US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
91: The Primary Evidence
05 Jun 2002
Modified: 06:26:13 PM
Still having doubts about the CIA, FBI & Bush's involvement in 9/11? Here's a partial list of primary evidence. Research it for yourself!


"Doubt is good. One should doubt everything, for doubt leads to investigation. Without investigation, one will never find the truth." - Guatama Buddha
PLEASE use and\or distribute to other media.


9/11: the Primary Evidence

Getting right to the point: the primary evidence of official prior knowlege and / or criminal negligence .

----------------------------------------------------------
1. The Greg Palast Bombshell

The November 6 edition of BBC's "Newsnight" program brought to light allegations from investigative reporter Greg
Palast, who learned from FBI sources that the State Department and President Bush had spiked their investigation
into members of the Bin Laden family and other prominent Saudis who are suspected of supporting terrorist groups,
and who also had connections to an Islamic charity that is strongly suspected of being a terrorist front. Some of
these investigations had been ongoing since 1996. Although this information in itself does not directly implicate
the Bush administration in having prior knowledge or being complicit in 9/11, and Palast himself has not made this
claim, it is very significant in light of other allegations explained below.

The CIA and Saudi Arabia: The Bushes and the Bin Ladens
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=0

Interview transcript:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527

RealPlayer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram

2. The Schippers Bombshell

David Schippers, the well-respected veteran D. C. lawyer (he served as lead prosecutor for the Clinton impeachment
and is admired for his decades of effort fighting organized crime), has gone public with an announcement that he is
representing three FBI agents who had evidence of the 9/11 attacks months beforehand and were ready to arrest the
suspects, but were blocked by their superiors and taken off the case.

Schippers had been in contact with these FBI agents since before the attacks (owing to ongoing investigations he had
been making into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) and for several months before 9/11 attempted personally to present
information about the upcoming attacks to Attorney General Ashcroft and several members of Congress, including House
Speaker Dennis Hastert. In every case, he was stonewalled. After 9/11, he continued to follow up with this issue
privately through his own government connections, but to no avail. So, he has taken to the airwaves (talk radio only
so far; it looks like there's a blackout on this in the mainstream media). Judicial Watch, a legal reform watchdog
organization, is now representing one of the agents (who has filed an official complaint with the FBI, by the way)
and is advocating for a full investigation.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1075.shtml

interview with Alex Jones:
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html

3. The Afghanistan War Was Already Planned Before September 11

Two independent articles from respected outlets, one from last summer, have revealed that the military action in
Afghanistan was planned for October since at least last Spring. U.S. authorities announced their plans in no
uncertain terms through diplomatic channels around the region. Hence, the very basis of the justification for the
war in Afghanistan as a "response" to the terrorist attacks must be questioned.

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the
Taliban
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military
action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366

Obviously, the war against Afghanistan was planned for quite some time. We know for a fact that it had
been war-gamed by the Pentagon going back to 1997. Right around September 11, two US Aircraft carrier task
forces conveniently arrived in the Persian Gulf right at the same time on "rotation." Obviously,
preplanned. Just before September 11, the UK had put together what was billed as the "largest armada since
the Falklands War" and had it steaming towards Oman, where now 23,000 UK troops are on maneuvers. This had
been planned for at least 3 years. Also, the US "Bright Star" operation is currently going on in Egypt.
23,000 US troops plus an additional 17,000 from NATO and its associates. This had been planned at least
two years ago. Finally, NATO just landed 12,000 troops into Turkey. This had been planned for at least two
years. It is obvious that we are seeing an operational War Plan being executed here that had been in the
works for at least the past four years. September 11 is either a pretext or a trigger or both. Francis
Anthony Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

from Osama Bin Laden: Convenient Scapegoat? by Gilles d'Aymery
http://www.swans.com/library/art7/ga118.html

Question: In lieu of a surprise terrorist attack, what exactly could the war planners have been counting on to
motivate public support in favor of this unprecedented and risky military action, at a time when the current US
administration was facing increasing political problems at home? It seems they weren't at all concerned about the
need for a casus belli, as they forged right ahead with their preparations. It is inconceiveable under all norms of
international law and diplomacy that the US could have considered attempting to start this war without a compelling
justification and basis for international support.

4. Evidence of Official Prior Knowledge

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, media reports were buzzing with anticipation about investigations into anomalous "short
selling" of stocks. Unusual numbers of "put" options on United and American Airlines stock indicated that someone
had prior inside knowledge of the attacks and was using the opportunity to make money off the event, based on the
certainty that these stocks would plummet in value. However, after a couple days the issue quickly and mysteriously
dropped off the media radar screen, and a much-ballyhooed SEC investigation quietly faded out of sight. Why? Perhaps
because the money trail lead in the "wrong" direction! For example, a major portion of the suspicious trading was
placed through a branch of Deutschebank with extensive connections to US intelligence agencies. In fact, it was
chaired until 1999 by A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who was recently appointed by President Bush to a top position in the
CIA:

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/oct_2001/krongard.html
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/death_profits_pt1.html
http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/death_profits_pt2.html

The insider trading linked to the Alex Brown branch of Deutschebank was confirmed by the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402

President Bush has failed to take action against crucial Middle Eastern banks suspected of terrorist money
laundering. Information on shocking conflicts of interest behind this discrepancy has emerged:

There is substantial evidence suggesting that a detailed investigation into Deutschebank's connection to
Islamic terrorists and 9-11 might reopen a mysteriously closed 1991 investigation of criminal insider
trading connected to Harken Energy, a Houston company where George W. Bush served on the board of
directors as a major stockholder with his some of his father's key campaign contributors.
. . .
In spite of mounting evidence of a number of connections between German financial giant Deutschebank and
the terrorist attacks of September 11 including previously documented links to insider trading based upon
events of 9/11 no press agency or government entity is questioning why certain banking institutions in
Kuwait and Bahrain with deep financial ties to the Bush family have been overlooked in the Presidents
supervision of a so-called "worldwide crackdown on terrorist financing."

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/dec_2001/death_profits_pt3.html

Casting substantial doubt on the US government's clain that intelligence officials had no inkling of the impending
attacks and the actions of the terrorist cells in the US is a long list of advance warnings from foreign
intelligence agencies and other governments, including very urgent ones coming just days before the attacks, as well
as several anomalies which indicate specific prior knowledge on the part of some highly-connected parties:

a compilation of 9/11 "prior warning" items

The Vreeland case:

Delmart Vreeland, an inmate jailed in Canada claiming to be an officer in US Naval Intelligence, says that he knew
of the 9/11 plot beforehand and tried in vain to put out a warning to authorities. One of the recipients of his
warning was Canadian CSIS agent Marc Bastien, who was later murdered in Moscow. Vreeland's claim was at first
laughed off as a tall tale, but it has now been verified that he is indeed who he says he is, and elements of his
story are being steadily corroborated in courtroom testimony. His original warning, placed in a sealed envelope
before 9/11 and later opened by law enforcement officers, proves that he did have prior knowledge. How did he know?

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layo

Vreeland interview with Mike Ruppert - EXPLOSIVE!
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_interview_vreeland.ht

past stories:
http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_25_02_vreeland.html

more background on the case:
http://www.frankmag.net/storydetails.asp?storyid=93
http://www.rense.com/general19/emb.htm
http://www.rense.com/general19/fff.htm
http://www.rense.com/general15/811.htm

Another government insider with information about activities of terrorists in the US has made a very shocking
accusation:

Explosive Report: Did the CIA Bring the 9-11 Terrorists to the US through a 'Jeddah Connection'?

Canadian Broadcasting Corp's "Dispatches" show recently interviewed Michael Springman, a former US
consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Springman was outraged in 1987 when he discovered CIA officials
were arranging US visas for middle eastern men to be sent to the US to be trained for terrorist operations
in Afghanistan. Springman kept a file until he was fired, but this file was then mysteriously "shredded."
Springman filed whistleblower complaints with every possible US agency, but no action was taken (except
for his firing and file scrubbing). Springman says the "Jeddah Connection" continued operating until 9-11,
citing reports that some of the 15 Saudis who participated in the 9-11 attacks got visas in Jeddah.
Springman says, "For all we know, it could have been an effort to get the US directly involved in some
fashion. I mean, it's only a few thousand dead and what's this against the greater gain for the United
States in the Middle East?" We demand an investigation of 9-11! [Democrats.com]
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.ram

note: Springman is also featured in Greg Palast's Newsnight feature, linked above.

5. The Air Force / Air National Guard Non-Reaction

One of the most shocking puzzles of 9/11: why did the military not send up fighter aircraft in a timely manner to
intercept, and if necessary, shoot down the hijacked airliners? From the time of the first hijacking, 75 minutes
passed before any kind of action was taken. Questions raised by this fact have not yet received credible answers.
Concerning the Pentagon strike, military representatives and the media have claimed that there were no combat-ready
aircraft stationed within a close enough distance to have made any difference. They have also claimed that pre-9/11,
America's radar system and air defenses were simply not prepared for this type of "attack from within." A
hard-hitting, thoroughly documented analysis by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel shows that these are absurd,
bald-faced LIES . These three articles are extremely important and should be carefully studied:

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

As a point of comparison, when pro golfer Payne Stewart's puny Learjet veered off course in 1999 and radio contact
was lost, emergency escorts were scrambled by the Air Force following a direct request from the FAA White House
authorization is NEVER REQUIRED for that type of action, contrary to what VP Cheney has tried to infer. At least
two F-16 fighter jets were constantly trailing him and trying to make contact until the fatal crash, and were ready
at any time to act on Presidential orders to shoot the plane down if it appeared to be in danger of crashing in a
populated area. This type of intercept is standard regulation procedure, good to go 24 / 7 / 365, and has been
executed swiftly and efficiently many times in the past, in situations far less urgent and dangerous than the 9/11
hijackings.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html

There are dozens of Air Force bases within minutes of both 9/11 targets. (with links to FAA regulations)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

a timeline summary

Investigator Mike Ruppert of FTW has organized the most pertinent about 9/11 into devastating and incriminating timeline, revealing deep inconsistencies in the official version of events:

A TIMELINE SURROUNDING SEPTEMBER 11TH - IF CIA AND THE GOVERNMENT WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, WHAT
WERE THEY DOING?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

--------------


Video Links:
BBC TELEVISION INDICTS BUSH / CIA IN 9-11 TERROR COMPLICITY:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram

9-11 Overview by Canada's Vision TV, Bush / CIA Complicity in 9-11,
Real Player Video Stream at:
http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ram

Reasonable Doubts About September 11th, 53 minute Real Player Video
stream at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/118760.php

9-11 and Pearl Harbor, Real Player Video stream at:
http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/mayday/visiontv1dial-up.ram


U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinneyĆ­s statement on 9-11 and the Bush /
Bin Laden families dubious connections and mutual profits off the war
since 9-11:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/message/2198



other sites:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

http://www.gregpalast.com

http://www.portland.indymedia.org

http://www.truthout.com

http://www.gwbush.com

http://www.bushorchimp.com

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Serendipity!
05 Jun 2002
Don't forget this one:

serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html

It's perhaps the most objective of all.
See also:
egroups.com/group/jpchance/links/9_11_Investigation_001021231891