Evidence Kit - Important Links


compiled by Gerard Holmgren

Last updated April 3 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 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,

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

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 Guilty 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

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
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.

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 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.

Mystery of terror `insider dealers', by Chris Blackhurst, UK independent 14
Oct 2001

Was an urban rescue
team sent to New York the night before the

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

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/2001/09/12/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 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 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
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 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?

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 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

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

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

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 missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October


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


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/widen23.xml

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.

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?

9/11 Redux: (The Observer¹s 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

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

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?
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, 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=full&siteid=50143

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

Project Achillies Report Part 2. Feb 25 2003
2.4a.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

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

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.

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 200
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.htm

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

5.18 http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2001/nf2001105_5320.htm

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.latestheadlines

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

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.
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
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 authenticity 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.

2.7.1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

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
UK. Telegraph.


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 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 adnimistration and their close associates
maintained business relationships with the Bin Laden family. This leads
us on to section 3.



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.

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_whistleblowers021219.html

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.htm

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: deliberate policy.
3.1.27 http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/doc.htm

Afghan 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
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

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

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

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.