|
Evidence Kit - Important Links THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
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/2001/09/12/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 http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm In article 1.3.6 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had been overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she made is in this press briefing. 1.3.8 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020516-13.html But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers. 1.3.9 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Woodward and Dan Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35744-2002May17¬Found=true 1.3.9 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11 attacks. Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html 1.4: THE COVER UP In spite of the magnitude of the attacks, and the fact that even the official story recognizes catastrophic failures of intelligence, while trying to gloss over the similarly catastrophic failures of standard airline security and air defence proceedures, the White House has fought tooth and nail against any serious inquiry into Sept 11. Even the watered down inquiries which have taken place so far have been bitterly opposed by the White House and only conceded due to tremendous public pressure. They have been almost completely restricted to the issue of "intelligence failures" prior to the attacks, leaving the glaring issues of the air force stand down, and Bush's complicity and subsequent lies, as well as the insider trading unaddressed. Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002. 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. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml 1.4.6 9/11 Panel asks what briefers told Bush. White House retreats on independent probe. Dana Priest and Dana Milbank. Washington Post Sept 21 2002. Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46446-2002Sep20¬Found=true 1.4.7 White House refuses to release Sept 11 info. by Frank Davies Miami Herald May 5 2003 http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5792329.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush by Gail Sheehy Aug 22 2003 1.4.8 http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION 2. THE GOVT DIDN'T JUST "ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN" - IT PLANNED, ORGANIZED AND CARRIED OUT THE ATTACKS ITSELF. The evidence in section 1 demonstrated that even if we uncritically accept the govt claims about 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes and deliberately crashing them, we have overwhelming proof that the govt must have known about the attacks beforehand and been deliberately complicit in allowing them to happen. As strong as this evidence is, it only scratches the surface. The following evidence will demonstrate that the official story of the hijackings is total fiction. 2.1 The 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. http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm 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 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 missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October 2001 2.1.10http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J. Petherick American Free Press. 2.1.11http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html 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. 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 Observer¹s Cut) American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined By David L. Graham http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/redux.html 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. http://www.cryptogon.com/docs/Introducing%20the%20amazing%20Penta-Lawn%202000!%20(9-11).htm 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 http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html 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 http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp 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. http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast 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 http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm 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 flight. Permanet, nearlynet and wireless data. by Clay Shirky March 28 2003. 2.4a.3http://www.shirky.com/writings/permanet.html 2.5 The World Trade Centre Towers and the WTC 7 building were brought down with controlled dmolitions. According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals this as a physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn't like to talk so much about the identical collpase of WTC 7 - a 47 story building which was not hit by anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no steel framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept 11, it allegedly happened 3 times - all three buildings collapsing miraculaously straight down so as not to damage any of the valuable nearby real estate.Why was the debris rushed away for recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert opinions indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ? 2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26, 2001. http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm 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 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html 2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael http://serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm 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" http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.html 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. http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/912.shtml 2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23816.php 2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center? http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/how-hot.htm 2.5.10 Where's the inferno? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm 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 2001 http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html Bin laden's supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape released by the Pentagon. The tape is a fake,and the translation is fraudulent.First here is general evidence that such confession tapes released by those doing the accusing have no credibility. Video technology now makes it difficult to distinguish between a real video confession and a fake. When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington Post Feb 1 1999 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!") 1.2.2http://hamilton.indymedia.org/newswire/display/922/index.php 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. 2.7.3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/05/walq05.xml 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. SECTION 3: HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION. 3.1 US GOVT AND ISLAMIC TERROR - BEST OF ENEMIES The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin Laden so much that they wanted to get him first. So why didn't they arrest him when they had the chance in July 2001, according to this press report? (Note: There is a discrepency in the date of the report between 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, which at this stage, I can't explain.) CIA agent allegedly met Bin Laden in July. By Alexandra Richard. Le Figero. Oct 31 , 2001. Translated from French by Tiphiane Dickson. 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 http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/taketwo-a.htm 3.1.9 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama's Brother in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 december 2002 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO212A.html 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 http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/dec/18us.htm 3.1.22 Soliders say US let Taliban general go Dec 18 2002. http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_121802_terror.html 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. http://www.judicialwatch.org/2469.shtml 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 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 |
| 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. |