From TinWiki.org

Numerous inconsistencies and suspicious details have emerged from the official account of the events of 9/11. Several have been ignored by the media and the government agencies involved, or have been seemingly misrepresented. These errors in the official account have led many to question the credibility of the United States government's story.

Contents 1 Possible and/or Probable Motives 1.1 The "Project For a New American Century" Documents 1.2 The Oil Motive 2 Suspicious Activity in the Lead-up to 9/11 2.1 Prior warnings to individuals 2.2 Prior warnings of probable attacks in the planning to government agencies 2.2.1 The Minnesota FBI and Zacarias Moussaoui 2.2.2 The Phoenix Memo 2.2.3 David Schippers 2.2.4 Sibel Edmonds 2.2.5 Abel Danger 2.2.6 Other pages with overviews of forewarnings of 9/11 2.3 Suspicious directives 3 Stock market activity 4 No military response 4.1 Donald Rumsfeld 4.2 Richard Cheney 4.3 President Bush's Lack of Action 5 Collapses of World Trade Center Towers 1&2 6 The Dancing Israelis 7 Passenger cell phoning 8 Flight 93 anomalies 9 Flight 77 10 Alleged hijackers still alive 11 See also 12 Notes 13 External links

Possible and/or Probable Motives

Various motives have been suggested for the 9/11 attacks. Naturally, one's ideas about motives will vary with ones idea of who the real culprits are. The official account is that the Muslims "hate us for our freedoms"; bur then it is not clear why Europe was not targeted, for having far more permissive attitudes morally. More reasonably, we might suppose that it was payback for the U.S.'s political and military adventurism in the Middle East. For those who doubt the official story, virtually all consider it to be an "inside job" on some level. In a LIHOP ("Let It Happen On Purpose") scenario, the same motives would apply, but highly placed governmental officials would have conspired to enable the terrorists to do their damage. In a MIHOP ("Make It Happen On Purpose") scenario, the culprits would be highly placed government officials, and either the hapless terrorists who were pawns of bin Ladin, or of the ISI; or, although it seems unlikely, the terrorists themselves may have been in on goading the U.S. into war. In both the LIHOP and MIHOP scenarios, two main motives are generally held: global dominance, and oil; with the latter naturally being a factor in the case of the former. The main reason these qualify as problems in the official story, is that the U.S. television media has suppressed all discussion of them, although the oil motive has been bantered about in very general terms, of late - with the notable exception of C-SPAN, which has presented some alternative programming. More to the point, these possible motives never generally enter mainstream discussions of the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; not even to be refuted.

The "Project For a New American Century" Documents

Virtually all skeptics of the government's broad account of 9/11 hold the government's real motivation to be given in a position paper drempt up by prominent "neo-cons" before G.H.W. Bush was elected, in 2000. The original document is available still available here, and is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century". It seems to have generated little press attention before the election, but has received much attention since. Project organizers included noted "Neo-Cons" as Wm. Kristol and Robert Kagen, and signatories to the Statement of Principles in 1997 include future Bush administration members Elliot Abrams, Richard Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, and the notorious DoD Comptroller Rabbi Dov Zakheim - more on which below. Richard Cheney's name here indicates a conflict of interest, as he sat on the board of Haliburton for the early years of the Bush (43) administration. He was both a prime agitator for, and beneficiary of, a war policy. Members of former or other Republication administrations include William Bennett, Dan Quayle and FL gov. Jeb Bush. Also of note is , under whose tenure In a section entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" which begins "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades ...", we read:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (p. 51)

This is a curious turn of phrase, since allegations have recently surfaced about FDR having been briefed with decrypted Purple Code intercepts, and was aware of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Had that been the case, it would have been a LIHOP conspiracy. This prompted influential 9/11 Truth scholar David Ray Griffin to entitle a book about 9/11, "The New Pearl Harbor."

The document calls for huge increases in defense spending, and has a section entitled "Global Strikes from Air and Space." More immediately relevant is the following:

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14)

This should probably be seen as an intention to install U.S. forces in sovereign countries, even if the U.S. has no just cause to be in a country; which is inconsistent with the values of most U.S. voters.

"Elements of U.S. Army Europe should be redeployed to Southeast Europe, while a permanent unit should be based in the Persian Gulf region." (p. 22)

These passages are very reminiscent of a book by Pres. Carter's Sec. of Defense, Zbigniew Brzezinski, entitled The Grand Chessboard, in which he likewise argued for the completion of a U.S. global empire. For this reason, the term "Neo-Cons" may not be appropriate, since what they would be doing is neither new, nor conservative (except perhaps in the sense of being royalists).

Technically speaking, none of these elements is proof in and of itself that the government in any way helped the 9/11 attacks succeed. At a bare minimum, it can be said that the Bush (43) administration could not have hoped for a better casus belli, or case for war; what with their already stated designs on the Persian Gulf and SE Europe. Most who say that 9/11 was an "inside job" believe that it indeed was their "new Pearl Harbor"; and that the Bush (43) administration quite intended the attacks to succeed - but even they do not rest their proofs on these documents alone.

Some people are uncertain about whether Bush was driving the U.S. towards war, or was being driven towards war by events or by other "Neo-Cons." In the 2000 presidential debates, Bush said,

"If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration." (Commission on Presidential Debates, "Unofficial Debate Transcript"[1])

The ghost-writer for Bush's autobiography, A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House, quotes Bush as follows:

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” ("Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000," interview at GNN.com [10/27/04[2])

Paul O'Neil, Bush's former Treasury secretary, quit because he disagreed with Bush's two sweeping rounds of tax cuts for the rich. Former WSJ reporter Ron Siskind, in an interview with CBS, for his book about Paul O'Neil, The Price of Loyalty, says:

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” ... "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. ... “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. (Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, CBS News, 1/11/04[3])

Thus, while some think Cheney or other "Neo-Cons" were driving Bush towards war, but instead, he yearned for the opportunity to go into Iraq, which he felt his father should have done, and selected a VP candidate who had already signed a statement of principles that promised to install U.S. troops all around the world, that had told the U.S. voters, during the campaign, "... extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions ... I'm going to prevent that." It is already clear that he was willing to lie in order to accomplish the PNAC agenda, but would he really go as far as to carry through with a plan to either allow or orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, and give the U.S. its "New Pearl Harbor"?

The Oil Motive

Greg Palast writes:

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.[4]

Greg also writes about documents released to Judicial Watch under the FIOA after a protracted battle, but are now available online here.

The documents are dated 3/2001, and pertain to a secret meeting at the White House, of a group of oil industry related persons. They have divided areas of Iraq up into regions, and have dozens of "suitors", i.e. oil companies with an interest in developing certain areas of Iraq, for the various regions. The problem was that the UN was only allowing a certain amount of oil for food, so why would the Bush administration be organizing a discussion of suitors for Iraq's oil fields in March, when it had just taken office in January, unless it had some expectation Iraqi oil would soon be up for grabs?

Palast, in the above article, says the plan had initially been to privatize Iraq's oil holdings, but when the large oil companies became involved, they instead decided to pursue a strategy of enhancing Iraq's standing with O.P.E.C., so as to be able to raise oil prices.

Suskind also mentions these very documents, including the map, in his book largely about Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil. His sources tell him that these documents were present as part of the plans on how to administrate a post-Sadam Iraq. [5]

Suspicious Activity in the Lead-up to 9/11

Prior warnings to individuals

Various reports have stated that several high ranking officials had changed their plans for that week, or had warned their friends not to fly around that time. Attorney general John Ashcroft, who normally flew on commercial flights, changed his travel plans and began using charter jets. Condolezza Rice warned a friend not to fly that week. Several employees of the Israeli company, Odigo, who were tenants of the World Trade center received warnings to leave the building two hours prior.

Prior warnings of probable attacks in the planning to government agencies

Let us say a government had knowingly allowed terrorist attacks to succeed, for one reason or another, and denied that it had been warned of attacks beforehand. How many people could come forward say they had warned the government of the attacks beforehand, before we should stop disbelieving the people making these claims, and look at the government more closely? Several FBI agents have come forward stating that they had attempted to report alleged 9/11 hijackers, and that their reports were not being acted on. In some cases, attempts to report these persons to other agencies were also blocked. Some FBI agents even claimed to have known the approximate date of the attacks.

The Minnesota FBI and Zacarias Moussaoui

Zacarias Moussaoui had entered the U.S. on a French passport from London, under the Visa Waiver Program, a program to expedite entry from friendly countries. During his stay, he decided that he would pursue his dream of flying a large aircraft. Flying lessons did not go smoothly, however. He was impatient, a novice, a poor pilot, and temperamental; so much so that the flight school instructor had called the FBI believing him to be a probable terrorist. Agent Coleen M. Rowley in Minneapolis contacted the French Intelligence Service, since he was here on a French visa, and they confirmed that they had a dossier which "confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden." They then took Moussaoui into custody on 8/16/01 on a charge of overstaying his temporary visa period, and the agents contacted FBI HQ for permission to search his laptop. They were told it would be better to turn him loose, and observe him; and thus, they would not seek permission to search his laptop. She relates her repeated attempts to raise the alarm, and the unresponsive reception her and agent Sammit's warnings were met with, in an open letter to FBI director Mueller, dated 5/21/02, available on her website for her Congressional candidacy, available under the Special Documents section at right.

She writes:

"While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources." (topic 3) "Although the last thing the FBI or the country needs now is a witch hunt, I do find it odd that (to my knowledge) no inquiry whatsoever was launched of the relevant FBIHQ personnel's actions a long time ago. Despite FBI leaders' full knowledge of all the items mentioned herein (and probably more that I'm unaware of), the SSA, his unit chief, and other involved HQ personnel were allowed to stay in their positions and, what's worse, occupy critical positions in the FBI's SIOC Command Center post September 11th. (The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)" (topic 7)

An OIG investigation of the charges says that the Minnesota agents who wanted to arrest Moussaoui were prevented from doing so by superiors who advised surveillance instead. They still were able to place Moussaoui under arrest, but were not allowed permission to search his laptop on the same basis. The FBI HQ caseworker assigned to the case thought it was not in his jurisdiction, the OIG reports. He

"... believed that the case belonged in the ITOS’ Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU). Cases that could not be linked to a specific group or substantive unit and involved radical extremist allegations are assigned to the RFU." (ch. 4, part II.E.2)

This, in spite of the fact of France's confirmation of Moussaoui's ties to bin Ladin-linked organizations!

The Phoenix Memo

After 9/11, a memo was partially declassified, in which a Phoenix, AZ FBI agent Kenneth Williams was warning FBI HQ about one "Zakaria Mustapha Soubra. The memo which came to be known as "The Phoenix Memo" was dated 7/10/2001, and said Soubra was an aeronautical engineering student, and "was a supporter of UBL" (=Osama bin Ladin). The warnings turned out to be highly prescient. Here are some of them:

The purpose of this communication is to advise the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by USAMA BIN LADIN (UBL) to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation universities and colleges. ... reason to believe that a coordinated effort is underway to establish a cadre of individuals who will one day be working in the civil aviation community around the world. These individuals will be in a position in the future to conduct terror activity against civil aviation targets. ["The Phoenix Memo", redacted, public version available here.

The memo referred to a source that said Soubra was a supporter of UBL (Osama), as well as several other Islamic students there, who also had radical leanings. Williams recommends forming a national list of Islamic aviation students and examining them for ties to Al Queda and other extremist groups.

In an article on CNN about Senate hearings on the matter dated 5/21/02, we have:

"Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that to this day, Mueller still doesn't have a full explanation about what happened once Williams passed the memo up the chain of command. "'There aren't very many specific answers, and I think it's fair to say a lot of people high up in the FBI still don't know," Grassley said. "No one seems to know the process.'" ("Senators question 'Phoenix memo' author", article on CNN.com, 5/21/02)

We are still waiting for answers that make sense, all these many years later. None of the names in the memo have been identified as 9/11 hijackers, although two were associates of one of the hijackers. Still, it is surprising that there wasn't more of a response at higher levels. While they can not investigate every Arabic pilot reported, one would expect some questioning or more active observation of one or more Islamic aviation students who are supporters of Osama bin Ladin.

David Schippers

Schippers had prosecuted the House impeachment case during the Clinton impeachment, and had been asked to serve by Henry Hyde, a House Republican. Thus, we would not think it the product of partisan political bickering when he began raising charges of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. He charges that a reporter, Jayna Davis, with NBC in Oklahoma City, had come to him and said she had affidavits reporting a Middle-Eastern man fleeing the bombing, and taken them to the FBI, but after checking with a supervisor, an official told her, "We don't want it." He says that Hamas fundraising was simply not to be looked into under Janet Reno, and so he waited until John Ashcroft had entered office to being his allegations forward. He says that Hamas charitable fund-raising activities were being used to support a network of radicals, and that he has information on how the money is moved and how it is used. The following is from his interview on World Net daily.

A: ... So I was trying to say, "Look, you say you're looking for where the money is." This was now after Sept. 11. I have charts with people showing where it comes from, how you get it, and so on and so forth. Phyllis Schlafly finally apparently made some calls. She called me one day and said, "I've talked to John Ashcroft, and he'll call you tomorrow." The next morning, I did get a call from the Justice Department, but it wasn't from Ashcroft. Now frankly, I didn't expect the attorney general himself to call me.
Q: But some deputy might.
A: Right, and it was a deputy. One of the deputies and I started to tell him what I had, some of the material that I had, and he said, "You know, we don't start our investigations at the top." I said, "What do you mean?" "We don't start our investigations with the Attorney General," he said. "Let me look into this, and I'll have somebody get back to you right away."
Q: When was that?
A: That was like July 15. I still haven't heard from anybody.
("Middle East-OKC connection David Schippers tells Metcalf feds 'ignored' warnings of WTC attacks" on WorldNetDaily.com, 10/29/01)

He claims to be able to link TWA 800, the OKC bombing, and 9/11 with this network. He says "I have information indicating there was going to be a massive attack in lower Manhattan. I couldn't get anybody to listen to me." and also "Some of my friends who are federal agents have been told to stay away from this."

How many times can agents try to warn their superiors of probable terrorists at flight schools, not only to be ignored, but to have it come out that investigation into the financing of probable terrorists by Hamas and the bin Ladins had actually been suppressed, before one begins to suspect that we are dealing not with "missed opportunities" so much as intentionally turning a blind eye to such warnings? If the government had not been shielding bin Ladins and members of Hamas in the U.S., then why has no official body even examined Schippers' materials? If it had been shielding them, then what could possibly be its motive?

Sibel Edmonds

Sibel Edmonds had no prior knowledge of 9/11, but came across her information later. She also was not hired by the FBI until 9/20/01. Sibel was a speaker of Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani, so in the aftermath of 9/11, she was hired as a translator. Sibel had been asked to make translations of some transcripts of wiretaps of Turkish conversations, and found that some which had been marked as unimportant, were in fact important. She repeated a brunch at which the same person, Melek Can Dickerson, had asked her to join Turkish NGO's, and implied that she would profit well from it. She believes Melek had leaked information to targets of FBI investigation, and when she and her supervisor tried to take it to higher officials, instead of investigating the matter, they fired her. Among her allegations were that Dennis Hastert(R), then Speaker of the House, had taken a bribe to block a resolution declaring the several decades previous attack by Turkish forces on Armenia had been an attempt at genocide, as was published in Vanity Fair ("AN INCOVENIENT PATRIOT", Vanity Fair, Sept. 2005). She expressed some surprise that the Hastert bribe was one of the items the interviewer had focused in on, as other revelations of hers had evidently in her view been more explosive.

The London Independent published an interview with her, titled "'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'" (The Independent, 4/2/04). However, Bush gagged her, not only with the assertion that she was not to divulge classified material, but with rarely used "state secrets privilege." She says,

"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

She calls Condoleezza Rice's statement that that administration had had no warnings that terrorists might attack using airplanes as missles "an outrageous lie." She says,

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away."

Her most stunning revelations came in a recent interview, however. Unable to name names and give specifics, she has been forced to describe what she knows in very general terms.

SE: ...It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis – but never touch the guys on the top.
CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?
SE: Oh yeah, they know.
CD: So why don't they get them?
SE: It's like I told you before – this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling – and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.
("The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now", interview at www.antiwar.com, 8/15/05)

Although Sibel gave her evidence to the 9/11 Commission in a secret hearing, in a room specially constructed for the purpose, she has taken her case to the Supreme Court, to petition for the right to make public what she knows, but her full testimony has never been heard in public; nor are any investigations known to have been started on account of it. Sibel has said something to the effect that this is a cover-up that is not merely covering up a few administrative mistakes; and the totality of evidence in this direction is considerable, to say the least.

Abel Danger

Another so-called "missed opportunity" has to do with the identification of Mohammad Atta and other persons believed to be probable Al-Queda operatives in the U.S., before 9/11, by an Army Intelligence unit. He was then a Republican member of the House, with 19 years of experience, at the time, and a strong supporter of the military, Thus, it is surprising to have him saying in the Congressional Record:

Mr. Speaker, there is something desperately wrong here. A sitting President of the United States resigned his position because he tried to cover up a third-rate burglary when some low-level operatives from the Republican committee to reelect him broke into the Democrat headquarters in Washington, D.C. No one was killed. No money was stolen. No State secrets were stolen. It was a third-rate burglary, but it caused the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the deaths of 3,000 Americans. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 2.5 terabytes of data about al Qaeda. That is equal to one-fourth of all of the printed material in the Library of Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Mohammed Atta and three of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about military intelligence officers, including an Annapolis graduate who will command one of our destroyers in January of 2006 who risked his entire career to state on the record I will swear until I die that I saw Mohammed Atta's face every day starting in January of 2000, a year and a half before 9/11. Mr. Speaker, this is not somebody off the street, this is a graduate of Annapolis, a 23-year Naval officer who will command one of our destroyers in January who is agreeing with Lieutenant Shaffer. We have three other people who have testified under oath that they saw the same photograph, and the person I met yesterday will testify that he had the name of a Mohammed Atta before 9/11 but not the face. Mr. Speaker, this is not some third-rate burglary coverup. This is not some Watergate incident. This is an attempt to prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how we could have prevented 9/11 and people are covering it up today. They are ruining the career of a military officer to do it and we cannot let it stand. ("ABLE DANGER FAILURE," (House of Representatives Congressional Record 10/19/2005), p. H8979 ff., archived at World Net Daily)

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and other anonymous persons had been willing to testify that they had identified Mohammed Atta in the U.S. as part of a probable Al-Quaeda they were tracking. It had begun as an independent intelligence program by the U.S. Army to try to track Al-Quaeda activities using new software capable of making connections between people using publicly available sources. Lt. Col. Shaffer had wanted to testify before Congress, but he was not permitted to, so only his lawyer was allowed to speak for him. He said that he had been gagged from testifying (see "Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist", The New York Times, 9/20/05), and Shaffer said that he thought that was Donald Rumsfeld that had gagged him (

He had spoken with Dr. Philip Zelikow, the chief executive of the 9/11 Commission, go inform him of the type of information he had. When called to see if he should come in and tell what he knew to the Commission, Zelikow's aid told him:

"Yeah, we know who you are. ummmmm. Dr. Zelikow tells me that he does not see the need for you to come in. We have all the information on Able Danger." ("Inside Able Danger – The Secret Birth, Extraordinary Life and Untimely Death of a U.S. Military Intelligence Program", interview originally with GSNMagazine.com, now missing, but archived at 911CitizensWatch.org)

Abel Danger was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. By the time of his silent appearance before congress, his security clearance had been revoked. He had been gagged by the Pentagon immediately before his testimony before Congress, whereas they had previously given him permission. Weldon complained about the DOD's treatment of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Apparently the Department of Defense does not share my deep respect for the Committee and its authority to serve the American people through effective oversight." ("New Skirmish in War Over 9/11 Information", article for GlobalResearch.com by Rory O'Connor, 11/10/05)

Other pages with overviews of forewarnings of 9/11

• A more extensive review of suppressed warnings to governmental agencies can be found here: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures

• Alex Jones has assembled numerous reports he believes show government protection of terrorists, at Infowars.com

Suspicious directives

Although commercial airline pilots had rarely if ever been carrying guns in the cockpit prior to 9/11, it is interesting to note that there was a rule to provide for such training that was reportedly rescinded two months prior to 9/11, according to a reporter at World Net Daily.

Just over three months before 9/11, procedures to deal with hijackings were changed:

"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." (From 3610.01A, Directive from the Joint Chiefs [6])

Note that the issue is that requests for any DOD assistance at all must be first approved by the Sec. of Defense. The only immediate responses allowed are when lives are known to be at immediate risk. Previous to this, it had been SOP for jets to be scrambled to intercept airplanes that had gone off course or had turned off their transponders, but now even this had to go through the Sec. of Defense.

Previous to this change in procedures, it had been routine to intercept hijackings, planes off course, and planes that turned off their transponders; with only permission from NORAD. From Sept. 2000 to June 2001, there had been 67 such intercepts.[7] The website 911 Myths claims that these were all over international waters; but this same AP article which it uses as a source speaks of three intercepts in White House air space - and of course, there is the oft0-cited case of golfer Payne Stewart. It is obvious that a request to intercept but not shoot down a hijacked plane over U.S. soil would have been quickly approved before the revised hijack procedures were put in place.

Greg Palast is a U.S. native who reports for BBC's Newsnight, who often does investigative journalism on corruption in U.S. government; and yet he is virtually never mentioned on U.S. television. In a broadcast dated 6/11/01, Palast cited reports that members of the FBI had been prevented from investigating members of the bin Ladin family before 9/11, beginning in the Clinton administration; especially Abdullah Bin Laden and his ties to WAMY, an Islamic charity that had been tied to terrorist activity. The transcript is here. The website 9/11 Myths implies that Palast's case is only made up of anonymous sources and that he is referring to a Clinton-era directive as if it were G.H.W. Bush's directive. This thread at Pilots for 9/11 Truth cites Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy with the following footnote to the photocopy of one of the explosive documents:

"The designation '199' means 'national security matter.' This is a first of over 30 pages of documentation obtained by the BBC and the National Security News Service (Washington) indicating that the FBI was pulled off the trail of 'ABL' (Abdullah Bin Laden) on September 11, 1996 - and reactivated exactly five years later. According to agents and higher level sources in the CIA who spoke with us, before the attack on the World Trade Center, these cases were shut down for political reasons. While President Clinton 'constrained' investigations of alleged Saudi funding of terror networks and the making of the 'Islamic' atomic bomb, Bush 'Jr' effectively 'killed' those investigations - until September 2001."

Palast is clearly referring to more than one agent and more than one high-level official making the claim Bush was spiking investigations - not at all what the 9/11 Myths article implies. Now, while Greg may have a number of anonymous sources, and one might hope to imagine that he is making it all up, his sources obviously satisfied the BBC, and when has any U.S. body with subpoena power offered to hear his witnesses or view his documents? Surely, an innocent administration would want to clear the air of such explosive charges.

Stock market activity

A few days before the attacks, both United and American Airlines saw a massive increase in the purchase of put options, which are basically bets that the price of a certain stock will go down. The same was done with stocks of insurance companies who were involved in insuring both the airlines involved and the World Trade Center. Also, purchases of stocks in the defense contractor, Raytheon, saw a rise. This has led many to speculate that several knew the attacks were coming and profited from the tragedy.

No military response

The fact that few or no military jet fighters were scrambled to intercept the hijacked jets until they were ready to hit their targets has led some to believe this is evidence of orders given to the Air Force to stand down, or that communications were deliberately delayed to ensure the planes would hit their targets unhindered. This is especially apparent in the strange behavior of American Airlines Flight 77.

The lack of response from the military goes against normal and long standing procedures set up regarding planes on rogue flightpaths and any observed trouble in U.S. airspace.

An excellent source and in-depth look at what went wrong with the military and what we are supposed to believe. Military Response

As to SAM systems that may be installed at the Pentagon, it has sometimes been claimed that the systems are present, but sources for this classified matter are scarce. Reporters at the UK Daily Telegraph believe the White House has shoulder-launched Stinger Missiles to defend itself from airplanes [8], but an exact source is hard to come by. The subject is considered in this ATS thread, which cites a source citing other unconfirmed articles claiming multiple SAM defenses around the Pentagon. It is probably best not to post such information, unless it is necessary for an important and clear-cut whistleblower case; since such defenses may be mobile, and thus out of position, or perhaps non-operational for other reasons.

Donald Rumsfeld

As above, just over three months prior to 9/11, the Joint Chiefs issued a directive to require approval from the Sec. of Defense before allowing any DOD assistance in a hijacking, unless a loss of life was imminent - apparently, even extending to the scrambling of planes. So where was the Secretary of Defense, who could have approved intercepts and/or shoot-downs? Gail Sheeney, a reporter with Mother Jones, quoted 911 Commissioner Gorelick as saying "We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11." She also quotes 911 Commission Lee Hamilton as saying "We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld's actions. He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out." He refused to reply and walked off when asked if Rumsfeld had been told about the attacks on WTC1 & WTC2. ("Why Were Bush and Rumsfeld AWOL on 9/11?", Mother Jones 7/23/04.[9] See some 9/11 Commission excerpts of Rumsfeld here.)

Richard Cheney

The 9/11 Commission Report and a number of other mainstream news sources claim that Cheney was on the way to the Pentagon when the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 [10]. For example, the 911 Commission Report says he was in the tunnel on the way to the Pentagon, at 9:37 AM, when the plane hit. This claim is contradicted by then Sec. of Transportation, Norman Minetta, who has the following remarkable account of the strike of Flight 77; which no-one has come forward to refute:

"I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] 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?'" (Testimony of Norman Minetta before the 9/11 Commission)

Minetta originally said he arrived at 9:27, and later that he arrived at 9:20. The official time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37, and so Minetta's testimony coincides with the strike of Flight 77. Since Lynn Cheney claims she arrived at the bunker at 9:52, and Minetta has said he remembers seeing her there when he came in, the 9/11 Commission concluded that Minetta arrived after 9:52, and the exchange between Cheney and the young man took place regarding Flight 93. This, however, does not explain Minetta's testimony, since Flight 93 never got within 10 miles of the Pentagon. Critics say this is evidence of a stand-down order, since it seems unlikely that Minetta, the Secretary of Transportation, would be mistaking an aircraft that did not hit the Pentagon for one that did; and with the young man exasperated enough to question the Vice President's orders, there was obviously some sort of choice yet to be made, and it resulted in the plane hitting the Pentagon. Since Flight 17 had hit WTC2 at 9:03, it seems remarkable that the most dominant and well-funded military in the world should be unable to scramble a fighter to protect the Pentagon in the 34 minutes since it had been clear that a multi-plane terrorist attack was afoot. It had been about 8:25 that Flight 175 had been reported hijacked[11], making it 1 hour and 12 minutes that it crashed into the Pentagon since it had been hijacked.

President Bush's Lack of Action

During the attacks, even after being informed, President Bush, who was at Emma T. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida continued to read to school children, instead of canceling the visit and returning to the command center. The Secret Service also failed to whisk him off to safety for a full five minutes, despite the fact that nation was under attack from then unknown sources and the President was in a nationally known and televised location. This has led many to suspect either the President or his aides and secret service had prior knowledge of the attacks; since it is believed that the Secret Service is mandated to protect the President in times of attack, and although the event had already been publicized, Bush stayed not only for the goat story, but a press conference afterward. How could they have been sure no airplane was coming for Booker Elementary? video.

Later, Bush held two "town hall" meetings in which he discusses the events of that day. He says that what Andrew Card told him in the above video was "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." He then infamously continues hearing the story about the goat for another five minutes after he knows two different airplanes had hit the World Trade Center buildings. At another "town hall" meeting, he claims to have seen a television broadcast of the first plane hitting the first tower [12]; but such footage did not surface until days later, in the hands of independent filmmakers.

Collapses of World Trade Center Towers 1&2

The collapse of both of the twin towers of the WTC has led many to speculate that the towers were brought down by demolition as opposed to structural failure caused by jet fuel melting the supports. Telescoping steel of the core is very questionable. Several anomalies about the collapse have caused much debate about whether or not explosives were used to bring the towers down for added shock effect.

The Dancing Israelis

Not long after attacks, police received reports of a suspicious group of Middle-Eastern looking men who were filming the destruction of the WTC; and were seen to be clapping, cheering, and apparently celebrating immediately afterward. The five men turned out to be Israelis, not Arabs, and were found with $4,700 dollars cash, maps of Manhattan, and some box cutters - the weapons supposedly used by the hijackers to subdue the flights used in the attacks.

One of the men, when he was being arrested, reportedly said, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." ABC News claims, "One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." Urban Moving Systems had been the firm the men were working for. Three months later, the program 20/20 had filmed the inside of the building, and found it to be vacated. The owner had also sold his home and returned to Israel. ("Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?", transcript of the ABC television program 20/20, 6/21/2009) The men themselves had overstayed tourist visas, and so two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them deported! ABC News was told that the FBI and CIA then ordered a hold put on their case. Says ABC News, "Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives."

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official who asked not to be named, "... the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives, ...". ("Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth - Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage," The Forward, 2/3/15, now missing from their website, but archived here) One had also worked for Israeli intelligence in a foreign country, according to his lawyer. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief of operations with the CIA, said "... many people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence." He suggested the operation had been targeting Muslim extremist fund-raising. One of the men refused to take a lie detector test for ten weeks, and then failed one.

So what did the U.S. government do with such men? Release them, of course:

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.

The FBI said:

"To date, this investigation has not identified anybody who in this country had pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11."

An article which apparently appeared in a N.J. newspaper called the Bergen Record does indeed suggest there was pre-knowledge, however. It quotes an unnamed witness, who said,

"There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." ("Five men detained as suspected conspirators," The Bergen Record, 9/12/01, now missing from their website, but available at here)

The article also says there were maps in the car with "certain places" marked, and that bomb-sniffing dogs had hit on the van. The website 9/11 Myths points out that there had initially been a report that explosives were in the van, but a retraction was issued from the same source, minutes later. Interestingly, it also has another page that makes the claim "However, there’s still no witness evidence to support the claim that they were set up and filming before the attacks occurred." ("Dancing Israelis," 911Myths.com) It is interesting that their wiki cites the above article in The Bergen Record when it discusses explosives in the van, and yet it does not mention this article when the article indeed cites an unnamed source that said that it looked like they knew it was going to happen. 9/11 Myths objects that the statement of one of the hijackers when they returned to Israel does not indicate foreknowledge: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." The reasoning is that they may have set up cameras after the first attack. If we, with the unnamed source at the Bergen Record, conclude "It looked like they knew what was going to happen," then the statement does take on a new meaning. Indeed, Israel claimed that their intelligence service had warned the U.S. of the impending attacks, as had those of many other nations. If we suppose that Israel had indeed warned the U.S. beforehand, and these guys were just there to document it after Israel's warnings had not been heeded, then we might be tempted to conclude that nothing nefarious had happened. There is one piece of this puzzle that does not fit this idea, however.

Lets look at some of the quotations regarding their odd behavior.

• "They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said." [13]
• "Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down." [14]
• "They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." [15]
• "What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. 'They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange,' she said." [16]
• "A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck." [17]

The preceding quotation is from a Hebrew newspaper called "Yediot America" (Idiot America! - well ahead of Green Day). The website that quotes it charges that sites which quote from the article without quoting the following exculpatory passage are anti-Semetic, so here goes:

"One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers. The five denied dancing. I presume the neighbor was not near them and does not understand Hebrew. Furthermore, the neighbor complained that the cheerful gang on the roof spoke Arabic. As far as I understand it, that neighbor has had previous problems with the company, and she could have been waiting for an opportunity to avenge the owners."

We now know that they were indeed doing such celebratory gestures, so, against these denials, we might entertain that they were also speaking Arabic. This can be correlated with the above "She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck." from the same article.

Thus far, we have established that two of the Dancing Israelis had been on a U.S. database of foreign operatives, at least one of them had worked for Israeli intelligence according to his lawyer, that they lied about cheering and rejoicing, that two people said they were "middle-eastern looking", and there was another report of them "speaking Arabic." What can account for these facts? No matter how blase about terrorism people are, they generally are not high-fiving after a monumental attack; so the argument of one of them that they are from a nation used to terrorism, in response to a question about their supposed celebrations has no force. We would also expect them to deny that they were intelligence operatives if they were. If they were speaking Arabic, they were probably trying to make people think Muslim extremists were celebrating the attacks, when their plan backfired, and an observant citizen and good police work stopped the suspected terrorists; when the suspected terrorists were Israeli intelligence all along. Has Israel ever had agents dress up as Muslims in order to place the blame for a terrorist attack on Muslims? The Lavon Affair is one ready example, but there are others.

There is still plenty that is not known about them. None of this even takes up the question as to whether there were actually explosives in the van. When will the U.S. government show its citizens the photos these Israelis took, to see if they were present before the first tower was attacked or not? In some of these photos, they were reported to be smiling in front of the burning towers. Some of the photos and videos may also have important information on just how the attacks on the towers occurred.

Passenger cell phoning

A few phone calls were made from both American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, the planes that struck the twin towers. However, only one passenger from American Airlines Flight 77 made a call. This was Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, and a well known conservative commentator.

Why no other passengers made phone calls is unknown. This has led to speculation that the phone calls were faked, as some claim cell phones do not work on planes, although this is debatable. However, a slew of calls were made from United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Flight 93 anomalies

United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was reported to have been brought down after passengers struggled against the hijackers to take control of the plane. However, conflicting reports right after the crash claimed the plane had been shot down by the Air Force, claims which were later retracted.

Eyewitness accounts of a second plane in the area, plus a sonic boom recorded by a seismic station in West Virginia point to the presence of a supersonic jet, possibly a military fighter. The wreckage field of the plane also seems to point to it falling apart in the air, evidence of a hit by a projectile.

Flight 77

Flight 77 was reported to have made a sharp 270 degree turn before veering down to hit the Pentagon. This maneuver is considered difficult for a military fighter pilot to perform. Some consider it to be unlikely this maneuver was accomplished by Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker of Flight 77. Hani Hanjour was reported to be a flight school dropout who couldn't figure out the control panel of a small single engine plane.

Also, the fact that Flight 77 hit a relatively empty part of the Pentagon seems to be too much of a coincidence to some.

Alleged hijackers still alive

The official story alleges that four planes were hijacked by a group of 19 terrorists, at least 7 of which are alive to this day. [18] Heres the list of Hijackers that are reported to still be alive:

• Satam al Suqami
• Wail and Waleed al Shehri (two brothers)
• Abdul Aziz al Omari
• Fayez Banihammad
• Ahmed al Ghamdi
• Hamza al Ghamdi
• Mohand al Shehri
• Saeed al Ghamdi
• Ahmad al Haznawi
• Ahmed al Nami
• Majed Moqed
• Salem al Hazmi

See also

• September 11 2001

Notes

1. At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

External links

• 9/11 1WTC North Tower vs. Controlled Demolition (YouTube)
• 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77