Information Times, an on-line publication, reported that Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20: "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."

    According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal--Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Al-shehri, Abdul aziz Alo mari and Salem Alhazmi--are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.

     Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

NUMBER SIX
     A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Alshehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline.

     According to the unnamed official, Alshehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  Now he works for a Moroccan airline.

     On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

     The FBI acknowledges that the identities of some of the purported hijackers are still in question because some of the suspects' names on flight rosters had been reported stolen months before the attacks took place.

     Why the FBI still lists these men as suspected hijackers who were killed during the terrorist assault remains a mystery.
 

     For example, several recent examples of items found in Newsweek, published by the powerful Meyer-Graham empire (owners of The Washington Post) are worth noting.

     On Jan. 7 Newsweek described as "fantastic," among other things, the statement by the Egyptian father of alleged Sept. 11 hijacking ringleader Mohammed Atta, that American authorities had captured five Israelis celebrating after the World Trade Center attacks. Newsweek described the senior Atta's concerns as a "rant" that "as ifby repeating it often enough he could make it true."

     However, the Newsweek writer was evidently unaware that even The New York nInes-as long ago as Oct. 8-had acknowledged that there were five Israelis taken into custody in the New York area immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, an interesting item first unveiled nationally in the United States by AFP in its Oct. 1 issue.

     Yet, as AFP noted in several consecutive articles (Dec. 17, Dec. 24 and Jan. 7/14) the story of these five Israelis has taken on a life of its own.  It turns out that as many as 60 Israelis are in U.S. custody, at least some of whom are suspected by the FBI of having material evidence about the Sept. 11 attacks, including likely foreknowledge of the impending attacks. (See this article for more.) 

     Despite all the media hoopla over the indictment of Moroccan-born Frenchman, Zacarias Moussaoui, even Newsweek admitted (buried in the final paragraphs of a report in its Dec. 24 issue) that the indictment of Moussaoui "does not allege any contacts between Moussaoui and any of the 19 other hijackers. 

     Newsweek quoted a Justice Department official as saying that "there's no direct testimony in this case.  It's all circumstantial." Justice has no explanation as to why Moussaoui seemed to constantly be acting alone in the midst of the so-called "conspiracy" while all the other hijackers met and traveled together.

     Although Newsweek claims the Feds have intelligence linking Moussaoui to one of the hijackers, "prosecutors left that point out of the indictment, for reasons that are unclear."

     On Dec. 24, Arab- and Muslim-hating Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter, who is a fervent supporter of Israel, admitted in Newsweek that until the release of the purported "smoking gun" video in which Osama bin Laden is said to have claimed advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that "for all of the exertions of Thny Blair and American authorities, evidence of bin Laden's prior knowledge of Sept. 11 had been circumstantial until the tape." 

     In truth, for nearly two months, Blair and even the Bush administration continued to claim they had "evidence" of bin Laden's involvement and/or foreknowledge.  Blair's "evidence" was, in fact, largely a compendium of quotations by bin Laden about other acts of terror for which he was said to be responsible along with saber rattling statements critical of the United States and Israel.

     When former Pakistani intelligence chief Hamid Gul asserted his informed opinion that President Bush himself believed at one point on Sept. 11 that traitors, perhaps within the Air Force, had played a part in the hijackings and that they were part of a more wide-ranging attempt at a coup d'etat orchestrated by Bush-hating partisans of Israel, critics dismissed Gul as a Muslim sympathizer of bin Laden, failing to point out that Gul's actual comments presented Bush himself as a victim (or potential victim) of the Sept. 11 attacks.

     However, in its Dec. 31/Jan. 7 issue, Newsweek revealed that on Sept. 11, a military officer in the White House communications room announced that a threat had been received against the president's official plane, Air Force One.  When the top aide to the vice president's chief of staff asked, "How do we know?" according to Newsweek, the officer replied that the warning included the aircraft's code name, which is classified.  According to Newsweek, "The threat was almost surely bogus-though to this day White House officials say they do not know where it came from." Newsweek quoted White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as saying, "I don't think we'll ever know," where the threat came from. Newsweek also reported that there was another report from the Federal Aviation Administration of another plane-about 30 seconds away--heading straight for the capital. Yet, says Newsweek: "The plane was a phantom of the fog of war; it never existed."

     The truth is that in the wake of the terrorist attacks, numerous independent American researchers have begun to raise serious questions about the circumstances surrounding the failure of the Air Force to respond.  This is another question relating to the mysteries of Sept. 11 that just won't go away.  Other mainstream media voices also provide facts and insights that-considered in the context of the overall media coverage of the events of Sept. II-shed new light on the truth (or how the media is covering up the truth).

     Despite all of the media hoopla about bin Laden's wide-ranging al Qaeda network, The Washington Post reported on Nov. 5 that European investigators believe that the group that is alleged to have carried off the Sept. 11 attacks was "tightly insulated" and "had little if any contact with other al Qaeda terror cells in Europe."  The Post said that hijackers were "elite, insulated," and that the question remained, according to one French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard, as to who was in control: "Who gives the order?" asked Jacquard.  Suggesting that Mohammed Atta was the ringleader, Jacquard says Atta "probably" gave the order.  However, Jacquared noted, "But Atta also received instructions.  And there is someone between Atta and the mountain" [in Afghanistan where bin Laden was said to have made his lair]." 

OSAMA bin LADEN "Evidence" against him not so certain.

    Although the major media continues to bellyache about an alleged "Muslim rumor" that 4,000 Israelis (or Jews in general) did not show up for work at the World Trade Center the day of the terrorist attack, what has been lost in the shuffle is that it was The Jerusalem Post (Israel's leading newspaper) that instigated the rumor when it featured an article on Sept. 12 reporting in a headline that "Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon," specifically citing the now-infamous figure of 4,000.

    And despite media proclamations that there is no truth to the "Muslim rumor" that Israelis did have advance warning of the attacks, Newsbytes, a Washington Post subsidiary, reported on Sept. 27 that "Instant Messages to Israel Warned of WTC Attack." A similar report also appeared in the Sept. 29 issue of Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper.

     Although the major media has stoked the fires of anti-Palestinian hatred in the wake of Sept. 11, comparing Palestinian suicide bombers to the purported "Arab suicide bombers" who directed airliners into the WTC and the Pentagon, only The Sunday Times of London dared to note the fact on June 24 that following a devastating explosion that killed 22 Israelis outside a Tel Aviv discotheque, it was discovered that the taxi driver, Rashid Al-Nadi, who took the suicide bomber to that disco was a Palestinian who, according to Palestinian sources, "had been working with Israeli police intelligence since 1999, giving them information about Palestinian activities in the area."

     Why did the military fail to scramble planes over Washington when the second explosion at the World Trade Center made it obvious that that a terrorist attack was under way?

     Any why are there so many conflicting "official explanations" of the failure?

     At 9:06 a.m. on that fateful day, New York police broadcast that "this was a terrorist attack-notify the Pentagon," the New York Daily News reported."

     American Forces Press Service quoted a Navy officer inside the Pentagon:

    "We were watching the World Trade Center on television.  When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'the World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.' "

     Nearly an hour after the New York attack, terrorists crashed their plane into the Pentagon as military planes that were supposed to protect D.C. at Andrews Air Force Base--10 miles from the nation's capital--sat idle.

     Despite the warning from New York, Newsday quoted Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, a Pentagon spokesman: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Thesday's event anyone would have expected anything like that here." 

     How could the Pentagon be "not aware?" The London Sunday Telegraph reported on Sept. 14: "Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert--Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war--and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington, D.C."

     Many in the mainstream media reported that Andrews has no fighter planes or role in protecting Washington but The San Diego Union-Tribune got it right on Sept. 12: "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border.  The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes. . . . But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon."

     NBC Nightly News reported on Sept. 11: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the D.C. National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover--a protective cover over Washington."

     While the mainstream media mostly ignored the fact that Andrews Air Force Base is supposed to protect Washington, USA Today gave conflicting reports on Sept. 17: "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One. . . had no fighters assigned to it."  And in a later edition: "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force base. . . but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." 

On Dec. 24 AFP reported that:

Attorney General John Ashcroft has released an Israeli suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist events who "had trouble" with a seven-hour polygraph test administered by the FBI--but who "did better on a second try."  The suspect still flunked both times.      That remarkable admission appeared in the Nov. 21 issue of The New York Times. In fact, the Times reported, the suspect, Paul Kurzberg "refused on principle to divulge much about his role in the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to Israeli intelligence."  Yet, Ashcroft sent Kurzer home to Israel.      The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, reported on Nov. 23 that "top-ranking Israeli diplomats" had intervened with Ashcroft on behalf of Kurzer and four other young Israelis-evidently all former members of the Israeli Army--who had been taken into custody by the FBI in New Jersey after being seen acting suspiciously in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack.      The Times said that witnesses had seen Kurzer and his four colleagues "going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins" and, significantly, "making light of the situation."

JOHN ASHCROFT Giving a "free pass" to Israeli terror suspects.

     Forward reported that its source said that after the United States confronted the Israeli government, Israel privately admitted that the Urban Moving Systems operation was a Mossad front. Citing its U.S. intelligence source, Forward said:

Although even The New York Times admitted on Oct. 8 (see above) that five Israelis were taken into custody after acting suspiciously on Sept. 11, media sources continue to suggest it was an "urban myth" the event took place.  Recently Richard Cohen, of The Washington Post, describd the story that Israelis were seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center as a vicious, libelous, Muslim-instigated rumor.

     AFP has learned from a reliable source in the shipping industry that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. broke the lease when it vacated the rented offices on the 16th and 17th floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center shortly before the Sept. 11 disaster.  According to the source, Zim's WTC office space had been leased until the end of the year and the company lost $50,000 when it suddenly pulled out in the beginning of September.

     The parent company, Zim Israel Navigation Co., is nearly half-owned by the state of Israel, the other half held by Israel Corp. Zim is one of the world's largest container shipping companies, operating an international network of shipping lines.

     AFP repeatedly contacted Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc. at its new American headquarters in Norfolk, Va., to inquire about the company's pulling out of its WTC lease early, but calls were not returned.

     Despite Zim's desire to relocate, the company didn't stay very long in Norfolk.  Several months after the destruction of its former New York offices in the WTC attack, Zim moved back to New York.  Yet, the circumstances of its New York to Norfolk to New York adventure seem to have been ignored.  Why?

99-YEAR LEASE
     An Israeli businessman from Australia, Frank Lowy, had recently acquired the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of World Trade Center before the WTC attacks of Sept. 11, reported The Jerusalem Post on Sept. 12.

     Lowy is chairman and founder of Westfield Holdings, and the manager of Westfield America Trust, which has a 57 percent stake in Westfield America Inc.  In April 2001, Westfield America agreed to pay $400 million for the lease on the complex though only $133 million was paid; the rest was to be made in ground lease payments. 

     Lowy is the second wealthiest man in Australia and was recently ranked as the 209th wealthiest man in the world by Forbes magazine.  Westfield is the fourth-largest shopping mall owner, with operations in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

     Westfield was insured against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected. 

     In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange the retail chain said that "investment in the retail component of the World Trade Center is fully insured for both capital and loss of income," adding "the insurance coverage includes acts of terrorism."