Evidence Kit - Important Links
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
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
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
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.
1.4: THE COVER UP
In spite of the magnitude of the attacks, and the fact that even the
official story recognizes catastrophic failures of intelligence, while trying
to gloss over the similarly catastrophic failures of standard
airline security and air defence proceedures, the White House has
fought tooth and nail against any serious inquiry into Sept 11. Even the watered
down inquiries which have taken place so far have been bitterly opposed by the
White House and only conceded due to tremendous public pressure. They have been almost
completely restricted to the issue of "intelligence failures"
prior to the attacks, leaving the glaring issues of the air force stand down,
and Bush's complicity and subsequent lies, as well as the insider trading unaddressed.
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002.
Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002
Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry
Reuters newswire UK May 26 2002
Bush and Cheney Block 9-11
Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm
Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC
News May 16 2002
1.4.5 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
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?
Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (allegedly first WTC crash.)
AA 77 (allegedly Pentagon crash)
UAL 175 (allegedly 2nd WTC crash)
UAL 93 (allegedly Pensylvannia crash)
The perplexing puzzle of the published passenger lists. By Gary North. Oct
2.1.6 STILL No Arabs On Flight 77 By Thomas R. Olmsted, MD.
June 23 2003.
If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic aliases (19 obviously
Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate ? ), why
did the FBI claim that they were traced through the use of credit cards to buy
tickets and rent cars in their own names? By what means were the false
IDs traced so quickly to their real IDs ? Why, nearly 3 years later is their
no confirmation of which names they are alleged to have actually used?
If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as claimed
in this article
why is there no airport security footage of them? Where is the airport
security footage of any of the 19 ? Were they invisible? How did they (allegedly)
get on board with knives, guns, and electronic guidance systems, while
being searched, but somehow avoiding security cameras and not being on the passenger
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
7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick Fojut
March 4 2002
Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October
Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J.
Petherick American Free Press.
Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!
Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them
Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.
Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune
Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By David
Harrison. Sept 23 2001.
Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger
Doubts emerge over identies of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept 20.
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
According to this article
FBI Agent: Hijackers probably used gas. by Adam Tanner.
the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers
and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves - unless
they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on board
with masks, gas, guns,knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite of being
searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the
passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the
airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly the
things! ) and then exhibited breath taking displays of skilled piloting.
Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports were conveniently found
in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the planes and occupants. So they
got on board with false IDs but used their real passports ?
If the hijackers of AA 11 went on a 25 minute killing and threatening
spree before gaining control of the cokpit, then why was no distress code sent
from the plane? Why had the plane already turned off course before the hijackers
got into the cockpit?
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
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was not AA 77.
For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story
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
Eyewitness evidence does not confirm a large passenger jet hitting
Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by Gerard Holmgren
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.
2.3.2 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, 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
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.
Project Achillies Report Part 2. Feb 25 2003
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
2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov
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
2.5.6 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
2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse
2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?
2.5.10 Where's the inferno?
WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August 2003
Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct
2001, the book in question was written in 1999, and argued
that the WTC was built as a "prepackaged ruin". It was a financial and logistical
disaster occupying valuable real estate.
The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5 2001.
Excerpt from "Divided we stand" by Eric Darton
Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene)
burns at a maximum of 800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe
that burning kerosene towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards
) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that
of a controlled demolition ?
Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into
suburban housefires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion
completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about
burning jet fuel melting steel?
2. 6 Where is the evidence against Bin laden?
It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks.
This simply isn't true.
Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger
at Jews. Annanova news.
Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy
war. ABC news online Sept 17 2001.
Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS Online
Milwaukee Jornal Sentinal Sept 16 2001
Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle
Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN
Sept 17 2001
Bin Laden denies role in attacks. newsday.com
Sept 17 2001
Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks.
Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.
Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in
USA were committed by some American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12
Bin laden's supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape
released by the Pentagon. The tape is a fake,and the translation is fraudulent.First
here is general evidence that such confession tapes released by those doing
the accusing have no credibility. Video technology now makes
it difficult to distinguish between a real video confession and a fake.
When seeing and hearing isn't believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington Post
Feb 1 1999
Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. May
Here is specific evidence that the tape is a fake.
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.
U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy
two days before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16 2002
US planned to
hit Bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie
US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11 By
Bob Drogin. LA Times May 18 2002
After intially denying any prior warnings, the White House later changed
its story, citing warnings of 'non-specific" threats as its explanation
for why the invasion of Afghanistan had already been planned prior to Sept 11.
We are expected to believe that it was so interested in Bin Laden
that it had planned a pre-emptive war against him, but was somehow unaware of
the specifics of the Sept 11 plot. Notwithstanding the difficulties with this
story, it has some explaining to do in relation to
a) why the Clinton administration had already turned
down an offer for the extradition of Bin laden in 1996 - after naming him as
wanted for the 1993 WTC bombing.
b) allegations that Bin Laden had met with the
local CIA station chief in Dubai in July 2001 - after the US had already begun
its planning for the war against him.
c) why key members of the Bush 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.
CIA agent alleged to have met Bin laden in July. By Anthony Sampson. The Guardian
Nov 1 , 2001.
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last
July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson,
Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001
Here's more research indicating that the US and Islamic terror groups are not
always the enemies they pretend to be. And that the US govt covertly has a close
relationship with Bin Laden.
Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared Israel
BushLaden by Jared Israel
Addition to the above article
Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connection " has now turned into a scandal "
Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
Bush and the media cover up the Jihad schoolbook scandal by Jared Israel
3.1.9 Bin laden. Terrorist monster:Take two ! by Jared Israel.
Oct 9 2001
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
(added comments by Jared Israel)
Bush thwarted FBI probe against Bin Ladens, Hindustan Times,
7 Nov 2001
US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil', Irish Times, by
Lara Marlowe, 19 Nov 2001
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
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.
3.1.24 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
The Creation called Osama. by Shamsul Islam The Hindu Sept 27 2001
Washington's backing of Afghan terrorists: deliberate policy.
Afghan Taliban camps were built by Nato.
CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban
Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA. by Jared Israel
U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo, by Umberto Pascali.
The executive Intelligence Review 2 Nov 2001
Which Terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA? by Jared
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
3.2 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
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National Security
Archive, 30 Apr 2001
Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared
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.
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
|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.|