MANUFACTURED TERRORISM:
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
By Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au April
18, 2004.
There's just one problem with the
official story of Sept 11 -- it isn't true.
Edited for American
Standard English
by Paul Andrew Mitchell,
Private Attorney General
Editor’s Note: Mr. Holmgren has
written to inform us that a more up-to-date version can be found here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured2.html
This article presents a summary of the evidence that the entire event was
planned and carried out by the U.S. government and its agencies.
The research and documentation to support the charges made in this article
can be found here.
To start with, let’s assume that the official story is basically true -- that
19 Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into buildings and
one into a field. As I'll demonstrate
later, this is not what happened, but even if it were true, there is solid
proof that the government must have had prior knowledge and deliberately
allowed it to happen. In order to
understand this proof, one must first know the basics of the official story.
American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, tail number N334AA, with 92 people
aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs, while on route from
Boston to Los Angeles. It was known to
be hijacked by 8:25 AM or earlier, and it hit the North tower of the WTC at
8:46.
United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767, tail number N612UA, with 65 aboard,
including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs,
while flying the same route as AA 11.
It was known to be hijacked at about 8:55 AM and hit the South Tower
of the WTC at 9:03.
The towers later collapsed due to fire and /or impact damage.
American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, tail number N644AA, with 64
aboard, including the hijackers, was hijacked by 5 Arabs while on route from
Dulles airport (D.C.) to Los Angeles.
It was known to be hijacked at about 8:55 and hit the Pentagon at
9:45.
United Airlines flight 93, a Boeing 757, tail number N591UA, with 45 aboard,
including the hijackers, on route from Newark (New Jersey) to San Francisco, was hijacked by 4 Arabs.
It was known to be hijacked about 9:45, and crashed in Pennsylvania at
10:10.
The incriminating anomaly in this timeline is that the U.S. Air Force did not
scramble a single fighter jet to intercept any of the hijacked planes.
A little research into aviation regulations and historical precedent
demonstrates that every one of those planes should have been intercepted by
jet fighters before it got anywhere near its crash destination. The failure to launch any intercepts is only
explainable by a systematic nation-wide stand down of routine air defense
procedures. FAA regulations state
that, if any plane deviates from its flight path and fails to respond to ATC
commands or communications, it is automatically declared an emergency. This is because it has become a hazard to
other planes -- even if no malicious intent is suspected. If ATC has any doubt as to whether an
emergency exists, it is to be considered as one.
Once ATC has detected an emergency, a request is put through to NORAD for an
escort of fighter jets to intercept the plane, investigate the problem, and
guide it back to its correct course, via a set of clearly stated
procedures. Should the pilot prove
uncooperative, the regulations provide the fighter pilots with a graduated
range of more aggressive responses, such as firing warning tracers, flying
one on each side, to force it into the desired flight path -- or even
shooting down in extreme circumstances.
The fighter jets are either scrambled from nearby air bases, or else
by diverting pilots on training flights to the intercept. It takes only a few minutes to scramble
fighter jets, and the process is so routine that, in
the year leading up to September 11, there was an average of 1.6 such
incidents weekly across the USA. A
study of the location of air bases in relation to the flight paths of the
hijacked planes, indicates that every plane should
have been intercepted before impact.
And yet nothing was even scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
The most spectacular example is that of the Pentagon strike. Two planes had already hit the WTC by 9:03
and yet this plane was allowed to fly for another 42 minutes, off course
towards Washington, untroubled by the world's most powerful air force. Only 10 miles from the Pentagon is Andrews
Airbase, a huge installation which is responsible for air defense around the
D.C. area, and maintains two squadrons of fighter jets on permanent standby
for this very purpose, since the security of the White House, State
Department, Capitol and the City of Washington, D.C. are also at stake. This was not an unforeseen
contingency. The Pentagon had twice in
the previous two years conducted drills specifically simulating a plane
strike; and,
for decades, U.S. security services had been wrestling with the potential
problem of a hijacked airliner taking a suicide plunge into the White House.
On September 11, they had nearly an hour’s warning of the Pentagon attack --
and grounded the entire air force -- in violation of standard operating
procedures that are automatically implemented even in the case of a single
plane accidentally deviating from its course with no obviously hostile
intent.
NORAD, after initially admitting that it failed to scramble anything --
supposedly because it simply hadn't imagined such a situation -- suddenly
changed the story a week later, claiming that it had scrambled fighters from
Langley Air Force Base -- 130 miles away -- but they didn't get there in
time. If fighters were really
scrambled from Langley, then how could NORAD -- which issues the scramble
order -- have been unaware of it until a week later? And, according to the times given by NORAD,
the Langley fighters would have had to fly at less than 260 mph to have not
got there in time -- when the top speed of the fighters is about 1,200
mph. And, why scramble from Langley,
when Andrews had two squadrons just 10 miles away -- specifically dedicated
to the D.C. area?
Even more curious is that CBS news was the first to publish the claim about
Langley, producing it without any source
at all on September 14. On September
16, Vice President Dick Cheney was still defending the lack on any scramble
prior to the Pentagon strike, and NORAD didn’t pick up the CBS spin and
incorporate it until September 18.
Then they tried to say that no fighters were available at Andrews that day,
but failed to explain how the non-existent fighters then somehow appeared at
Andrews to scramble a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit, but still
didn’t bother to chase UA 93, which was supposedly still at large and heading
towards D.C.
While the U.S. Air Force was doing nothing, the two officials most directly
responsible for defense of the nation -- Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Richard Myers and President/Commander-in-Chief, George W.
Bush were displaying what can only be described as cavalier indifference to
the horror that was unfolding. Myers
was about to start a routine meeting with Senator Max Cleland when he heard
that a plane had hit the WTC. He went
ahead with the meeting as if nothing had happened. 18 minutes later, when the second plane
hit, and NORAD knew that at least one more plane was hijacked, Myers and
Cleland continued with their meeting.
Then, a plane hit the Pentagon.
And, still they continued
with their meeting.
Meanwhile, Bush was in Florida, about to make a televised photo opportunity
trip to an elementary school, to listen to second graders read, after which
he was to give a speech about the reading program. Before he even got to the school, he knew
about the first WTC strike, but continued with his arrangement. And then, still, before he arrived at the
school, NORAD -- according to its own timeline -- knew about two more
hijackings, which means that Bush knew, but he continued to the school anyway
-- in spite of that fact that the school was only 5 miles from an
international airport, and his movements were public knowledge in advance,
which means that the school might have been a target -- and then he pretended
to know nothing about the attacks when he got there. Before he went into the classroom, it would
have been clear to NORAD that a major terrorist attack was underway.
By 9:05 Bush was listening to a little girl read a story about her pet goat,
and his Chief-of-Staff, Andrew Card, came into the classroom and whispered
into his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC and that "America was
under attack." Bush nodded
casually and continued with the reading class -- for about another 25
minutes, smiling, joking and cheering about the reading skills of the children. A reporter who suggested that he should be
addressing himself to the situation in New York City was sternly rebuked by
Bush, who said that now was not the time to be talking about it. And, at this time, Bush knew that there was
at least one more plane at large -- something which no one else in the class
knew.
At 9:30, with AA 77 still flying unescorted towards D.C., Bush finished the
reading class (on schedule) and then wasted more time with a pointless speech
to the nation, already promising to "hunt down and punish those
responsible," while showing no interest in doing anything about the
plane which was still at large, a danger of which his audience was
unaware. He left the school about the
same time that the Pentagon was hit.
Later, in an attempt to cover up the fact that he'd still gone to the school
in spite of being aware of the crisis, Bush lied about his movements on that
morning, inventing a story that he was already at the school when the first
WTC strike happened. This lie has
worked its way into the popular mythology in the mainstream media. In the scramble to find a cover story for
his movements that morning, Bush also carelessly claimed that he'd seen the
first crash live on TV at the school and had thought it was an accident. This is also a lie because the first strike
was never broadcast live.
Immediately after the attacks, U.S. TV networks reported that investigators
were looking into massive insider trading on airline stocks in the last few
days before the attacks -- indicating that the terrorists profited from
foreknowledge of their actions. Then
the story simply vanished from the mainstream media. Investigative and regulatory authorities
could easily find out who placed those trades; but, more than three years later,
there has been no investigation, no charges laid, and deafening silence about
the trades from both government and media.
Although the government claimed to be completely taken by surprise, it
somehow had no trouble naming the alleged perpetrator -- Osama Bin Laden --
within hours, and immediately threatened to invade Afghanistan. What they neglected to mention was that the
decision to invade Afghanistan had already been made by July 2001, and the
specific war plans arrived on Bush's desk on September 9.
It is a common myth that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the
attacks, but this simply isn't true.
He has vigorously denied any involvement and, according to some
reports, has condemned the attacks as un-Islamic. The myth of his confession is based entirely
upon a videotape produced by the Pentagon which claims to show him laughing
about how many innocent people he's killed.
This tape is a fake. In at
least some of the clips, the person is not Bin Laden.
The U.S. military conveniently "found" the tape in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's translation was immediately attacked by independent
translators as misleading and incomplete.
In response, the Pentagon effectively admitted as much, saying,
"It is not a verbatim translation of every word spoken at the meeting,
but it does convey the messages and the information flow." The Department of Defense defended the
translation thusly: "The
translation is what it is. We never
said it was a literal translation."
Incriminating as all of this is, it only scratches the surface. The FBI managed to name the 19 Arabs
involved within a few days, and their names, faces and biographies were
promptly splashed across the mainstream media. Supposedly, their passports and suicide
notes were found at the crash scenes in spite of fiery crashes which
completely incinerated the planes -- including the normally indestructible
flight recorder boxes -- and all the occupants. In another miraculous stroke of good luck
for the evidence hunters, the luggage of alleged ringleader, Mahommed Atta, was somehow left
behind at Logan International Airport and just happened to contain
instructions to his fellow conspirators.
And it seems that they learned how to fly the giant Boeings at the
last minute by reading flight manuals on the way to that airport -- because
they conveniently left the manuals -- in Arabic of course -- in the cars they
had rented.
How embarrassing for the FBI when some of the alleged hijackers started
turning up alive, protesting their innocence!
And, even more embarrassing when the passenger lists provided by the
airlines to CNN did not contain a single Arabic name. And, none of the names on the passenger
lists are alleged to be aliases for any of the Arabs. How did they get on the flights without
being on the passenger lists and, if they were
using false names, how were these traced to their real ID's and why has none
of the other names on the lists ever been identified as hijackers’
aliases? 19 obviously Arabic men got
onto planes with non-Arabic false IDs, with a 100% success rate? And, why is there no airport security
footage of them?
As the cover story quickly unraveled within a few weeks of
"identifying" the hijackers, the FBI was then forced to admit that
they actually had no idea who the hijackers were. In spite of this, the same 19 names and
faces have been splashed across the mainstream media unchanged, as if this
admission had never been made. The
farcical "911 Commission" treated the 19 Arabs as a fact, waffling
about "missed intelligence warnings" in relation to their
pre-September 11 activities.
And in subsequent statements, the FBI buried the admission of doubt about the
hijackers’ identities with an avalanche of increasingly ridiculous spin about
the sinister pre-September 11 activities of the 19 Arabs, seemingly
forgetting that they admitted these IDs to be fictitious. For example, the FBI rather stupidly
claimed that 9 of the fictitious Arabs had actually been searched before
boarding because they looked suspicious.
If they were using false names when they were searched, then surely
the FBI must know which of those 9 people on the passenger lists were actually the hijackers incognito? And, if they were not using false IDs, can
we know why they're not on the passenger lists? Clearly, the 19 Arabs are complete fiction.
Some critical thinking about how the hijacking is supposed to have taken
place also reveals the story as a bad cartoon script. In the event of a hijacking, the crew has
only to punch in a four-digit hijacking code -- accessible from several
different places -- to alert ATC to a hijacking. So, if 5 men were to try to take over a
plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters, while it
might be possible for them to be able to gain control of the plane, to do so
without ATC first receiving a distress code is almost impossible. We are supposed to believe that they
achieved the impossible 4 times out of 4.
In one of the phone calls allegedly made from AA 11, it was said that the
crew locked themselves in the cockpit, and the hijackers attempted to lure
them out by shooting and stabbing passengers.
This is said to have gone on for 25 minutes. Why then no distress code from AA 11? Furthermore, the timeline of the alleged
phone call indicates that the plane had already turned off course before the
hijackers got into the cockpit!
But it wasn't only the hijackers which were fiction. So were the hijackings. We all think that we saw a big plane hit
the WTC live on TV, so there must have been hijacked planes, right? A closer look reveals it as an elaborate
illusion.
First, let’s take AA 77, the plane which is supposed to have hit the
Pentagon. This is one of the most
heavily monitored and defended buildings in the world, and yet somehow they
can't come up with any footage of the crash.
Because it never happened.
Something hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't a Boeing 757 or anything
anywhere near that size. There are
numerous photos of the aftermath, and nowhere is to be seen any evidence of
wreckage of such a plane.
A 757 has a wingspan of
125 ft., a tail height of 40 ft., and a length of 155 ft. The hole in the Pentagon wall was about 16
ft. wide, 12 ft. high and collapsed only the first ring of the building --
about 40 ft. deep. There is no sign of
any Boeing debris anywhere. No wings,
no tail, no protruding fuselage. The
tail couldn't fit through the hole even if the plane was sliding along the
ground. And because the grass outside
is smooth, green and undamaged, even that is impossible. And, because the angle of entry of the
mystery object was about 45 degrees, 125 ft. wingspan would cause an impact
about 180 ft. wide. A giant aircraft has supposedly passed through a hole
many times smaller than itself, without breaking off any parts, and then
totally vanished.
Furthermore, official aviation records from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation
(“BT”) say that the alleged AA 77 flight did not exist. The BT keeps a record of details about
every flight ever scheduled from a U.S. airport -- even cancelled
flights. No such record exists of AA
77 on September 11. Early reports said
that the incident at the Pentagon was caused by a truck bomb. Witness reports are confused and
contradictory, but some mention a missile or small fighter jet.
Now consider AA 11, the plane alleged to have hit the North tower at
8:46. This is not the plane shown in
the dramatic, often replayed crash video, but the less frequently shown first
crash -- not broadcast until later, when the official story of four large
planes had already been put into the public's mind. Whatever the object is, it is certainly not
a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet. When one views the video at full speed, one
can only see a brief flash and then the explosion. Since we are always being told that it’s AA
11, the natural tendency is to think that it’s just too fast to see on the
video. However, a frame-by-frame
analysis shows a very strange-looking object, more like a flying pig than a
plane. Certainly nothing like a Boeing
767, and way too small. It dive-bombs
into the tower in a manner which would appear to be impossible for a large
airliner.
Neither is there any witness evidence to support a large jet. All early reports say that it was a small
plane or missile, or people who were looking right at the explosion and
simply didn't see any plane, and it only became a large plane after American
Airlines issued a statement saying that it had lost AA11 in the crash.
The BT database also says that there was no such flight as AA 11 on September
11. A close examination of the
passenger lists published by the media for the alleged AA 11 proves them to
be fabricated, because there are impossible contradictions among the lists
published by different media outlets.
Now the South tower crash, the one shown live on TV. Surely this was a real Boeing 767 because
we saw it live, and at superficial viewing it certainly appears to be a large
jet. However, a frame-by-frame
examination of the video reveals that it is not a real plane. It shows impossible physical characteristics
and behavior. It passes through the
wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any
parts. The hole only appears well after the plane has entirely
disappeared without disturbing the building.
It exceeds the maximum speed of a Boeing 767 at low altitude while
banked sharply and flying in the opposite direction to that in which it’s
banking. It hip-hops across the
screen, regularly alternating, frame-by-frame, between supersonic speed and
hovering motionless. It has a strange
anomaly in the shape of the belly.
It is a fake. The plane is simply a
movie. There are several shots of the
cartoon plane that were aired by news agencies at the time. One is undoubtedly a crudely faked
video. In relation to the others,
argument continues over whether they are also conventional faked videos, or
whether they are real footage of some kind of kind of holographic
projection. Whichever is the case, it
is not a real plane, because real planes don’t pass through walls without
making holes and without breaking off any parts.
Witness evidence for a large plane hitting the South tower is as elusive as
for the North Tower and the Pentagon.
There is a police transcript of a report of someone firing missiles.
Aviation records from the FAA show that, although UA 175 existed as a flight,
unlike AA 77 or AA 11, the plane to which this flight was assigned -- N612UA
-- is still registered and valid. In
other words, it never crashed. So, we
don't know where it went, but we do know that it didn't hit the WTC.
And finally UA 93 -- alleged to have crashed in Pennsylvania. Like UA 175, this was a bona fide flight, but the plane --
N591UA -- is also still registered as valid.
FAA records do show the planes to which AA11 and 77 were allegedly assigned
-- N334AA and N644AA -- as destroyed, but not until January 14, 2002, when
the FAA regulations state that the de-registration must be reported on the
day that a plane is totally destroyed.
So, most likely these planes were ready for retirement and were taken
away somewhere to be scrapped.
Now to the question of the collapse of the WTC towers. The official story that they collapsed from
fire and/or impact damage is a physical impossibility. Video of the event shows that the towers
did not collapse -- they exploded in mid-air, and one can see clear evidence
of explosive charges running down the buildings, and neatly chopped
story-length pieces of steel girder being ejected as far as 70 meters from
the building. There are numerous
scientific studies which demonstrate that it’s impossible for them to have
collapsed in the pancake-like manner cited in the official story.
Firstly, all of the concrete in the towers was totally pulverized into fine
dust. The amount of energy needed to achieve this task is quantifiable, and
so is the amount of potential energy available in a gravitational
collapse. It’s insufficient to achieve
this pulverization, which means that only an added input of energy (such as
explosives) can balance the energy equation.
Secondly, a simple application of the laws of gravity demonstrates that the
towers collapsed in a time which was impossible, had the top floors been
smashing through the lower floors.
Excluding air resistance, any object free falls at 9.81 meters per
second squared, regardless of weight.
An object dropped from the top of the WTC would have hit the ground in
9.2 seconds (a little longer for air resistance). The towers supposedly collapsed by the
method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors, meaning that, at
each stage of the 110-story collapse, the falling rubble would have its
acceleration significantly slowed by this resistance. But, the towers collapsed in 11 seconds --
virtually a free fall. Although there
are too many variables to calculate the exact minimum time possible for a
pancake collapse, it would have to be more than 20 seconds. A pancake collapse in 11 seconds is
impossible under the law of gravity.
This proves that the entire structure was suddenly and simultaneously
converted into a free falling collection of disconnected rubble, something
only achievable through the coordinated use of demolition explosives. There are also witness reports from fire
fighters who say that they heard bombs going off in the buildings.
The media like to gloss over the similarly neat, vertical, and lightning quick collapse of WTC Building 7, a 47-story
building which was not hit by anything, but also disappeared in a manner
identical to that of a classic controlled demolition. Apart from September 11, no steel-framed
skyscraper has ever totally collapsed from fire -- and there were allegedly 3
in one day. The steel debris from the
towers was rushed away for recycling with indecent haste, before any
investigation could be conducted into the remains.
On September 14, a demolition expert who works for the Pentagon, Professor
Van Romero said that, upon his viewing of the collapse videos, he believed
that it was a controlled demolition.
Prof. Romero later retracted his statement in mysterious circumstances,
refusing to say why, and refusing to offer any alternative scenario, simply
saying that he wasn't prepared to say what did or did not happen, and didn't
want to talk about it anymore.
The early spin from the media was that the ferocious heat of the burning jet
fuel melted the structural steel of the skyscraper. Unfortunately, jet fuel, which is basically
kerosene, typically burns at about 450 degrees Centigrade, and steel melts at
about 1,550 Centigrade.
Calculations of the maximum amount of heat, which could have been even
theoretically generated by the maximum amount of fuel that the mythical
planes could have carrying, show that it could not have contributed more than
280 C to the temperature -- even if all the fuel was confined to one floor. Each floor of the WTC was about 4,000
square meters. The maximum amount of
fuel which the plane could have carried was about 8,000 gallons. So, even claiming that all of this fuel
burnt within one floor, that's about 2 gallons per square meter-- supposedly
melting steel construction beams.
Neither does the myth of a ferocious fire in the WTC stand up to the scrutiny
of witness or video evidence.
Firefighter tapes describe some "isolated pockets of fire"
which they could "knock out" with two hoses. And the black smoke drifting from the
building indicates an oxygen-starved fire.
Even if the mythical inferno were true, far more ferocious fires have been
experienced in other skyscrapers -- sometimes burning out of control for as
long as 20 hours, and never has one of these
buildings collapsed.
Why would they want to demolish the WTC?
It had been losing money for years.
It’s the most valuable piece of real estate in the world, but the
buildings themselves were a disaster.
Under-tenanted and beset by asbestos problems, the owner, the New York
Port Authority (“NYPA”) had received warnings that it was sitting on a legal
and financial time bomb. And of
course, they couldn't be demolished because of all the asbestos dust that
would go into the air of New York City.
The NYPA had been trying to sell the buildings for years, and
understandably, nobody was interested.
In early 2001, the NYPA
went to court in a test case, and tried to get its insurance company to pay
for asbestos renovations. The case was
thrown out. This should have made the
buildings even more unsaleable. However, immediately after this, Manhattan
property developer Larry Silverstein, who sits on the board of Westfield
America, stepped in with a consortium worth $3.2 billion USD for a 99-year
lease on the site. Westfield Australia
directly contributed $840 AUS million for control of the shopping plaza. Silverstein insured himself for $3.5
billion USD per terrorist attack, and Westfield insured itself against
terrorism and loss of rental income.
Not long after, when the WTC conveniently disappeared in a terrorist attack
-- along with Building 7 of the complex -- it solved the asbestos problem,
leaving Silverstein with a clean building site on the best real estate in the
world, and Westfield with a rental income which probably would have been
unsustainable in a real trading environment, and no law suits over all the
asbestos dust released into the air of Manhattan. Silverstein's insurer has agreed to the
$3.5 billion pay out, but Silverstein is claiming that it was two terrorist
attacks and wants $ 7 billion, which is currently the subject of a court
case.
Very early media reports had the two fictitious AA flights as the planes to
hit the WTC. AA 77 was only switched
to being the Pentagon plane hours later.
UA 175 was the last plane to be "confirmed" as
involved. At 9:17, the FAA started
diverting all flights. Early reports
show wild discrepancies in terms of which allegedly hijacked plane went
where. The fictitious AA77 is
particularly volatile from one report to another, at one stage saying that it
hit the WTC; then
that it didn't even take off for a half hour after the South Tower
strike; then that, after taking off at
9:33, it somehow flew 700 miles out to Ohio and back in just 5 minutes, to
hit the Pentagon. One report had UA 93
landing at Cleveland due to a bomb scare.
What is clear is that they were making it up as they went along, and the
final cover story about which planes crashed where didn't settle down for
hours.
In summary, this is most
likely how the morning of September 11 really played out. There was no need to issue an order for the
Air Force to stand down routine intercept procedures, because it appears that
there actually weren't any hijackings.
Two unconventional objects were fired into the WTC. The impacts were blamed on the two
fictitious AA flights. At this time,
UA 93 and 175 were flying normally.
Then the FAA begins diverting flights -- including the two UA
flights. The BT database tells us of
any flights which are diverted, but doesn't tell us where they are diverted
to. So, we don't have an official
record of where the two UA flights landed, although there is some evidence
that UA 93 actually landed at Cleveland.
Later, AA 77 became the Pentagon plane, and UA 175 became the South
tower plane, as the official cover story started to settle down.
Thus, of the four allegedly hijacked planes, two didn't exist, and the other
two were diverted to safe landings.
Most likely, the Pennsylvania crash was a drone craft of some kind, and there
is evidence that the substitute craft was shot down.
This is only a brief summary of the evidence.
Much material had to be left out, due to space constraints. I encourage all readers not to accept this
uncritically at face value, but to avail themselves of the full documentation
for this summary:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html
The Internet URL for this
article is:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/holmgren/911.Closeup.2.htm
|