"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people." [Osama bin Laden, Daily Ummat 28th September]
"... the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI
"The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don't believe it...From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel? Let's be serious...He[bin Laden] doesn't have the means for such a sophisticated operation...This was clearly as inside job." Hameed Gul, Ex DG-ISI, Interview on September 26, 2001
"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." Metal expert Dr. Frank Gayle
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes � which were actually a diversion tactic...Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Prof. Steven Jones BYU Physicist
"I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." MSNBC reporter
"...I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building..." Louie Cacchioli
"...As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down..." Firefighter Edward Cachia
"anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down" ABC reporter
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is PULL IT.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Larry Silverstein, PBS documentary, America Rebuilds
9/11 and Bush�s involvement
By: ABID ULLAH JAN
Being the lead crusader, the words and deeds of Bush indicate that he was fully aware of what was happening. To see the obvious, one does not need to rely on the so-called conspiracy theories and speculations. Bush�s words are enough for rejecting the official story of 9/11.
Bush was in his presidential limousine when the first plane hit the WTC. He has twice remarked about how he saw the first impact on TV. On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: �How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?� Bush replied, �I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower�the TV was obviously on. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.�326 In fact, there was no live TV coverage of the impact available at that time.327 Principal of Booker Elementary has also stated that there was no TV in either the corridor Bush came through or anywhere near the classroom he visited.
Two American researchers, Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, point out: �It�s doubly strange why his advisors didn�t correct him or�at the very least�stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: �Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. My Chief of Staff�well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on.�328 This means one of two things: a) Bush is lying about how he learned of the first impact, or b) there was a closed-circuit TV feed, not in the school, but in his presidential limousine on which he received a progress report. Bush�s lying is itself evidence of his concealing what he actually knows. Someone with nothing to hide does not rely on lies in the first place.
The widely available video clip of Bush telling a goat story to kids damns the Bush administration,
not because of what is in this video, but what should be in the video and is not there. Ostensibly, Bush and his chief of staff, Andrew Card, were reacting to a surprise attack on the United States. Interestingly, Bush did not act surprised and Card did not act like a man delivering an unexpected piece of news. He did not even wait for the president�s response. Instead, Card clearly seems to have merely delivered a progress report to which he already knew Bush would not have an immediate response.329
At that time, two planes had crashed into the WTC. Two more were flying around the country, destinations unknown. Airports surrounded Booker Elementary School, one of them only four miles away. How did the Secret Service know it was safe for Bush to stay in Booker Elementary and make his scheduled broadcast to the nation at 9:30 a.m.?
American researchers did in depth analyses of Bush�s words and deeds on September 11 and concluded that Bush has been lying to hide his �prior knowledge� of the event. For example, analysis at What Really Happened website concludes: The many accounts of what happened to Bush on 9/11 are riddled with disinformation of false threats, omitted details, fudged timing, and more. But around September 11, 2002, the heavily publicized first anniversary of the attacks, there was an obvious attempt to further rewrite the story�.Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut.330
Any �prior knowledge� is actually a proof of involvement in the planning for the horrible crime of 9/11. Letting such a crime take place is proof that all subsequent actions, particularly the invasion of Afghanistan, were already planned and part of the broader game. It makes no sense for the Administration to have knowingly allowed the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and even less sense for them to have actively contrived in it, unless this outrage was to be an excuse for �striking back�.
This is an excerpt from Abid Ullah Jan�s book, �Afghanistan: The Genesis of the final Crusade.�
Former mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani seemed also to have prior knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. According to the 9/11 Commission report : "They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. NO ONE ANTICIPATED THE POSSIBILITY OF A TOTAL COLLAPSE" (Page 291)
Giuliani remarked on being warned about the collapse during a phone interview with onetime ABC anchor Peter Jennings on September 11, 2001, as shown in a transcript WNBC obtained from the Giuliani 2008 campaign. Giuliani told Jennings : "I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
Giuliani, at a New York fundraiser, was confronted by a relative of NY City firefighter who died on 9/11 : "How come people in the buildings weren't notified and how can you sleep at night?" Giuliani replied : "I didn't know that the towers were going to collapse."
Vice President Dick Cheney was in the White House during the attack. He said he learned of the attack from a clerical secretary.
Interestingly, Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures, and raises the question of whether and why the President delayed the scrambling of jets. Here is the text of Vice President Cheney's comments on NBC: 1
Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?"
VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it."
Here Cheney cleverly attempts to confuse the listener into thinking that "intercept" means "shoot down". In fact the routine procedure of interception consists of flying fighter jets to within close proximity to the off-course aircraft, and attempting to make visual contact with whoever is in the cockpit.
As the attack unfolded, news reports stated that Cheney had been whisked to a secret and secure location -- later revealed to be the Presidential Emergency Operating Center in the basement of the White House. Cheney was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, directing the response to the attack. Or was he directing the attack? The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is suggestive in this regard.
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" 2
Hamilton indicates that "the orders" were to shoot down commercial aircraft. But Mineta's account makes more sense if "the orders" were not to shoot down any such aircraft. The repeated questioning of Cheney by the junior officer whether "the orders still stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy them still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by a junior officer as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Neither occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the junior officer. 3
References
1. The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Whitehouse.gov, 9/16/01 [cached]
2. Public Hearing; Panel 1: September 11, 2001: The Attacks and the Response, 9-11commission.gov, 5/23/03 [cached]
3. How They Get Away With It, 9-11 Research,
See : http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html
The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. Evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI owes its existence to the CIA:
"With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the ISI developed [since the early 1980s] into a parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government... The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers estimated at 150,000." [Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. See also Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Outlook, No. 1, 2002.]
The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed) that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:
"As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well . . . "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind." [Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001]
The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. Less than two weeks later, the findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India, quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been "wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]." [Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001] According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):
"The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism." [The Times of India, Delhi, 9 October 2001]
"...Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much.
Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?..."
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1266317,00.html]
Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9-11, was in the U.S. when the attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his U.S. counterparts. According to Pakistani journalist, Amir Mateen (in a prophetic article published on September 10):
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days." [News Pakistan, 10 September 2001]
Back to main