Comment on this article |
Email this article |
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS - EVIDENCE OF U.S. COLLUSION
by Steve Grey
Email: stevegreyau (nospam) yahoo.co.uk
12 Jan 2002
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS - EVIDENCE OF U.S. COLLUSION
The main points of the evidence presented in this article can be quickly summarised in this way.
1) The US airforce was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11. Routine security measures, normally in place, which may well have been able to prevent the attacks, or reduce their impact, were suspended while the attacks were in progress, and re-instated once they were over.
2) The actions of the President,while the attacks were occurring, indicate that he deliberately avoided taking any action which might have been reasonably expected of a President wanting to protect American citizens and property.
3) Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attackswithin a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accustaion.
4) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the US attack on Afghanistan was already planned before Sept 11.
5) The USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to be.There is a long history of co-operation,and evidence that this is still going on, behind the scenes.
6) There are significant business ties between Bin Laden and senior members of the Bush administration.
7) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the Sept 11 attacks, point to the top levels of US buisiness and the CIA.
8) There are a number of miscellaneous aspects regarding the official stories about Sept 11 which do not fit with known facts, which contradict each other which ask us to defy common sense, and which indicate a pattern of censorship and misinformation.
Some points of the evidence are "provable" with documentation; some are "strongly compelling", some are "circumstantial", some are "speculative" and some of them are simply logical musings and common sense observations. A large volume of evidence has been gathered and published elsewhere in the form of separate articles, relating to different aspects of the issues.
The primary aim of this article is not to present significant new research, but to draw all known evidence together as a summary in a single article. Those who want to examine and explore specific details,and sources should go to the links provided at the end of each section. These links lead to more detailed articles which are fully referenced. Of course, some sources cannot be fully verified, and there is an explanatory note about this towards the end.
EVIDENCE THAT THE AIR FORCE WAS STOOD DOWN
The US airforce has a well established set of regulations for dealing with unscheduled aviation activity. Activation of this code does not require executive orders. It is a routine practice to respond to unscheduled aviation activity, by intercepting the problem craft with jet fighters. It is important to realise that interception does not neccesarily imply any intention to shoot the plane down, although it does create the oppotunity for such action if it is deemed neccesary. In the great majority of cases requiring interception, no hostile intention is perceived on the part of the problem craft, and there is not even any thought of shooting the plane down. In these cases,the purposes of interception include helping with communication or navigation difficulties, gathering information about the situation of the troubled craft, a head start on information neccesary for rescue operations, should they become neccesary in the case of the problem craft crashing, and protection of the craft if it is believed that it may be under threat from other hostile craft.
There are numerous example of this. The recent example of the passenger who allegedly tried to blow up a plane by lighting explosives hidden in his shoe, resulted in that plane being escorted by jet fighters.There was never any thought of shooting down that plane.
The golfer Payne Stewart died, when his private plane crashed,after careering across much of the US in an uncontrolled fashion.It is believed that everyone in the plane had died on board, as a result of internal pressurisation failure. Stewart's plane was intercepted and accompanied for much of this flight by jet fighters,once it was known that there was a problem.
The US has a network of airforce bases across the country which are designed to give a reasonable chance of being able to intercept, within a short time, any plane which might require such action. Of course it is not possible to guarentee absolute coverage of every possible scenario at every possible time and place, but the system comes as close to that as can reasonably be expected.
There is incontravertable evidence that on the morning of September 11, this system had been stood down from operation, all across the country, and only resumed after the attacks had finished.
Every one of the hijacked planes should have, and would normally have triggered interception proceedures before it was even apparent that there were hostile intentions. In the cases of the first two planes, it may be possible to argue that the fighters might not have arrived in time to complete interception before the collisions with the WTC, but there is no doubt that in both cases, attempts at interception should have been well under way by the time the collisions took place.There is no excuse for the fact that interceptions were not even attempted. In the case of the next two planes, there is absolutely no excuse for interception not having well and truly taken place before the final results.
The example of the plane which struck the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was neverthless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes, fly past the white house, and crash into the pentagon, with not even any attempt made at interception, when two sqaudrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just 10 miles from it's eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination, even in a situation where nothing else was happening that day.
The sensational addition to the scenario is that this plane took actions which would normally have triggered routine interceptions, after one plane had already crashed into the WTC. Furthermore, it continued to fly, without even any attempt at interception for about another 40 minutes after the second WTC crash had occurred.
A telling comparison: The January 2002 incident,in which a 15 year old boy flew a light plane into the Bank of America building in Tampa, Florida, after unexpectedly taking off from flying school, without authorisation:
According to Sydney's "Daily Telegraph" of Jan 8 2002, the plane was in the air for a total of 9 minutes before the crash.This was enough time for it to be pursued by two jet fighters and and an air force helicopter. They failed to prevent the crash, but they were into action very quickly.
Fact: In the only attack on the US mainland, with Air Force defense fighters on permanent ready ten minutes away, with at least 40 minutesí advance notice, the US military allowed its "nerve center" to be attacked, without even any attempt at response.
SOURCE ARTICLES WHICH COLLECTIVELY VERIFY AND EXPAND UPON THE SUMMARY WHICH HAS JUST BEEN PRESENTED
1) "Scrambled messages" by George Szamuely"
New York press article, based on articles by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel (which are themselves linked below)
2) "Air defences stood down on 9 11" by R.Anderson
3) "9-11 Nothing urgent" by Geoge Szamuely (Research and documentation by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel)
3)"Guilty for 9-11: Bush,Rumsfeld,Myers" by Illarion Bykov and Jared Isael.
4)"Mr Cheney's cover story" by Illian Bykov and Jared Israel
5)"Criminal negligence or treason" by Jared Israel
6)FAQ#2 "You charge that that the military was made to stand down on 9-11.But planes did scramble.They just arrived late." by Jared Israel.
(Response to crticiisms of previous articles on the subject,and updated information)
7)"Russian air force chief says Official 9-11 story impossible"
8)"Map and timetable for American Airlines Flight 77
9)"Map of Andrews air force base."
Isolated security breaches are not without precedent. The Soviet Union was embarrassed by a personal aircraft intrusion into Red Square in 1989. Extensive coverage,and post mortem was given at the time, into how such a massive security blunder could have occurred, but the far greater failure, deliberate or otherwise, of security measures on Sept 11, which resulted in tragic consequences, ( the 1989 incident did not) has been covered up as much as possible. This should be a national and international scandal.
If the success of the American attacks was a result of American military or intelligence incompetence, why is there not full public inquiry and disclosure?
Who has an interest in withholding information and why?
Is it in the interest of national security to protect the incompetent and/or the malicious conspirator?
Are Americans (at least) entitled to know why their monster military apparatus is capable of escorting an errant flying golfer but not protecting the Pentagon and one of the largest American cities?
The American foreign intelligence system failed.
The American domestic intelligence system failed.
The Air Force domestic defense system failed.
Query: Why would anyone believe this was the result of incompetence?
Query: Where is the public outrage at such ineffective operations?
Query: Where are the fully researched exposes in the American press?
Query: Where is the full public inquiry in Congress?
Query: What if the three systems did not fail but were ordered not to act?
A TANGLE OF LIES
The actions of the president on the morning of Sept 11 leave no doubt that this goes all the way to the top.
At 8.46, as the first plane hit the world trade centre, the President was at a Florida elementary school, mingling with teachers and children, attended by the press, and partly televised. According to the "Sept 11 News " website, this is what happened.
(It seems that even the damaging account which follows, is actually a cover up story, concocted afterwards, but just for the moment, I'll follow the official story.)
"Word of the tragedy first came to president Bush in the hallway of a school in Sarasota, Fla., moments after the first plane hit the New York World trade center. He went to a private room, where he spoke by phone with National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice; it appeared then that the matter had just been a terrible accident."
Article 1 above reports that Norad was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane hit the WTC (at 8:36).
Presumably NORAD began tracking the plane from the moment it was reported as hijacked. If they didn't track it, it raises alarming questions about why not, considering that the normal practice is to immediately intercept hijacked planes,with jet fighters.
So when the WTC was struck for the first time, at 8.46, it seems safe to assume that NORAD must have known that it was the hijacked plane which had been involved.
While it still would have been reasonable at this time to consider the possibility that the hijackers had crashed accidently, NORAD must have been aware at 8.46, that there was a very strong possibility that the collision was a terrorist attack. Alarm bells should have ringing loud and clear, and the highest state of alert declared. By 9.00, the situation had escaslated to the point that another two planes had been reported by air traffic controllers as being off course, and one of these was within 3 minutes of a second strike on the WTC. (Bearing in mind that the WTC had a no fly zone around it) Unless everyone at NORAD had their screens switched off, and their feet up on the desk, there should have been absolute pandamonium by this time.
So when the second plane hit the WTC at 9.03, it would have been confirmed beyond any doubt that a major terrorist attack was taking place. Who knew how many planes might have been hijacked, and where they were? At least one more was already known to be at large by this time.
According to the official account, Bush assumed the first attack was "a terrible accident" and had no further communication with anyone until 9.05, long after it was clear that extraordinary events were taking place.
Are we to believe that the President of the United States was not informed of the number of commercial jets known to be seriously deviating from flight plans at that time ?
Given what NORAD knew,at the time that Bush and Rice were allegedly having this conversation, shortly after 8.46, the claim that it appeared to be just an accident doesn't add up.
At the time, while it couldn't have been known for certain that it was a terrorist attack, it must been known that this was a serious possibility. So why would they have jumped to the conclusion, that it was the lesser scenario?
If the information availaible to Bush and Rice at this time was sketchy, and they didn't know that it was a hijacked plane, then the assertion in the official story quoted above is reasonable. But - updated news on the situation should have then come through to Bush almost immediately after this conversation with Rice. And yet, according to this account, Bush had no further communication with anyone until 9.05. Why would Bush be so quickly informed, and show such immediate concern for a situation which (allegedly) presented every reason to believe that it was simply an accident, but then not be informed immediately afterwards of new developments.
If Bush and Rice knew, at the time of their converstion that it was a hijacked plane, then what justified their assumption that the hijackers had crashed accidently? And given that they must have had some doubt about this, why were no precautionary strategies activated,in case the assumption proved incorrect? And why were there not constant, and urgent communications happening over the next 18 minutes, as events unfolded?
If it was seen fit to inform Bush "within moments" of the 8.46 crash, when allegedly, it was believed that it was "just a terrible accident", then why was it not seen fit to inform him just as promptly, when the situation escalated?
Even if this could be explained away, the president's actions after 9.05, indicate that if he was not involved in deliberate collusion, then the only other explanation, is to seriously question his soundness of mind.
Still following the official account: About 9.00, the president had settled down with second grade children, reading about a litttle girlsís pet goat. At 9.05, two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card, the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in his ear. The president did not react, as one might reasonably expect , had he been interested in trying to do something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an emergency meeting, consult with anybody,or intervene in any way, to ensure that the airforce did itís job. He did not even mention the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued with the reading class.
Meanwhile, at 9.06, the NY police department was broadcasting
"This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon" reported in NY Daily News Sept 12 2001
According to the "September 11 news" site,Bush intitially
"looked distracted and sombre,but continued to listen to the second graders read and soon was smiling again.He joked that they read so well,they must be sixth graders."
By this time,millions of people around the world had seen the second WTC crash live on television.Millions of people knew that the US was under attack in spectacular fashion.What they didn't know at the time was that the President of the USA was smiling and joking about pet goats,even though he'd also been told.
He continued to read about pet goats for another 24 minutes!
In an interview for newsweek,Bush recalls the 9.05 news in the following way.
"I'm the national commander and the country had just come under attack."
He claims that Andrew Card's exact words were,
"A second plane has hit the world trade centre. America is under attack."
According to the "Sept 11 news" site, immediately after finishing the reading class at about 9.29, Bush, after conferring with advisers gave an address to the nation referring to an apparent terrorist attack. Meanwhile, millions of people around the world had already worked this one out for themselves, during the time that the president was reading about goats.
While the President was wasting even more time, with the pointless adress to the nation, flight 77, known more than half an hour ago to have been hijacked, had now reached Washington, being tracked by radar, and the jet fighters at Andrews air base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, were still on the ground. Bush either didn't know, and didn't want to know, or knew but didn't care.
By giving the address, he was creating an impression of leadership, but in reality he continued to do everything possible to avoid doing anything about the situation.
27 minutes after the pentagon crash, when it became known that yet another plane, Flight 93 had been hijacked, this was also not intercepted, and the president again failed to intervene in the treacherous inaction of the airforce.
By this time he was aboard an airforce plane to Lousiana.Exactly what he was doing isn't clear.
Bear in mind,that this scenario is based on the officially sanctioned story from the Bush administration, so if it's innacurate in any way, it will be one which makes the story look less damaging, rather than more.
Incriminating as it is, it seems that even this account is a cover up story, concocted after the event, to make Bush's actions look better.
The "Sept 11 news" website gives so sources, and no posting date, no method of verifying the truth or otherwise of the account. And it conflicts significantly with a report in the "Washington Post online" a report in which the time of posting can be verified. At
there's an article by Mike Allen, dated Sept 11, 2001, 4.36 pm, which makes no mention of the converstaion Bush is alleged to have had with Rice, just after 8.46, and states
"Bush had received the first news of the attack at 9.07 a.m....Bush who's eyes had been sparkling, looked suddenly grim. That was when officials still thought that the crash at the world trade center was just an accident, and he went ahead with the photo oppotunity."
For reasons previously mentioned, it's impossible to believe that they still thought it was an accident at 9.07. But that's what the press was being told on Sept 11. At some later date, when it became obvious how implausible this was, the story was changed to that posted on the "Sept 11 news" website.
Which account is correct? Either way, Bush has a lot of explaining to do. What the two stories do agree on, is that Bush continued with the reading class and joked that they must be sixth graders.
In the Newsweek article,quoted above, dated Dec 3, the story was changed again! This writes that after Bush had realised that "the country had just come under attack"
"Soon he was in a holding room,watching the nightmarish video."
Not according to the Washington Post report of Sept 11! And not even according to the "Sept 11 news" site.
And at a meeting with displaced workers in Orlando, Florida, Bush changed the story yet again!
Here's what the president said .This comes from the White House's own web site.
"actually, I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on.And I said, well there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the class room, and Andy Card, my chief of staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." "
Not only does this conflict with three other accounts, the huge problem is - no such live broadcast of the first WTC collision ever took place! What TV station was he watching?
Four accounts, all conflicting, containing at least one totally ficticious statement from the president's own mouth. The only thing they all have in common, is that when the president should have been taking command of the situation, he did nothing.
The pattern of the information concerning Bush's actions while the attacks were taking place, is identical to that regarding the actions of the airforce. A scenario which defies belief, if one is not to postulate US collusiion in the attacks,followed by a bewidering maze of implausible and conflicting cover stories. In both cases, the cover stories, while creating some confusion about the fine technicalities of exactly what took place, do nothing to change the overall picture.
Is this not, at the very least grounds for a major inquiry?
When the security of the nation is at stake, it is apparrently vitally important to go and kill nearly 4,000 innocent, uninvolved civillians in a far away country, contemplate attacking more countries, speak of war which may not end in our life times, spend $100 billion on a preventative "war against terror " and reduce civil liberties to facist era levels: but not important enough to hold an inquiry into the bizarre failure of those who's responsibility it is to protect the nation.
Strong supporting evidence for the allegation of forewarning and collusion, is presented by a curious aside to the Pentagon attack. According to a CNN TV report, broadcast on the morning of Sept 12, Australian time : The plane which flew into the Pentagon, had it done so a week earlier, would have flown into exactly the right spot to cripple the Pentagonís key operations and kill many important senior staff. But, allegedly by fortunate co-incidence, the Pentagon had done a major reshuffle just a week before. As described in the report, to put it simply, the important people and operations had moved to the other side, and the unimportant people and operations had moved to the side which was hit. Consequently, very little real damage was done to the important operations of the pentagon.
This story,after appearing on CNN, in the first hours after the attacks, was quickly buried, and never heard from again.
If it is to be claimed that the evidence for collusion, is over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own citizens, then it must be pointed out that the contemplation of terrorist attacks on US citizens by the CIA is a matter of public record. The previously classified "Northwoods" document reveals that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but several options were discussed, including , killing Cuban defectors or US soldiers, sinking ships,and staging simulations of planes being shot down.
There's a huge credibilty problem with the allegations against Osama Bin Laden, as presented in the mainstream media. It creates a problem of mutually exclusive scenarios regarding the competance of US intelligence services.
How could they have had no warning of an operation which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day?
And if they had some forwarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more quetions about the airforce and the president.
According to an article in the Washington Post online,by Charles Babbington, dated Sept 11,2001, 5.52 pm,
"Kenneth Katzman,a terrorism expert at the congressional research service, said the devestating attacks represented an intelligence failure of 'catastrophic proportions'.
'How nothing could have been picked up is beyond me - way beyond me'
Katzman told the Post. 'This is a major,major intelligence failure,specially since since the [previous] Trade center bombing produced such an investigation of the networks and so much monitoring' "
This is particularly interesting,in the light of another Washington Post online article, by Joel Achenbach,dated Sept 11, 2001, 2.01 pm.
"At the White house, phone bank volunteers were hearing the voices of the American people soon after reports of the plane crashes that demolished the World Trade center buildings in New York city. A volunteer who asked that his name not be used said later,after being evacuated, 'People were hysterical. They said "Do something now. Do it swiftly.Don't be a wuss, don't be moderate. Get Bin Laden." ' "
Let's try to create a timeline here. The White House was evacuated at 9.45 a.m., so the calls must have been recieved before then. If people were calling in to demand that they "get Bin Laden" at, say 9.35 a.m., they must have been responding to news about his alleged guilt that was broadcast at, say 9.25 a.m., which means that investigators must have had Bin Laden's guilt worked out by say, 9.15 a.m., 12 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC.
They solved the whole thing in 12 minutes! Before the attacks were even finished. Wow! Quite a turnaround in performance, from what Kenneth Katzman was describing!
To try to treat this absurdity with some seriousness, the only plausible interpretation, is that within less than 4 hours of the attacks, the administration had already set in motion, with the help of compliant, uncrtitical media, a preplanned propaganda assault to convict Bin Laden in the minds of the American people.
This is, by itself very powerful, although circumstantial evidence that the administration knew in advance that the attacks were coming. The swiftness with which they began a concerted,and seemingly co-ordinated media assault on Bin Laden, at a time when they were supposedly still reeling in shock from the events of that day, and mainly concerned with the immediate tightening of security, makes it difficult to explain otherwise.
I'm going to cover this allegation from a few different angles. For the rest of this analysis, I will ignore the absurd scenario presented by Joel Achenbach's article, just to demonstrate that even without this highly incriminating evidence, it can still be deduced with certainty that the allegations against Bin Laden were a preplanned set up.
From day 1, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, we had nothing but the continued repetition of his name.
The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden can only be described as pathetic trash.
For example,a full transcript of one of the points of "evidence" in the U.K. government's official document: reads (in reference to Al Quaida )
"They have sought to aquire nuclear and chemical materials for use as terrorist weapons"
While this allegation (if able to be substantiated) may be cause for general alarm, can anybody work out how this translates to evidence of involvement in Sept 11?
The trash continues:
Point 7 of the "evidence",in it's entirety is
"Al Quaida gives no warning of terrorist attack."
Point 10,in entirety
"The taliban emerged from refugee camps in Pakistan in the early 1990s. By 1996 they had captured Kabul.They are still engaged in a bloody civil war to control the whole of Afghanistan.They are led by Mullah Omar."
Point 38. in entirety.
"From 1993 members of AlQuaida began to live in Nairobi and set up businesses there,including Asma Ltd,and Tanzanite King.They were regularly visited there by senior members of AlQuaida, in particular by Alef and Abu Ubadiah at Banshiri."
Point 68,in entirety.
"Al Quadia's attacks are characterised by total disregard for innocent lives, including Muslims. In an interview after the East African bombings, Usama Bin Laden insisted that the need to attack the United States excused the killing of other innocent civillians, Muslim and non-Muslims alike."
Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited,
10 relate to backgound information about the relationship between Bin Laden the Taliban.
15 relate to background information regarding the general philosphies of Al Quaida,and it's relationship to Bin Laden.
None give any facts concerning the events of Sept 11. Most don't even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day.
26 list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, eveybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of Sept 11.
As the official document admits. "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden."
This, apparently, is the sum total of the case against Bin Laden!
Then came the video tape, which, is a complete joke.
We now have technology whic enables high quality film to show living,walking dinasours so clearly, that you would swear they were there. The only way we know itís not true is that we have pre-existing knowledge that itís a fake.
By comparison, the video tape of Bin Laden is of such poor quality that we have no way of even knowing for sure whether itís even him on the tape.
In feature movies, it is common practice to use a stand-in to replace the real actor for much of the filming. An extra of similar hight and build is given the same clothing and hair style, and the two are virtually indistinguisable. Such a substitution is even easier on poor quality video. When the main charachter has a long beard, a headress, and loose clothing, it's an absolute snap.
On the Bin Laden tape, the poor quality prevents any analysis of whether the dialogue is genuinely live, or overdubbed. It's a common technique on TV comedy shows to overdub different dialogue on to pre-existing film. We have also had to rely on translations of dubious independence.
The timeline of when and where the tape was allegedly made, and where it was supposedly found is also, although possible, somewhat perplexing.
Allegedly, it was made in Kandahar on November 9, and found in a house in Jalalabad. Jalalabad fell to anti-taliban forces on November 14. This means that there was only 4 days in which the newly made tape could have been taken from Kandahar to Jalalabad, which was already under serious threat by then.
So, we are asked to believe that upon making the tape, someone, almost immediately, for no apparrent reason, took it to Jalalabad, which was about to fall, and then conveniently left it there, to be found by anti taliban forces. Itís not impossible, but it's highly suspicious, an observation which is becoming very repetetive throughout this article.
If Bin Laden's motivation was to gloat, why not do it properly and give a worldwide broadcast ?
According to the Weekend Australian of Dec 15/16, the sequence of real time events has been reversed on the tape. So it's been edited. Why, and by whom?
Did the date stamp of Nov 9, as reported on television, refer to the date of the filming, or the date that the edited version was finalised? If it was the former, which would seem to be more likely, then this leaves even less time for it to have been to Jalalabad.
Was it edited by US authorities? In response to allegations from independent translators, that the pentagon's translation is innaccurate, incomplete and misleading, they've been forced to admit that the "translation" they've released is doctored.
"The tape is NOT a verbatim translation of every word spoken during the meeting, but it does convey the messages and the information flow" says a department of defense spokesman.
"The translation is what it is. We made it very clear that it's not a literal translation" says the pentagon.
When asked if a more accurate translation would be provided,the pentagon replied with an emphatic no. It even ruled out releasing the full transcript of it's own translation!
If this is the only evidence against Bin Laden, then the case is in an awful lot of trouble. And what other evidence is there?
Itís no surprise that no formal charges have been laid against Bin Laden. The normal practice of the law is that itís neccesary to actually have evidence, in order to lay charges.
The irony, is that even if we accept the tape as genuine, and the pentagon's translation as accurate, it only serves to prove that Bin Laden was NOT the mastermind behind the attacks. While it would indicate that he had prior knowledge of it, and was therefore involved in some capacity, he clearly states (according to the pentagon's disputed translation ) that he was told about the the attack 5 days before it happened. If thatís the case, he canít possibly have been the main organiser. Who told him about it?
Rather than ask these obvious and important questions, Sydney's "Daily telegraph" reported the issue by way of a front page containing a large Photo of Bin Laden with the heading "You Barstard."
Sone further observations concerning the Bin laden Tape can be found at
"Look at how easy it is to fake a confession video." (Author unknown)
and "The Phantom - Pentagon's Bin Laden Video Tape of Dec 13" by Arbeiterfotographie
"Bin Laden,Terrorist monster:Take two!" by Jared Israel
Tape or no tape, if we think clearly and logically about the likelihood of Bin Laden being involved, we actually find that itís impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the USA knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made that if he was involved, then it canít have been a surprise, which in turn, puts more heat on the president and the air force.
It is curious to say the least, that no other suspect was ever even contemplated, however briefly. This becomes downright suspicious if we think clearly about the logistics of actually setting up a real inquiry into the events of September 11.
It took 17 years to catch the unabomber. It took 7 weeks of investigation into September 11, merely to confirm the nationalities of the 19 alleged hijackers.But the person who masterminded it was known within a few hours.(or even a few minutes!)
Imagine what needs to be done to set up an inquiry into something like this.
While a list of suspects might spring to mind, itís not as if we could see "Bin Laden" written in the sky. Was not Saddam Hussein a suspect? Libya? A Palestinian group? Cuba? Russia? China? Local right wing militias? Anti-globalisation fanatics? Syria? Someone completely unknown and unexpected? etc etc. Where would you start?
You'd need to recruit people with aviation expertise to the inquiry. But they must also be people with appropriate security clearances.
Start drawing up a list of possible people who might be useful in this context.
You need people with architectural expertise, to examine the exact nature of the collapse of the world trade centre. Was it only the planes which caused the collapse, or were explosives also used? Start making a list.
You need people whoís main field is airport security. Were airport or airline employees involved in the plot? Another list.
You need people with financial expertise to try to trace where some of the money needed for this operation came from. Another list.
You need to examine immigration records and cross reference these with the pilotís licences. You need an urgent review of internal security, in case it was an "inside job." Such a review is a delicate operation to say the least.
So, itís quite a task, simply to start drawing up the lists of possible suspects, possible personnel, and the main angles of investigation for the inquiry.
Then all of these people have to contacted, and gotten together in a group, or at least hooked up with communications to each other.
But hang on! Aircraft are grounded. Many communication networks are down, many governmnet and financial instutions closed, and large parts of New York and Washington are inaccessible. The whole country's crawling with security blockades.
How do we get hold of the people we want? How do we get them all together, and start delegating responsibilities? Were they all miraculously hanging out together, in the one place, which was also the place where the inquiry co-ordinater happened to be, so there was no need to wait till people could get back from other assignments, in various parts of the US, or overseas?
Once the basic parameters of the inquiry were established, and the detailed research and investigation was begun, in however long it would have taken to get to that stage, itís not as if the inquiry personnel just sit around and say "what do we think? Bin Laden?" and everyone says "yeah", so the team leader phones the president ,mentions a name, and the president says "thatís good enough for me" and immediately threatens to attack Afghanistan.
Extensive field work, and computer work would have to be done. The reports have to be written up, summarised, checked for security clearances, printed, and given to the president and his top advisers, who would have to read at least the summaries, and then discuss them with the investigation panel.
And as evidence is gathered, itís one thing to start to focus on a main suspect and feel that you may be getting somewhere, but itís another to be so certain that youíre threatening a war over it.
To have even drawn up a list of possible suspects, prospective personnel, and basic strategies for the inquiry, within 2 days, would have been an astonishing, perhaps impossible acheivement, under these circumstances. To have actually held a meeting of the senior agents to be involved in the inquiry, within less than 3 days would probably have been impossible. And yet, by this time, the US had already claimed to have held itís "inquiry" , and established Bin Ladenís guilt.
By 2pm the same day as the attacks , an article had already appeared in the Washinton post, implying that Bin Laden was guitly beyond doubt. How?
Tony Blair confirmed that it's a lie, with a careless statement made at the beginning of November.
"There is no doubt about Bin Ladenís guilt. The evidence against him, first a trickle, then a flow, has now become a torrent. "
(World news page on nine MSN website)
Since they were already procliaming Bin Laden guilty, within a few hours, Blair has accidently admitted that it was a lie. Did the evidence progess from " trickle " to " flow " to " torrent " all in a few hours?
This would be strange way to describe the process, especially, when the phrase was not used until nearly two months later, and was described thus: " has NOW become a torrent. "
So, he has admitted that they were already declaring Bin Laden guilty, and threatening Afghanistan, at a time when the evidence was still only a " trickle ".
His words, not mine!
They somehow knew at the time that it would become a " torrent " "later? But this " torrent " is apparently still not sufficient to lay any formal charges.
An important question remains to be cleared up. The pilots were obviously on a suicide mission, which is known to be a common theme amongst Middle Eastern, Islamic terrorists, but totally foreign to American culture. It is difficult to believe that Americans, or those loyal to the US would knowingly participate in a suicide mission. But this doesnít present any real problem for the scenario which has been postulated. The obvious explanation, speculative but credible, is that some of the hijackers were genuinely hostile to the USA, and were participating in an attack which they thought would further their cause, unaware that they were pawns a bigger plan.
In fact, in late November, media reports began to emerge that some of the hijackers may not have been aware that they were about to participate in a suicide mission. I donít know how this evidence has emerged, or what the basis of it is, but thatís whatís been reported. ( ABC Newsradio report ) This fits neatly enough with the rest of the information we have, to be able to speculate with some credibility that some of those who were not aware that they would be committing suicide, would have been the CIA operatives. They would have been ordered to help set up the hijacking, while being unaware of the full plan. Those who were knowingly committing suicide, were those genuinely hostile to the USA.
If this is the case, the final moments of the black box flight recorder data, would make interesting listening. Is this why the flight recorder details are being kept so quiet?
It is reasonable to speculate that this could not have been organised without the use of pawns, who thought that they were about to strike a blow against the US. This may be where Bin Laden fits in. My belief is that he probably was involved in some capacity, but not that as described by the Bush Adminstration. A possibility is that he deceived and sacrificed his own people in the same way that the Americans involved, deceived and sacrificed their's. The possibility that Bin Laden and the CIA may have been in active co-operation in this atrocity will become clearer in the next section.
Fact: Within less than 4 hours of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events which could not possibly have occurred.
Fact:The pentagon and the department of defense used dialouge attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue - and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation.
Query: Why was it considered neccesary to lie, in order to create a case against Bin Laden?
BEST OF ENEMIES
In fact, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that Bin Laden, may have had something to do with this, but the problem is that it also implicates the Bush Adminsitration, the CIA , George Bush snr, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. The official story about Bin Laden is that of terrorist monster, with a fanatical hatred of the USA and itís allies, and as being estranged from the rest of his wealthy Saudi family, who are friendly to the USA. The terrorist monster part is correct, but the rest of it could not be further from the truth.
It is well known that Bin Laden had a close working relationship with the CIA in the 1980ís. This isnít denied by anyone. The claim is that they have since fallen out, but this story is a lie. It is established beyond doubt that senior members of the Bush administration have close links to the Bin Laden Family. According to the mainstream media spin, this is OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his terrorist activities and anti-US views. This is also a lie.
Once again, there have been many excellent articles already published on this aspect, and rather than rewrite what has already been covered so extensively, I will link you to these articles.
First I will summarise just a few of the revelations which you will find in these articles.
1)Since first declaring Bin Laden as wanted for terrorism, the US has twice turned down oppotunities to take him into custody
2)Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates,have colluded in knowingly allowing Bin Laden to stay free.
3)Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001.
4)Bin Ladenís Al Qaida network, is known to have co-operated with Nato forces, via the Kosovo liberation army, in Yugoslavia.
5)Pakistan, another of our allies in the " war against terror " has also long been a supporter of Al Qaida.
6)The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
7) The Pakistani ISI (secret service) has been a mechanism by which the CIA indirectly channelled support to Al Quaida.
8) There is a co-operative business relationship between the Bush family and the Bin laden family, via the huge arms firm, " Carlyle group ". It appears that both the Bush's and the Bin Ladens are profiting from the war.
"Cover-up or complicity of the Bush administration? by Professor Michel Chossudovsky
"Bin Laden met with CIA in July and walked away"
by Michael C.Ruppert
"Who is Osama Bin Laden?" by Professor Michel Chossudovsky
"Family affair:The Bushes and the Bin Ladens" By Clark Kee
"Which terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA?" by Jared Israel
Tanscript of BBC report "Has someone been sitting on the FBI?"
with comments by Jared Israel.
"Gaping holes in the 'CIA vs. Bin laden' Story" by Jared Israel
"Bushladen" by Jared Israel
Addition to above article
"Bin laden in the Balkans" collection of mainstream media articles compiled
by Jared Israel
"The creation called Osama" by Shamsul Islam
"Articles documenting US creation of taliban and Bin Laden's terrorist network" Series of links to different articles
"Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA" by Jared Israel http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connetction 'has now turned into a scandal'"
Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel
Some of these articles have links to yet more articles.
I will add a few observations of my own.The Bush family has extensive interests in weapons, the Bin Laden family in construction. One can't help being suspicious about a relationship like this.
Is this a case of "We build it, you blow it up, we build it again, you blow it up again, ... " ?
Two highly incriminating statements about the private business interests of key members of the Bush adminstration can be found at Hoover's online investment site concerning the company profile of Carlyle group.
"Carlyle's directorship reads like George W Bush's inaugural ball invite list. "
"Can you say military-industrial complex? The Carlyle goup can. "
Are we really prepared tolerate a situation where the people in a position to profit from war, are also the people with the legislative and/or executive power to decide whether the nation should go to war?
Fact: Mainstream media reports that Bin Laden recieved hospital treatment in Dubai, in July 2001,and was allowed to leave have not triggered any inquiry by the Bush Administration.
Fact: Al Quaida and Nato have co-operated in military efforts in the Balkans.
Fact: Mainstream media reports of Bin Laden being visited in Dubai, by key US allies, and CIA agents, have not triggered any inquiry.
Fact: Mainstream media reports that Bin Laden was visited by family members, have not triggered any inquiry.
Fact: The Bin Laden family up until Oct 2001 invested in the same arms group as the Presidents father, and the secretary of state.
Query: On what basis is it claimed that Bin Laden is estranged from his family?
Query: On what basis is it claimed that Bin Laden no longer has a good relationship with the CIA?
Query: Which members of the Bush administration are profiting from the war,and by how much?
The case for US complicity in Sept 11 has well and truly been made. But just to try to cover things from every angle, there is a little independent evidence that the US attack on Afghanistan was already planned prior to Sept 11
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366
It's always possible that he's lying, and in the absensce of any other evidence, the fair thing to do is to assume that there's a 50/50 chance that he's telling the truth.
Since we can't really know, let's just say that it's grounds for arousing significant suspicion.
There also appears to be an article from the Indian press ,dated June 26 which alleges that the US plans to attack Afghanistan soon. If genuine, this would be very strong evidence, but it needs to be treated with some caution. It is contained on a web page from "the public affairs magazine" , and although the article is dated as above, it does not seem to be properly verified as to when it was written, or who wrote it. So it is possible to allege that the page was placed there after the US attack on Afghanistan, and made to look like it was written before Sept 11.
You can view the page at http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10
and make up your own mind about how much credibility you think it has. Also, it's predictions were only semi accurate, in that it predicted " limited military action " against the taliban, and got quite a few things wrong about who the US was going to ally itself with in this campaign. The uncertainty surrounding verification of this article means that it's weight is somewhat limited, but nevertheless, it contributes some further suspicion.
People with military experience have suggested that it would not be logistically possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, regardless of how angry the USA might have been. This point has also been disputed by some with military experience, and further debate on this point by those who feel that they have enough military experience to be able to comment would be useful.
As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. True, Iraq was a much larger operation, but Afghanistan's terrain is some of the most complex on Earth, while Iraq is some of the simplest.
This raises the question: At what point during the planning does the size of the operation become a critcal factor ? Is there a minimum time taken to plan a war regardless of it's size, (within reason) and is 25 days within this time frame?
There are two aspects to preparation for war. Planning and mobilisation. Does the requirement for a larger mobilisation significantly change the timetable of the early stages of planning? 25 days in, how far advanced would the planning schedule of a war against Afghanistan be, compared to the planning of a war against Iraq ? I don't have any military experience, so I'm not qualified to comment, but I invite the debate from those who are.
And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildly inconsistent with their unbelievable incompetence on the morning of September 11.
It might be argued with some validity that the management of the US airforce, for the purpose of offensive warfare abroad, is a seperate issue from that of civil defence, and that incompetence in one aspect is not neccesarily mutually exclusive with competence in the other. This is a point worth considering, but nevertheless, the differences in performance are so striking that one has to wonder.
While these debates are interesting, the strongest evidence for the allegation that the US already had Afghanistan in it's sights has already been covered in the section about the Bin Laden set up.
BITS AND PIECES
Some miscellaneous observations and peices of information.
Normally, whenever an airplane is hijacked or crashes, there is extensive media coverage given to the recovery and examination of the black box flight recorders. I have followed this issue closely in the media, and do not recall at any stage, hearing even one word spoken about the black box data. This is highly unusual.
Is this information being censored? A possible reason for this has already been alluded to. While it's feasible that the recovery of the boxes from the the two planes which hit the WTC might not have been possible, because of the huge amount of rubble, there's no excuse for the other two planes. And even in the case of the two which hit WTC, the normal media practice is to report extensively on the progress of unsuccessful attempts to find flight recorders,such as when a plane has crashed into deep water. I haven't heard a word about it, in regard to any of the planes involved. It's possible that I simply missed the reports, but my anecdotal observation is that the flight recorder issue seems to have been buried. It's particularly supicious, given the extensive media publicity about incriminating notes, allegedly written on scraps of paper, that somehow survived plane crashes,fires and building collapses, while the normally significant and indestructible flight recorders are a non issue.
In the first few hours after the attacks, there were reports on CNN about insider trading on the New York stock exchange. That is, it seems that some very large investors had known in advance of the attacks and sold off before hand.
There was media speculation that the terrorists involved, may have profited from their actions. For " terrorists ", subsitute, " Bin Laden ". Within a few hours, the media was already into a tautological loop . Whoever had done the terrorist attacks had been insider trading. Since we knew that Bin Laden had done the attacks, that proved that he also did the insider trading. Since we knew that he had been insider trading, that proved he did the attacks. We were assured that invstigators were already hot on the trail of this vital question. The figures on the New York stock exchange do seem to clearly indicate that SOMEONE was insider trading. But who? For authorities with full investigative powers, this should be one of the easier aspects of the investigation. And if it could be found who was insider trading, that gives us a good idea about who knew about the attacks before hand, which gives us a good lead towards finding who did it. This importance of this evidence was stressed during those CNN reports.
Is is curious then, that this issue dissappeared from the media, as soon as it was raised, and was never heard of again, the bold promises that investigators were on to it -- forgotten as soon as they had been made.
Surely, this would be the chance to nail Bin Ladenís guilt. And it's information which could be released publicly, because it would not have security implications. And yet, this aspect of the investigation ( if it is still proceeding at all ) is being kept very quiet. The story was killed off just as quickly as the one about the pentagon reshuffle.
Unfortunately for the Bush administration,there were other people who were not so content to let the matter slip.The insider trading has been tracked,and it's all bad news for the administration.
Go to the following article.
"Profits of death: Insider trading and 9-11" by Tom Flocco
One financial fact which is known, and aknowledged in the mainstream media, is that a convicted Pakistani terrorist, highly placed in the Pakistani ISI, (our allies in the " war against terror " ) wired $100,000 to Mahomed Atta, named as the leader of the hijackers, shortly before September 11. (ABC Newsradio report) Although this fact is known, publicly available, and not denied by anyone, the response to it (or lack of it) is bewildering.
The USA is quite uninterested in pursuing any action against this person, in spite of President Bushís huffing and puffing that "if you fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist." Not in the case of our allies, it seems. The culprit was forced to resign his position, once his involvement in September 11 became known.
Forced to resign??
No labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state??
No retaliatory bombing of Pakistan until they hand him over??
On reflection, it is also curious how little real damage was done to the USA, by the September 11 attacks. It is worth reflecting on what probably could have been achieved by the hijackers, had there really been a plan to do the maximum possible damage.
It seems to me that a plan to organise the hijacking at such a time that they could have crashed a plane into the senate or congress while it was sitting, thus wiping out a significant part of the USAís government in one hit, could have been just as easily achieved, as what they actually did on Sept 11.
Or crashing the planes into a nuclear power plant, causing a catastrophic meltdown and release of radiation, as well as serious disruption to power supplies.
It is not credible to suggest that these plans were not carried out for fear of tight security, considering that they were confident enough to go for the pentagon.
In spite of all the shock, horror, and grief caused by September 11, not one member of the US administration was killed, or injured, not even a single senator, congress member, or governor, or any local official.
No damage was done to military capability, power, trasnsport, communication or water supplies.
In fact, the damage was so trivial, that the US was (allegedly) able to organise a war in record time.
While the loss of (civillian) lives, and the symbolic and psychological damage to the general public was enormous, the important point is that the attacks, while generating spectacular images, and giving the US a huge propaganda weapon, made zero impact upon the USAís ability to continue its role as an aggressive world superpower. This would seem to be an extraordinarily poor return, considering the near technical perfection of the operation, when the damage could have been devestating, simply by choosing the targets more sensibly.
FACT: Immediately after the attacks, the media reported that investigations would be conducted into insider trading on the Stock exchange, in an effort to track down those behind the terrorist attacks.
FACT: Government investigators failed to deliver this,and have ignored the findings of non government investigators.
FACT: The US government shows no interest in pursuing an individual known to have funded the Sept 11 attacks.The US government shows no interest in pursuing the country which harbours him.The US government considers this country an ally.
QUERY: Why are the real cuprits being protected,at the same time that fake evidence is manufactured against someone else?
The war in South Asia is more than just an escalation of US foreign policies which are estimated by disgruntled ex-CIA personal to have killed (as of 1990 ) at least 6 million civillians around the world, in covert CIA operations, over the previous 30 years, and to have, at any one time, been sponsoring terrorist organisations in around 50 countries.
("The Praetorian Guard" by John Stockwell and "The CIA and the Gulf war" a speech by John Stockwell
Up until now, people in the West have seldom been the targets of their own governments. This has now changed. Not only have they randomly murdered thousands of their own citizens, for the purpose of unleashing a new intensity in the wave of terror against people in South-Asia and the Middle East, but they are using those very same murders as a lever to reduce the rights and freedom of speech in the west, to levels not seen since the fascist era.
Most people are aware of the draconian attacks on civil liberties which have swept across most of the western world, since Sept 11, under the pretence of preventing terrorism.
This would be scary enough, even if it were genuinely an over-reaction to an act of foreign terrorism. When these laws are being drawn up by the same people who actually organised the act of terrorism which triggered it, the scenario is truly chilling.
Al Gore won the US election, but George W. Bush is president. Given the evidence of widespread, high level systemic corruption and conspiricy, it is debateable whether Gore would have or could have prevented the events which have since occurrred. But the point is, that the USA is, in all but name a dictatorship.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that this plan goes back well before November 2000, the date on which the overthrow of American democracy became overt. Whether or not the September 11 atrocities had been specifically planned by then, I canít say, but I'm confident that the wider agenda had been.
I believe that the atrocities commited by the Bush administration against it's own people, for the purpose of justifying the much greater atrocities, subsequently inflicted upon the Afghan people, are only a small taste of what is to come. The next section takes a closer look at what appears to be the real strategic agenda behind the phony " war on terror ".
The profit motivation for Carlyle group has been mentioned . Donald Rumsfeld, is already telling European countries that they need to boost defence budgets. I'll speculate with some confidence that Carlyle group, and therefore most of the senior members of the Bush administration will be reaping a tidy share of the profits.
(Incidently, Bush snr's grandfather was also an arms dealer, and didn't mind doing business with the Nazis.)
And I'll speculate with some confidence that the huge BinLadin construction company is set to pick up a nice share of the reconstruction work in Afghanistan.
Another significant agenda is the pursuit of the massive unexploited reserves of oil and gas under the Caspian sea. They are currently owned by Russia and Iran. I would suggest, not for much longer if the USA has itís way. It has been US policy since at least 1996, that a pipeline to carry this gas and oil to the Indian ocean, for transport to the West, must be built through Afghanistan. Whoever controls Afghanistan, controls the Caspian sea reserves.
This is my interpretation of a number of articles written by Jared Israel, concerning US strategic interests in the area.These articles are amongst those previously linked,and one should ckeck the articles directly, to determine Jared's conclusions, as it is possible that they may differ from mine in some aspects.
One relevant article, not previously linked is
"Why Washington wants Afghanistan." by Jared Israel,Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser.