9/11 UPDATE 2006:




Source: Excerpted from Cheryl Seal's Smoking Gun

7:59: American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767 takes off from Logan Airport in Boston with 92 people, headed for Los Angeles. (BOSTON.COM: American Airlines Flight 11 was a nonstop from Boston to Los Angeles that was flown using a Boeing 767, an aviation workhorse. The captain was John Ogonowski, a 52-year-old man from Dracut. His first officer was Thomas McGuinness, 42, of Portsmouth, N.H. Also aboard were nine flight attendants and 81 passengers, for a total of 92 people on the flight manifest when the plane pushed back from Gate 26 at Logan International Airport). [Pilot’s transmission to tower says Gate 32]

The flight took off uneventfully at 8 a.m., and the last routine conversation occurred at 8:13 a.m.

8:01: United Airline Flight 93, a Boeing 757, bound for San Francisco, is delayed for 40 minutes on runway, with 45 people on Board.

8:13: Boston Ground control loses contact with Flight 11. First red flag for Flight 11.

8:14: United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767, takes off from Logan for Los Angeles with 65 passengers.

8:17: American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles in D.C. headed for Los Angeles with 64 passengers.

8:20: Flight 11 reaches the Hudson River in NY and stops transmitting its IFF signal. Second Red flag for Flight 11. Had Bush put the airlines on high alert after August 6 when he received the warning, there is no doubt at all that these warnings would have evoked a very different response ... if, indeed, the hijackers had even gotten that far (under a high alert, they very well may have been apprehended at the airports).

8:24: Hijackers on Flight 11 accidentally broadcasts warning to the passengers over its radio: "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Third Red Flag for Flight 11.

8:25: Boston air traffic controllers notify other air traffic control centers of hijacking. Why wasn't NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) notified at this time?

8:27: Flight 11 heads south toward Manhattan; flight attendant Betty Ong calls American Airlines reservations and reports that two flight attendants had been stabbed and a passenger had had his throat slashed. She identifies the seat numbers of the hijackers. Fourth red flag for Flight 11 — this one a BLOODY RED and wildly waving, yet it will be about 10 minutes AFTER THIS before NORAD is notified.

8:33: Last transmission from Flight 11: Hijacker is heard telling passengers not to move.

8:38: Boston Air Traffic control notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked.

8:42: Flight 175 is hijacked. It begins to make a U-turn over New Jersey, reading for its northward assault on Manhattan.

8:42: Flight 93 takes off from Newark International Airport, headed for San Francisco.

8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 175 has been hijacked.

8:44: Two F-15 eagles are ordered scrambled out of Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod. If NORAD had been notified (or was it?) at 8:27, when the plane was obviously hijacked and heading to NYC, an F-16 from Otis or Griffis would have been about 10 minutes from Manhattan at this point. In addition, since the WTC was high on the list of known targets, and since some of the warnings to Bush indicated airplanes could be used as "bombs," the WTC should have been given an alert and the building evacuated. If evacuation had started at 8:30, there would have been no one in the upper floors when the first plane hit and the loss of life would have been minimized.

8:45: Flight 11 strikes WTC's north tower at the 80th floor.

8:46: Flight 175 stops transmitting beacon signal.

8:52: Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis. If F-15s had been scrambled from Otis at 8:27 they would now be in a position to engage the hijacked Flight 175 headed for the WTC.

9:00: United Airlines learns that Flight 93 flying over western PA may be in process of being hijacked.

9:00: Flight 77 makes U-turn and heads back for Washington. This is when the FAA should have notified NORAD, and NORAD should have ordered F-16s into the air FROM ANDREWS. If they had, by 9:15 F-16s may have been in a position to deflect Flight 77 AWAY from DC altogether.

9:02: Flight 175 strikes the WTC at the 60th floor.

9:16: FAA informs NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked.

9:17: Federal Aviation Administration closes all airports.

9:24: FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 is hijacked.

9:24: NORAD orders three F-16s scrambled from Langley. The timing here is absolutely diabolical. It is EXACTLY not enough time for either a jet from Langley, which will be 10 minutes too late, or one from Andrews, which would have had just about 3 minutes between reaching the airspace over D.C. and dealing with the incoming Boeing 757. That Langley was chosen indicates a FEAR that in that 3 minutes a good pilot from Andrews just might have succeeded in aborting the disaster, despite the split second time frame.

9:25: Air traffic controllers notify Secret Service as Flight 77 makes dramatic maneuver just south of the Pentagon.

9:29: Bush, at Booker Elementary school, says an "apparent terrorist attack" under way. No orders are given to evacuate any buildings in D.C., or even to urge residents and workers to seek shelter.

9:40: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley. They reach Washington by 9:55, moving at 550 mph — the trip takes 14 minutes. The time from Andrews to D.C.: under 2 minutes. The time from Bolling: almost instantaneous. Not only is this a tragedy for the victims of the Pentagon, it was unspeakably cruel to those pilots, who, thanks to their delayed orders, have to live with the crushing feeling of having been 15 minutes too late. Here is a description of Andrews from its website: "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." Yet Bush chooses Langley.

9:43: Plane crashes into Pentagon — a full 40 minutes after being reported hijacked and the likelihood of its being used as a weapon of mass destruction obvious. You will notice that now, everything seems to start happening — it seems as if everything were put on hold until the Pentagon was struck.

9:45: White House evacuated.

9:57: Bush leaves Florida.

10:05: South Tower of World Trade Center collapses.

10:08: Armed agents deployed around White House.

10:10: Pennsylvania plane crashes; part of Pentagon collapses.

10:13-10:45: Federal buildings in D.C. evacuated.

10:28: North Tower collapses.

10:46: Colin Powell heads for D.C. from Latin America. Again, notice that Powell is in Latin America, Bush is in Florida, Ashcroft in Missouri, and Rumsfeld in the part of the Pentagon most remote from the impact point.

1:04: Bush speaks from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

1:27: State of emergency declared in D.C.

1:44: Warships from VA are deployed to protect coastline.

2:00: Bush at Offutt AFB in Omaha NE; this is not revealed until almost 4:00 pm. Also at Offutt that day from 8:00 a.m. on are several CEOs — at a "charity event" that just happens to be held at a SECURE AIR FORCE BASE? And it just happens that several of the CEOs WOULD HAVE BEEN at the WTC had they not been at Offutt.

6:54: Bush back in White House.

8:30: Bush addresses nation.


by www.boston.com

FLIGHT 11: A flight attendant's body was found at one of the crash scenes with thin wire bound tightly near her manicured hand.

The transcript of the air-traffic-control conversations shows that at 8:24 a.m., a controller heard a suspicious broadcast from Flight 11. Apparently, one of the hijackers confused the aircraft's radio with its public-address system.

"We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move," the speaker said.

"Who's trying to call me?" the controller responded.

There was no response. Then came another radio broadcast, the transcript shows.

"Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet," the speaker said.

Air traffic controllers and American Airlines officials sent radio and text messages to the cockpit, but got no response. Ogonowski's relatives say it is unclear whether he and McGuinness were alive when the plane hit the World Trade Center.

Investigators say they believe Atta was flying the plane when it crashed.

The Wall Street Journal, and the people who staff the airlines' system operations centers offered a chilling account of a call that Betty Ong, a flight attendant from Andover onboard Flight 11, made to airline officials.

As the hijacking unfolded, Ong punched the number 8 on a seatback GTE Airfone and got through to an American reservations agent. The agent called the system operations control center in Fort Worth at 8:27.

"She said two flight attendants had been stabbed, one was on oxygen," said Craig Marquis, the manager on duty. "A passenger had his throat slashed and looked dead and they had gotten into the cockpit."

Ong said the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B. She said the wounded passenger was in seat 10B.

The flight attendant also said the hijackers had hit passengers with some sort of spray that made her eyes burn. She said she was having trouble breathing.

"Is the plane descending?" Marquis asked.

"We're starting to descend. We're starting to descend," she said.

In her conversation with Woodward, Sweeney, the flight attendant, relayed much the same information, including crew numbers, slightly different seat numbers, and the fact that they were descending.

Sweeney's last statement was chilling: "I see water and buildings. Oh my God. Oh my God."

At 8:33, controllers heard another, almost polite transmission.

"Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves," the speaker said.

There is widespread speculation in law enforcement about whether all 19 hijackers were planning to commit suicide.

Atta clearly was ready to die, as evidenced by the will he left in luggage that did not make the connection to Flight 11. But investigators have said that other hijackers had papers urging them to prepare themselves for prison.

United Flight 175

Probe sees similarities in tactics

United Air Lines Flight 175 had much in common with American Flight 11: Both were flown with Boeing 767s and were early-morning, nonstop flights from Boston to Los Angeles.

Investigators say the hijackers picked the flights deliberately.

As the first flights of the day, there was little chance they would be delayed. With a 3,000-mile transcontinental trip ahead of them, each of the planes could have been loaded with up to 24,000 gallons of jet fuel - a mighty explosive punch.

Because it was a Tuesday, their passenger loads would have been relatively light, something to consider when a handful of men is planning to seize control of the jetliner.

And the 767s shared a common cockpit design with the other two planes hijacked Sept. 11, a pair of Boeing 757s. That meant the hijackers had to study only one set of instruments to learn how to fly either plane.

The crew of Flight 175 was led by Captain Victor J. Saracini, 51, of Lower Makefield Township, Pa. His first officer was Michael R. Horrocks, 38, of Glen Mills, Pa. The flight carried seven flight attendants and 56 passengers, a total of 65 people when the plane pushed back from Gate 19 at Logan Airport.

The plane took off at 8:14 a.m., and according to the FBI, had five hijackers among the passengers. The crew was led by Marwan Al-Shehhi, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates who was so close to Atta they considered themselves cousins.

Two of the other hijackers had flight training, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad, a Saudi, and Mohand Alshehri, another Saudi. The other two hijackers, likewise Saudis, were Ahmed Alghamdi and Hamza Alghamdi.

The plane had a routine climb, but at 8:37 a.m. it received an unusual call. A controller asked whether the pilots could see the earlier American flight.

"Affirmative, we have him, uh, he looks, uh, about 20, yeah, about 29, 28,000 [feet]," a pilot responded, according to the transcript from air traffic control.

The controller told the crew to make a right turn to avoid the American plane.

At 8:41 a.m., just four minutes before Flight 11 slammed into the World Trade Center, one of the United pilots radioed back to the controller.

"We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure from B-O-S," the pilot said, using the three-letter airport code. "Sounds like someone keyed the mike and said, `Everyone, stay in your seats.'

While little is known about what happened aboard Flight 175, because there wasn't the array of radio transmissions or cellphone calls, one member of the crew managed to get a message to the ground.

Around 8:50, Rich "Doc" Miles, the manager of United's system operations center in Chicago, received a call from an airline maintenance center in San Francisco that takes in-flight calls from flight attendants about broken items.

The mechanic said a female flight attendant called and said: "Oh my God. The crew has been killed, a flight attendant has been stabbed. We've been hijacked." Then the line went dead.

Miles, who by that time was aware of the American hijacking, answered, "No, the information we're getting is that it was an American 757."

The mechanic insisted, "No, we got a call from a flight attendant on 175.

In August, actor James Woods had an unsettling experience on American Flight 11. Woods said he was alone in first class with four men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent. During the six-hour flight, he noticed the men spoke to one another only in whispers and never ate, drank, or slept.

When the flight landed, Woods told a flight attendant and the authorities about what he had seen. He was interviewed after the crashes by the FBI, his agent said.

On other occasions, some of the hijackers were seen videotaping crews on their flights. Other times, they asked for cockpit tours.

Two also rode in the cockpit of the planes of one national airline, said a pilot who requested anonymity. The practice, known as "jumpseating," allows certified airline pilots to use a spare seat in the cockpit when none is available in the passenger cabin. Airlines reciprocate to help pilots get home or to the city of their originating flight.


OFFICIAL VERSION: Government officials had no prior warning or knowledge of the events, and no way to predict them:


  1. Warning from Philippine officials about “Project Bojinka” that bin Laden associates were undergoing flight training in the U.S. and planning to crash hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center. Similar warning from the 1988 embassy bombings in Kenya.

Just prior to the attack of the Saudi military base, officials uncovered the plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners on January 6, 1995 when a fire broke out in a Manila apartment. During the trial a Secret Service agent testified that Yousef boasted during his extradition flight to New York that he would have blown up several jumbo jets within a few weeks if his plan had not been discovered. The government said the defendants even devised a name for their airline terror plot named, "Project Bojinka." [WASHINGTON - 23JUN2001 (AirlineBiz.Com)]

Source: R. Joseph, Phd: “For example, following the arrest of those involved in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, documents were discovered which contained numerous references to pilot training and flight schools and a plot to hijack U.S. jetliners.

  1. CIA front companies were involved with facilitating aircraft flight training [actually, a cover by the government proxies, so as to divert attention from where the actually hijackers got real training. In my opinion, none of the listed hijackers were those actually doing the hijacking]

Britannia Aviation, a CIA front company surfaced recently in a dispute in Lynchburg, VA when a multi-million dollar contract for aircraft maintenance at Lynchburg Virginia Regional Airport was awarded to Britannia instead of a much larger local aircraft maintenance company, fully certified with many employees and already located at Lynchburg. Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker discovered that Britannia has only one listed employee and assets totaling less than $1000. Britannia’s only address points to a small office sub-leased from Rudi Huffman Aviation owned by CIA Dutch asset Rudi Dekker trained two of the supposed jijackers (Marwan Al-Shehai and Mohammad Atta). [Mad Cow Morning News. com]

  1. Several of the listed hijackers received training at US military facilities prior to 9/11 [I doubt these were the real hijackers, whose identities have never been revealed].

Guy Gugliotta of Washington Post: September 16, 2001 “As the investigation gathered strength yesterday, unusual leads began to surface, among them the possibility that some of the hijackers may have received training at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida or other U.S. military facilities.”

WAB: “Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.”

  1. A secret military unit code named "Able Danger” using computer data mining techniques uncovered a terrorist cell in Brooklyn led by alleged terrorist leader Mohamed Atta. The Pentagon order the data destroyed, claiming later invasion of privacy [hasn’t stopped them from continuing].

Source: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1205/120705nj1.htm

Army project illustrates promise, shortcomings of data mining, by Shane Harris, National Journal

In the spring of 2000, a year and a half before the 9/11 attacks, Erik Kleinsmith made a decision that history may judge as a colossal mistake.Then a 35-year-old Army major assigned to a little-known intelligence organization at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, Kleinsmith had compiled an enormous cache of information -- most of it electronically stored -- about the Al Qaeda terrorist network. It described the group's presence in countries around the world, including the United States.

It was of great interest to military planners eager to strike the terrorists' weak spots. And it may have contained the names of some of the 9/11 hijackers, including the ringleader, Mohamed Atta. The intelligence data totaled 2.5 terabytes, equal to about 12 percent of all printed pages held by the Library of Congress. Neither the FBI nor the CIA had ever seen the information. And that spring, Kleinsmith destroyed every bit of it.

Why did he do that? And how did a mid-level officer in a minor intelligence outfit obtain that information in the first place? Those questions lie behind the latest phase of a simmering controversy in Washington: whether something could have been done to prevent the terror attacks of September 11.

Kleinsmith worked for an Army project code-named "Able Danger." This past summer, a number of former project members -- none of whom had worked for Kleinsmith -- came forward to say that Able Danger had identified Atta and linked him to a convicted terrorist who is still serving time in federal

prison for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

The Able Danger members recalled charts showing names and pictures of suspects, and their links to each other. Rep. Curt Weldon, an outspoken Pennsylvania Republican and longtime supporter of intelligence reform, has demanded to know why the charts were never shared with an agency positioned to halt the attacks.

He also points out that the 9/11 commission failed to include any mention of Able Danger in its final report, which is regarded as an authoritative history of the attacks. The Pentagon searched more than 80,000 documents and found no chart with the name "Mohamed Atta." Weldon has accused the government of a cover-up and called for a criminal investigation.

  1. President Bush and VP Cheney received a detailed briefing on the bin Laden threat in a “Daily Briefing in August 2001.[However, I suspect this was a red herring to make the case for incompetence rather than for direct planning].

Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35744-2002May17.html)

Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers: “Similarly, nothing was done as a result of the government's own intelligence warnings. The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," talked about al-Qaida wanting to hit the nation's capital, preparations for airline hijackings, casing of buildings in New York, terrorists in the U.S. with explosives, etc. Bush went to ground in Texas, the FBI told Ashcroft to stop flying commercial jets, etc. The attacks finally came about a month later, and the Bush forces were ready to make their moves. http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-w/twenty-things.htm

Regis T. Sabol: “According to the Washington Post, Richard Clarke, the government’s top counter terrorism official, told officials of a dozen federal agencies at a White House meeting July 5, ”Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.” C.I.A. Director Tenet “had been ‘nearly frantic’ with concern since June 22,” the Post said. And Ms. Rice, herself, no less, warned on June 28, “It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

  1. Michael Meacher, a former British Minister of the Environment said, “ At least 11 countries provided advance warning to US intelligence agencies” [a reflection of the natural leakage that occurrs in large black ops to allied intel services–who still think the US is against terror.]

WAB: They ignored warnings from Jordanian intelligence in the summer that a major attack was planned inside the US using airplanes (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=58269)

WAB: They ignored warnings from Israeli intelligence in August that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent, organized by a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml)

  1. High schools in some NY city districts told students not to go down to the WTC on 9/11. SF Mayor Willy Brown was told by “airport security” not to fly that day, as was Salmon Rushdie in the UK. [Actually, Brown’s claim of a non-specific airport security call was only a cover–his real source was NSA Condi Rice: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1000

  1. FEMA Urban Rescue team leader Tom Kenny told a nation-wide CBS audience on Sept. 12: “We’re currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the City of New York in this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night and went right into action on Tuesday morning.” [He later said he ‘misspoke’ and meant Wednesday–but then his “first into action” statement became a glaring contradiction. He has refused all subsequent attempts for clarification].

  1. NY Mayor Rudolph Giuliani admitted on air to Peter Jennings that he had advanced warning the South Tower was going to collapse. He never relayed any such warning to firefighting units on the scene, even though he was in the WTC-7 command center only hundreds of yards away.

Rudolph Giuliani Got Warning WTC Towers Were Going To Collapse


Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com reported this 15 months ago, but now they’ve received the video where then Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani admits to Peter Jennings that he got a warning that the South Tower was about to collapse. Jones: “Giuliani was operating out of Building 7 which he evacuated before that too was 'pulled' by means of demolition as Larry Silverstein admitted in a September 2002 PBS documentary.

Click play to view the ABC News clip. There is a slight blip where the word 'collapse' cuts off, but the full quote is as follows...""We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."

  1. Discrete warnings were given to some WTC CEOs and staff to stay home. Also, a major business retreat/conference was scheduled by Warren Buffet for major CEOs from NY and elsewhere at Offut AFB where the president went to ride out the affair [coincidence?]

On the morning of Sept. 11, Tatlock herself had just arrived with a small group of business leaders at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha for a charity event hosted by Warren Buffett. She then heard the news of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center's north tower. The clip comes from the following San Francisco business journal. Tatlock is a high CEO in the Franklin Funds group, a group that had offices in the World Trade Center. The cover story in this article for her presence at Offutt was a charity event. However, note the unusual time for this supposedly charity event. It would have had to been around 8 AM Central Time, too late for a charity breakfast and much too early for any charity lunch or dinner. Notice also in the article that she arrived with a small group of "business leaders" all obviously from the East Coast. Its in print folks the top financial CEOs that had offices in the World Trade Center were at Offutt airbase on the morning of 9/11. http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/02/04/story3.html http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/02/04/story3.htmlThe World Trade Center

Brian Downing Quig: “FEMA was invoked in a "ceremony" on 9-11 at Fort Offutt in NE with Buffett

and friends also there.”

  1. American and United airline stocks were shorted on the options market, so someone could benefit from the price drop after 9/11. The options were never cashed in, and the NYSE claimed they couldn’t trace the trades to anyone. [all trades are traceable–how else do they get paid?]

Questions posed for Deutschebank-Alex Brown

1. Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 United Airlines (UAL) put option contracts between August 8th, 2001 and September 11th, 2001? Did you or do you own any stocks of UA, AA, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.?

2. What can you say about 2,500 UA-contracts which were "split into 500 chunks each, directing each order to different U.S. exchanges around the country simultaneously." on August 10th, 2001? Did you purchase UAL options in August 2001? Is it correct that you purchased 4,744 put options on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call between September 6th and September 7th, 2001? What was your intention of doing that?

3. What is your connection to Wally Kromgaard who purchased 4,516 put options on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options on September 10th, 2001?

  1. The World Trade Center was completely shut down (off limits to all tenants) and dark on the week-end before 9/11. It had also changed ownership just prior to the attacks, with changes in insurance policies. [All of this was necessary for planting of controlled demolition charges on main interior pillars and subsequent recouping of losses for the new owner]

Caller from New Jersey to the Art Bell Show, interview with Joel Skousen about 9/11. He stated emphatically, that in all his night time commutes to Manhattan from Jersey, he had never seen the WTC without lights until that weekend.

Source: Morgan Reynolds
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush¿s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8¿9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.

  1. Controlled Airport sceeners and/or in baggage handlers had to be pre-positioned at Boston Logan Airport to facilitate getting weapons on board for the terrorists. The terrorists had both real and fake bombs, a gun, large knives, box cutters, mace and gas masks aboard [to hide these facts the 9/11 Commission did selective editing of flight attendant Amy Sweeney’s transcript, who told her airline about these items]. None of these could have gotten past normal screening. Terrorist could not have controlled this kind of access–only insiders at some higher level.

Gail sheehy of the UK Observer:

Philip Zelikow, chooses which evidence and witnesses to bring to their attention. Mr. Zelikow, as a former adviser to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, has a blatant conflict. Played only excerpts, didn’t discuss Mrs. Sweeney’s call, about the bomb. "My wife’s call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men—by name—even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. And she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board. "How do you know it’s a bomb?" asked her phone contact.

"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires. HOW DID A BOMB GET THROUGH SECURITY, PLUS REGULAR KNIVES?”

  1. FBI and Border/Customs agents produced the list and dossiers of the 19 hijackers within hours of the attack–not possible without prior surveillance [What is even more telling is the amount of knowledge the dossiers had, including complete knowledge of their last hours, carousing at night clubs–certain not like fanatical Muslim fundamentalists]

It is a celebrated fact that Mohammed Atta and some of his friends were seen in nightclubs in the hours before 9/11, certainly a fact that argues against them being able to carry out their supposed missions because they were motivated by Islamic religious zeal. So their appearance in strip clubs blows the whole story that they were devout Muslims giving their lives to Allah. Devout Muslims don't drink, never mind cavort with strippers.”

  1. Several of the listed hijackers were on government watch lists and given visas, nonetheless--more than once. Some held current visas [evidence of either incompetence, or prior knowledge and collusion by someone who over-road normal INS procedures].

Source: R. Joseph, Phd: “The FBI was not only aware that Mohamed Atta was in the U.S. and receiving flight training, but that he been implicated in previous terrorist attacks, and had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. In fact, by law, Atta and his "cousin" Marwan, should have never been granted visas or allowed into the country; yet in the months prior to 9/11 they were allowed to continue their activities unhindered. They were not alone. Several of the other hijackers had also been granted visas and allowed into this country in the weeks and months before 9/11 although they were known to be veterans of previous terrorist attacks. Salem Alhamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar were on a special terrorist-watch list given to Border Patrol and I.N.S. agents on August 21, 2001.”

  1. At least one of the aircraft had a large, bulging modification on one side [Fl. 175], purpose unknown, that could not have been done by the terrorists, nor could it have entered the flight line without being noticed by everyone in maintenance. [This could be related to the ongoing controversy of which gate flight 11 actually left from –if another modified plane was inserted on the flight line for that flight as well. Pilot recording says “Gate 32,” family witness and press said “Gate 26"]

WAB: “The bulging modification on the belly of the aircraft that hit WTC-2. Video of the Boeing 767 crashing into WTC-2 shows a large and disturbing modification on the bottom side of the United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft. The aircraft almost missed its target and the person directing the aircraft made a dramatic last minute steep turn to intercept the corner of the building. In the process of the steep turn the bottom of the aircraft suddenly becomes visible in the low morning sun and reveals a very large and bulging modification on the right side of the fuselage behind the landing gear doors. The bulge is as wide as the wing root, so it is easy to detect. : http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/wtc.htm. This site contains some very speculative conspiracy theories that should be viewed with extreme caution for now. Also, the computer enhanced photos do not come from the new Hlava video but from the original CNN video of the crash. You can see a video clip of the original CNN footage by using opening a video player like windows Media Player and on “open URL” under File and putting in the URL: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/ghostplane2.wmv. The bulge is visible on this earlier video as well, proving that the bulge is not simply a doctored image by one source.

Compare these photos with pictures of a normal Boeing 767 here: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/b767.pl (go to bottom of the web page to view how smooth and uniform the underside is). There is no bulge.

I called the Boeing Company for their reaction and had an interesting chat with Liz Verdier, the media contact person, informally tasked to answer 9/11 issues. I asked her for Boeing’s reaction to the potential modification of one of its aircraft involved in the crash into WTC 2 and described the large bulge showing up on the two videos. She quickly skirted the issue by saying that Boeing was not a part of the 9/11 investigation and insisted that all queries by directed to the FBI or Dept. of Homeland Security. I replied that this wasn’t about the investigation, but rather a technical question for Boeing on what this large bulge could possibly represent.

She said that Boeing would not admit there was a modification nor comment on it, and that Boeing does not make these kinds of modifications (if there were any) but that it would have been something United Airlines might have done. I told her that based upon my experience as a military pilot and maintenance officer in a squadron, no major modification like this that would affect high speed air worthiness could or would be approved by the FAA without intensive consultations with the engineering staff at Boeing. She continued to deny that Boeing would have been involved, which I found completely incredible. I then told her that I thought it was strange that she expressed no interest in seeing evidence of this bulge that we had been discussing in some detail. She admitted then that Boeing knew all about the internet charges surrounding the modified aircraft, had seen the pictorial evidence and that Boeing was determined not to comment about it. I picked up on the feeling that this was a very touchy subject at Boeing and tried to get her to at least admit to that much. She cordially declined to confirm even that. Obviously, she had her marching orders, which tells me Boeing knows more than they are saying.

Why is this such an important issue? First, this is a modification that has never been seen on any other commercial 767 aircraft in the United fleet, according to various United pilots I have talked to. It is totally unique. For it to show up on one of the aircraft used to take down one of the WTC towers indicates it may be specifically related to the purpose of carrying out the attacks: enabling the aircraft to be remote controlled, or enhancing its explosive effect, or any number of other possibilities. Leonard Spencer at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm charges that it has something to do with firing forward missiles prior to crashing into the WTC, which I find absolutely no evidence for. The CNN video clip detail, previously mentioned, shows a burst of flame from the nose of the aircraft only after it actually penetrates the facade of WTC 2, belying his own conclusion about a missile being fired. I observed no evidence of a missile here.

Second, such a modification would have to have involved United Airlines, the Boeing Company, and the FAA—each with close government connections. No foreign terrorist group could have pulled this off, no matter how much time or money they had, unless they were simply fronting for US black operations. Furthermore, the United Airlines pilots and ground crew would never have signed off on such an aircraft unless assured by airline management that it had some legitimate purpose, albeit of some secret “national security” issue.

Third, if the modification had a benign explanation, Boeing, the FAA and United Airlines would all be quick to answer. So far they have not. If the modification was related to the 9/11 tragedy, and this airplane was specifically inserted in the fleet for this task, it would be hard evidence of US involvement in provoking this tragedy. It would also provide evidence that there was some larger directing force behind the Arab terrorists charged with the event. No airline or other large US corporation would have been involved in facilitating such an act without acting on behalf of dark side operations within the mantle of government secrecy.

There is no proof of any of these charges at this point, but these are the plausible conclusions that can be derived from what appears to be a cover-up over this strange modification. I find it difficult to believe that no one in the establishment media has noticed this glaring protrusion, especially since the NY Times published blowups of the 767 in its moment of maximum turn. The establishment media won’t touch this story. Like Boeing, someone higher up must not want this issue to surface on a larger scale.

  1. The Pentagon crash evidence, I believe, indicates that the American Airliner that hit the Pentagon was laden with explosives throughout the aircraft structure, and was blown into small pieces mostly outside the building. This could not have been done by a suitcase bomb, which would have left major parts of the aircraft intact. The airplane had to be pre-prepped for the job.

[This is my conclusion: see Pentagon Crash section for witness testimony supporting this position]

  1. Military Exercises using real aircraft to simulate attacks in the NE and in Wash DC were planned for this period and moved up to September 11 [probably to allow for confusion and delayed military response among non-conspirators, as to what was real and what was a simulation].

Source: GeorgeWashington.blogspot.com

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony. On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article reprinted here, stated that "Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens". This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the war game exercises. Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were MOVED UP to September 11th by persons unknown …

Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example, Cheney watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon from many miles out, but instructed the military to do nothing (as shown in the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, linked above).

Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners…And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals.”

War Games:

From the Bio of John Fulton - Intelligence Networking & Analysis

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.”

911truth.org: “As the day dawns over the East Coast on September 11th, 2001, the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is on full alert, busily dispatching warplanes around North America in a rehearsal for Armaggedon., under the overall umbrella of Global Guardian--the annual combined exercises run by Stratcom in conjunction with the US Space Command and NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The man officially in charge of Global Guardian is Admiral Richard Mies, Stratcom's commander-in-chief.

Ample evidence gathered from mainstream news sources and compiled by Thompson in the new timeline entries indicates that the wargames served to confuse and stymie air defense response to the simultaneous crash-bombings. Thompson cites multiple reports (see 8:30 am) indicating that Global Guardian is normally held in October, and that the run-through in 2001 was in fact originally scheduled for late October and then re-scheduled for early September at some point after March 2001. Who made that scheduling decision? That may be the most crucial question of all in determining the criminal culpability for 9/11 among US officials.

Only one was a “cold war” exercise up north: The known NORAD wargames of 9/11, which were apparently incorporated into the larger framework of Global Guardian, include Northern Guardian, Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior. The most innocent-seeming of these, Northern Guardian was announced in advance and dispatched air force assets to the Arctic Circle in response to the Russian maneuvers also scheduled for that day. (The NORAD press release of 9/9/01 is still online.)

However, Vigilant Guardian appears to have scripted simulated attacks within the continental United States. NORAD personnel in Rome, New York who received first reports of hijackings within NORAD'S Northeastern sector, including Col. Robert K. Marr and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, are reported to have asked if this was "real world or exercise." This implies that the scenarios for the wargames on September 11 were strikingly similar to the actual attacks that unfolded that morning--as was the supposedly unrelated CIA/NRO exercise.

Here is proof of the diversionary ability of these exercises, as reported by the wire service Newhouse News (1/25/02): “At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane. "It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought.

At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration. On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center. "I have a hijacked aircraft," he told her.

Six minutes later, at 8:46, the wargames were still causing confusion, apparently in the form of a craft (or at least a radar-blip) thought to be heading for JFK Airport in Queens: "Deskins ran to a nearby office and phoned 1st Air Force Chief Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias in Florida. She said NEADS had a hijacked plane no, not the simulation likely heading for JFK."

So much for Eberhart's "30 seconds" to adjust to real-world events [General Eberhart’s false claim in the investigation that the wargames didn’t inhibit a response]. Again, the new supporting evidence provided by Thompson suggests that no move was made to suspend the wargames until well after the second crash at 9:03 am, by which time the worst of the attacks had occurred and the Pentagon flight was well under way.

in the timeline, Thompson covers Vigilant Warrior as follows:

9:28 a.m.: Myers Updates Clarke Videoconference on Fighter Response… Counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke, directing a video conference with top officials, asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but ... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert."

OFFICIAL VERSION: FBI and other agencies did their best to investigate terrorist cells prior to 9/11


  1. Months, before 9/11, the FBI, CIA, and the Bush administration knew that over a dozen men with

links to Osama bin Laden or on terror watch lists were in the United States and attending U.S. flight schools. FBI agents were feeding superiors reports of their activities. They were called off. But the information remained in computers and was produced only after the attacks, as if it were recently acquired.

Source: R. Joseph, Phd: “In 1995 and 1996, the FBI also learned that al-Qaeda associate, Abdul Hakim Murad and two other men, had received flight training at four different flight schools in the U.S. during the early 1990s: Coastal Aviation, Richmor Aviation, Schenectady flight school and Alpha Tango Flying Services in San Antonio. Murad was in fact recruited by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the bin Laden operative who had plotted and carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Murad was subsequently convicted of plotting to crash a suicide plane into CIA headquarters and blow up a dozen U.S. commercial jetliners over the Pacific.

Specifically, in addition to the World Trade Center bombing, it was determined in 1996, that Yousef and Murad had been plotting to train and deploy five-man terrorist teams who were to infiltrate and bomb 12 different commercial jetliners, including Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines, some of which were to be crashed into U.S. cities, including New York and Washington.

U.S. government prosecutors described the plot as "one of the most hideous crimes anyone ever conceived." In October of 1996, FBI agents in Phoenix were also informed by an undercover

agent, Harry Ellen, that a number of Arab extremists at a local mosque were receiving aviation training. Ellen was alarmed and informed the Phoenix office "that it would be terrible if the bad guys were able to gain this kind of access to airplanes, flight training and crop dusters. You really ought to look at this, it's an

interesting mix of people."

Indeed, one of the bad guys was Hanji Hajour, one of the September 11 hijackers. Hanjour was living in Phoenix and taking flight lessons at two different local schools: Professional Pilot Training and Cockpit Resource Management. Yet another suspected terrorist, Lotfi Raissi, was also in Phoenix, and later was briefly jailed in Britain on suspicion of training some of the 9/11 terrorists.

Over the ensuing months and years, the FBI and CIA continued to receive intelligence which detailed how terrorists had gained entry into the United States and were receiving pilot training for the purposes of crashing commercial jetliners into American cities, including New York and Washington.

For example, following the arrest of those involved in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, documents were discovered which contained numerous references to pilot training and flight schools and a plot to hijack U.S. jetliners. Two participants in the 1998 bombings, who subsequently turned government informant, also revealed to the FBI that they and other men directly linked with bin Laden, had been ordered to take flight classes. Specifically, Essam al-Ridi, received flight training at the Ed Boardman Aviation School in Fort Worth whereas Ihab Ali Nawawi received flight training at Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma. This same Ihab Ali Nawawi was linked to the 1998 embassy bombings. Another terrorist, L'Houssaine Kerchtou, received flight raining in Nairobi.

In yet another high profile case, an Algerian terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, with direct links to al-Qaeda and bin Laden, informed FBI officials that al-Qaeda was planning to carry out coordinated terrorist assaults on high profile American targets including New York City and the Pentagon. Ressam, who had been arrested in 1999 for plotting to carry out terrorist attacks on the Los Angeles airport, detailed the plot to FBI agents as part of a plea agreement. Bin Laden, he warned, would soon unleash an incomprehensible horror on the people of the United States, and American commercial jetliners would be used as weapons in the attack.

In 1999, the CIA and FBI received additional intelligence reports which warned that terrorists might hijack commercial jetliners and slam them into the Pentagon or the White House. Over the ensuing months and throughout 2001, the FBI, CIA, and other U.S. intelligence agencies became increasingly aware that individuals known or suspected to be linked with bin Laden or other terrorists groups, had been slipping into the country. They also knew that suspected terrorists on the FBI's "watch list" were receiving flight training. And they knew that men on their "watch list" were holding late night meetings that were attended by other men who were being watched, and many of these men then attended yet other meetings at different locations with yet other men on the FBI's "watch list" as well as with men who would later carry out the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, a dozen different individuals that the FBI maintains on a "watch list" and who were under some form of surveillance, shared the same U.S. addressees and were in fact living with several of the 9/11 hijackers. For example, eight of those on the FBI's watch list lived at the same address as two

of the 9/11 hijackers: Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi. All ten men shared a dormitory at Flight Safety International--a flight school in Vero Beach--and were training to be pilots. Hamza and Ahmed were on the jet that hit the south Tower of the World Trade Center.

Yet another certified pilot on the FBI's watch list shared an address in Daytona Beach with Waleed Alshehri, a hijacker on the flight that struck the north Tower of the World Trade Center. Also at that address: Saeed Alghamdi, a hijacker on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Waleed Alshehri and his brother Wail Alshehri, also shared yet another address with a woman living in Hollywood, Florida, who was also on the "watch list." And, she shared their surname: Alshehri.

A Coral Springs man who was also on the FBI's watch list shared the same address as Marwan Al-Shehhi and Mohamed Atta. Al-Shehhi and Atta piloted the commercial jets that struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

The FBI was not only aware that Mohamed Atta was in the U.S. and receiving flight training, but that he been implicated in previous terrorist attacks, and had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. In fact, by law, Atta and his "cousin" Marwan, should have never been granted visas or allowed into the country; yet in the months prior to 9/11 they were allowed to continue their activities unhindered.”

  1. Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested by FBI agents in Minnesota, after being alerted by a flight school that he was only wanting to learn to steer an airliner in the air. The field office found out from the French that he had a terrorist background, but FBI headquarters refused to allow his apartment to be search for further evidence.

Source: R. Joseph, Phd: “Like their superiors in Washington, FBI field agents knew that the nation was in danger of a terrorist attack, and that this threat involved the hijacking of commercial airliners. What these field agents did not know, but which they began to suspect, was that their superiors in Washington were acting as "accomplices" to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

On August 15 of 2001, just weeks before the 9/11 attack, FBI agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, arrested Zacarias Moussaoui who was in the U.S. illegally. They were alerted to Moussaoui's presence and the danger he represented, by the manager of the International Flight School in Eagan, Minnesota.

Moussaoui, the FBI was told, had been requesting training in a Boeing 747 simulator. However, he had no interest in learning about landings or takeoffs. According to an instructor at the flight school: "He just wanted to learn to steer the plane, which was very odd."

The FBI field office soon learned from French intelligence officials that Zacarias Moussaoui was a suspected terrorist affiliated with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and Osama Bin Laden. Upon further investigation, Minneapolis FBI agents became convinced that Moussaoui posed a direct threat to the security of the United States and that he was part of a widespread terrorist plot that involved the

hijacking and destruction of commercial U.S. jet liners.

However, in order to confirm their suspicions and prevent what they were convinced was a major threat to the United State agents requested permission from superiors to search Moussaoui’s apartment. The request was denied.”

  1. Extensive FBI collusion with Middle Eastern agents have surfaced in the OKC and first WTC bombing investigations. Impeachment attorney David Schippers reveals that McVeighs Iraqi helper, Al Hussain Husaini, was protected from discovery and released without prosecution. Hussaini was later allowed to get a job as a baggage handler at Boston Logan airport where the hijackings occurred. Schippers reports that prior to and after 9/11 the Justice Department did not want to hear his case, or those of the FBI agent whistleblowers he was representing.

Source: J. Crogan, investigative reporter: “Crogan The Middle Eastern connection to Oklahoma City Mon Feb 18 03:16:43 2002 February 17, 2002 Ever since the country was savagely attacked on Sept. 11, the FBI has relentlessly investigated flight schools, airports, universities, mosques, Middle Eastern charities and Muslim communities, looking for connections to al-Qaida or other jihadist groups. The only stone, it seems, the bureau hasn't been willing to turn over is its own investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing. Presumably, that's because the 1995 terrorist attack was the exclusive work of homegrown extremists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Or was it? Even though McVeigh went to his death denying any larger plot, serious questions remain unanswered. Did John Doe No. 2 ever exist? If so, who is he? If not, why did a second suspect initially emerge?

And then there's that troublesome FBI-authorized all-points bulletin issued just minutes after the truck bomb exploded. The alert sent members of Oklahoma City law enforcement searching for two Middle Eastern-looking men seen speeding away from the blast area in a brown Chevy pickup with tinted windows and a bug shield. The APB was abruptly cancelled several hours later without explanation. The evidence that the Oklahoma City bombing involved a larger conspiracy, one with Middle Eastern connections, is compelling. And the trail begins with that mysterious pickup.

The week after the bombing, Jayna Davis, a veteran Oklahoma City reporter at KFOR-TV, got a tip, which began her investigation of a local property management company. Dr. Samir Khalil owns Samara Properties, and several former employees told Davis they had seen a pickup, matching the APB's description, at the office. Davis discovered that Khalil, a Palestinian expatriate, had pled guilty in 1991 to several counts of insurance fraud and served eight months in a federal prison. Khalil's court papers indicated that the FBI investigated him for alleged connections to the Palestine Liberation Organization. But Khalil vehemently denied any PLO links. And he's never responded to my calls for comment. Former Samara employees also told Davis that six months before the bombing, Khalil hired a group of Iraqi refugees to do painting and construction work. This group had allegedly fled Iraq to escape Saddam Hussein's regime. But a Samara employee told Davis he saw them cheering the terror attack and vowing to die in Saddam's service. Davis then used surveillance camera to take pictures of these Iraqis.

Eventually, she focused on one man, Hussain Alhussaini (also known as Al-Hussaini Hussain), who seemed to match the last FBI profile sketch and description of John Doe No. 2. Over the next several months, she interviewed witnesses who said they saw McVeigh in the company of a Middle Eastern-looking man in the days and hours before the bombing. Using KFOR's photo line-up, they identified that individual as Alhussaini. Perhaps the most intriguing statements she collected came from a host of staff members at a motel near downtown Oklahoma City. They reported seeing McVeigh with a number of Middle Eastern men at the site in the months preceding the bombing. Using KFOR's photos, those men were identified as Samara employees. Alhussaini was included in that group. The motel witnesses also said they saw several of the Iraqis moving large barrels around in the back of an old white truck. The barrels, they alleged, emanated a strong smell of diesel fuel, one of the key ingredients used in the Oklahoma City bomb. Davis also discovered that the mysterious brown Chevy pickup was impounded by the FBI on April 27, 1995. The pickup had been abandoned in an apartment building lot. According to the police report, the truck had been stripped of its license plate, inspection tag and all its vehicle identification numbers. It also was spray-painted yellow, but the original color was listed as brown.

One resident at the complex told the FBI the driver was "clean-shaven, with an olive complexion, dark, wavy hair and broad shoulders," in his late 20s or early 30s and of Middle Eastern descent. Davis also used a hidden camera to interview Lana Padilla, Terry Nichols' ex-wife, about Nichols' repeated trips to the Philippines, a hotbed for terrorist activity. "Tim bought Terry the first ticket for the Philippines," Padilla said. That trip occurred in 1989. His last visit came in November 1994. Ramzi Yousef, the Iraqi convicted for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to blow up U.S. airliners, operated out of Mindanao and Manila in the Philippines. Yousef received funding from Osama bin Laden. According to a motion filed by the McVeigh defense team, an American fitting Nichols' description met with Yousef in the Philippines in 1992 or 1993. Davis eventually aired a number of pieces, taking care to disguise the Iraqi's identity.

However, Alhussaini voluntarily stepped forward on June 15, 1995, to publicly claim that KFOR and Davis had labeled him as John Doe No. 2. Alhussaini told Channel 9 in Oklahoma City he was living in fear. He claimed to be working at one of Khalil's properties when the bombing occurred. And he produced a handwritten time sheet as proof. The former Iraqi soldier also denied knowing McVeigh, and demanded a public apology from KFOR. KFOR and Davis stood by their reports and countered with witnesses who contradicted Alhussaini's assertions, including the time sheet, which was labeled a fabrication. Alhussaini responded by filing a state civil libel suit. However, he withdrew the suit the day before a judge was scheduled to rule on KFOR's motion for summary judgment. Meanwhile, Alhussaini's suit froze KFOR's coverage of the story. And Davis eventually quit after The New York Times bought the station and the investigation was stopped. The former reporter, who had collected 22 signed affidavits from the witnesses she interviewed, was called to testify before a state grand jury that examined the bombing in 1997. With the witnesses' permission, she gave the grand jury the affidavits. Alhussaini then refiled his libel suit in federal court. Once again attorneys for KFOR and Davis filed for a dismissal. On Nov. 17, 1999, U.S. District Judge Tim Leonard granted their motion. In his ruling, Leonard stated that all the facts in Davis' report were either true or statements of opinion, and did not libel the plaintiff. Alhussaini then appealed the ruling. A hearing was held on Sept. 10; a decision is pending.

Alhussaini moved from Oklahoma City and was reportedly living in the Boston area. His lawyer declined to give me a phone number for his client. According to 1997 medical records produced during his federal suit, Alhussaini said he had worked for a while at Boston's Logan Airport (where two of the planes were hijacked on Sept. 11). Quoting from those records, Alhussaini first told his psychiatrist that he had quit his airport job because, "If anything happens there, I will be a suspect." However, he later told his doctor that he "wanted to look for another job because he feels unsafe in the environment he works in, the airport, given the recent events involving his being previously suspected of involvement in the Oklahoma bombing." Alhussaini's specific job at the airport was never identified. I contacted the Massachusetts Port Authority, which oversees Logan, to obtain dates of employment. A spokesperson said the agency would not release any information... Over the past seven months, I reviewed all of Davis' documents, including the material she got from Bodansky. I also conducted my own follow-up interviews and found no holes in her investigation.

As for Davis, she's tried twice to give her material to the FBI. According to her attorney Tim McCoy, Department of Justice attorneys prosecuting Nichols rejected Davis' documents in 1997 because they didn't want more material to turn over to the defense. McCoy testified to this at a recent hearing in Nichols' state murder case. In 1999, former FBI agent Dan Vogel accepted the material, but he said that higher-ups later rejected it because the agency questioned Davis' ownership rights. I called the bureau but it declined to explain this strange turn of events. Perhaps if Vogel had been allowed to testify at a recent hearing in Nichols' Oklahoma murder trial, details would have been forthcoming. But the Justice Department refused to let him take the stand.”

  1. FBI headquarters tried to silence and then fired Turkish translator Sibel Edmonds after she uncovered other translators falsifying and covering for incriminating conversations of terrorists. Federal court system refused to back up her whistleblower claims according to law.

Source: Sibel Edmonds: “Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden.

This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue.

The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004).

Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to the 9/11 Commission on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information. I provided the 9/11 Commission with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this case.

For almost four years since September 11, officials refused to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists’ plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.’ Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC.

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities.

After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent’s hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas (country name omitted). It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it.

Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor, Mike Feghali, stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department.

Source: Tom Flocco: “FBI translator Sibel Edmonds was offered a substantial raise to encourage her not to go public that she had been asked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to retranslate and adjust the translations of [terrorist] subject intercepts that had been received before September 11, 2001 by the FBI and CIA. In a 50 reporter frenzy in front of some 12 news cameras, Edmonds said "Attorney General John Ashcroft told me 'he was invoking State Secret Privilege and National Security' when I told the FBI that I wanted to go public with what I had translated from the pre 9-11 intercepts".

  1. Former FBI Terrorism Task Force chief John O'Neill was ordered to back off his investigation of the Saudis in the bombing of the USS Cole, as well as pursuing his al Qaeda investigations. He resigned in protest and was offered a replacement job as Chief of Security at the WTC–where he died on Sept. 11. [How convenient that he was no longer available to testify about government stonewalling of his investigations on al Qaeda]

Source: AFPN: “Until he resigned, in August of 2001, John O'Neill was the director of antiterrorism for the FBI's New York office. O'Neill had worked on the investigations of the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the attacks on the American embassies in Africa in 1998. He became one of the world's top experts on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. O'Neill believed that "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia." Yet the Bush administration blocked O'Neill's efforts to investigate the Saudi ties to bin Laden. The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism, asserted O'Neill, were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.

For example, Bush blocked an FBI investigation of the bin Laden family and kept his family's business ties to the bin Ladens as secret as possible. Among these business dealings were bin Laden investments in the Carlyle Group and connections between bin Laden and George W. Bush's first oil companies.

O'Neill was very well aware of the warnings that came out in the summer of 2001. But it was obvious that he was considered more of a liability than an asset to the oil-obsessed Bush administration. Back in 2000, O'Neill had been investigating the bombing of the SS Cole, for which he was sure bin Laden was responsible. However, the US ambassador to Yemen, one Barbara Bodine, hamstrung FBI efforts at every turn, publicly calling O'Neill a liar, refusing to allow his men to be armed with more than small handguns and, in general, crippling the investigation. Although Bodine claims she was trying to keep diplomatic relations running smoothly, her history shows otherwise:

Barbara Bodine has served primarily under rightwing old boys and in areas where their oil interests are being served. Under Reagan she served as Deputy Principle Officer in Baghdad, Iraq. Under Bush, Sr., she served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait and was there during the Gulf War. She has also worked for Bob Dole, and far more ominously, for Henry Kissinger. Now, under Bush, Jr., she is in Yemen impeding an FBI investigation that focused on the son of a Bush family business associate.

What makes Bodine's actions toward O'Neill particularly despicable is that she was said to be in part to blame for the Cole disaster. Even though she had been warned that the risk of attacks on Americans in the Yemen area were extremely high at that time, the Cole entered port under the lowest grade of security permitted in the Middle East with no warning to the destroyer. A top military analyst for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency quit in protest the day after the bombing because of Bodine and General Anthony Zinn's decision to allow the Cole to come into the port.

In July, Bodine had O'Neill and the FBI barred from Yemen. About that time, O'Neill's name had been proposed by Richard Clarke as Clarke's successor as terrorism czar at the National Security Council. But a very mysterious incident that had happened nearly a year before was dredged up and used to blow that possibility out of the water. In November of 2000, at a retirement seminar in Tampa, O'Neill left his briefcase for a few moments in the convention room to go around the corner to use the phone. When he returned in a few minutes, the brief case, containing some papers considered classified, was gone. It soon turned up, but the incident was seized upon as an excuse to guarantee O'Neill would not get promoted. Was it a real theft? Or a set up to squeeze out the man who asked too many questions about Saudis and oil? O'Neill had finally had enough and quit.

Four days later, Bush was given the warning that could have, if acted upon, saved 3,000 American lives and the thousands of civilian lives lost in Afghanistan since October. Instead, he chose to ignore it. In early September, O'Neill took a job at the WTC as head of security there. Right before the disaster, he told friends he felt sure an attack was imminent and that he feared that terrorists would try to finish the job they had begun in 1993 to destroy the WTC. John O'Neill was in the first tower when it was hit. He was on his way into the second tower to help evacuate people when he was killed.”

  1. WTC janitor Rodriguez said, “The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower."

Source: Greg Szymanski, “What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy. But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11. Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact? Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying "Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one."

Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions. His eye witness account, ignored by the media and the government, points the finger squarely on an official cover-up at the highest levels since the government contends the WTC fell only from burning jet fuel. And after listening to Rodriguez, it’s easy to see why the Bush administration wants him kept quiet.

Bush wants him quiet because Rodriguez’s account is ‘proof positive’ the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel. And Bush knows if he’s caught lying about this or caught in a cover-up, it’s just a matter of time before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. In fact, Rodriguez’s story is so damaging – so damning – it literally blows the lid off the government story, literally exposing the whole 9/11 investigation as a sham and a cover-up of the worst kind.

And it appears the cover-up also extends to the media. NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why? His eyewitness account, backed up by at least 14 people at the scene with him, isn’t speculation or conjecture. It isn’t a story that takes a network out on a journalistic limb. It’s a story that can be backed up, a story that can be verified with hospital records and testimony from many others.

It’s a story about 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms. “So why didn’t NBC or any other major news outlets cover the story? They didn’t run it because it shot the government story to hell and back. They didn’t run it because "the powers at be" wouldn’t allow it.

Since 9/11, Rodriguez has stuck to his guns, never wavering from what he said from day one. Left homeless at times, warned to keep quiet and subtly harassed, he nevertheless has continued trying to tell get his message out in the face of a country not willing to listen.

Here is his story: The Miracle

It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower."It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning," said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.

But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story. "Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries. "He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below. "I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.

"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word."

After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower.

In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors. "I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors. "Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs."

Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his dissent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower.

The Tragedy

The concerted effort by the media and the government to silence Rodriguez is the tragedy behind this American hero’s story. And there is no question, Rodriguez is a "silent hero" for saving so many lives and for having the courage to continue telling his story against tremendous odds.

In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST).

NIST, an independent investigative group funded by the government, put the finishing touches this week on its 2 year $35 million 9/11 investigation. This week Rodriguez made his final plea to have his story heard while testifying at the final public hearing held in New York. " I disagree 100% with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower. "And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers. "Also, The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower."

Besides the explosions, Rodriguez also has provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he stumbled across one of the supposed 19 Arab hijackers inside the WTC several months before 9/11. "I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission. "Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange. I didn't forget about it"

Rodriguez, claims he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001, telling an FBI agent about the incident a month after the attacks. Never hearing back from the bureau, he later learned agents never followed up on the story. "I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks," said Rodriguez.

Regarding the media’s apathetic approach to his story, Rodriguez said immediately after 9/11 some newspapers picked it up but his words were never taken seriously and quickly forgotten. "During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it," said Rodriguez. "Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didn’t understand who I was dealing with. "I have been receiving this type of subtle harassment for years, but I keep telling everybody I can’t be intimidated because I am on a mission. Whenever someone asks why I keep talking or warns me that I could be killed, I just tell them I have nothing to lose. "I tell them I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now. I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

OFFICIAL VERSION: Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network were responsible for the attack. The CIA sponsored the rise of al Qaeda with the help of Pakistan’s ISI, in order to free Afghanistan from Soviet domination, but bin Laden turned against his Western benefactors. The US has been hunting bin Laden and his top leaders with all their might.


  1. The French daily Le Figaro got reports from French intelligence that bin Laden was receiving kidney dialysis treatment at the American hospital in Dubai, UAR in July, 2001. A top CIA official was seen making him a visit. If bin Laden was a wanted fugitive, why didn’t the US arrest him?

Source: Webster Tarpley's book on page 149, tells us of an October 2001 article in Le Figaro by Alexandra Richard, who reported, "The CIA met bin Laden in Dubai in July" [of 2001], two months before

9/11." Imagine that. An American France Presse dispatch quoted in Tarpley's book says, Osama bin Laden underwent treatment in July at the American Hospital in Dubai where he met a US Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) official . . . Quoting a "witness," a professional partner of the administrative management of the hospital, they said the man suspected by the United State of being behind the

September 11 terrorist attacks had arrived in Dubai on July 4 by air from Quetta, Pakistan. He was immediately taken to the hospital for kidney treatment. He left the establishment on July 14. The dispatch also reports that the CIA man was named Larry Mitchell, Osama's handler and case officer. He was seen going into bin Laden's room and later "boasting to his friends of the meeting." Le Figaro also reported that

bin Laden brought his own doctor, and a close collaborator who would be the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with bodyguards and a personal nurse. Dr. Terry Callaway was bin Laden's urologist and attended to his serious kidney condition. Bin Laden also had had a mobile dialysis machine sent to his Kandahar hideout in Afghanistan in the first half of 2000 . . ." Of course, the CIA denied this all, despite reconfirmation from the French investigative reporters.”

  1. Both the governments of Sudan (during the Clinton administration) and the Taliban (during Bush 43 administration) offered to turn bin Laden over to the US. They were refused. Why? If bin Laden really had turned against the CIA?

Source: NY Times: Eric Lichtblau “ State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter

the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they

offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

  1. During the war in Afghanistan, various sources report bin Laden being allowed to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan, and his family and Arab guards over land into Iran, boarding ships at the gulf. US had satellite surveillance of this shipping and did not intervene.

Source: Capitol Hill Blue: President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney lied during the 2004

Presidential campaign when they claimed U.S. forces did not miss a chance to

capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in 2001. A U.S. government document

shows a terror suspect held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was a commander for bin

Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s and helped the

al-Qaida leader escape his mountain hide-out at Tora Bora in 2001.”

Source: Debka.com



It was just before midnight Nov. 21 when Russian-made Antonov aircraft without markings began landing at the bombed-out airport of Konduz in northern Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance's conquest of the Afghan city was still five days away, and a small group of Pakistani military intelligence officers and soldiers – all of whom had been serving with the Taliban – waited anxiously on a runway, together with a large number of Pakistanis wounded in battle lying on blankets. The planes were coming to take them home.

Around 5 p.m. earlier that day, U.S. bombings of the airport had suddenly stopped. As they waited for the airlift, the Pakistanis understood the rescue of their men trapped in Konduz had been set up in a silent agreement between their government, or commanding officers, and the U.S. Two planes were to touch down every night to pick them up until the evacuation was finished.

But as the airlift began, Pakistani air crews and their passengers were astonished to see they had company on the runways of Konduz – a second fleet of Antonov transports was running a parallel airlift on some mysterious mission.

Military sources have solved the mystery: The planes belonged to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. Under cover of the Pakistani airlift, 3,000 of the group's fighters were secretly lifted to safety from the besieged towns of Konduz and Khandabad about 15 miles to the south. The double airlift lasted five nights. The planes arriving to ferry Pakistani fighters home were closely shadowed by a phantom airlift extracting al-Qaida personnel.

The rescued Pakistanis were flown to air bases in northwest and central Pakistan. The al-Qaida men were taken long distance to the Persian Gulf emirates, landing, according to Gulf sources, in Abu Dhabi and the Somali town of Baidoa.”

  1. Various sources came to US authorities both in Afghanistan and the US with detailed evidence of bin Laden locations. They were shocked to be rebuffed by administration officials, showing no interest in their claims.

  2. None of the supposed al Qaeda top leaders that have been captured, like “9/11 mastermind” Khalid Sheik Mohammad, have ever been seen in public, brought to trial or prosecuted–years later. For all we know these former CIA and Pakistani ISI friends could be living it up in a villa.

  3. If al Qaeda really is this well financed, world-wide terror organization, why have there not been any single incidents of small, cheap, normal acts of sabotage and terrorism in the US, with it’s nearly open borders? Cheney claims “we’ve got them on the run.” But, if they can pull off sophisticated bombings in Bali, Israel, Turkey, and everywhere a nation want to claim “al Qaeda did it” why can’t they walk across the US-Mex border and sabotage power lines? It doesn’t add up! If you think they are cowed by the “effectiveness” of our Homeland Security system (Cheney’s claim), look at Israel. With a tiny country to surveil and a 10-fold higher density of police and military checkpoints, including security guards at every business, Israeli forces still can’t stop all car bombings, suicide bombings and infrastructure attacks – though they do stop many. Our country, in comparison, is wide open. Yet we have experienced none of these typical terrorist attacks. Why? As I have said before, either there are no significant terrorist cells here (hard to believe), or terrorism in the US is a controlled entity that our government can restrain or allow to operate according to its own political purposes.

JOHN KAMINSKI: “Many researchers claim the name al-Qaeda was made up in middle '90s by a

variety of American functionaries (one of them being none other than Richard Clarke) as an all-purpose villain the U.S. could blame as a convenient reason for its military adventurism

Al-Qaeda doesn't exist except for when they want it to, to blame for any sort of strategic terror they have created themselves for some political reason, like influencing the elections in Spain. Hah, that one really backfired.

Why haven't American intelligence operatives gone to these foreign countries to interview these named hijackers who turned out to be alive? Simple. Because they knew the list was fiction in the first place, andthe Arab-types who have been named as terror gurus are mostly their own employees, or people who have been set up by them.

It is a celebrated fact that Mohammed Atta and some of his friends were seen in nightclubs in the hours before 9/11, certainly a fact that argues against them being able to carry out their supposed missions because they were motivated by Islamic religious zeal. So their appearance in strip clubs blows the whole story that they were devout Muslims giving their lives to Allah. Devout Muslims don't drink, never mind cavort with strippers.”

OFFICIAL VERSION: Government officials tried their best to react to the attack as it occurred.


  1. President Bush was allowed to continue reading to a grade school class in Florida while the nations was under attack [There were also several indication he was improperly briefed on how to react (confused his statements about the first and second attack). Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, who had made a recent change to “use of deadly force” intercept procedures, just prior to 9/11, requiring his personal OK, made himself unavailable for command decisions during and after the Pentagon attack–walking down to see the damage rather than going to command post. Incredible! His nonchalant attitude indicates he knew there was no real threat from terror.

Rumsfeld's case is particularly flagrant, given that he had signed off on a June 1, 2001 Pentagon order that for the first time inserted the Secretary of Defense into the chain of response for issuing military intercept orders for errant planes. His story is that he reacted to news of the first and second WTC crashes by continuing his routine morning briefings, and that after the Pentagon was hit (at 9:37 or 9:41 am, depending on which official timeline one prefers), he decided to assist in rescue efforts instead of taking his place at the command center [as his own change in procedures demanded—this is not credible as an excuse].”

  1. There is evidence of military officials being given orders to Stand Down interceptor aircraft: A Tower controller at McGuire AFB revealed to private source of mine that a General officer called him a the tower and order the runway and to not allow fighters take off. This was well before the second aircraft crashed into the WTC.. Other Air Force officers have reported privately to friends that “stand-down orders were in fact given to the fighter pilots on 9/11, some of whom had already scrambled and were airborne.”

Source: Will Thomas’ “Stand Down”

It happens all the time. When a small private plane recently entered the 23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capitol, two F-16 interceptors were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away. In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 “Fighting Falcons” on 15-minute strip alert was airborne from Andrews just 11 minutes after being notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying towards the White House. [AP Nov11/03; CNN June20/02]

These were well-practiced routines. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release Aug/9/02; AP Aug13/02]

But on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]


A recently resurfaced NORAD news bulletin released seven days after Sept. 11 explains that America’s aerial defenders were slow to counter rapidly developing air attacks because they didn’t hear from the FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that fateful morning. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]

But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11’s identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 - automatically triggering a radar alarm.

With their capability to monitor developing “situations” by tapping into military and civilian radars, U.S. military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south 25 minutes later – just as they had watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet abruptly departed its flight path while enroute o Dallas. [CNN Oct26/1999]

In that legendary intercept, a fighter jet out of Tyndall, Florida was diverted from a training flight to escort the Lear, whose pilot had become incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F-16 was reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne’s pilotless business jet within 19 minutes of the FAA alert. [ABC News Oct25/99]

If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two “anti-terrorist” F-15’s on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet might have intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson Rive six minutes from the World Trade Center.. Even launching on the FAA’s first alert, the Mach 2.5 fighters could have reached Flight 175 before it struck the South Tower.


Instead, in a stunning admission that received little press scrutiny at the time, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown against the hijackers on Sept. 11, “Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach.” In other words, every interception flown by the world’s hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the planes’ top speed.

A Defense Department manual insists, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA.” To make this happen, the Federal Aviation Administration permanently posts a liaison officer in the Pentagon air defense room. [CJCSI 3610.01A, June1/01]

Yet, according to NORAD, after air traffic controllers realized that Flight 11 had been hijacked, 38 vital minutes passed before a pair of F-15’s were scrambled from Otis. As they lifted off, American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, 153 air miles away as a Falcon flies. [NORAD Sept. 18/01]

United Airlines Flight 175 was still 20 minutes out.

The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner,” Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later told reporters. [St. Augustine Times Sept16/01]

Scalded apes? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times faster.


One of the Otis intercept pilots dubbed “Duff”, later lamented: "We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker."

For starters, he and his wingman could have tried pushing their twin throttles fully forward. Instead of flying two-and-a-half times faster than a bullet, “Nasty” and “Duff” drove their expensive air superiority fighters at a leisurely 447-mph – supposedly to intercept a Boeing 767 flying 43 mph faster! Utilizing only 27% power, the F-15’s were “eight minutes/71 miles” away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard. [Christian Science Monitor Mar8/02]


With both Trade Towers burning, and hijacked United Flight 93 shadowed by a circling F-16 over Pennsylvania, American Airlines Flight 77 was the only threat left in the sky. When that Boeing 757 silenced its transponder signal, made a U-turn over Kentucky and headed directly for the White House and the Pentagon, one billion viewers riveted to the big networks knew this was a kamikaze run. [Telegraph Sept13/01]

With no other bogeys on eastern seaboard scopes, air combat doctrine dictates that the two unemployed Otis F-15s already in the area be redirected to “honor the threat” of an incoming flying bomb, 330 miles out. Even loafing along, the fighters would have more than 20 minutes to confront Flight 77 before it neared the Pentagon.

Instead, Pentagon professionals defending their country’s nerve centers waited more than an hour after watching Flight 11 go rogue - including 30 critical minutes after Flight 77 turned abruptly toward them and the nearby White House - before scrambling two F-16’s out of Langley Air Force Base to protect the capitol.

Nearly half-an-hour after receiving the belated order to scramble, two Falcons coasted in over the burning Pentagon. Slowed down to just 410 mph, it had taken the 1,500 mph-capable fighters 19 minutes to cover the 130 miles from Virginia. It should have taken just over seven minutes to reach the Pentagon – at about the time Flight 77 was making a predatory circle overhead. [NORAD Sept18/01; USAF]


The supersonic jets were flown no faster than WWII prop-driven fighters. But it hardly mattered. Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10 miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes’ notice!

Isn’t it about time someone asked why those routinely launched Andrews interceptors were “stood down” as Flight 77 bored in toward the headquarters they were supposed to protect? [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01

In the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force installations were within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Does anyone else wonder why none of those aircraft were ordered launched - or why none of the armed fighters on training flights or patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast were diverted to intercept four commandeered airliners until after the Pentagon was struck – one-hour and 18 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked? [www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a]

According to NORAD, the F-16s from Langley were still “12 minutes/105 miles” away when the big Boeing they were “chasing” soared past the White House and the Andrews runways. Allegedly flown by an incompetent Egyptian flight student who couldn’t solo a Cessna, the 757 peeled off and piled into the Pentagon after an abrupt dive and pull-up that left veteran pilots agape. [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01; NBC Nightly News Sept11/01; All Fall Down]

Immediately after the Pentagon was hit, the Andrews alert jets were launched to guard empty skies. [Mirror Nov13/03]


Responding to questions from a Senate confirmation committee two days after this suspicious fiasco, the Joint Chief’s acting air defense chief on Sept. 11 said he was in a meeting while all hell was breaking loose in his sector.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers had not let a TV report about a small plane hitting the World Trade Center interrupt his routine. As jumbo jetliners kept diving into buildings, apparently no one thought to inform the acting commander of U.S. air defenses that his country was under attack. Myers said he came out of his meeting just as the Pentagon was hit.

Asked repeatedly when the brass were first informed of the emergency, and when interceptors were scrambled, Myers repeated a muddled mantra six times, saying ““I'll have to get back to you on that.” [www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html]

Instead of being court-martialed like the luckless commanders defending Pearl Harbor, or even reprimanded, General Myers was awarded command of the entire U.S. military as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush publicly commended the air force general for his “calm manner, sound judgment, and his clear strategic thinking.” [White House press release Oct15/01]

As this bizarre and possibly treasonous story goes to press, the FAA has refused to disclose documents relating to when that agency notified U.S. air defenses about the four hijacked airliners. A second subpoena served on the Pentagon by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has been similarly unsuccessful in attaining records concerning whether NORAD responded quickly enough in dispatching interceptors on Sept. 11. [Washington Post Nov8/03]

Instead of fingering air traffic controllers for not following procedures, these documents could show that the FAA did follow its own Standard Intercept Procedures and notify NORAD within a few minutes of each hijacking – which would leave the Air Force with even more explaining to do. [AP Oct18/03]”

  1. NORAD falsified the time line to deny that they were notified by the FAA in time to react

9/11 Citizens Watch co-founder, Kyle Hence noted that, "Despite a forced delay of over a year in starting the probe, military and government officials in positions of responsibility at the time of the attacks have failed in their testimony to put forward a cohesive timeline. Official timelines from NORAD, the FAA, and other published accounts conflict with each other on significant details about the events in question.

NORAD was already on alert conducting exercises as part of Operation Vigilant Guardian that day, raising questions about response times and capabilities. ormer top FAA administrator Jane Garvey's testimony failed to provide n accurate accounting of exactly when NORAD was informed of the first ijacking leading an FAA Public Affairs officer to promise to deliver a ormal statement before press deadlines.

According to the official FAA timeline, the initiation of an inter-agency hone bridge (including the entire FAA network , Department of Defense, he Secret Service, and "other government agencies") occurred "within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center" shortly after 8:46 .m. EST. These phone bridges allowed NORAD to have real-time information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the

flights of interest, including Flight 77."

However, the official NORAD timeline released shortly after the attacks reveals that the FAA was in contact with NORAD reporting real-time events regarding the hijackings prior to the crash of the first plane. The Northeast Air Defense System (NEADS) put Otis Air National Guard Base on alert at 8:40 a.m. EST and were scrambling planes in response to the hijackings even before the American Airlines flight crashed into the World Trade Center.

Despite the fact that NORAD had their aircraft and command in battle-ready posture, General Arnold testified that when it came time to repond to theattacks of the four hijacked planes his command had to depend entirely upon FAA radar and communications systems to scramble, monitor, and direct any air defense jets at their disposal.

"On its face this juxtaposition of testimony stretches credulity" commented John Judge of CitizensWatch.

There was also some confusion in testimony about exactly what protocol was in place in the event of hijackings prior to, and on 9/11. This point emerged in Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's questioning of NORAD General McKinley and retired General Arnold, who maintained that response to hijackings

is technically a matter for "law enforcement". This jurisdictional issue seemed to cloud the issue unnecessarily, because standard operating procedures require that in all air emergencies, including hijackings, the FAA must immediately notify the Pentagon and NORAD to scramble interceptors.

The confusion over NORAD response, or lack of it, on 9/11 was further compounded by the details surrounding a 'shoot-down' order.

  1. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. On 9/11 none were specifically launched to intercept any flights until too late–and from too far away. At the Pentagon, two aircraft from Langley AFB way to the south were launched to intercept and preceded north at subsonic speeds. The closer aircraft at Andrews AFB were only launched after the Pentagon was struck. NORAD took 38 minutes after air traffic controllers alerted them Flight 11 had been hijacked, before launching a pair of F-15’s from Otis AFB. [Military Exercises and other concealed high level distractions kept everything unstable, as planned]

Source Will Thomas, “Stand Down” Summary: Why no scramble? Thomas saw a NORAD news release issued 2 days after, which says all interceptors flew at .07 mach (500 mph) Why so slowly? He calls Norad, and asks: why did they fly at only 500 mph. They said, “we’ll get back to you.” “You have 5 days” he tells them or he will release the story in Europe and Canada. The following morning he got an email from Col. Springs asking if he had written a piece critical of NORAD’s response. He said yes–and they refused to cooperate.

He asks: Why were planes launched from Otis (Cape Cod) AFB 175 miles from NY and why at Andrews they stayed on the ground. The pilots “Nasty” and “Duff” said they went to “full blower” to intercept. They were not. Flight times indicate only 500mph. 3 F-16s were in the air prior to the attacks on the WTC.. 2 jets out of Atlantic City (practicing bombing runs). Could have intercepted. Weren’t even told for one hour. Only after they landed were they told and rearmed. 2 F-15 were told to orbit out in the ocean. They had 40 minutes to deal with the Pentagon. Therefore, he concludes, “we let it happen.”

  1. One military witness said a C-130 and fighter jet were in the air over the Pentagon 5 minutes prior to the attack. Why was it there and why wasn’t it used? Why has the government never admitted its presence?

Source: Jeff (eye witness) to Dick Eastman. “I was on the 30th floor of a building in Crystal City with an unobstructed view of the Pentagon on 9/11. I watched a C130 cargo plane flying very low come right by the building I was in and over the Pentagon followed shortly by a fighter aircraft. It got everyone's attention and brought all of us to the window. Approximately 5 minutes later I watched the airliner come over the highway and hit the side of the Pentagon. I know the difference between a cruise missile and a Plane. (Jeff tells Eastman, “My father is a retired Brigadier General and my brother is a Lt. Colonel in the Air force and an executive officer to a Four Star General on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”)

  1. Transportation Secretary Norm Minetta testified before the 9/11 commission that VP Cheney, in command at the White House situation room, repeatedly uttered words indicating he was confirming orders to staff NOT to interdict the plane approaching the Pentagon.

Mineta: There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out…The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man said

to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” Cheny whipped his neck around and said, “Of course

the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And…The flight that came into the Pentagon.

9/11 Commissioner Hamilton: And so there was no specific order there to shoot that plane down.

Mineta: No, sir.

OFFICIAL VERSION: The 4 airliners involved were hijacked by the 19 alleged hijackers listed by the FBI, and they used box cutters smuggled on board through normal security procedures.

Contradictions: I do not support those who claim there were no hijackers on board. There were too many oral witnesses to the radio transmissions from the planes to dispute that. Although some of the alleged cell phone calls were probably faked, many others, including those from flight attendants on Flight 11 seem accurate. What is hotly in dispute is whether the listed hijackers were the real hijackers. In the “too good to be true” evidence section I list the absurdities of the planted evidence used by the FBI.

  1. Seven of the listed 19 hijackers are still alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that some of the hijackers “may have stolen identities” of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." But, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. John Kominski asks, “Why haven't American intelligence operatives gone to these foreign countries to interview these named hijackers who turned out to be alive? Simple. Because they knew the list was fiction in the first place, and the Arab-types who have been named as terror gurus are mostly their own employees, or people who have been set up by them.”

Source: WND: “World Net Daily.com: FBI denies mix-up of 9-11 terrorists, Stands by original list even though some ID'd are still alive. Nearly 48 hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the names of the hijackers flashed across TV screens for the world to see. Based on intelligence information gained from interviews, witnesses, flight-manifest logs and passports found at some of the crash debris sites, the FBI claimed it correctly had identified all 18 hijackers. A short time later the number was amended to 19. A few days later the names were followed with photos of the men blamed for the terrorism that claimed nearly 3,000 lives in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. Incredibly fast intelligence work – some of the information coming from the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Va. – enabled investigators to tie the attack to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

While there is no doubt the hijackings were the work of al-Qaida, questions remain about whether some of the hijackers actually were the men the FBI identified. Last year that doubt crept into the highest levels of law enforcement after a series of sensational news reports aired by the BBC, ABC and CNN, along with several British newspapers, cast suspicion on whether the FBI got it right. The reports suggested at least six of the men the FBI claimed were hijackers on the planes were in fact alive. They didn't survive the crashes, of course, but never boarded the planes.

The six claimed they were victims of identify theft. They were "outraged" to be identified as terrorists, they told the Telegraph of London. In fact, one of the men claimed he never had been to the United States, while another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who said he was in a flight-training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.

The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened – nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.

Until now. Now the FBI is sticking with its original story – regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.

The six Saudis in question are:

Abdul Aziz al-Omari was identified as one of the hijackers and the pilot who crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Another man with the same name is an electrical engineer in Saudi Arabia. He lived in Denver after earning a degree from the University of Colorado in 1993. Coincidence? Consider this oddity. ABC News has reported that his Denver apartment was broken into and his passport and other documents stolen in 1995. In September 2001 he told the Telegraph, "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." More disturbing is that the FBI accidentally may have fused two names to create one identity, because another man, Abdul Rahman al-Omari, who has a different birth date, is the person pictured by the FBI, but he still is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. After his photograph was released, he walked into the U.S. Embassy in Jedda and demanded to know why he was being reported as a dead hijacker.

Salem al-Hamzi was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 77, the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon. Another man who has the same name works for the Saudi Royal Commission in Yanbu.

Saeed al-Ghamdi reportedly was one of the alleged hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He and another hijacker were said to have been in control of the plane when it was destroyed. A Saudi Arabian pilot has the same name.

Ahmed al-Nami was identified as a hijacker on United Flight 93. He also may have been in control of the plane when it crashed. A Saudi Arabian pilot with the same name is alive in Riyadh.

Wail al-Shehri was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 11. He reportedly was in control of the plane when it crashed. Another Saudi man who is a pilot has the same name, and his father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. His picture was displayed by the FBI as the "terrorist" al-Shehri who crashed the plane. The al-Shehri who is alive had resided in Daytona Beach, Fla., where he enrolled in flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He currently works for a Moroccan airline. Last year the Associated Press reported that al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. Embassy in Morocco. His photograph having been released and repeatedly shown around the world is evidence the man in the FBI photograph still is alive, the Saudi Embassy explains.

Waleed M. al-Shehri, a name used by another suspected hijacker on American Flight 11, reportedly is the brother of Wail al-Shehri. The odd coincidence is that the other son of the diplomat father is named Waleed M. This prompted the BBC to report in 2001 that "another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well."

  1. This may be one of the reasons why the FBI won’t release surveillance video tapes of the hijackers boarding, which would show their faces. It may also explain why the government only released written transcripts of portions of the FAA radio transmissions from the planes, and not the actual recordings–people who knew the real people might testify that the voices don’t match.

  2. It goes against all investigative techniques to assume that the name under which a criminal registers himself on check-in is his real identity. The rush to do so by the FBI is indicative they had a set list of people they were going to expose, and inserted it into the story–to shield the real identities, which would trace back to certain collaborating nations.

  3. The flight training stories about learning to fly Cessna light aircraft (which they all failed to do) as preparation for flying these sophisticated airlines is ludicrous. These stooges were put up to this as a cover story. They could barely speak English. Why didn’t they go to the Arab speaking flight school at Fort Worth to train? The real hijackers would have had real training time at the controls of real airliners, in Saudi Arabia or some other compliant host.

Source Wash. Post: Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour. According to press reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three times since

mid-August as he attempted to get permission to use one of the airport's planes. This from The Prince George's [Maryland] Journal September 18, 2001: "Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.

"According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. . . .

"Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.

"Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed.

"Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.

"Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience.

Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International Airport. According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."

"A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October" and asked to be given flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly difficult. 'He would not look at your face,' the instructor said. 'When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His attention span was very short."

The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the instructor said, the two moved on . . . . "We didn't kick them out, but they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)

Or try the Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls . . . .

"Last spring, two of the men visited Montgomery Field, a community airport . . . and sought flying lessons. They spoke to instructors at Sorbi's Flying Club, which allowed them to take only two lessons before advising them to quit.

"'Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse,' said an instructor, who asked not to be named. 'It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car . . . ..'

"'They seemed like nice guys,' the instructor said, 'but in the plane, they were dumb and dumber.'" ("San Diegans See Area as Likely Target," Washington Post, September 24, 2001, pg. A7.)

  1. The real hijackers had guns, knives, bombs, mace and gas masks, as well as a box cutter or two (which also was illegal). These facts were suppressed because the Airlines would have been open to law suits about how those things got past security. How did they get past security?

Mrs. Sweeney’s call, about the bomb. "My wife’s call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men—by name—even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. And she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board. "How do you know it’s a bomb?" asked her phone contact.

"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires.

Gail sheehy of the UK Observer: “The Moms want to know if investigators have looked into how the pilots were actually disabled. To think that eight pilots—four of whom were formerly in the military, some with combat experience in Vietnam, and all of whom were in superb physical shape—could have been subdued without a fight or so much as a sound stretches the imagination [pilots disabled by mace]

The independent commission is in a position to demand such answers, and many more. Have any weapons been recovered from any of the four downed planes? If not, why should the panel assume they were "less-than-four-inch knives," the description repeatedly used in the commission’s hearing on aviation security? Remember the airlines’ first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.

But bombs? Mace or pepper spray? Gas masks? The F.B.I. dropped the clue that the hijackers had "masks" in a meeting with the Four Moms from New Jersey, the 9/11 widows who rallied for this independent commission.

OFFICIAL VERSION: Too good to be true evidence. These claims by government were also suspect.


  1. If this large, complex and sophisticated operation was so sophisticated as to evade total scrutiny by the CIA, FBI, INS and NSA, why would the perpetrators be stupid enough to leave a car at Logan airport with telltale flight manuals inside? Why not take a taxi? This operation apparently took place over a 5 year period. Considering the expense of training pilots they could certainly have afforded a taxi ride to the airport. The boys who did the Madrid attacks used this same trick to finger al Qaeda as the culprit–a van with blasting caps and Koran tapes!

  2. Tickets were purchased with a credit card, pointing a direct finger at an accomplice. Someone was trying to create a false trail. A plan of attack this sophisticated certainly would have used cash.

  3. That Mohammad Atta left his bag at the airport with airport employees and that they failed to put it on the plane. That the bag contained a video on how to fly planes, a uniform and his last will and testament. That Mohammad Atta did leave his drivers license in a rental car. No trained terrorist with the qualifications to pull of the complexity of the WTC attacks would make these mistakes.

  4. How did the FBI know to raid theBoston Westin Hotel where the hijackers were staying, the day after the attack and how did they find out the specific pizza order, and their napping habits? It’s impossible to believe that the hijacker’s accomplices were still waiting in that Hotel. If the FBI was so incompetent prior to 9/11 how did you do all this magic so quickly? Answer: they were already in the government’s data base.

Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, finally shot back at the panel with a startling boast. "We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001," Mr. Bonner testified. "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes."

  1. Magic passports (2, actually) "In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.[The crooked cop linked to Mayor Giuliani, who Bush stupidly nominated as chief of Homeland Security].”

CNN: "In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. That has prompted the FBI and police to widen the search area beyond the immediate crash site." ...Leaders urge 'normal' Monday after week of terror . . . " September 16, 2001. Commentary: We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his passport with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be discovered, several blocks away...Mohammed Atta’s passport (stolen) and found two or three blocks away

OFFICIAL VERSION: WTC TOWERS COLLAPSE The government claims both towers collapsed solely due to fire damage resulting from aircraft collisions.


  1. The North Tower had an explosion in the basement at or slightly before the first strike, which blew out all lobby windows and killed and burned people in the lobby or elevators. There was NO SMOKE nor black smoke residue in the lobby [I’ve seen the fire fighter videos upon arrival–the air was perfectly clear], so it could not have been caused by fuel coming down the elevator shafts as officials claim. The janitor and 14 other witnesses confirm no huge clouds of black smoke.

  2. The south tower collapsed first even though the damage was limited to one corner. Its main central supporting pillars, capable of holding the entire weight, were relatively undamaged, the fire was shorter and less intense than in the North Tower.

  3. The 23 degree initial tilt of the south tower’s collapse would have normally kept tilting due to the vertical resisting moment of the powerful central pillars. It stopped tilting and descended vertically, indicating the central pillars were suddenly collapsed into zero resistance [not possible by crushing forces–steel pillars continue to bend and resist].

  4. Video clips from a helicopter clearly show the radio/television towers on top of the North Tower starting to descend just before the outside perimeter. This strongly suggests the central core columns were blown or melted by thermite charges. The outer perimeter structure is not designed to hold the weight of the tower–hence the resulting progressive collapse.

  5. There were large pools of molten metal discovered at the basement level where the central columns rested. These could only have been created by thermite charges. Burning debris or fuel do not reach these kinds of temperatures even in optimum conditions, let alone in an oxygen starved pile of rubble 70 feet underground.

  6. The rate of descent of both towers almost exactly matched the rate of free fall–violating the laws of physics. The resistance of each floor structure, not to mention the powerful central core columns would have slowed the descent by at least twice the time–unless demolition charges removed those central columns. BYU physics professor Steven Jones makes this case, complete with video references at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

Source: Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.

As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.

Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.”

  1. Seismic data shows there was a large explosive type force before each tower’s collapse. Note also that the first impact (North Tower) appears much stronger than the impact on the south tower. This may be due to the near simultaneous explosion in the basement as decribed by the janitor of the North Tower. http://www.indigostaralliance.com/articles/sonic-pulses-afp.html

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/ Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf (original)

  1. An eyewitness 6 blocks from the WTC heard explosions prior to each collapse.

  2. The NY Times tape transcription of fire fighters reveals an explosion prior to the collapse of WTC 2 (South Tower) Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers. Some said these explosions were happening far below where the strike damage happened.

  3. A video shows an object falling from WTC 1 followed by a camera shake from a seismic type movement. 14 seconds later WTC 1 collapses. http://www.indigostaralliance.com/articles/sonic-pulses-afp.html

Recommended book source on collapse: Painful Questions, by Eric Huffschmid

Gregory Stephen, Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) p 14 (NY Times Transcript Firefighter’s Testimonies)

A. No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy..

I have tried to put together an analysis of the collapses at the WTC that accounts for all the evidence without making unreasonable assumptions. As for the complex logistics of placing and triggering all the explosives, remember that modern electronics makes remote detonation, including varying time delays for different charges, a simple matter. No messy wires, just lots of shaped charges with radio-controlled detonators. And they could be placed over a long period of time in the course of routine maintenance. --Jeffrey King [But that wasn’t the way it happened. They were placed only on the main central pillars, in utility areas, so that no entrance was required into rented spaces]


Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn has written one of the best expositions on the ample evidence that there were explosives wired into the building prior to the attack. He writes, “In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ‘literally molten steel’ were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of ‘literally molten steel’ at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself ‘the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.’ Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘hot spots of molten steel in the basements.’ These incredibly hot areas were found ‘at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,’ Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found ‘three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,’ Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, ‘Think of the jet fuel.’ Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by ‘paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they pancaked into the basement.’ However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement covered by debris.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be ‘a smoky smoldering pile.’ Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit. The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.” [End of Bollyn quote.]

Canadian Investigator Will Thomas has written an excellent work entitled, All Fall Down. In it he documents, “An eyewitness 6 blocks from the WTC heard explosions prior to each collapse. A fireman’s transcription of the New York Times 9/11 firefighters’ audio tape reveals an explosion prior to the collapse of WTC 2 was reported. A video shows an object falling from WTC 1 followed by a camera shake. 14 seconds later WTC 1 collapses.”

Others: “The following clips originate from CBS Channel 2 in New York. The reporter is in a helicopter as the WTC Towers collapse.

In the first clip, the CBS reporter refers to a secondary exploson in the South Tower before its collapse. The reporter's exact words were "some kind of secondary follow-up explosion."

Thomas, Bollyn and others believe that the only explanation that explains the collapse of the Twin Towers without the use of complicated timed explosives placed throughout the building (requiring extensive pre-wiring) is the use of thermite charges in the basement, filling the cavity of the core section of 4 inch thick pillars holding up the towers. Here’s Bollyn again: “Thermite is very exothermic. Temperatures above 4,500°F (2,500°C) are often reached. A byproduct of a thermite detonation in the WTC basements would be molten steel. The service core [of central pillars] of WTC 2 initially survived the collapse, but after a few seconds it also came to ground. This is consistent with molten iron from a thermite reaction pooling around the core columns, thus causing the collapse. ‘If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure,’ [says] Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.

However, contrary to Bollyn, I disagree that the seismic evidence shows powerful explosives prior to the collapse. I have looked at the charts and fail to see what he claims. Yes, there were plenty of eye and ear witnesses to prior explosions, but they most likely were not large enough to register on the seismic charts as a significant quake. This also points to the use of thermite. Thermite doesn’t explode rapidly like C-4 or other demolition explosives. The mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide burns only moderately fast, giving off heat well in excess of that required to melt steel. What’s more, it creates its own oxygen supply by consuming the iron oxide and thus is the only thing that can account for the huge heat being generated for days in the aftermath of the fall of both towers.

Terrorists of the incompetent Arab variety that showed up at US flight schools could not have pulled off high tech insider explosives job, nor the collapse of WTC Building 7, which video evidence does show had been pre-wired with normal demolition explosives — lots of small charges on critical steel columns and corners which were timed to collapse the building vertically. Building 7 was almost exclusively occupied by government, and could have been pre-wired by government agents without alerting any civilians.

Christopher Bollyn commented on the insider connections to the WTC complex: “For example, Peter G. Peterson, chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced that his Blackstone Group had purchased, in October 2000, the mortgage on 7 World Trade Center, the 47-story building built by Larry Silverstein in 1987. Silverstein is the person who obtained 99-year leases on the twin towers shortly before 9-11 and who insured the property and its future income against terrorism. He is seeking some $7.2 billion claiming the attacks were two separate events.” Silverstein also made the indiscreet comment to reporters that he had given orders to “pull the building” just prior to its collapse. This is demolition lingo for bringing down a building by controlled demolition.

According to Bollyn, others suspected controlled demolition too: “WTC 7 mysteriously collapsed at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11, in what appears to have been a controlled demolition. John Wholihan, a firefighter with Rescue 5 from Staten Island was near WTC 7 when it collapsed. Wholihan told American Free Press that he heard ‘many explosions’ just before the building collapsed neatly within the perimeter of its foundation. Silverstein received some $441 million in insurance money for WTC 7 although the cause of the collapse remains officially unexplained.”

What is clear, in my analysis, is that the official explanation of it coming down vertically and instantly cannot meet the test of reality. If it suffered damage from the collapse of the nearby WTC tower, it would have only been damaged on one side. A collapse from damage to one side would only have occurred with a massive falling over movement. There was no central system of support to fail in this building that could explain a vertical implosion collapse even with fire (which was small and only happening in two areas of the building).

John Kaminsky–9/11 critic’s commentary:

But the Thorn/Giuliani book raises even more interesting points, and even more impossible contradictions.

For instance, just prior to the first collapse, the top of the South Tower tipped to 23 degrees, but then it suddenly stopped its angular momentum, changed direction, and fell straight down, just about the time many people reported explosions at the bottom of the tower. The only way the momentum of the falling top could have been changed in mid-collapse was to blast away a portion of EACH of the 47 core columns, causing the building to fall uniformly into its own footprint.

How the Towers fell is impossible according to the official story because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.

"Given that the lower columns were radically thicker steel, and obviously stronger, some of the columns should have still been standing - in some significant number."

- Witness 8 (Omholt)

"For the WTC buildings to react the way the did, literally thousands of super heavy-duty joints and weld would have to 'snap' at precisely the same instant."

- Witness 8 (George Humphrey)

"In order for the floor to fall, hundreds of joints has to break almost simultaneously on 236 exterior column s and 47 core columns. FEMA does not bother to explain how this could occur."

- Witness 10 (Hufschmid)

If all the joints weren't heated at the same rate, the building would not fall uniformly.

Thorn's patient narrative unveils all manner of revealing information to use in further discussions. One is the maximum temperature unprotected steel supports in these fires if 680 degrees; the first critical threshold in structural steel is 1,022 degrees.

These tests ultimately tell us that ...

"Fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers."

- Witness 11 (J. McMichael)

I won't give away too much more of the narrative, but just let me say THIS BOOK is a wonderful syllabus for anyone trying to comprehend the complex ramifications of the 9/11 tower collapses, perhaps the most accessible roundup to date of the single piece of evidence that should leave the American people demanding trials for treason and mass murder for hundreds of its most powerful leaders.

Why were those odd and powerful seismographic spikes recorded moments BEFORE the towers fell? Why were pools of molten steel still bubbling at the bases of the three fallen towers ONE WEEK after 9/11? Is there any doubt that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions? No.

Contradictions WTC-7: An even stronger case is made for controlled demolition of WTC building 7. It was built of conventional steel framed members.

  1. No such structure has ever collapsed due to fires, including those that were much larger and lasted longer than the small fires at WTC-7.

  2. WTC owner Larry Silverstein admitted in public that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 [meaning demolition of]–a building with only minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers. To do so meant that the building had to have been pre-wired with explosives. If WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, and all video evidence clearly shows that this is the case, this leads credence to the overall suspicion that this was an inside demolition job. All WTC collapses show the telltale sign of explosive puffs (squibs) of smoke. In WTC 1 and 2 they are just under the collapsing rubble, timed to allow for the free fall of material. These are always explained as dust from collapsing floors, but in WTC-7 the squibs are high on the building even though the building is collapsing from the bottom up. Explosive squibs visible: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

OFFICIAL VERSION: PENTAGON CRASH The government claims that only AA flight 77 crashed into the building despite a suspiciously small entrance hole that penetrated way too far (3 rings of the recently renovated and highly reinforced Pentagon walls) and left hardly any visible debris outside the building, and very little debris inside. Multiple witness statements saw the Boeing 757 aircraft and some saw it actually crash into the building. Rescuers also found some burned victims still strapped into their seats. Landing gear and engine parts inside the Pentagon do match the Boeing aircraft, and serial numbers have been confirmed. The government also claims to have made DNA identification of almost all passengers and hijackers.

According to the FBI, the five hijackers aboard Flight 77 were led by Hani Hanjour, a Saudi who had a commercial pilot license.Two of the other four were the only hijackers to have been on the bureau's terrorist-alert list: Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawaf Alhazmi, both Saudis. The other two hijackers were identified as Majed Moqed and Salem Alhazmi, both Saudis.

Employees at Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J., told The Star-Ledger of Newark that Hanjour and Moqed bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 on Aug. 31. Hanjour spoke little English, the employees said, so Moqed did most of talking.

The two tried to pay with a credit card, but it did not get an authorization. They then tried to pay with a check, but were refused. A short time later, they returned with $1,842.25 in cash.At the men's request, Hanjour was given a seat in the front row of first class.

Contradictions: I feel the evidence is sufficient that AA flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon, but this fact does not explain all the other anomalies:

  1. Other credible witnesses saw a smaller aircraft, and a C 130 cargo aircraft following and some military people (who would know) heard a distinct sound of a missile in flight.

  2. Military witnesses smelled the distinct smell of cordite explosives.

  3. The Pentagon parking lot video (cut and edited by someone before it was leaked) shows no large airliner, but does show the smaller plane and a missile smoke trail. It also shows the highly distinctive white flash signature of high explosives, followed by the billowing black and red of burning jet fuel.

  4. Officials have never explained how they did DNA matches/identifications of the hijackers, where they had no possibility of finding original hair or skin samples, or dental records.

  5. No part of the Boeing is capable of penetrating all three rings of the Pentagon (6 reinforced walls) with sufficient force to punch out a 12 foot hole in the C ring. Something else did that damage.

HERE’S WHAT I BELIEVED HAPPENED: First a key witness statements: Vin Narayanan said: “The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball.” Other evidence that the plane didn’t penetrate is from Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda: "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low, ... "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." Sepulveda also described a huge explosion that sent him flying against a light pole [Jet fuel fireballs are too slow to do this].

The key item in this witness testimonies is that the airplane hit but did not penetrate fully upon impact. For the one witness to register in his mind that “the wall held up” indicated that there was sufficient time for that action to settle BEFORE the actual or full explosion. That’s a very specific observation that can’t be erroneous. Then there was a massive explosion with a white signature–meaning it was done with high explosives–sufficiently placed throughout the plane so that it disintegrated into thousands of tiny pieces, littering the parking lots and lawns with small bits. A fuel explosion simply doesn’t do this, nor does a terrorist bomb in a suitcase (which would leave large chunks of the aircraft intact–including major wing elements.

I believe this plane was loaded along its entire length and in the wings with high explosives–which produced the disintegration and the white flame signature, unlike fuel which is only red and black. That’s also why there was a smell of cordite. That’s why the upper walls around the penetration collapsed later–the whole wall structure was shattered by the explosive force. This explosion might also explain why only some parts (one engine and some landing gear parts are inside the wreckage. The explosion blew them forward into the building, while others were blow sideways and scattered. The government is covering up something. It claims, ridiculously, that the airplane got swallowed up inside the building and the aluminum was all burned up–just plain impossible given the size of the massive wing beams and the relative low temperatures of burning fuel and debris.

The other smaller airplane, following the airliner and shooting a missile into the wreckage is more problematic, especially as to why. Maybe they wanted to test penetration of a missile into this new reinforced structure. But the parking lot video does show a missile presence. The portion of the larger airliner was edited out–perhaps because the leaker (a government employee risking his job) wanted the public to specifically take note of the smaller jet, which most missed in the drama of the first crash and explosion. But the missile certainly would explain the deeper penetration into the 3 rings of the building. There is nothing, however, in the Pentagon wreckage that looks like smaller jet parts, all of which would have gone into the Pentagon, had this jet crashed also--so this smaller jet would have had to have pulled up and exited through the smoke. Hard to get an American crack pilot flying this kind of maneuver who wants to be a suicide bomber.

Now, if only the government would quit hiding the other videos they possess of this crash, then we could have the whole story–but after this much cover-up that is unlikely.


Official story: Among those on board Flight 77 was a familiar face to CNN viewers: Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and the wife of Theodore Olson, the lawyer who argued George W. Bush's election case before the Supreme Court and now serves as the administration's solicitor general before the high court. He was sitting in his office at the Justice Department, watching the trade center drama on television, when his secretary came in and said, "Your wife is on the phone."

Olson said his wife told him "they had box cutters and knives. They rounded up the passengers at the back of the plane." In one version of the conversation, she told him both pilots were there. Olson told his wife about the Trade Center crashes. "What should I tell the pilot?" she asked.

The Olsons were cut off, but Barbara Olson called back [collect]. In between, her husband called the Justice Department's command center to alert them of the hijacking. When Olson called her husband back, she said the plane was circling and moving in a northeasterly direction.

The Washington Post of September 12, 2001, says this: "Details about who was on Flight 77, when it took off and what happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security officials last night. All said that the FBI had asked them not to divulge details."

Commentary: I think the alleged story about Barbara Olson calling her husband collect on a plane phone is bogus. You cannot call collect–it takes a credit card to even start the process.


But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general, quoted by Dean Murphy, "September 11: An Oral History," p. 216

Photos of landing gear and other aircraft parts: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm compare to original parts: http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757LGindex.htm


I was on the 30th floor of a building in Crystal City with an unobstructed view of the Pentagon on 9/11. I watched a C130 cargo plane flying very low come right by the building I was in and over the Pentagon followed shortly by a fighter aircraft. It got everyone's attention and brought all of us to the window. Approximately 5 minutes later I watched the airliner come over the highway and hit the side of the Pentagon. I know the difference between a cruise missile and a Plane.—jEFF to Dick Eastman (Jeff says, “My father is a retired Brigadier General and my brother is a Lt. Colonel in the Airforce and an executive officer to a Four Star General on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”)

see also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html which contains this eyewitness statement:

" Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.

He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.

The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

"At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon .‚.‚. I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

"It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

From: Dick Eastman (A researcher who backs the multiple plane theory. He does not think the larger aircraft actually hit the Pentagon, which I disagree with. But he has presented the best evidence of the small plane and missile shot) Here are some of his arguments and comments on witness statements.

Kris Milligan, moderator of the cia-drugs yahoogroup, rejects the small-plane finding, refusing to look at the physical evidence, but instead relying exclusively on "the witnesses" -- but has he really paid attention to what the witnesses are saying?

The fact of the matter is that the witnesses do not support the official story -- they support the small-plane conclusion -- they agree with the photo and video evidence!

The following is the most important piece on the witnesses you will read -- it is a lesson in forensic, witness psychology and logic. See especially Jim Hoffman's analysis also included. -- Dick Eastman


Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.

Tom Seibert, in the Pentagon, listened to " what sounded like a missile" followed by a "loud boom."

Lon Rains Editor, Space News, was driving up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington. I heard a very loud,quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington Naitonal Cemetary when they watched "the jet" approach and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated that he was not confused by normal airport traffic.

Alfred S. Regnery, on the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner "not more than 200 yards above the ground" passed overhead, disappearing "behind black cloud of smoke" was pouring from a "gaping hole."

Comment: Another witness hearing the loud sound and seeing the jet liner and assuming that sound source and object sited are one and the same. But note that he saw an airliner and that it was 200 yards above the ground, not 20 feet.

Terry Scanlon interviewed a Hampton Roads woman who saw a plane following the jet that hit the Pentagon.

Christine Peterson, in her car in front of the heliport ( near Riskus) saw the airliner. As it flew over she could read numbers on its wing. "My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."

Comment: It would certainly be jumping to conclusions to say that this witness saw that plane crash. Watching the Boeing she missed entirely the killer jet that came from another direction.

James S. Robbins, from his west-facing office window, one and a half miles east of the Pentagon, saw "the 757" as it was "diving in at an unrecoverable angle." "I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building."

Comment: The plane was diving. But it must have recovered from the dive at the last second, because the pentagon was not hit by a plane at a downward angle. The killer jet travelled from the entrance hole to the C-ring exit hole without breaking above the floor of the third floor!!! Robbins saw the Boeing that did not crash and the explosion and smoke made by the killer plane that did. [Note: since this was written in 2002 it has come to light (photo and video supporting) that the plane diving over D.C. was a four engine plane with wings more swept back and more forward on the fuselage than the 757 -- and this over forbidden air space! Obviously a distraction plane. See photos of this plane diving directly over the capitol buiding by clicking on the URL at the bottom of this message. -- DE 5/30/04]

Christopher Munsey headed South on the Interstate saw "a silver, twin- engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away." Munsey saw the red and blue markings "as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon."

Comment: A silver twin-engined plane had to have been Flight 77, seen "over the Annex", i.e., over Arlington Cemetary hill, it had American Airlines markings and it was "noiseless," but notice the indefinitness: "it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon" -- there are usually psychologically definite reason why people qualify their speech, in this case, perhaps, psychological reservations about what he really did see.

Fred Gaskins was driving near the Pentagon as he saw the plane pass about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."

And there is this (with Jim Hoffman):

How could the Pentagon have been approached by a second jet and the witnesses not report seeing two planes at once? The answer rests in part in important new information from the Department of Transportation concerning research on modification of peoples memories of accidents.

Sarah Roberts once asked me, "Why do you impose your "two plane" theory on every witness account you come across?"

I replied that I did so because we are talking about a frameup murder case, and in a frameup the murder weapon is very important and so are the witness accounts of that weapon. But of course it is the evidence and the witnesses that, when taken seriously, impose conclusions on the investigator.

We have security camera proof that the real murder weapon was the plane that came in low and fired the missile. But Flight 77 was the frameup plane -- the plane people were supposed to think was piloted by cunning Arab suicides with box cutters etc. Yes Flight 77 airliner was there, and it really was seen by Robbins, Regnery, Eglas and others -- but seen by Eglas only at first, I am convinced -- before she turned her attention to the hit pole and the freeway traffic around her as she, as she says, stopped on a busy freeway, so that when she was ready to start looking for the plane again her attention was then caught by the split second glimps of the small jet (that we see in the video) crashing into the white hot missile explosion at the west wall of the Pentagon.

When a jet attacks at high speed from near ground level no one sees it coming -- from the annex to the wall would take about three seconds, and no one was expecting it -- many had been looking at the airliner -- but doing so in a place where airliners coming in low are quite usual, only a mile from Reagan National Airport. However there was also the news that was then coming in from New York, news that conditioned the soon-to-be witnesses to think in terms of hijacked airliners -- and that conditioning was reinforced, for many witnesses, by the long and showy display put on by a mysterious four engine airliner-sized jet that tarried over Washington D.C., and actually did some attention getting dives over the capital. Here are some pictures of that plane in a dive timed perfectly to coincide with the real Pentagon attack by the small plane with a missile.

The case is solved. We know there were two planes, in fact four planes part of the operation. The killer jet, the Boeing, the four- engined plane doing dives over the Capitol, and the C-130 that followed the Boeing over the crash just 30 seconds after the killer jet hit the wall. That is why I talk about them.

OFFICIAL VERSION: FLIGHT 93: United Flight 93 out of New Jersey was hijacked and crashed into a quarry in Pennsylvania after the hijackers lost control of the plane struggling with valiant passenger-heros.

United Flight 93–Official Time Line

United Flight 93 was a Boeing 757 slated to fly from Newark to San Francisco. It was the only plane that didn't crash into a national landmark on Sept. 11, and authorities suspect two related reasons: The flight was delayed in taking off and by the time it was taken over, the nation knew it was under attack. Relatives were able to relay the information back to the plane in the frantic cell phone calls from passengers.

The captain was Jason Dahl, a 43-year-old Littleton, Colo., resident. His first officer was LeRoy Homer, 36, of Marlton, N.J. Also aboard were five flight attendants and 37 passengers, for a total of 44 on the flight. The plane pushed back from Gate 17 at Newark International Airport at 8:01 a.m., one minute after its scheduled departure.

United will not explain why, but the plane was delayed on the ground and didn't take off until 8:42. As it flew west over Pennsylvania and into northern Ohio, United transmitted a systemwide message, warning its pilots of a potential "cockpit intrusion."

The crew on Flight 93 replied by pushing a button that read out, "Confirmed."

Authorities suspect the plane was hijacked about 40 minutes into its flight. Unlike the other flights, there were only four hijackers aboard. Working in their favor was the relatively light load, the least of any of the hijacked planes.

According to the FBI, the leader and likely pilot was Ziad Samir Jarrah, a Lebanese who had received a pilot's license in Germany. He is suspected of being one of the three key players in the Sept. 11 plot, along with Atta and Al-Shehhi.

In Jarrah's apartment, he set up a three-panel, full-size replica of a Boeing 757 cockpit.

The FBI said the other three hijackers were Saeed Alghamdi, a Saudi and pilot; Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, a Saudi; and Ahmed Alnami, the 15th Saudi Arabian citizen among the hijackers.

The hijackers appeared to take control of the plane with lightning speed - springing up, donning red bandanas around their heads, with two forcing their way into the cockpit. One claimed to have a bomb tied to his waist.

According to the transcript from air traffic control, there were two short radio bursts, probably around the time the plane was taken over. In one, a pilot was heard saying, "Get out of here."

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there were at least four radio transmissions. In two, the words spoken included "bomb on board." Many of the words were not in English, the official said, but two phrases that were heard included "our demands" and "keep quiet."

As with Flight 77, the hijackers claimed they were taking the plane to another airport.

"Hi, this is the captain," said Jarrah, according to a tape of an apparent inadvertant radio transmission obtained by ABC News. "We'd like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet."

One of the now-famous passengers was Todd Beamer, a 32-year-old employee of Oracle, the corporate software company. He tried to use an Airfone to call his family in Cranbury, N.J., but he couldn't get authorization for his company account. Instead, he was patched through to Lisa Jefferson, a Verizon supervisor in Oak Brook, Ill., at 9:45, after speaking briefly with another operator.

The company faxed his wife, Lisa, a summary of the 15-minute call.

Beamer told Jefferson that the pilot and copilot apparently were dead and the hijackers were flying the plane. He said one hijacker was guarding 27 passengers in the back of the plane with what appeared to be a bomb tied around his waist.

He said two more hijackers were in the cockpit, while the fourth was guarding the first-class cabin.

Beamer asked Jefferson to convey his love to his wife, due to deliver a child in January, and his two sons, ages 3 and 1. They also recited the Lord's Prayer.

Jefferson then heard Beamer ask: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."

Lisa Beamer recognized it as a phrase her husband used frequently with their sons.

Another passenger, Mark Bingham, was a 31-year-old, 6-foot-5 rugby player. He called his mother, Alice Hoglan, who was visiting a relative in Saratoga, Calif., at 9:42.

"Mom, this is Mark Bingham," he said, nervously. "I want to let you know that I love you. I'm calling from the plane. We've been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb."

A third passenger, Jeremy Glick, had been a national judo champion.

Using an Airfone, he called relatives in the Catskills, where his wife, Liz, and daughter, Emerson, were visiting.

He asked his wife whether it was true that planes had been crashed into the World Trade Center, indicating how the story had already spread through the plane.

She told him they had, and he said passengers were taking a vote: should they try to take back the plane."

"Honey, you need to do it," Liz Glick replied.

Thomas Burnett Jr., 38, a businessman and father of three girls from San Ramon, Calif., made four calls home over about a half-hour.

In his fourth call, he told of the group's plans to storm the hijackers. "I know we're all going to die," he said. "There's three of us who are going to do something about it. I love you, honey."

Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband, Phil, a US Airways pilot, at their home in Greensboro, N.C. She had been working in coach class, having picked up the trip late.

"Have you heard what's going on? My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked with three guys with knives," she said.

She also confessed something to her husband: She had slipped into the galley and begun filling pitchers with boiling water.

"Everyone's running to first class. I've got to go. Bye," she said.

Authorities contend the passengers, possibly armed with a fire extinguisher, may have incapacitated a hijacker who was flying in the right-hand seat, normally used by the copilot. They believe the plane flipped over on its back and speared into the ground at about 575 miles per hour.

Flight 93 crashed at 10:10 into a field in Shanksville, Pa.

FLIGHT 93 –9/11 commission excerpts [coincide with the previous transcript, but edited The gov. only released this after the private Cleveland transcript below was released]]

The controller responded seconds later: "Somebody call Cleveland." This was followed by a second radio transmission with sounds of screaming and someone yelling--"Get out of here! Get out of here!" Again, from an unknown source.

The Cleveland Center controllers began to try to identify the possible sources of transmissions and noticed that United 93 had descended some 700 feet. The controller attempted again to raise United 93 several times with no response. At 9:30, the controller began to poll the other flights in his frequency to determine if they heard the screaming. Several said that they had.

At 9:32, a third radio transmission came over the frequency. "Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board." The controller understood but chose to respond: "Calling Cleveland Center. You're unreadable. Say again slowly." He notified his supervisor, who passed the notice up the chain of command.

By 9:34, word of the hijacking had reached FAA headquarters in Washington. FAA headquarters had by this time established an open line of communication with the Command Center at Herndon and instructed it to poll all the centers about suspect aircraft. The Command Center executed the request, and a minute later Cleveland Center reported that "United 93 may have a bomb on board."

That was the information Command Center relayed to FAA Headquarters at 9:34. Between 9:34 and 9:38, the controller observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way. The controller continued to try to contact United 93 and asked whether the pilot could confirm that he had been hijacked. There was no response. Then, at 9:39, a fifth radio transmission came over the radio frequency from United 93.

ZIAD JARRAH: (Communication from United Flight 93.): Uh, is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands -- (inaudible). Please remain quiet.

MR. FARMER: The controller responded: "United 93, understand you have a bomb on board. Go ahead." The flight did not respond. At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93's transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as turned east, then south.

At about 9:36, Cleveland Center asked Command Center specifically whether someone had requested the military to launch fighter aircraft to intercept United 93. Cleveland Center offered to contact a nearby military base. Command Center replied that FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command had to make that decision and were working the issue.

egin audiotape.)

FAA HEADQUARTERS: They're pulling Jeff away to go talk about United 93.

COMMAND CENTER: Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?

FAA HEADQUARTERS: Oh, God, I don't know.

COMMAND CENTER: That's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: You know, everybody just left the room.

(End of audiotape.)

MR. FARMER: At 9:53, FAA Headquarters informed Command Center that the deputy director for air traffic services was talking to Deputy Administrator Monte Belger about scrambling aircraft. Then Command Center informed Headquarters they lost track of United 93 over the Pittsburgh area.

Within seconds, Command Center received a visual report from another aircraft and informed headquarters that the aircraft was 20 miles northwest of Johnstown. United 93 was spotted by another aircraft, and at 10:01 Command Center advised FAA Headquarters that one of the aircraft had seen United 93 "waving his wings." The aircraft had witnessed the radical gyrations in what we believe was the hijackers' effort to defeat the passenger assault on the cockpit.

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 time is supported by evidence from the staff's radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis and infrared satellite data. Five minutes later, Command Center forwarded this update to Headquarters.

(Begin audio tape.)

COMMAND CENTER: Okay, there is now -- on United 93 --


COMMAND CENTER: -- there is a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you, 15 miles south of Johnstown.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: From the airplane or from the ground?

COMMAND CENTER: They're speculating it's from the aircraft.


COMMAND CENTER: It hit the ground. That's what they're speculating. That's speculation only.

(End of audio tape.)

MR. FARMER: The aircraft that spotted the "black smoke" was the same unarmed Air National Guard cargo plane that had seen United 77 crash into the Pentagon 26 minutes earlier. It had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the smoke from the crash of United 93 less than two minutes after the plane went down.

At 10:17, Command Center advised Headquarters of its conclusion that United 93 had indeed crashed. Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one from FAA Headquarters requested military assistance regarding United 93, nor did any manager at FAA Headquarters pass any of the information it had about United 93 to the military.

Military notification and response. NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed, Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground.

At the same time, the NEADS mission crew commander was dealing with the arrival of the Langley fighters over Washington, D.C. He was sorting out what their orders were with respect to potential targets. Shortly after 10:10, and having no knowledge either that United 93 had been heading toward Washington, or that it had crashed, the mission crew commander explicitly instructed that the Langley fighters did not have "clearance to shoot" aircraft over the nation's capital.

The news of a reported bomb on board United 93 spread quickly at NEADS. The air defenders searched for United 93's primary radar return and tried to locate assets to scramble toward the plane. NEADS called Washington Center to report:

(Begin audiotape.)

NEADS: I also want to give you a heads-up, Washington.

FAA-D.C.: Go ahead.

NEADS: United 93 -- have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? 'Cause we have confirmation --

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down-down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

(End audiotape.)

MR. FARMER: The time of notification of the crash of United 93 was 10:15. The NEADS air defenders never located the flight or followed it on their radar scopes. The flight had already crashed by the time they learned it was hijacked.

The following is a time-lapsed depiction of United 93.


To provide an overview of the materials presented thus far, the following is a time lapsed depiction of all four hijacked flights and the military's response.


MR. ZELIKOW: Conflicting Accounts. In May 2003, public testimony before this commission, NORAD officials stated that, at 9:16 NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA. This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

Note: Document 4: FAA report, Chronology of the September 11 Attacks and Subsequent Events Through October 24, 2001, undated [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnote 62]

An FAA chronology of events pertaining to the terrorist attacks and subsequent events through October 24, 2001 that includes details about the first unplanned FAA shut-down of civil aviation, the later reopening of airspace, congressional efforts to compensate airlines, warnings to pilots that entering restricted airspace could lead to the use of deadly force against their aircraft, measures taken to secure cockpit doors, and air strikes in Afghanistan.

An interesting element of the chronology is the 8:43 am FAA notice to NORAD that UA175 had been hijacked. This directly contradicts The 9/11 Commission Report (Chapter 1, page 23) and the FAA's own Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events, which both state the FAA failed to alert NORAD to UA175 until about the same time the flight crashed into the World Trade Center between 9:03 and 9:05 am.

Contradictions: After all the stand-down orders to keep fighters from intercepting the 3 other targets, the government does shoot this one down and then denies it and issues a huge cover story. Strange!

  1. Despite making secret the FAA flight transcripts between Flight 93 and Cleveland Center (ATC), a private copy emerges from another private jet being monitored and controlled on the same frequency by Cleveland Center. These transcripts reveal: 1) the Fl 93 pilot mistakenly transmitted to Cleveland instead of on intercom, that they had a bomb threat on board. 2) there was yelling heard in two other transmissions. 3) A nearby airliner with visual contact of Fl 93 said he witnessed an explosion in the air. This was before flight 93 crashed. What the other pilots saw was either the bomb going off or a missile striking one of the engines. In either case, something big happened in the air that the government is denying.

By Mark Elsis: “9:58 a.m.: A frantic male passenger onboard United Airlines Flight 93 called the 911 emergency number, he told the operator, named Glen Cramer, that he had locked himself inside one of the toilets. Cramer told the AP, in a report that was widely broadcast on September 11th, that the passenger had spoken for one minute. "We're being hijacked, we're being hijacked!" the man screamed into his mobile phone. "We confirmed that with him several times," Cramer said, "and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." This was the last cell phone call made from any passenger on any of the hijacked planes.”


Here’s an abbreviated excerpt from the leaked private ATC transcript: However, AirDisaster.com has posted a sound file of air traffic control during the morning of 9/11. Specifically, Cleveland air traffic control had two brief contacts with United Airlines Flight 93, when the hijackers mistakenly broadcast messages meant only for the plane's passengers.

Executive 956 [private jet]: Just answering your call. We could year that, er, yelling too.

Cleveland Center: OK, thank you, were just trying to figure out what’s going on.

United 93: [unintelligible] this is captain, please sit down, remain sitting, we have a bomb on board. [Sometimes pilots key the wrong button. In this case the Captain thinks he is broadcasting to the passengers on intercom but he is pressing the radio transmit button—shows he is under severe stress.]

Cleveland Center: Uh, calling Cleveland Center, you’re unreadable, say again slowly.

Executive 956: [unintelligible] was reasonable, sounded like someone said they had a bomb on board.

Cleveland: That’s what we thought, we just, er, we didn’t get it clear. …United ninety-three calling. United ninety-three, understand you have a bomb on board, go ahead. Executive nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?

Executive 956: Affirmative. He said there was a bomb on board.

[Later]Cleveland Center (2): [Voice changed to female, apparently second Cleveland controller.] Do you see any, ah, activity on your right side, smoke or anything like that?

American 1060: Negative. We’re searching. Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, er, oh probably two o’clock. There appears to be just a spire up like a puff of black smoke. [Indicates evidence of explosion in the air.] [End of ATC excerpt.]

  1. ATC controllers in New Hampshire have told others they vectored a pair of F-16s to Flight 93. The Nashua said that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of the hijacked airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania and made 360-degree turns to remain close. ''He must've seen the whole thing,'' the employee said, not knowing about the shoot down.

  2. Witnesses on the ground saw a least one of the fighters in the sky near Fl 93 and one saw the missile attack.

  3. Pieces of the wreckage including suitcases and an engine were found miles from the crash site–consistent with the at-altitude explosion witnessed above.

  4. A different unmarked civilian type jet with engines near the tale was seen by several witnesses following Fl 93 down and circling the crash site. Later research showed it was leased to a company that subleases to the government. This aircraft presence indicates foreknowledge, and the government continues to deny its existence.

  5. The Todd Beamer hero’s “let’s roll” phone call is suspect for several reasons. Cell phones rarely work at altitude, let alone for such a long conversation (13 minutes). He could hardly be planning an operation with a group of guys while chatting on the phone, and then suddenly say, “Let’s roll.” The government claims he was talking to an operator, but no recording has surfaced.

  6. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld made a slip of the tongue in the direction of truth when speaking to troops in Iraq: “I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon...”

World Net Daily: “Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania. The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol. During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers. Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear. Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

9/11 Investigator Gail Sheehy Commentary:

The official impact time according to NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, is 10:03 a.m. Later, U.S. Army seismograph data gave the impact time as 10:06:05. The F.A.A. gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. And The New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one F.A.A. facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m.

Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air-traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. But as Mary Schiavo points out, "We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."

"Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as New Baltimore, about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound plane crashed, a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast, [FBI Agent] Crowley said. ("Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Friday, September 14, 2001.)

On September 11, "[r]esidents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers, and what appear to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the crash site." ("Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash," [Pittsburgh] Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.)



  1. Black boxes, cockpit recordings: Government officials deny finding them in WTC, though rescue workers confirm seeing them being found by the FBI and removed. The black boxes in the Pentagon crash were claimed to have been destroyed–nearly impossible unless the explosive scenario is correct. Cockpit recordings of flight 93 kept secret and only an edited version is played for families, who are sworn to secrecy. Why?

  2. Fire fighters and all other first responders are threatened and told to keep quiet about anything they saw or observed–especially about hearing explosions prior to the collapse of the twin towers. Edited versions of non-controversial accounts are released years later.

  3. FAA supervisor destroys taped recording of the ATC controllers retelling what they saw and heard. FAA colludes with the FBI to produce selectively edited snips of FAA telephone conversations of FAA superiors talking about the attack to justify the official version, while withholding all original recordings from public airing. FAA flight recordings with hijacked aircraft kept secret–only selected portions transcribed and published.

Online Journal: “FAA tapes--All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration traffic control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. The tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers — and may become even more important if they plane's 'black boxes' are damaged or never found." ("Controllers' tale of Flight 11," The Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2001.)

Withholding evidence: “"We know what she said from notes, and the government has them," said Mary Schiavo, the formidable former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, whose nickname among aviation officials was "Scary Mary." Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission’s hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. "In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything."

During these transmissions, the pilot’s voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible, according to two controllers. All of it was recorded by a F.A.A. traffic-control center in Nashua, N.H. According to the reporter, Mark Clayton, the federal law-enforcement officers arrived at the F.A.A. facility shortly after the World Trade Center attack and took the tape.

To this writer’s knowledge, there has been no public mention of the pilot’s narrative since the news report on Sept. 12, 2001. Families of the flight crew have only heard about it, but when Peg Ogonowski asked American Airlines to let her hear it, she never heard back. Their F.A.A. superiors forbade the controllers to talk to anyone else.

  1. Federal Government ordered police to restrict access to the WTC collapse sight–especially to investigators, and photographers. It also ordered the immediate destruction of the evidence and had all steel cut up and sold as scrap with the stipulation that it be shipped outside the country. None of the scrap steel was to be left in the US for analysis. [This was essential as the steel clearly would show the signs of cutting charges used for demolition. The molten steel at the bottom would have shown the chemical traces of thermite burning charges].

  2. FBI agents arrived “within minutes” at the CITGO service station across from the Pentagon to confiscate their surveillance video of the crash. How did they know about this video if there was no government foreknowledge of the attack or planning for a cover-up? The Sheraton Hotel camera tape and Virginia DOT tapes were all confiscated by the FBI as well. If conspiracy charges are so outrageous and offensive, why not settle them in an instant by showing the videos? Or do they confirm the government is lying?

Source: Online Journal: Online Journal. “After the Pentagon attack, the video cameras and tapes at a nearby CITGO, the Sheraton Hotel along I-395 and Virginia DOT cameras were all confiscated by the FBI and they have yet to disclose any of the contents that were recorded by those cameras. Those cameras would have recorded what came in to hit the Pentagon...”Karl Schwarz has the full story on All of the missing Pentagon videos: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html

  1. A memo has surfaced from within the FAA indicating that hijacker Satam al-Suqami had a gun on the aircraft and shot and killed passenger Daniel Lewin [an Israeli agent] in the process of hijacking the aircraft. The FAA initially denied the memo’s existence, and then admitted its existence, but altered its contents.

  2. NTSB claims all fireproof proof black boxes and voice recorders except one (FL 93) were destroyed or unrecoverable—an unprecedented failure rate in all of aviation accident history.

  3. President Bush and VP Cheney personally called Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle urging him not to conduct a investigation. Then when when pressured they started playing with the terror alert warnings, raising them for an false threat they could concoct. When the White house finally acceded to participate, Bush relied on "Executive Privilege" to deny commissioners access to crucial documents, and require that White House could control what was kept secret.

  4. The 9/11 Commission was rigged: After the initial controversy of trying to appoint insider-in-chief Henry Kissinger as Chair of the panel, Bush opted for a reliable yesman, Gov. Kean and other former elected officials who wouldn’t cause waves when the cover-up became evident. The commission was plagued by the apparent conflicts ofinterest and excessive former relationships with government who should have been probed more complicity. Bush chose another artful dodger/lawyer, Richard Ben Veniste as chief counsel for the Commission–who treated all government witnesses as celebrities. Philip Zelikow, chooses which evidence and witnesses to bring to their attention. Mr. Zelikow, as a former adviser to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, has a blatant conflict of interest here. The controversial testimony of former counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke in juxtaposition with the constant drama surrounding whether or not President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify before the commission (under oath and in public) was all just a scripted diversion to use up the Commission’s limited time and ensure that the real issues are never investigated or aired publicly.

I listened to Chief Counsel Ben Veniste’s examination of numerous government officials on NPR radio. By all the initial joking and comradery that was exchanged between him and CIA Director Tenet, and later with Asst. Sec. of State Richard Armitage (former chief drug importer for the CIA), it was clear no tough questions were going to be forthcoming. He played softball with them both. Instead of setting up legal traps in advance by asking questions Ben Veniste could later trip them up on, he wasted hours asking them questions these officials could easily evade by claiming ignorance or “national security,” and then failed to present any contradictory testimony.

It will be the same with Rice. There are dozens of general explanations she can come up with to explain the contradictions between her former statements to the press and the testimony of Richard Clarke. But even if Ben Veniste were able to make something of the differences, what would they show? That the CIA was negligent, incompetent, and worked at cross purposes with other agencies? Or, heaven forbid, that they failed to share information with other agencies? If they are guilty, so what? These are not faults meriting more than a slap on the hands. No wonder no government official responsible for security and intelligence has been fired. By focusing on such innocuous drama, the public is denied the key issues that cry out for an explanation.

  1. Commission flaws: Huge portions of their report were classified, including the whole chapter on Saudi Arabia involvement. It disavowed and misrepresented the entire Able Danger testimony about the secret government data mining operation that had identified and tracked several of the alleged highjackers prior to 9/11. It evaded any interviews, discussions or investigations of the issues like the molten steel in the basement, plane mods, or government refusal to turn over the Pentagon videos. Its like the charges of government conspiracy didn’t exist. AG John Ashcroft refused to discuss the testimony of FBI and DIA whistleblowers with the 9/11 commission. These FBI agents are currently being represented by impeachment attorney David Schippers, who charged that they were told by FBI higher authorities to suppress crucial information that could have led to the early interdiction of the 9/11 hijackers.

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr. David Ray Griffin

From: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)


David Ray Griffin is author of New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions.

  1. The purpose of the Commission seemed to involve two major goals: 1) cover up any government involvement, highlighting only evidence of bureaucratic bungling and 2) serve as a platform for generating structural changes in centralization and empowerment of government intelligence and surveillance sources, in the name of solution and reform.


Preplanning for War:

CBS News reported that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Former Sec. of the Treasury, John O’Neil’s told interviewers that Iraq was targeted for regime change prior to 9/11. Frontline Special told of a National Security Meeting where Sec. of Def Rumsfeld suggests we “use this attack as an excuse to go after Iraq.” He is overruled by those who want to go after Afhganistan first.

The invasion of Afghanistan was being planned before 9-11. US diplomats announced at a meeting in Berlin in July 2001 that Bush would attack Afghanistan by October of that year.

http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4774 It must be noted that the governments web pages linked to in the Indymedia article have been removed. Many have charged that the real reasons for invading Afghanistan were to build the Unocal pipeline, which the Taliban were refusing, and to control APFN: “Meanwhile, from February through August, the entire time that the danger from bin Laden was the greatest, Bush was focusing most of his efforts on persuading the Taliban to allow him and his oil pals put a pipeline through Afghanistan. Bush wanted to swipe the oil-rich Caspian region from Russian control. Back when Bush thought he could cut a deal with the Taliban, he did not consider them "evil." In fact, back when he smelled an easy deal in the wind, Bush described the Taliban's repressive regime as "a source of stability in Central Asia" that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline. So, in Spring of 2001, in Texas oil wheeling-dealing style, Bush handed $43 million in taxpayer dollars over to the Taliban to sweeten the pot. Still, however, there was no deal.

Laila Helms, the niece of former CIA director Richard Helms, worked as a public relations coordinator for the Taliban at this time. According to Helms, the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden or provide the coordinates of his whereabouts. However, apparently under Bush's orders, the State Department refused this deal ––a deal that would have removed Bush's best trump terrorist card from his stacked deck. Instead, on August 2, State Department officials met with Taliban reps in Islamabad and there delivered this ultimatum: give us what we want for the oil companies and we will "carpet your with gold." If you don't, "we will bury you beneath a carpet of bombs." The Taliban still held out.”

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recently caused a major flap stating early as January 2001, the Bush administration began looking for ways to justify an invasion of Iraq. O'Neill said,"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein is a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told 60 Minutes. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.

"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. ... I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."

The Bushies were quick to attack O'Neill, but ABC News has found another official that was also at the meetings that backs up O'Neill's claims.

The fact is, Cheney's Pentagon cabal cherry-picked intelligence, lied about it and stove-piped it to the Oval Office. They knew they had a president that hated to read and relied heavily on advisors...and totally gullible. That information was then refunneled to Congress and the world as truth. Of course, all has proved false, just as I told Sierrareaders Afghanistan would be a quagmire and that we would be lied into a war with Iraq, just as Bush 41 did. I also said Iraq would be a Vietnam redux. Any honest vet that knows a damn about strategy and tactics has said the same. Just call us Cassandra.

Preplanning for enhanced government surveillance and incarceration powers

The all too sudden emergence of the USA PATRIOT ACT and its instant introduction in Congress paralleling the anthrax attacks (which had the markings of another black operation) indicates that this piece of legislation was prepared in advance. All the Bush administration needed was “another Pearl Harbor” –a reference that a couple of Neocon strategists have talked about. Both "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the Project for a New American Century's 2000 report, and "The Grand Chessboard," by insider Zbigniew Brzezinski, suggested that American public support for this worldwide intervention would depend on creating a new "Pearl Harbor." Indeed it did.

CONCLUSION: As the above listings show, taken in its totality, a group of Muslim terrorists would never be capable of pulling off this range of attacks, including the controlled demolition of major buildings. It had to have been planned and implemented from within government circles. The huge cover-up by a wide variety of US government agencies, working in direct collusion with the White House, is the strongest evidence for government complicity in these attacks. Why else would they be trying to keep all the details secret if it didn’t point to American involvement at all levels. I don’t believe however that Pres Bush directed this. He just reads the scripts given him. It is my conclusion that this was a black operation of the globalist controllers of the US government, in conjunction with the al Qaeda front, which the US still controls at the top. In turn, al Qaeda leaders develop their own anti-American forces who do NOT know they are actually working to further a secret agenda of the Anglo-American establishment–that is kept from them. Terrorism and war have thus become instruments of conflict management, and political control.

More than oil, more than wealth, I believe the main long-term agenda of the globalists controlling the Bush administration is the destruction of American sovereignty and replacing it with a global government–through the instrumentality of war and conflict, as justification. 9/11 was a “new Pearl Harbor” and is being used for maximum effect, to both undermine US and British constitutional civil rights, but to actively antagonize the world by constant intervention. That "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the Project for a New American Century's 2000 report, and "The Grand Chessboard," a book published a few years earlier by Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, both recommended a more robust and imperial US military presence in the oil basin of the Middle East and the Caspian region; and that both also suggested that American public support for this energy crusade would depend on public response to a new "Pearl Harbor," is not "theory."

Sadly, many officials in the US and Britain, including legislators and judges, are knowingly or partially knowing accomplices (even if by backing a hidden political control system they may think is “benevolent”). In the end they are clearly working against their sworn oath to their respective constitutions, nations and constituencies. [END]


1. 15 or the 19 alleged Arab hijackers of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and yet the administration insisted on invading Afghanistan and the Taliban, whom they had given $43 million in aid in May 2001

2. There is evidence military aircraft were prohibited by higher authority from taking off and intercepting the hijacking aircraft aimed at the WTC and the Pentagon. Only interceptors from further away were allowed to continue limited intercepts, at subsonic speeds (so they would not reach the planes that crashed, in time)

3. The President was alerted to the first WTC crash before he began his reading session at the elementary school, and did not stop his reading after he was informed of the second attack.

4. The bulging modification on the belly of the aircraft that hit WTC-2. Video of the Boeing 767 crashing into WTC-2 shows a large and disturbing modification on the bottom side of the United Airlines Flight 175 aircraft. The aircraft almost missed its target and the person directing the aircraft made a dramatic last minute steep turn to intercept the corner of the building. In the process of the steep turn the bottom of the aircraft suddenly becomes visible in the low morning sun and reveals a very large and bulging modification on the right side of the fuselage behind the landing gear doors. The bulge is as wide as the wing root, so it is easy to detect. : http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/wtc.htm. This site contains some very speculative conspiracy theories that should be viewed with extreme caution for now. Also, the computer enhanced photos do not come from the new Hlava video but from the original CNN video of the crash. You can see a video clip of the original CNN footage by using opening a video player like windows Media Player and on “open URL” under File and putting in the URL: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/ghostplane2.wmv. The bulge is visible on this earlier video as well, proving that the bulge is not simply a doctored image by one source.

5. As in OKC, government ordered all WTC debris removed immediately before forensic testing could be accomplished.

6. A memo has surfaced from within the FAA indicating that hijacker Satam al-Suqami (hard to imagine how they could know his name) had a gun on the aircraft and shot and killed passenger Daniel Lewin in the process of hijacking the aircraft. The FAA initially denied the memo’s existence, and then admitted its existence, but altered its contents, denying the presence of a gun on board. Anonymous investigators within the FAA have admitted that the original memo detailing the shooting is factual. This information could only have come from detailed pilot to ATC controller radio transmissions as the hijacking was in process. This partially explains why the FAA and FBI refuse to relinquish these tape recordings.

7. If al Qa’aida is the largest and most well-funded terrorist organization in the world with hundreds of terrorist cells in the US and Canada, why have there been NO normal terrorist attacks (car bombings, suicide bombings, electrical pylon bombings etc?) in the US since 9/11 - the kind that cannot stopped? We have nearly open borders, and we have no detailed protection against any of these easy targets. Instead, all we get is one or two high profile attacks. The government dubiously claims “we have them on the run.” However, even in Israel with 10 times the security forces per person that we have, and with security guards at every store and shopping mall, they have weekly terrorist attacks. Something is wrong with this picture.

8. Government claims that all the aluminum skin of the 757 hitting the Pentagon was consumed (their explanation of lack of aircraft debris), and yet photos of debris being removed show mounds of office furniture, only one set of wheels and one engine core turbine part. No wing beams or other huge structural members that would have remained from a large aircraft.

9. In addition, government claims to have identified all passengers and military dead in the Pentagon crash by DNA, without showing how they gained access to a provable original sources of DNA for those already dead (very difficult to do). The FBI failed to explain why there were no matches to terrorist DNA even though they claimed to have matches for terrorist body parts at the WTC (equally suspicious).


OKC BOMBING: The FBI has already demonstrated a propensity to alter and hide evidence in politically charged cases. They did so in the OKC investigation, working overtime to make it appear as McVeigh and Nichols acted alone, even though there were numerous Middle Eastern accomplices seen by numerous witnesses, and known to the FBI who refused to allow them to appear before the grand jury.

Additional anomalies: forewarnings to federal judges and agents not to show up for work, TV clips of fed. Agents discussing multiple bombs in the buildings being disarmed, seismic readings showing two distinct explosions, damage evidence of point charges on pillars of the Murray Bldg, and confiscated surveillance videos showing the explosion, which the Fed government refuses to release.

TWA 800 crash: Over a hundred witnesses saw two or more missiles in flight. They were threatened, bribed and coerced into silence. Their testimony was disregarded. Cockpit data and flight recorders from

flight 800 were found the first day by special Navy divers. They were altered, and then put back into the sea for later retrieval. Clinton Executive order removed whistleblower protections from this group of Navy Divers to ensure they wouldn’t talk. FBI and CIA took control of the investigation from the NTSB, corrupted the evidence (removed all recovered plane parts that showed evidence of a missile strike) and concocted a fuel tank explosion scenario so bizarre that it took a $2 million computer generated reenactment to make this story half-way believable to a gullible public.

TOUGH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS beyond the forgoing issues:

For FBI director Mueller or other key White House counter terrorism officials:

1. Why did the FBI close their files in Mid 1996 (marked Secret and coded 199) to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth? {Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhazm}

2. What did you decide after the French Secret Service told you in August 2001, that Zacarias Massoui might be involved in a hijack of a commercial passenger jet?

3. Why did George W.Bush stop inquiries into the terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?

4. Did your agency receive any reports about the following contacts with Mohammad Atta, or someone arrested by that name? a) searched for using an expired visa, b) driving without a license in Broward County, c) searched after an incident at Miami Airport.

5. Who made the decision to encourage AGent John O'Neill to stop investigating Al- Qa’aida’s accounts? How did he come to be the security director at the World Trade Center, just before 9/11 resulting in his death?

6. Can you explain, why some media reports said, that two of the hijackers had bought tickets for flights scheduled after the Sept. 11 attacks?

7. Can you explain, why Ahmed Alghamdi, who was supposedly on the United Airlines plane that hit the World Trade Center, had also purchased tickets for a flight the next day from Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. to Saudi Arabia?

8. Why none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the passenger lists? Why do you not revise your lists now that you have admitted there were errors in putting out the list.

9. How do you know these were no aliases being used by others?

10. Can you explain, why the so called professional hijackers used credit cards with their correct names, and allowed drivers licenses with photos to be photcopied?

11. Which passport of the hijackers did you find in the rubble of the WTC and who found it at what time?

12. Did you just go through the passenger lists culling out the Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as hijackers? How do you explain the fact that there were no other Muslim passengers on the planes that were not hijackers?

13. Can you explain, why Mohammad Atta left his bag at the airport with the employees, or why they didn’t put it on the plane? Who found the bag and how were you sure it was his?

14. Can you explain, why Mohammad Atta did put a video "how to fly planes",an uniform and his last will into his bag, knowing that he will commit suicide anyway? Can you explain, why Mohammad Atta did leave his drivers license in a rental car?

15. How did you know to storm the Westin Hotel in Boston on September 12th and that the hijackers were staying there? Can you explain, why the hijacker’s accomplices were still waiting in that Hotel and how you determined who they were and details such as their specific pizza order, and their napping habits?

16. If the FBI was so incompetent prior to 9/11 how did you do all this magic investigations in 29 hours after the initial attack?

17. Why did the FBI ignore other ties of Bin Ladens family, who later were allowed to leave the United States without further investigations when normal American’s were banned from flying? (including Sheik Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, Mohammed M. bin Laden)

18. What do you know about these other hijackers identities who are still alive and can you explain why most of them are actual commercial pilots, who wouldn’t have need training in Cessnas?

19. What do you know about the current whereabouts of Said Bahaji, who was claimed to buy the tickets for some of the hijackers?

20. Can you explain why eye-witness Madeline Amy Sweeney described how hijackers stabbed passengers and then diverted the plane and why The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names?

21. Whatever happened with Lotfi Raissi who was arrested in UK for teaching the terrorist pilots?

JOHN KAMINSKI questions:

Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 9/11? I mean, two and half years have passed. And the feds produced 19 names within 72 hours of the disaster. Notice a mathematical inconsistency here?

Seven or eight of the names on that original list have been found living comfortably in other countries. Why hasn't the FBI made any attempt to correct the errors made on that original list? See for yourself.


and http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

We have Marvin Bush sitting suspiciously on the board of directors of the security company that had the contract for the Twin Towers.

We have Larry Silverstein, who conveniently leased and insured the towers shortly before the big hits, telling officials to "pull" a relatively intact tower, which then fell identically to the two structures that were

struck by airplanes, creating the impression that that's the way all three came down.

We have billions of dollars of windfall profits made by savvy investors in the days before 9/11, and an FBI investigation that insists nothing was amiss with these spectacular deals. Of course, we don't get the

details. Only "assurances" that the trades were not suspicious, despite patterns and results that were unprecedented in the entire history of financial trading.

We have reports from firemen of explosions at the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE they fell, and the seismographic evidence to back up these assertions.

We have leader after leader saying they didn't know such a thing could happen when the government had been studying the problem for ten years. It had held at least two major drills simulating such a possibility.

And we have a president sitting in a ghetto classroom in Florida, at possibly the most pivotal moment in American history, pretending to read a book that he was holding upside down.

Perhaps most tellingly of all, we have the tragic tale of John O'Neill, rabidly honest FBI investigator, prevented from following his leads about Osama bin Laden because of the danger he would have discovered the links from Afghanistan back to CIA headquarters. Just review the way he was

prevented from conducting his probe of the Cole bombing, and prevented by digging into other leads by the same guys - namely insiders Louis Freeh and Thomas Picard - who prevented significant reports from other FBI agents from seeing the light of day.

For George Tenet, CIA:

1. Can you confirm as dailynews yahoo reported, that you already started to monitor Osama bin Laden in 1998 with the help of 15 afghan agents, who got paid $1,000 a month? Can you tell us something about the whereabouts of this agents?

2. Are any of these afghan agent also members of the ISI?

3. When was the first time you mentioned an Al-Qa’aida group to any member of the Senate? In other words, why did not Al Qa’aida figure prominently in any briefings before 9/11?

4. Why is it that of all the leaks you have reported from supposed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, none have confirmed or addressed the issue of where they really received the sophisticated flight training necessary to pilot these aircraft to their targets?

5. Why, after almost a year in your custody, as you claim, have no charges be brought against Muhammed in any court of justice?

For Deutschebank-Alex Brown

1. Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 United Airlines (UAL) put option contracts between August 8th, 2001 and September 11th, 2001? Did you or do you own any stocks of UA, AA, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.?

2. What can you say about 2,500 UA-contracts which were "split into 500 chunks each, directing each order to different U.S. exchanges around the country simultaneously." on August 10th, 2001? Did you purchase UAL options in August 2001? Is it correct that you purchased 4,744 put options on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call between September 6th and September 7th, 2001? What was your intention of doing that?

3. What is your connection to Wally Kromgaard who purchased 4,516 put options on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options on September 10th, 2001?


1. Who is Osama Bin Laden?



2. Who created and funded the Al Qaeda Network?


3. What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family, the Carlyle Groupand the Bush family?









4. Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11th?






5. Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"?



6. What role did Pakistani Intelligence play on September 11th?


7. Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch... stock just before the attack?




-[Someone with considerable financial resources, and foreknowledge of the terrorist event, put stock options "against" the airlines that were to explode that week of 9-11. - INSIDER TRADING PROFITS from 9-11 were reported by the US media when they thought it was Arab terrorists . . . but then the story mysteriously died. Then the UK Independent revealed that it leads to a firm chaired by the 3rd highest man in the CIA (and stranger still is that $2.5 million of the "winnings" are still unclaimed (see below for URL to entire story). http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .

Info confirmed by Independent Newspaper in UK:


8. Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US?




-Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.

[ BBC interview on the above issue: - The Bush Administration forced the FBI to back off of the Bin Laden investigation months before 9-11. Source: BBC transcript BUSH ? BIN LADEN HIDDEN AGENDA!


9. If the CIA met with Bin Laden last July, why didn't they try to arrest him?

- CIA Station Chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden only 7 weeks before 9-11took place, yet they did not try to apprehend him, only met with him. - The CIA station chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden 7 weeks before 9-11, and at a time when Bin Laden was supposedly "wanted" by the CIA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html•(English) http://www.orf.at/orfon/011031-44569/index.htmlhttp://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

10. If the US is serious about ridding the world of terrorism, why do we continue to fund and train terrorists?




Unverifiable source by John Quinn of TopView software–who appears to be very credible.

"The Enemy Is Very Much Within"

AF Intel Source: pro-Bush Government Factions 'Absolutely' Behind Tuesday's Mass Devastation!

By TOP_VIEW (John Quinn)

TOP_VIEW has just conducted a brief yet immeasurably important phone interview -- set up by a trusted and totally reliable intermediary already known to us -- with an Air Force intelligence specialist. The interview was carried out this evening, over two days after the incredible death and devastation that took place in New York City and Washington D.C. Our Air Force source told us his superiors had activated him at about 10 AM Tuesday morning.

He absolutely refused to permit us to record the conversation, even though he was speaking into some kind of electronic gizmo that substantially altered the sound of his voice; making him sound like Darth Vader with a serious chest cold. If his identity where ever to become known he would be instantly executed by any number of Government Intelligent Agencies. Some portions of his statements were unintelligible, and he refused to repeat several of these.

Although this source was somewhat taciturn and close-lipped, for the most part he was cooperative in terms of giving us enough time to transcribe what he was saying. Overall what is stated plainly and unequivocally is of absolutely paramount importance for every single person in this nation and the world: certainly among those of us who value our inalienable human rights and liberties and want them to remain un-imperiled, un-abrogated and unabridged.

TOP_VIEW: We'd like to hear what you have to say about the events on Tuesday. First of all, I assume you have knowledge of the events that goes above and beyond what the public is being told by the media and the government?

Intel source: That's quite correct.

TOP_VIEW: Can you -- are you able and willing to relay this information to us?

Intel source: Well, that depends. Some of it. You're going to publish this?

TOP_VIEW: On the Internet.

Intel source: It's essential that nothing which could possibly be used to identify myself or "**" (our intermediary) is made public.

TOP_VIEW: We totally understand. Completely. That's exactly how it will be, and --Intel source: You've known "**" a long time?

TOP_VIEW: For about 6 years, sir.

Intel source: So... he'll vouch for you? (Chuckles) Fire away.

TOP_VIEW: Well... it's becoming increasingly clear that certain federal government sectors had prior knowledge of the destruction carried out on Tuesday. Would you concur with this?

Intel source: (mumbles...........Yes)

TOP_VIEW: Excuse me? I didn't understand you.

Intel source: Never mind.

TOP_VIEW: Is it true that our Government knew what was going to happen?

Intel source: You could say that. Actually there are certain (pause) groups in our government who pretty much ran the whole show.

TOP_VIEW: Are you saying that there was cooperation and collaboration between elements of our government and the perpetrators?

Intel source: No. What I'm saying is that these groups (within the Federal Government - TV) were the perpetrators of the action, right down the line from top to bottom.

TOP_VIEW: This is really incredibly shocking, what you're saying here. Did I understand correctly, that you say elements of the federal government were the prime force behind these so-called terrorist attacks Tuesday?

Intel source: That's correct. Absolutely. As before.....

TOP_VIEW: God, what a horrifying thing to come to grips with! What is your feeling about this sir, and exactly why are you even talking to us about this? Are you positive about what you're saying? What...? As before.....? What do you mean?

Intel source: (laughs) What should I answer first? I would never make this kind of statement without being fully certain it was factual. My own feeling is that it's completely sickening. It's repugnant and unacceptable and I'm completely opposed to what was done. But it's true and we all have to deal with it. There are forces within our Government who are completely determined to change the structure of our society at the

most basic level, and these are the kind of things they're going to be doing to make sure that (fundamental changes in our society) happens. They have an office in the basement of the White House....but that's just one of many. Before....? Oh yea.....remember that young man that was executed a few months ago????

TOP_VIEW: Tim...Oklahoma, then?

Intel source: Yes.....OKC. Same scenario, several other agencies involved, as well.

TOP VIEW: That is almost beyond comprehension.....but you know that I think about it, it all makes sense. Pause....What's going on in the military right now with regard to what's occurred? Do many military higher-ups know this, and if so what's their position?

Intel source: (mutters....of course they do, most at least)

TOP_VIEW: Excuse me?

Intel source: I said some do know and some don't. Some wouldn't believe it, just like many citizens wouldn't believe it. There are certainly lots of conflict going on at the upper levels of the military right now between people aware of the true facts.

TOP_VIEW: What about yourself?