Gerard Holmgren


Wed Jun 25 17:47:24 2003

by Gerard Holmgren

Funny the Government has yet to produce such a document about their Theory.

(The Web pages below have been backed up. If any links are dead, the backed up page can be mailed on request.)

Last updated June 14 2003
Section 1: Airforce stand-down

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

1:2 Mr. Cheney's Cover Story -- Section 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov 2001

1:3 9-ll: Nothing Urgent, by George Szamuely, Research & documentation by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002

1:4 Planes "did scramble " on 9/11,they just " arrived late "
1:5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely, 12 Dec 2001

1:6 Air National Guard Mission and Vision statements

1:7 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11 story impossible
Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray aircraft is a routine procedure. Here's an example of how routine it is.

1.13 Jet Sent to probe Fla. Gov. Plane. Netscape news. May 15 2003.
The procedures were already in place before Sept 11 2001. It happened 67 times in the 10 months between September 2000 and June 2001.

1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11. Associated Press Aug 13 2002.

1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another 9/11 Aug 14 2002

1.10 Preventing another 9/11,13319,FL_jet_081502,00.html

1.11 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.

1.12 Military now notified immediately of unusual air traffic events. Fox news Aug 12 2002,2933,60245,00.html#top

So on Sept 11, 2001 - Why were no fighter jets scrambled, and why has a cover up story been concocted?

In the unlikely event that the airforce failed through incompetence, (not once but 4 times! ) where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into car crashes at race tracks.

Section 2: Complicit behaviour of G.W.Bush

It has become common mythology in the media that George W. Bush was at Booker Elementary School when he learned of the first WTC crash. This is a lie. Why is Bush lying about where he was, and what he knew?

2:1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.

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

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

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

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]

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]

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 AM on Sept 11.


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.



Section 3: The Fictitious Hijackers

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? 3:1  Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (first WTC crash.)

3:2  AA 77 (Pentagon crash)

3:3  UAL 175 (2nd WTC crash)

3:4  UAL 93  (Pensylvannia crash)

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:

3:5  why is there no airport security footage of them? How did they (allegedly) get on board with knives, guns, AND electronic guidance systems, while being searched, but avoiding security cameras and not being on the passenger lists? What aliases were they alleged to be using when they were searched,and if they were not using aliases, why are they not on the passenger lists?

What of reports that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive, and had nothing to do with the attacks ?













According to this article

3:11 8

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 crashed the planes in 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 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.

Section 4: More oddities

Why the official story concerning the hijacking of AA11 (first WTC crash) cannot possibly be true.

4:1 9/11 Redux: (The Observers Cut) American Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined By David L. Graham

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



4.4 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects official story of 9 11 attacks. Interview with Andreas von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.
National Security Advisor Rice and White House spokesman Fleischer lied in saying that nobody had ever conceived of planes being used in this manner, their statements 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 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.

4:6 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001

In article 4:5 Rice also lied in saying that any threat had been overwhelmingly perceived as being overseas. The statement she made is in this press briefing.

4:7 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice The James S. Brady Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10 PM EDT

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

4:8 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S. by Bob Wooward and Dan Eggen.Washington Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.¬Found=true  

What did happen to Flight 93? by Richrad Wallace. The Daily Mirror sept 13, 2002




Are cell phone calls from planes, of the type allegedly made by passengers on Sept 11 possible ?



Section 5: Where is the evidence against Bin laden?

Why is it that the US government doesn't feel confident enough of it's case against Bin laden to lay any formal charges, but keeps " finding" convenient video " confession" tapes ? Probably because new video technology makes it impossible 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


For more detailed evidence of a pre-planned agenda to fabricate evidence against Bin Laden,

Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey. 2:2  (Read the section called "Evidence please !")

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 news.


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


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


Section 6: Insider trading reveals high level foreknowledge

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. Why has this story since completely disappeared? Do authorities seriously expect us to believe that more than a year later, they still do not know who was responsible? Should not alarm bells have been ringing BEFORE the attacks with these record volumes of trading? If the executive director of the CIA had previously managed the firm which handled much of the trade, are we seriously expected to believe that he doesn't know who was responsible?

Suppresed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly Into The CIA's Highest Ranks -- CIA Executive Director `Buzzy' Krongard Managed Firm That Handled `Put' Options on UAL, by Michael C. Ruppert, 9 Oct 2001

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


Profits of Death -- Insider Trading and 9-11, by Tom Flocco - Edited by Michael C. Ruppert, 6 Dec 2001


Where is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into local government contract scandals.

Section 7: The pentagon frame up and the WTC plane switch

It is alleged that that American Airlines 77 ( a hijacked Boeing 757 ) crashed into the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 is a very large aircraft with a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft. So how did it make an initial hole 12 ft wide, collapsing only about a 35 ft depth of the outer ring of the building - and not leave any wreckage outside ? This photo of the damage to the Pentagon wall

7:1 proves that whatever crashed into the pentagon was NOT AA 77, which demonstrates the Pentagon attack to have been a self - inflicted frame up.

For a quick overview of the impossibility of the official story


For a full physical analysis of the crash scene

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. by Gerard Holmgren Oct 2002


Why was there a concerted effort to fabricate eyewitness evidence for the official story regarding AA 77?

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

7:4 http://h

Main Page - Wednesday, 06/25/03

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)