas at least one of whom was being shadowed by Spanish intelligence - that the Spanish wouldn't flag Atta to the U.S. after this isn't plausible;
5. Atta had met Iraqi spy Samir Al-Ani in Prague, monitored by Czech intelligence - that the Czechs wouldn't flag Atta to the U.S. then isn't plausible.



And - one more thing: had the Florida arrest warrant been entered in the "INTERAGENCY WATCH LIST DATABASES CALLED NAILS AND IBIS"? Obviously Immigration don't check all local databases; but do they check NAILS and IBIS when passengers are entering the U.S. from abroad?

Clinton/Bush, testify again under oath:
WAS ATTA'S APRIL 2001 ARREST WARRANT DETECTABLE BY CHECKING NAILS/IBIS? IF SO, WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED WHEN HE REENTERED THE U.S. IN JULY 2001 AFTER HIS 2nd QAIDA-RELATED TRIP TO MADRID?
AND IF NOT, WHY WASN'T ATTA'S ARREST WARRANT ENTERED INTO THE NAILS/IBIS INTERAGENCY WATCH LIST DATABASES?
The author of source nr 12 says that "once you're in the country" it's easy to escape NAILS/IBIS detection because "the watch list is very rarely cross-checked".
BUT ATTA IN JULY 2001 WAS FLYING BACK INTO THE U.S. FROM SPAIN. SO EVEN IN THE UNLIKELY CASE THAT SPANISH INTELLIGENCE HADN'T BLOWN THE WHISTLE, WHY DIDN'T IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS DETECT ATTA'S WARRANT ON NAILS/IBIS?
Is NAILS/IBIS a routine check for passengers from abroad or not? I do not know, so now - TESTIFY!



Mohamed Atta "mostly used his own name and vital statistics as he traveled the country in the months before the hijackings."
Things were made as easy as it gets for him.
As if there weren't plenty enough probable cause/circumstantial evidence already that the U.S. establishment allowed Atta to plot & perform Sept.11, here's one last breadcrumb on his trail.

MOHAMED ATTA WAS ALLOWED TO TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH FROM AND INTO THE U.S. WITHOUT A VALID VISA FROM JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 2001.

Source nr 7: "In January 2001, after flying from Miami to Madrid, HE WAS ALLOWED TO RE-ENTER THE COUNTRY DESPITE OVERSTAYING HIS PREVIOUS VISA [the visa on which he'd entered the U.S. on June 2, 2000, see above]; [caps mine]".

But the point is not only that Atta wasn't held accountable for overstaying his previous visa - THE REAL POINT IS: ATTA DID NOT HAVE A NEW VISA until July 17, 2001 (source nr 14), when the INS reportedly approved a student visa for Atta; a visa which was reportedly sent to him 'last summer [2001]'. But there is no proof of all this because "INS officials have declined to provide copies of the actual approval notices they say were sent to the men [Atta and his cohort Al-Shehhi] last summer."

Anyway, even assuming that Atta received his new visa shortly after INS approval of it on July 17, 2001: WHY FOR GODSSAKE WAS HE ALLOWED BACK THROUGH CUSTOMS:
- IN JANUARY 2001, BACK FROM MADRID, WITHOUT A VISA?
- ON APRIL 11, 2001, BACK FROM PRAGUE, WITHOUT A VISA?
- IN JULY 2001, BACK FROM MADRID, WITHOUT A VISA?

HE VIRTUALLY ENJOYED DIPLOMATIC STATUS - THANKS TO YOU BOTH, CLINTON/BUSH? TESTIFY!
INS, FBI, CIA: TESTIFY!

Reader please note that Atta was reportedly an Egyptian, and Egyptians unlike Westerners need a visa even for tourism in the U.S..







TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, 8:46am:

Bush happens (?) to be in Florida.
Clinton happens (?) to be in Australia.

Mohamed Atta, "now" believed to have been the ringleader of the Sept.11 hijackers, allegedly proceeds to massmurder scores of people at the WTC.

BUT IF HE WAS AN EVIL TERRORIST, WHAT ABOUT THE TWIN COWARDS WHO ARGUABLY HAD THE POWER AND FOREKNOWLEDGE TO STOP HIM - AND CHOSE NOT TO DO SO?...





... nice finale Adrian but - wait a second man. What if - what if Mohamed Atta had never died at all?

Bush & his gang of thugs/liars-for-a-living have been telling us for over 10 months that Mohamed Atta flew AA11 into the WTC.

Source 15 has it otherwise. Here's what Edward Jay Epstein (whom William Safire calls 'my Angletonian friend') says:
"[Atta's] trail ends at 5:58am on September 11th at Portland International Airport in Maine [nobody knows why he allegedly went to Portland before Boston - my note]. He is photographed by a security camera there with an unidentified man [... ] using the 'Alomari' credentials [that is, the alleged hijacker 'Alomari' may have been using a stolen identity - my note]."

Unfortunately, Epstein doesn't source his statements, and is not 100% accurate.

But IF he's basically telling the truth, then "the... plane departed from Boston at 6am. NO ONE ABOARD THE PLANE RECALLED SEEING ATTA. NONE OF THE SECURITY CAMERAS AT LOGAN AIRPORT PHOTOGRAPHED ATTA [my caps]. The first-class ticket that Atta had purchased on American Airlines Flight 11 was used to board the plane, and a ticket agent reportedly recalled questioning an Arab man [... ] BUT THERE WAS NO VISUAL IDENTIFICATION OF THAT PASSENGER [caps mine]."

"After Flight 11 crashed, the bag Atta left in Portland was retrieved by the FBI." Atta had checked it "at the US Airway Desk, which services the Colgan Air flights between Portland and Boston".

So why wasn't the bag directly transferred to the connection flight - AA11?
Why did US Airway not load Atta's bag and then transfer it to AA11 at Logan?

Allegedly, that bag contained Atta's "will, videos of the interiors of Boeing airliners and a flight computer". Perfect stage setting: clearly fabricated evidence, planted by the FBI most likely because: why would Atta, if he really was bound to die, want to take his will with him? A will is something you leave behind for your legatees, not something you take with you into the grave.

The FBI has been telling us that Atta's passport was found - miraculously intact - on top of the smoldering WTC rubble.
Could you show us that passport, FBI director Mueller?
And Atta's bag and its contents too?
No trace of Atta - pulverized, cremated? But his superresilient, fire-proof passport was harder than a black box (not found at the WTC).

I'm not the first one to poke fun at this story - but I can't logically rule it out 100% . So show me Atta's passport + bag, Mueller.

One last thing for now: Atta's father claimed that he had spoken to his son after the crash.
Hey CNN: how about a live, prime-time interview with Atta's father?

One would have expected law enforcement (Mueller) to have interviewed Atta's father at length - forget it. NO ONE SHOULD EXPECT A SERIOUS 911 INVESTIGATION FROM THOSE WHO SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED: BUSH & CO.



Hey Bush - where is Mohamed Atta?





July 28, 2002 edition; I wrote the first version on February 20, 2002.



ADRIAN MORE





No rights reserved. This material MAY and OUGHT be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.