Make your own free website on
republic in pieces
now, let's examine some evidence


constitution vs. patriot act
the fed, imf, and worldbank
9-11: myth and reality
oh, israel...
the iraqi conundrum
department of miseducation

Before I begin I feel it necessary to state that I am not trying to prove bin Laden innocent, I am simply attempting to prove the American government has produced no evidence of any value, proving anyone guilty of anything. Certainly no hard enough evidence to justify the war in Afghanistan (more at that little fiasco later).
Let's start with the night before, and the late night deboucharies of hard-line Islamic militants. Supposedly Mohammed Atta, and other 'hijackers' decided to go out and have a drink. Militant Muslims, out getting drunk and beligerant, the night before they are going to meet Allah? Now, I have heard it argued that they were trying to fit in with the American lifestyle, as a means to a greater endes. But no one can argue logically why, after five years of fitting in, they suddenly felt the urge to go to such extremes. Especially the night before.
You don't have to drink, or feel up strippers to 'blend in.' You certainly don't have to become beligerantly drunk, and tell the batrteneder that on the next day, 'America will see blood.' Why make such a statement so close to cruch time, with everything on the line? And why did they bring a Koran into the bar? Is that what they thought everyone in America does?
Who was this bartender anyways? Could he possibly have drank a little that night, so maybe his recollection could be a bit off. Surprisingly enough, some bartenders do drink. Why haven't we been given any assurance that he isn't one of those, 'they all look alike to me,' type of person? Has he, or anyone close to him, ever been associated with any intelligence agency? Has he, or anyone close to him, received any discreet increases in their bank accounts since 9-11? I am not trying to accuse him of anything, he could very well be the second coming of Christ, but nothing I have seen or heard has given any credence to the ideal that he is a reliable witness. Did he really see who he thought he saw? The American people deserve an answer to that question.
Now, supposedly, Atta forgot his suitcase in the car he took to the airport. Silly Arab, completely forgot he didn't need to pack for this trip. In this suitcase was a flight manual, in Arabic, a letter supposedly from a top al-Qaeda operative, and a Koran. Militant Muslims it seems, can't ever seem to remember to grab that little book that they completely base their lives around. It happens, you know. Get all caught up in killing infedels as according to the Koran, you just completely forget your Koran where ever you go.
If he didn't need a flight manual, why did he pack it? And if he did need one, yet forgot it, he must have been the stupidest man to ever walk the earth. Yet at the same time he was able to pinpoint the WTC and fly the plane into it. So did he have the ability to do that, and therefore had no need for a flight manual, or did he need the manual, forgot it in his car, but luckily for him, Allah flew the plane for him. As for the letter, we'll get to that.
How did these men get past security? Not one of them were on the flight lists. Yet they got on the plane. At least Atta and a few others were carrying their passports. If they had used names for the tickets that were different from the ones on their passports, why did they bring their passports. The planes weren't flying overseas, so they didn't need them. Plus if they happened to get stopped and IDed for any reason, wouldn't it be a bad ideal to have an ID in a different name than the one you were supposed to have. Some of those passports were fake anyways, since some of the men who actually owned the passports are still alive today. So why take the chance of getting caught with a fake passport, in a different name than the one airport security would have thought they should have?
Atta's passport had reportedly been found among the wreckage. Or it was found two blocks away. Depends on which report you want to accept. I've heard it said both ways. But either way, no way. The wreckage was supposedly burning hot enough to melt the steel holding up the building, but it wasn't hot enough to turn a passport to ash? Or am I supposed to believe that the passport, slightly singed from the explosion, yet still in one piece, survived, and was thrown two blocks away. Perhaps Allah divinely protected the photo of his loyal servant, but later decided to turn it in to the feds.
Another letter similar to the one found in Atta's trunk, was found at the crash sight in Pennsylvania. The plane almost entirely disintigrated on impact. The largest piece of human remains recovered was a charred 8 inch piece of spine. Yet, praise be to Allah, the letter was only singed. Makes sense to me. Well, it would anyways, if I had the rationalizing ability of a 4 year old. And thats why I don't put much into the letter 'found' in the trunk.
And what about the response of the American government after finding out about the first hijacking.  And then the second.  And then the third.  And then the fourth.  Why was there no response?  Some say the first plane wasn't given a military escort immediately, because they didn't know it was hijacked.  But the DoD doesn't wait for comformation of a hijacking.  The plan they have in place requires an escort on any plane that loses contact with ground control.  When golfer Payne Stewart's plane had lost contact, fifteen minutes later it had a military escort.  They didn't wait to find out if the plane had been hijacked.  So how did the hijackers prevent the DoD from responding for over an hour?  Why, after the first plane hit, then the second, and there was no doubt what was happening, didn't the National Gaurd post outside Washington put a plane in the air.  Especially once they found out another plane had lost contact with ground control, and appeared to be headed for D.C.  The D.C. National Gaurd keeps two planes prepped at all times for the sole purpose of defending Washington.  Where were they?
Now we come to the activities of the 'hijackers' in the days following 9-11. What I'm referring to, of course, is that some of them are actually able to perform actions. They aren't dead. And if they aren't dead, they didn't do it. Like the man said, 'If the glove don't fit, we must aquit.' Only there isn't a glove, and the people we have been told are the hijackers really are innocent. These supposed al-Qaeda members were the main link to bin Laden. If these men were all dead, I'd most likely be saying Osama did it. But since our government either doesn't really know, or is refusing to say, who actually was on those planes, I can not in good faith accuse anyone. I have my thoughts about whodunnit. But they're just thoughts backed by a mountian of circumstantial evidence. But of course, that's more than we've got on Osama bin Laden.

9-11: who gains?