portland independent media center  
images audio video
composted article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Gerard Holmgren's updated 911 evidence kit: "Totally self inflicted" evidence (TSI).

Gerard Holmgren's updated 911 evidence kit. There's enough information here to call for the immediate arrest of George Bush.

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...
Gerard Holmgren's updated 911 evidence kit
by Scottl44

Gerard Holmgren's updated 911 evidence kit. There's enough information here to call for the immediate arrest of George Bush.

This is a major update to my evidence kit. The old one now has a lot of dead links. Please delete your old versions and postings and replace them with this.


compiled by Gerard Holmgren closeup911 (at) yahoo.co.uk

Last updated March 14 2004.

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 neccesarily 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.



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

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

1.1.3 9-ll:Ho hum, nothing urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002

1.1.4 Frequently asked questions on 9/11
Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "

1.1.5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001

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.

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

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.

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 Boooker 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.

1.2:6  http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/vid.htm

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.


In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported 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.

Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, 14 Oct 2001
1.3.1  http://propagandamatrix.com/mystery_of_terror_insider_dealers.htm

Was an urban rescue team sent to New York the night before the
1.3.2  http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm
1.3:3  http://www.tpromo.com/gk/jun02/062602.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  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  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0

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  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

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


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.


1.3.9 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11 attacks.
Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.


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 unforgiveable complicity and subsequent lies, as well as the insider trading unaddressed.

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002.
1.4.1  http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002
1.4.2  http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/16/president.gop.senators/

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

Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm
1.4.4  http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_Cheney_Block_911_Investigation_.shtml

Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC News May 16 2002
1.3:6  http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/warningmemo020516.html

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

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

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

Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush by Gail Sheehy Aug 22 2003
1.4.8  http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816

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 Ficticious 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 accuarately 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. 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?

2.1.1  http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (allegedly first WTC crash.)

2.1.2  http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
AA 77 (allegedly Pentagon crash)

2.1.3  http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
UAL 175 (allegedly 2nd WTC crash)

2.1.4  http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
UAL 93 (allegedly Pensylvannia crash)

The perplexing puzzle of the published passenger lists. By Gary North. Oct 13 2001.
2.1.5  http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm

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 in their own names?

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

2.1.7  http://www.policetalk.com/9_hijackers.html
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
2.1.8  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick Fojut March 4 2002
2.1.9  http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm

Hundreds dying as US milliles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October 2001
2.1.10 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm

Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J. Petherick American Free Press.
2.1.11 http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T

Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!
2.1.12  http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html

Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11.
2.1.13  http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.
2.1.14  http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html

Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune
2.1.15  http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/092001_news_trail.shtml

Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By David Harrison. Sept 23 2001.
2.1.16  http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/w

Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger
2.1.17  http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html

Doubts emerge over identies of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept 20. 2001.
2.1.18  http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/21/article12.shtml

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.
2.1.19  http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/911-gas-theory.txt

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?

2.1.20 9/11 Redux: (The Observeršs Cut) American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined By David L. Graham

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.
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
2.2:1  http://www.crc-internet.org/june2a.htm
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was not AA 77.

For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story
2.2.2  http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

2.2.3 The amazing Pentalawn.

For a full physical analysis of the crash scene

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard Holmgren Oct 2002
2.2.4  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTCDEMO/wot/holmgren/index.html

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

2.2.5  http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast

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.

2.3.1  http://thewebfairy.com/911

2.3.2 The 9/11 video video footage of the planes striking the WTC was fake. By Scott Loughrey

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? 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.

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, and 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  http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html

2.4.2  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=f

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


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  http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_1_030123

Project Achillies Report Part 2. Feb 25 2003

2.4a.2  http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225

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  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 allegedlly happened 3 times - all three buidling 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.

For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC collapse, see

2.5:2  http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

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

2.5.5  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

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
5.17  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html

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.
2.6.1  http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlin

Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online Sept 17 2001.
2.6:2  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm

Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS ONline Milwaukee Jornal Sentinal Sept 16 2001
2.6.3  http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp

Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News
2.6:4  http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm

Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN sept 17 2001
2.6.5  http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com Sept 17 2001
2.6.6  http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story

Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.
2.6:7  http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/denies-reuters-taliban.htm

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 gneral 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
2.6.8  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. may 16 2002
2.6:9  http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/16/1021415016681.html

Here is specific evidence that the tape is a fake.
2.6.10  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/19305.html

For further doubts about the authenitcity of the video and other indicatiions of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin Laden
Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.

1.2.2 http://hamilton.indymedia.org/newswire/display/922/index.php
(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, more than two 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.
2.7.1  http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366

U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy two days before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16 2002
2.7.2  http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/msnbc051602.html

US planned to hit Bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie in Washington

2.7.3  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.x

US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11 By Bob Drogin LA Times May 18 2002
2.7.4  http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/usplansbefore9-11.htm

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



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?

(Three alternative links. 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.
3.1:1  http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin laden in July. By Anthony Sampson. The Guardian Nov 1 , 2001.
3.1.2  http://guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

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
3.1.3  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

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
3.1.4  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

BushLaden by Jared Israel
3.1.5  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

Addition to the above article
3.1.6  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen2-i.htm

Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connection " has now turned into a scandal " Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
3.1.7  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

Bush and the media cover up the Jihad schoolbook scandal by Jared Israel
3.1.8  http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm

3.1.9 Bin laden. Terrorist monster:Take two ! by Jared Israel. Oct 9 2001

3.1.9 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's Brother in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 december 2002

Has someone been sitting on the FBI? Transcript of a BBC Newsnight Report on "the questionable links of the bin Laden Family," 6 Nov 2001
3.1.10  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BBC111A.html
3.11  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probetrans.htm (added comments by Jared Israel)

Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens, Hindustan Times, 7 Nov 2001
3.1.12  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HIN111A.html

US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil', Irish Times, by Lara Marlowe, 19 Nov 2001
3.1.13  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR111A.html
3.1.14  http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news369.htm

Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told, 'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie'
By Brian Ross and Vic Walker. ABC News Dec 19 2002
3.1.20  http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/FBI_whistleblowers021

After capuring one of the six most wanted Taliban leaders, the US then let him go. "By mistake " of course, because of "flawed intelligence."

3.1.21 US let captured Taliban general go , by Rowan Scarborough .Washington Times ,Dec 19 2002
3.1.22 Soliders say US let Taliban general go Dec 18 2002.
Taliban leader let off "by mistake". The Hindu Dec 19 2002.
3.1.23  http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/12/19/stories/2002121903021400.h

3.1.24 FBI agent Robert Wright says FBI assigned to intelligence operations continue to protect terrorists from criminal investigations and prosecutions. Judicial Watch Sept 11, 2002.

Bin Laden in the Balkans - Collection of mainstream media articles. Compiled by Jared Israel
3.1.25  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/binl.htm

The Creation called Osama by Shamsul Islam The Hindu ,Sept 27 2001
3.1.26  http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/creat.htm

Washington's backing of Afghan terrorists: delibertae policy.
3.1.27  http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm

Afgahan Taliban camps were built by Nato.
3.1.28  http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/camps.htm

CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban
3.1.29  http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm

Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA. by Jared Israel
3.1.30  http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm

U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo, by Umberto Pascali. The executive Intelligence Review 2 Nov 2001
3.3.31  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAS111A.html

Which Terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA? by Jared Israel
3.1.32  http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/kla-aq.htm

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser [Posted 6 October 2001]
Ex- National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan war and Islamism were made in Washington
3.1.33  http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

3.2 In 1962, the joint chiefs of staff approved a military plan to commit terrorist acts against the US and frame Cuba.The plan was never actually implemented but it makes interesting reading.

Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, ABC News Nov 7 2001
3.2.1  http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National Security Archive, 30 Apr 2001
3.2.2  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared Israel.
3.2.3  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-int.htm

Scanned images of the actual document.
3.2.4 Page i  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm
3.2.5 Page ii  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-ii.htm
3.2.6 Page iii  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-iii.htm
3.2.7 Page 1  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-1.htm
3.2.8 Page 2  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm
3.2.9 Page 3  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm
3.2.10 Page 4  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-4.htm
3.2.11 Page 5  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-5.htm
3.2.12 Page 6  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-6.htm
3.2.13 Page 7  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-7.htm
3.2.14 Page 8  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm
3.2.15 Page 9  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm
3.2.16 Page 10  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm
3.2.17 Page 11  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-11.htm
3.2.18 Page 12  http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-12.htm

US military schemes- ominously like 9/11.
3.2.19  http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/bamford.htm

If such tactics were considered normal and acceptable practice by the Government in 1962, what evidence is there that things have changed?

Henry Kissenger is reported to have advocated a similar strategy in 1992
3.2:20  http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/wndarchive/19481.html

How dare you!! 16.Mar.2004 16:11

Dire Wolf

The nerve of some people to suggest that our beloved government would let such a thing happen. Don't you know that our government is here to coddle and protect us from evildoers in this world? The Godly Republicans and Democrats that are here to protect you, and then you accuse them of high treason! How dare you! If I knew where you lived I would have the Godly Homeland Security come and take you to one of FEMA's happy clown fun centers for intense FOX programming to make sure you never think like this again. Anyone believing this post is surly Hellbound and your souls will burn for eternity

Why doesn't anyone think of any motive? 08.Feb.2006 13:17

deception *@*.org

One reason as a motive for this action is to protect the fragile economy.
In the years before 9/11, Saddams sons were lobbying with the OPEC to trade in the dollar for euro's for there oil.
In the months before 9/11 they were even getting succesfull. Even Venezuela was about to be pursuid.
If this would have happened this would have had dissastrous consequences on the American economy.

83.02 million barrels per day x 365 x 25 dollar = 757 biljion dollars a year of demand in dollars on the currency market.
Amerika's Bruto National Product (BNP) in 1995 = 7500 biljion dollars.

So roughly 10% of the BNP is demanded by oilmoney alone. So this is what is keeping the American Currency up in the world market.

Imagine, that this would happen within a day, week or maybe a month.
I'm not a stock exchange analyst, but I think the dollar would something worth off 1000:1 against the euro!

Would America still be able to put up 25.000 dollar for ONE BARREL?

I don't think so.
This had to be stopped. Amerika would be down on het knees within a week.

No army to defend the borders. Compleet anarchy.

Saddam and his companions would be able to march right in.

gullible has been removed from the dictionary... go look it up 22.Feb.2006 20:57

jane doe

i believe CNN over www.clothes.whatever/hebegebeBSinsert.retard.authorsnamehere.com

Watch out Iran 08.May.2006 09:19


The Irai's / Saddam were to convert oil trade payments from US$'s to EUR$'s at the end of March - literally weeks prior to the invasion.

> One reason as a motive for this action is to protect the fragile economy.
> In the years before 9/11, Saddams sons were lobbying with the OPEC to trade in the dollar for euro's > for there oil.
> In the months before 9/11 they were even getting succesfull.
> If this would have happened this would have had dissastrous consequences on the American economy.

Iran is about to institute the same change at the end of May 2006 - about 2 months from the time of writing.

Iran's actions would be around the same effect as Iraq's would have had on the US$ trade numbers - and will lead to further reduction in the US$ activity globally - clearly reducing the value of the dollar.

Current moves to gold and the ongoing US$ decline, to the point the Fed isn't revealing key economic indicators anymore, backup the tenuous thread the US$ is clinging onto..

If I was sitting in a pub in Iran right now - I'd be buying airfare the hell outta there!