compiled by Gerard Holmgren

Last updated March 15 2004.

The following compilation presents documents and research from various
sources demonstrating that the events of Sept 11 were planned and carried
out by the US govt and its agencies. This compilation is my own creation and
it cannot be assumed that the individual authors of the research below
necessarily agree with each other on all details.

The compilation is divided into three main sections.

1) “Let it happen on purpose” evidence (LIHOP).

This presents research which takes as its founding assumption that we are
basically being told the truth about which planes were hijacked, where they
went and who hijacked them, and goes on to demonstrate that even if this
were true, then the govt and its agencies must have known about it
beforehand, and must have taken active steps to deliberately allow it to

2) “Totally self inflicted” evidence (TSI).

This section demonstrates that the LIHOP evidence only scratches the
surface, and that the govt claims about which planes were hijacked, were
they went and who hijacked them is total fiction, and that the govt and its
agencies must have organized the entire event.

3) Background and historical evidence.

This section does not present direct evidence of govt involvement
specifically in the events of Sept 11, but demonstrates that the phenomonen
of “Islamic terror”, both real and imaginary, has been deliberately built up
by successive US govts and agencies for more than two decades, in the
interests of creating an enemy in the minds of the population. It also
demonstrates that behind the scenes, the US govt and its agencies actively
co-operate with their alleged Islamic enemies, and that there is sound
historical precedent for the govt and its agencies having an active policy
of committing or deliberately allowing terrorist attacks against their own
people for the purpose of furthering this kind of agenda.

Before presenting the evidence, lets briefly summarize the basics of the
claims made about Sept 11 by the govt and the media..

American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with 92
people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arab men, while on
route from Boston to LA. It was known to be hijacked by 8.25 AM or earlier,
and hit the Nth tower of the WTC at 8.45, or according to some sources,

United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65 people
aboard,including the hijackers , was hijacked by 5 Arab men, while flying
the same route as AA 11. It was known to be hijacked at about 8.55 AM and
hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03.

The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.

American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with 64
people aboard,including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arab men while on
route from Dulles airport (DC) to LA. It was known to be hijacked at about
8.55 and hit the Pentagon at a time which in different sources, varies
between 9.38 and 9.45.

United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with either 44
or 45 people aboard ( depending upon which sources you use ), including the
hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to SF , was hijacked by 4 Arab
men. It was known to be hijacked about 9.45, and crashed in PA at a time
which varies from 10.00 to 10.10, depending on the source, after the
passengers attempted to take back control of the plane from the hijackers.

As we’ll see in section 2 , (TSI) none of this is true, except for the fact
that the towers collapsed, and we will demonstrate that this was a
controlled demolition.

But for the purposes of Section 1 (LIHOP), lets assume that these claims are
basically true. The LIHOP section will demonstrate that the govt must have
deliberately allowed the attacks to happen.

The Web pages below have been backed up. If any links are dead, the backed
up page can be mailed on request.Some of the links below duplicate
information. The duplicates are included as insurance against a single
source link disappearing.



If one accepts the story as above, then the airforce must have been stood
down in order to ensure the success of the attacks.

It has become popular mythology in the media that fighter jets were
scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue as the
following research shows.

1.1.1 Guilty For 9-11:Part 1. Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, by Illarion Bykov and
Israel, 14 Nov 2001

1.1.2 Guitly for 9/11 Mr. Cheney’s Cover up — Part 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20

1.1.3 9-ll:Ho hum, nothing urgent, by George Szamuely, Research &
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002

1.1.4 Frequently asked questions on 9/11
Planes “did scramble ” on 9/11,they just ” arrived late “

1.1.5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001

1.1.6 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible

Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine
Here’s an example of how routine it is.

1.1.7 Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15 2003.

The proceedures were already in place before Sept 11 2001.
It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.

(Items 1.1.8 to 1.1.11 are alternative sources for the same story)

1.1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press Aug 13 2002.
1.1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002
1.1.10 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
1.1. 11 Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Aug
12 2002

It is impossible to believe that such a total and systematic failure of
routine air defence proceedures was simply due to incompetence. And even if
one were to propose this, why has there been no inquiry into this aspect of
Sept 11, and why has not one official been sacked or even reprimanded for
criminal negligence ?

I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.
1. 2 The complicit behavior of G.W.Bush

An examination of the movements of Geroge W. Bush on the morning of Sept 11,
and the subsequent lies told by Bush, the govt and the media to try to cover
up his movements demonstrates that Bush had prior knowledge of the attacks ,
pretended to know less than he did once they began, and conspired to ensure
that nothing was done to minimize or prevent them.

It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush was already
at Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC crash. This is
a lie.

1.2.1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by Illarion Bykov and
Jared Israel.

This is not the only lie which has been told about his movements that
morning. See how many times the story has changed.

1.2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.
(Read the section called “A tangle of lies”)

1.2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1. A strange press conference.
By Jared israel and Francisco Gil-White Sept 25 2002.

1.2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White House Cover-up Creates More Problems than it Solves
by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White [7 October 2002]

Bush claims to have seen the 1st WTC impact live on TV while at Boooker
school and to have thought at the time that it was an accident. We know that
this is a lie – a) because he hadn’t yet arrived at the school when it
happened. b) because the first impact was not broadcast live. No footage of
it was shown until the following day

1.2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush’s Claim that he Saw TV Footage
of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]

Why did the President – after being told “America is under attack” continue
to listen to schoolchildren reading for another 25 minutes ? Why was he
cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known that at least one more
hijacked plane was on the loose ? View the TV footage which proves treason
at the top level.


Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair. Bush is lying about where
he was, what he was doing and what he knew during the crucial period between
8.45 and 9.45 A.M. on Sept 11.


In the first few hours after the attacks, it was reported that investigators
were already looking into huge volumes of insider trading on airline stocks
in the weeks leading up to the attacks. Investigative and regulatory
authorities could easily find out who placed these trades, apparently
attempting to profit from foreknowledge.
Why has this story since completely disappeared? More than two years later,
we see no sign of any inquiry. If the executive director of the CIA had
previously managed the firm which handled much of the trade, are we expected
to believe that authorities can’t find out who was responsible? Clearly,
they don’t want to know – or at least ,don’t want us to know.

Mystery of terror `insider dealers’, by Chris Blackhurst, 14 Oct 2001

Was an urban rescue team sent to New York the night before the

Attorney General, John Ashcroft was warned in July 2001 not to fly
commercial anymore.

Ashcroft flying high. CBS News July 26 2001.


San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a travel warning on Sept 10.

Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel. San francisco
Chronicle Sept 12 2001


National Security Advisor Rice and WhiteHouse spokesman Fleischer lied in
saying that nobody had ever conceived of planes being used in this manner.
Their statements are in this article,

Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC
News May 16 2002

when the 1994 extract from Time magazine, quoted in article 1.2.1
demonstrates that the potential problem had been recognized for decades.
And there are other examples of this possibility having been widely
recognized prior to Sept 11.
1.3.7 “Omens of terror.” by David Wise Oct 7 2001

In article 1.3.6 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had been
overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she made is in
this press briefing.
1.3.8 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice
The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT

But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers.

1.3.9 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Woodward and Dan
Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.

1.3.9 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11
Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.


In spite of the magnitude of the attacks, and the fact that even the
official story recognizes catastrophic failures of intelligence, while
trying to gloss over the similarly catastrophic failures of standard airline
security and air defence proceedures, the White House has fought tooth and
nail against any serious inquiry into Sept 11. Even the watered down
inquiries which have taken place so far have been bitterly opposed by the
White House and only conceded due to tremendous public pressure. They have
been almost completely restricted to the issue of “intelligence failures”
prior to the attacks, leaving the glaring issues of the air force stand
down, and Bush’s unforgiveable complicity and subsequent lies, as well as
the insider trading unaddressed.

Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes CNN Jan 29 2002.

Bush,GOP blast calls for 9/11 inquiry. CNN May 17 2002

Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry Reuters newswire UK May 26

Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002, 2:22pm

Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC
News May 16 2002

1.4.5 Bush opposes 9/11 query panel. CBS News. May 23 2002.

1.4.6 9/11 Panel asks what briefers told Bush. White House retreats on
independent probe.
Dana Priest and Dana Milbank. Washington Post Sept 21 2002. Page A01

1.4.7 White House refuses to release Sept 11 info. by Frank Davies Miami
Herald May 5 2003

Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush by Gail Sheehy Aug 22 2003

The evidence in section 1 demonstrated that even if we uncritically accept
the govt claims about 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes and deliberately crashing
them, we have overwhelming proof that the govt must have known about the
attacks beforehand and been deliberately complicit in allowing them to
happen. As strong as this evidence is, it only scratches the surface. The
following evidence will demonstrate that the official story of the
hijackings is total fiction.

2.1 The Ficticious Hijackers

Even without any direct documentation, some critical thinking about the
story of the hijackings reveals it as an absurdity. In the event of a
hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit code accessible from
several different places, in order to alert ATC (air traffic control) to a
hijacking. No such distress code was received from any of the allegedly
hijacked planes. We are expected to believe that hijackers took over a plane
by the crude method of threatening the passengers and crew with boxcutters,
but somehow managed to take control of the plane without the crew first
getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane – but
on all four. This alone is almost impossible. Then we are expected to
believe that all four pilots were able to navigate the planes successfully
to their targets, in spite of their training being restricted to Cessnas and
flight simulators, that with the exception of the plane which was allegedly
brought down by the passengers, they were able to exhibit breathtaking
piloting skills in being able to hit small targets accuarately at high
speed, and that none of the hijackers in any of the four groups got cold
feet about committing suicide in such a horrible fashion. This has the
credibility of a cartoon script. Nevertheless, there is solid documented
proof that no such hijackings took place.

If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there no Arabic names on any of the
passenger lists? If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the ” innocents “
on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?

Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (allegedly first WTC crash.)

AA 77 (allegedly Pentagon crash)

UAL 175 (allegedly 2nd WTC crash)

UAL 93 (allegedly Pensylvannia crash)

The perplexing puzzle of the published passenger lists. By Gary North. Oct
13 2001.

2.1.6 STILL No Arabs On Flight 77 By Thomas R. Olmsted, MD. June 23 2003.

If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic aliases (19 obviously
Arabic men got on board using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate ? ), why
did the FBI claim that they were traced through the use of credit cards to
buy tickets in their own names?

If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched before boarding, as claimed in
this article

why is there no airport security footage of them? Where is the airport
security footage of any of the 19 ? Were they invisible? How did they
(allegedly) get on board with knives, guns, and electronic guidance systems,
while being searched, but somehow avoiding security cameras and not being on
the passenger lists?
What aliases are they alleged to have been using when they were searched,and
if they were not using aliases, why are they not on the passenger lists?

There are numerous media reports that some of the alleged hijackers are
still alive.
(Some of the links from 2.1.8 through 2.1.18 are alternative sources for
similar stories)

Hijack “suspects” alive and well. BBC News. Sept 23, 2001

7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick Fojut
March 4 2002

Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media
October 2001

Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J.
Petherick American Free Press.

Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!

Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them
survived 9/11.

Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.

Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune

Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By David
Harrison. Sept 23 2001.

Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger

Doubts emerge over identies of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept
20. 2001.

In spite of all this, the same 19 names and faces of the alleged hijackers
have been consistently pushed through the mainstream media ever since the
FBI first “identified” them.

According to this article
FBI Agent: Hijackers probably used gas. by Adam Tanner.

the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers and
crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves – unless
they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on
board with masks, gas, guns,knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite
of being searched, didn’t show up on the airport security cameras, and were
not on the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented
cars outside the airport ( last minute brushing up on the way there, about
how to fly the things! ) and then exhibited breath taking displays of
skilled piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports
were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the
planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but used their
real passports ?

If the hijackers of AA 11 went on a 25 minute killing and threatening spree
before gaining control of the cokpit, then why was no distress code sent
from the plane? Why had the plane already turned off course before the
hijackers got into the cockpit?

2.1.20 9/11 Redux: (The Observer¹s Cut) American Airlines Flight 11,
Reexamined By David L. Graham

If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the planes and airport
security systems failed due to incompetence ( not once but 19 times! ),
where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into racehorse
doping scandals.

The question arises ” then who were the suicide pilots ? ” Nobody – because
we will now demonstrate that the objects which hit the Pentagon and the WTC
were not passenger jets.
2. 2: The Pentagon hoax

It is alleged that that American Airlines 77, a hijacked Boeing 757, crashed
into the Pentagon. This is clearly not true. A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of
125 ft and a length of 155 ft. The tail height is about 40 ft. The hole in
the Pentagon wall was about 40 ft wide, about 25 ft high, and only the outer
ring of the building – about 40 ft deep – collapsed. And yet there is no
sign of any aircraft debris – either inside or outside the building. And no
damage to the lawn outside. A giant plane has supposedly passed through a
hole many times smaller than itself and then vanished without a trace.

This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall
proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was not AA 77.

For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story

2.2.3 The amazing Pentalawn.

For a full physical analysis of the crash scene

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard Holmgren Oct

Eyewitness evidence does not confirm a large passenger jet hitting the

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. by Gerard Holmgren
June 2002


2.3 What hit WTC towers?

They are alleged to have been AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767’s. A close
viewing of the videos reveals that neither object was a Boeing 767.


2.3.2 The 9/11 video video footage of the planes striking the WTC was fake.
By Scott Loughrey

Given that a close examination of the 2nd WTC crash video, demonstrates that
it cannot be a real plane, but the incident was shown live, here is the
documentation that realistic looking objects can easily be edited into a
live broadcast in real time.

2.3.3 Lying with Pixels. By Ivan Imato MIT’s Technology review. July/August

2.3.4 Having demonstrated that none of the objects which hit the three
buildings were the planes alleged by the govt to have been involved , then
where did those planes go? Official aviation records records say that AA11
and AA77 did not exist .

“What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11,
2001. by Gerard Holmgren Nov 13 2003.

Although official aviation records confirm that UA 93 and UA 175 did exist,
they also indicate that the planes never crashed. On the date that this
compilation was last updated , both aircraft were still registered as valid.

Go to the FAA aircraft registry

and do an “n number” search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA
175 on Sept 11). Why is neither plane listed as destroyed? In addition to
the video evidence establishing that UA 175 did not hit the WTC, this would
indicate that UA 93 is not what crashed in PA.

2.4 What was shot down in PA?

The mystery of the PA crash (allegedly UA 93) is less well understood than
the other three planes. Nevertheless, the aircraft registry search as above
indicates that the UA 93 did not crash.
There are also indications that whatever did crash in PA was shot down.

What did happen to Flight 93? by Richard Wallace. The Daily Mirror sept 13,




Are phone calls from planes, of the type allegedly made by passengers on
Sept 11 possible ?
Project Achillies Report Part 1. Jan 23 2003 by A.K. Dewdney.

Preliminary low altitude cellphone experiment.


Project Achillies Report Part 2. Feb 25 2003


This article concerns the economics of airphones. Note that it refers
several times to the competition for business from cellphones and that all
such references take it as given that cellphones do not work while the plane
is in flight.

Permanet,nearlynet and wireless data. by Clay Shirky March 28 2003.


2.5 The World Trade Centre Towers and the WTC 7 building were brought down
with controlled dmolitions.

According to the official story, the WTC towers collapsed due to a
combination of fire and impact damage. The research below reveals this as a
physical impossibility. In addition, the media doesn’t like to talk so much
about the identical collpase of WTC 7 – a 47 story building which was not
hit by anything. Apart from Sept 11, 2001, no steel framed skyscraper has
ever totally collapsed from fire. On Sept 11, it allegedlly happened 3
times – all three buildings collapsing miraculaously straight down so as not
to damage any of the valuable nearby real estate.Why was the debris rushed
away for recycling before any examination could be held? Why were expert
opinions indicating a controlled demolition quickly suppressed ?

2.5.1 In Curious Battle: An expert recants on Why the WTC collapsed by John
Flaherty and Jared Israel Dec 26, 2001.

For a series of engineering articles and informative videos on the WTC
collapse, see


2.5:3 Muslims suspend laws of physics by J. McMichael Nov 25 2001
2.5:4 Muslims suspend laws of Physics. part 2 by J.McMichael

Selling out the investigation by Bill manning Fire Engineering Magazine
Jan 2002


2.5.6 A firefighter says “we think there were bombs set in the building”

2.5.7 Documentary footage from the scene of the WTC attacks,and eyewitness
accounts from firefighters at the scene reveal serious flaws in the official

2.5.8 Evidence of explosives in South WTC Tower collapse

2.5.9 The jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World trade Center?

2.5.10 Where’s the inferno?

WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse by Scott Loughrey 10 August 2003

Although the excerpt linked below was published in Oct 2001, the book in
question was written in 1999, and argued that the WTC was built as a
“prepackaged ruin”. It was a financial and logistical disaster occyping
valuable real estate.

The process of creating a ruin. Business week online Oct 5 2001.
Excerpt from “Divided we stand” by Eric Darton

Steel melts at about 1540 degrees. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a maximum of
800 degrees. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene
towards the top of the building ( heat travels upwards ) somehow caused both
towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled
demolition ?

Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban housefires.
Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely
taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning
jet fuel melting steel?

2. 6 Where is the evidence against Bin laden?

It has become a common myth that Bin Laden has admitted to the attacks. This
simply isn’t true.

Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger at Jews. Annanova

Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online
Sept 17 2001.

Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS ONline Milwaukee Jornal
Sentinal Sept 16 2001

Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News

Bin laden says he wasn’t behind attacks CNN sept 17 2001

Bin Laden denies role in attacks. Sept 17 2001

Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13

Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed by some
American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001

Bin laden’s supposed confession is based entirely upon a video tape released
by the Pentagon. The tape is a fake,and the translation is fraudulent.First
here is general evidence that such confession tapes released by those doing
the accusing have no credibility. Video technology now makes it difficult to
distinguish between a real video confession and a fake.

When seeing and hearing isn’t believing. by William M. Arkin. Washington
Post Feb 1 1999

Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. May
16 2002

Here is specific evidence that the tape is a fake.

For further doubts about the authenitcity of the video and other
indicatiions of a preplanned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin Laden
Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey.

(Read the section called “Evidence please!”)

If the govt was genuinely surprised by the attacks, how it did they manage
to name the mastermind within a few hours? And yet, more than two years
later no formal charges have been laid against the accused.

2. 7 In September 2001, when Bush was threatening an Invasion of Afghanistan
in retaliation for Sept 11, it slipped his mind to tell us that the invasion
had already been planned before Sept 11.

“Us planned attack on Taleban” BBC News report by George Arney. Sept 18,

U.S. Planned for attack on Al -Qaida. White house given strategy two days
before Sept 11.NBC news. May 16 2002

US planned to hit Bin Laden ahead of September 11 By David Rennie in


US Tells of covert Afghan plans before 9/11 By Bob Drogin LA Times May 18

After intially denying any prior warnings, the White House later changed its
story, citing warnings of ‘non-specific” threats as its explanation for why
the invasion of Afganhistan had already been planned prior to Sept 11. We
are expected to believe that it was so interested in Bin laden that it had
planned a pre-emptive war against him, but was somehow unaware of the
specifics of the Sept 11 plot. Notwithstanding the difficulties with this
story, it has some explaining to do in relation to
a) why the Clinton administration had already turned down an offer for the
extradition of Bin laden in 1996 – after naming him as wanted for the 1993
WTC bombing
b) allegations that Bin Laden had met with the local CIA station chief in
Dubai in July 2001 – after the US had already begun its planning for the war
against him.
c) why key members of the Bush adnimistration and their close associates
maintained business relationships with the Bin Laden family. This leads us
on to section 3.



The new story is that they allegedly feared Bin Laden so much that they
wanted to get him first. So why didn’t they arrest him when they had the
chance in July 2001, according to this press report?

(Three alternative links. Note: There is a discrepency in the date of the
report between 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, which at this stage, I can’t explain.)

CIA agent allegedly met Bin Laden in July. By Alexandra Richard. Le
Figero. Oct 31 , 2001. Translated from French by Tiphiane Dickson.

CIA agent alleged to have met Bin laden in July. By Anthony Sampson. The
Guardian Nov 1 , 2001.

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital
last July in Dubai, by Alexandra Richard, Translated courtesy of Tiphaine
Dickson, Le Figaro, 11 Oct 2001

Here’s more research indicating that the US and Islamic terror groups are
not always the enemies they pretend to be. And that the US govt covertly has
a close relationship with Bin Laden.

Gaping holes in the CIA V Bin Laden Story by Jared Israel

BushLaden by Jared Israel

Addition to the above article

Judicial Watch:Bush/Bin Laden connection ” has now turned into a scandal “
Statement from Judicial watch with comments by Jared Israel

Bush and the media cover up the Jihad schoolbook scandal by Jared Israel

3.1.9 Bin laden. Terrorist monster:Take two ! by Jared Israel. Oct 9 2001

3.1.9 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama’s Brother
in Law by Michel Chossudovsky 27 december 2002

Has someone been sitting on the FBI? Transcript of a BBC Newsnight Report on
“the questionable links of the bin Laden Family,” 6 Nov 2001
3.11 (added comments by
Jared Israel)

Bush thwarted FBI probe against Bin Ladens, Hindustan Times, 7 Nov 2001

US efforts to make peace summed up by `oil’, Irish Times, by Lara Marlowe,
19 Nov 2001

Called Off the Trail? FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told,
‘Let Sleeping Dogs Lie’
By Brian Ross and Vic Walker. ABC News Dec 19 2002

After capuring one of the six most wanted Taliban leaders, the US then let
him go. “By mistake ” of course, because of “flawed intelligence.”

3.1.21 US let captured Taliban general go , by Rowan Scarborough .Washington
Times ,Dec 19 2002
3.1.22 Soliders say US let Taliban general go Dec 18 2002.
Taliban leader let off “by mistake”. The Hindu Dec 19 2002.

3.1.24 FBI agent Robert Wright says FBI assigned to intelligence operations
continue to protect terrorists from criminal investigations and
prosecutions. Judicial Watch Sept 11, 2002.

Bin Laden in the Balkans – Collection of mainstream media articles. Compiled
by Jared Israel

The Creation called Osama by Shamsul Islam The Hindu ,Sept 27 2001

Washington’s backing of Afghan terrorists: delibertae policy.

Afgahan Taliban camps were built by Nato.

CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban

Osama Bin Laden: Made in USA. by Jared Israel

U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo, by Umberto Pascali. The
executive Intelligence Review 2 Nov 2001

Which Terrorists are worse? Al Quaeda? Or the KLA? by Jared Israel

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National
Security Adviser [Posted 6 October 2001]
Ex- National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan war and Islamism were
made in Washington

3.2 In 1962, the joint chiefs of staff approved a military plan to commit
terrorist acts against the US and frame Cuba.The plan was never actually
implemented but it makes interesting reading.

Friendly Fire — Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities
to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, ABC News Nov 7 2001

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, The National Security
Archive, 30 Apr 2001

Northwoods – a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared Israel.

Scanned images of the actual document.
3.2.4 Page i
3.2.5 Page ii
3.2.6 Page iii
3.2.7 Page 1
3.2.8 Page 2
3.2.9 Page 3
3.2.10 Page 4
3.2.11 Page 5
3.2.12 Page 6
3.2.13 Page 7
3.2.14 Page 8
3.2.15 Page 9
3.2.16 Page 10
3.2.17 Page 11
3.2.18 Page 12

US military schemes- ominously like 9/11.

If such tactics were considered normal and acceptable practice by the
Government in 1962, what evidence is there that things have changed?

Henry Kissenger is reported to have advocated a similar strategy in 1992

READ  2007: Historic Result From San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury

Leave a Reply