The 9-11 Commission Report: the greatest whitewash since the Warren Commission's report
Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame, according to the twisted logic of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission.
So who is talking about logic in this Bushwellian land? Surely not the 9-11 victims' families, who were bought off for an average of $2 million each, that are patting themselves on the back for forcing the Bushies to set up this travesty of a commission, comprised of handpicked cronies.
Having spent several hours—hours that could have been better used—going through the 567-page "report," we agree with Kurt Nimmo that it is a "fantasy novel."
The only dots it connects are the ones in the Official 9-11 Legend, which will now stand alongside the Warren Whitewash Commission Report on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Only this time, instead of Arlen Specter's "pristine bullet" theory, we have all these Arab men flying in and out of the US—some with dodgy passports or expired visas—meeting with their cohorts around the world, between learning how to fly airplanes at flight schools around the US, while telling their flight instructors they could skip the parts about taking off and landing the crafts. And no one noticed? Not even when they were told about these antics? When some of these alleged hijackers were on "terrorist" watch lists?
Yet, millions of our ignorant fellow Americans—especially those in the corporate media—will buy into the fantasy. ABC News' John Donvan called this work of fiction the greatest thing since the Warren Whitewash Commission's work of fiction.
If that isn't scary enough, now the corporate media, the knuckleheads in Congress and the dolts on the street who appear on camera are clamoring to implement the commission's recommendations to keep them "safe" from brown-skinned Muslims out to kill them. Hey, we don't need no steenking freedom. Hello, police state.
Why NBC's flagship station, WNBC, in New York announced it is going to run a daily countdown until the final elements of the police state are in place.
The New York Times offered up this bit of Bushwellianism: "As expected, the commission called for creation of a new national intelligence director to supplant some functions now performed by the director of central intelligence, who heads not only the Central Intelligence Agency but supervises the work of a dozen or more agencies scattered through the government. 'No one person can do all these things,' the commission said."
Let's see, no one person can do it all, so let's have a spook czar—a cabinet level spook czar. Got it? Does that mean there will be some divine intervention in the choice of the political hack to "do all these things" that the CIA director can't do? Drat, there we go with logic again.
Not exactly, according to the next paragraph in the same NYT article: "It called, too, for creation of a national counterterrorism center that would both unify strategic intelligence-gathering against Islamic terrorists and operational planning against them. But the report emphasizes that the enemy is not Islam, 'the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam.'
Aha, another multi-billion dollar agency. And only to gather "intelligence" against "Islamic terrorists?"
What about the perversion of Christianity and Judaism? You know, those Christian terrorists who torch abortion clinics and kill doctors? What about those Zionist terrorists who are slaughtering Palestinians and threatening those of us who speak out against the genocide? What about those Christians terrorists who are aiding and abetting the Zionist terrorists in the hope of bringing about Armageddon, and, if successful, plan to kill all the Jews, along with all others, who refuse to accept Christ as their savior?
Yes, this shameful work of fiction goes on for pages in a thinly veiled indictment of Muslims, particularly brown-skinned Muslims, for the horrific acts that should be laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Then, this is a work of fiction.
The commission has the audacity to falsely talk about the failure of "imagination." The imagination was there, but the commission chose not to mention Operation Northwoods, dreamt up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, which laid out a scenario similar to what happened on 9-11, as a way of conning the American people into going to war against Castro. Nor did the commission make any reference to the Project for a New American Century, which said the US might need a "new Pearl Harbor" to achieve global hegemony.
Nowhere does the commission point out that Osama bin Laden was the CIA's point man in Afghanistan, during the time the Reagan administration was bent on pushing the Soviets out of that country. Nor does the commission note that al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA, born out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, which it armed and financed. Yes, we loved those "Muslims" when they were doing our dirty work, but they have served their purpose and now they are "evildoers."
While the commission admitted there were no ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, it failed to mention that Saddam also was the recipient of US largesse and weapons of mass destruction, when the double-dealing Reagan administration wanted him to win the war with Iran. What the Reaganites didn't tell him was they also were trading arms for hostages with Iran at the same time, in order to illegally finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
But the commission didn't see it as its job to connect those dots, so people would understand who was really behind 9-11, how 9-11 was used to strip us of our freedoms and illegally invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If it had, and had laid blame at the feet of the real perpetrators, the American people would have the big picture of this failed mad scheme that cost this country what little respect it had left in the world and why there are now people who truly hate us.
Had the commission stepped back and reflected on the nightmare we're in, it would have seen that the way out is not with "intelligence" czars, national counterterrorism centers, taking away more of our freedoms, preemptive strikes on sovereign nations, labeling other people "terrorists" and "evildoers" and a bogus "war on terror." The way out is by changing our attitude toward the world; by reeling in the corporations that exploit other peoples and their resources; by respecting other peoples and the sovereignty of their nations. But that wasn't the commission's job, either. Nor could we expect the corporate-connected commissioners to bite the hand that feeds them.
The commission was tasked with shoring up the Bushwellian Official 9-11 Legend for the consumption of the ignorant, without causing those responsible for the dastardly deed to be brought to justice, and persuading the people to trade the rest of their liberty for "safety." If Benjamin Franklin were still with us, he would say that people who would do that are deserving of neither liberty nor safety.
Bev Conover
Online Journal Editor & Publisher
So who is talking about logic in this Bushwellian land? Surely not the 9-11 victims' families, who were bought off for an average of $2 million each, that are patting themselves on the back for forcing the Bushies to set up this travesty of a commission, comprised of handpicked cronies.
Having spent several hours—hours that could have been better used—going through the 567-page "report," we agree with Kurt Nimmo that it is a "fantasy novel."
The only dots it connects are the ones in the Official 9-11 Legend, which will now stand alongside the Warren Whitewash Commission Report on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Only this time, instead of Arlen Specter's "pristine bullet" theory, we have all these Arab men flying in and out of the US—some with dodgy passports or expired visas—meeting with their cohorts around the world, between learning how to fly airplanes at flight schools around the US, while telling their flight instructors they could skip the parts about taking off and landing the crafts. And no one noticed? Not even when they were told about these antics? When some of these alleged hijackers were on "terrorist" watch lists?
Yet, millions of our ignorant fellow Americans—especially those in the corporate media—will buy into the fantasy. ABC News' John Donvan called this work of fiction the greatest thing since the Warren Whitewash Commission's work of fiction.
If that isn't scary enough, now the corporate media, the knuckleheads in Congress and the dolts on the street who appear on camera are clamoring to implement the commission's recommendations to keep them "safe" from brown-skinned Muslims out to kill them. Hey, we don't need no steenking freedom. Hello, police state.
Why NBC's flagship station, WNBC, in New York announced it is going to run a daily countdown until the final elements of the police state are in place.
The New York Times offered up this bit of Bushwellianism: "As expected, the commission called for creation of a new national intelligence director to supplant some functions now performed by the director of central intelligence, who heads not only the Central Intelligence Agency but supervises the work of a dozen or more agencies scattered through the government. 'No one person can do all these things,' the commission said."
Let's see, no one person can do it all, so let's have a spook czar—a cabinet level spook czar. Got it? Does that mean there will be some divine intervention in the choice of the political hack to "do all these things" that the CIA director can't do? Drat, there we go with logic again.
Not exactly, according to the next paragraph in the same NYT article: "It called, too, for creation of a national counterterrorism center that would both unify strategic intelligence-gathering against Islamic terrorists and operational planning against them. But the report emphasizes that the enemy is not Islam, 'the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam.'
Aha, another multi-billion dollar agency. And only to gather "intelligence" against "Islamic terrorists?"
What about the perversion of Christianity and Judaism? You know, those Christian terrorists who torch abortion clinics and kill doctors? What about those Zionist terrorists who are slaughtering Palestinians and threatening those of us who speak out against the genocide? What about those Christians terrorists who are aiding and abetting the Zionist terrorists in the hope of bringing about Armageddon, and, if successful, plan to kill all the Jews, along with all others, who refuse to accept Christ as their savior?
Yes, this shameful work of fiction goes on for pages in a thinly veiled indictment of Muslims, particularly brown-skinned Muslims, for the horrific acts that should be laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Then, this is a work of fiction.
The commission has the audacity to falsely talk about the failure of "imagination." The imagination was there, but the commission chose not to mention Operation Northwoods, dreamt up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, which laid out a scenario similar to what happened on 9-11, as a way of conning the American people into going to war against Castro. Nor did the commission make any reference to the Project for a New American Century, which said the US might need a "new Pearl Harbor" to achieve global hegemony.
Nowhere does the commission point out that Osama bin Laden was the CIA's point man in Afghanistan, during the time the Reagan administration was bent on pushing the Soviets out of that country. Nor does the commission note that al Qaeda is a creature of the CIA, born out of the Afghan Mujahadeen, which it armed and financed. Yes, we loved those "Muslims" when they were doing our dirty work, but they have served their purpose and now they are "evildoers."
While the commission admitted there were no ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, it failed to mention that Saddam also was the recipient of US largesse and weapons of mass destruction, when the double-dealing Reagan administration wanted him to win the war with Iran. What the Reaganites didn't tell him was they also were trading arms for hostages with Iran at the same time, in order to illegally finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
But the commission didn't see it as its job to connect those dots, so people would understand who was really behind 9-11, how 9-11 was used to strip us of our freedoms and illegally invade Afghanistan and Iraq. If it had, and had laid blame at the feet of the real perpetrators, the American people would have the big picture of this failed mad scheme that cost this country what little respect it had left in the world and why there are now people who truly hate us.
Had the commission stepped back and reflected on the nightmare we're in, it would have seen that the way out is not with "intelligence" czars, national counterterrorism centers, taking away more of our freedoms, preemptive strikes on sovereign nations, labeling other people "terrorists" and "evildoers" and a bogus "war on terror." The way out is by changing our attitude toward the world; by reeling in the corporations that exploit other peoples and their resources; by respecting other peoples and the sovereignty of their nations. But that wasn't the commission's job, either. Nor could we expect the corporate-connected commissioners to bite the hand that feeds them.
The commission was tasked with shoring up the Bushwellian Official 9-11 Legend for the consumption of the ignorant, without causing those responsible for the dastardly deed to be brought to justice, and persuading the people to trade the rest of their liberty for "safety." If Benjamin Franklin were still with us, he would say that people who would do that are deserving of neither liberty nor safety.
Bev Conover
Online Journal Editor & Publisher
posted by R7 | 9/19/2004 03:54:00 AM
6 Comments:
The 9-11 Commission Whitewash
"The "Independent" 9/11 investigation says the attack could not have been prevented.
Considering who really launched it and why, this is true. The people charged with defending the country are the people responsible for allowing the attack. Otherwise they would have been sacked. The "Independent 9/11 Commission" is made up of members of the bankster elite. For example, the chairman Thomas H. Kean, a former New Jersey Governor, is the grandson of Hamilton Fish Kean, a J.P. Morgan investment banker who was worth nearly $50 million in 1937. The grandson was Chairman of the Carnegie Corporation and is a Director of Amerada Hess, an oil company that does business with Osama Bin Laden's brother-in- Law. Remember Henry Kissinger was their first choice! The "Independent" 9/11 Investigation is no more independent than the Warren Commission. Essentially the perpetrators investigated themselves."- Henry Makow
The long anticipated release of the final report and recommendations from the National Commission To study Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States better known as the 9-11 Commission is out. Most people with common sense smell the distinctive stench of cow dung and bull excrement being peddled to the masses. Commissions like 9-11, the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations are in essence, official whitewashes and cover-ups of the ruling elites' criminality. No one in their right mind for example reviewing the film of the Dallas motorcade that shows President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally being shot believes John F Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman using a bolt action rifle or a "single bullet" shot both men!
Just as the role of the Warren Commission Report in 1964 was to obfuscate the facts about an organized hit on President Kennedy, the 2004 9-11 Commission's role was to steer the investigation away from the real culprits by reinforcing the official lie: "Islamic terrorists" headquartered in caves in Afghanistan planned, financed and executed what happened on September 11, 2001! We are expected to believe rag tag religious fanatics with CIA connections outsmarted the world's most expensive, technologically sophisticated, intelligence and military apparatus?!!! From the very outset the AmeriKKKan public should have known something was amiss when President George W Bush steadfastly refused to investigate what happened on 9-11 and discouraged determining why the failsafe mechanisms, standard FAA-military operating procedures and routine policies were not adhered to on that fateful day?
We really should have become suspicious when he didn't fire or ask for the resignations of every General, FBI or CIA Director or cabinet member with anything to do with protecting this nation? In fact all of them (or their departments) either received more money or in the case of General Myers the head of NORAD on 9-11, got a promotion (to the head of the Joint Chiefs) ???!
That one should really make folks suspicious. Only after two years of relentless pressure from the survivors of folks killed on 9-11, did Bush agree to appoint an "independent commission" designed not to point blame, reprimand or discipline those who dismally failed to do their duty, (which should have been another clear indication, the fix was in) prior to or on 9-11! Another signal this was going to be another in a long line of smoke and mirror shows was that Bush initially appointed Henry Kissinger to head the panel.
For those who don't know, "Henry the K" has been directly involved in some of the most diabolic foreign policy decisions resulting in massive human rights violations and murder in recent memory. Fortunately the Kissinger appointment came under immediate fire. He would have had to reveal his financial affiliations and conflicts of interests in order to serve; not wanting them to come to light, Kissinger stepped down. Needing some home-boys to facilitate the cover up of government complicity and profiteering from 9-11 Bush subsequently appointed Republican former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean Chairman and to keep it bipartisan (meaning in the good ol boy network) former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton was selected as Vice Chairman. Kean has conflicts because he sits on the boards of oil companies that do business with the bin-Laden family. (Usama bin-Laden is the designated patsy, the media anointed bad guy and supposed "mastermind" behind 9-11) Lee Hamilton is a former Congressman from Indiana. All you need to know about his loyalties, is he served on the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions With Iran, better known as the Iran-Contra scandal. So Kean has financial conflicts and Hamilton has a history of covering Bush family member's (George H.W. Bush) dirt.
Kean, Hamilton and the rest of the "Commission" did their jobs. They conducted public sessions that garnered major press coverage but they stated day one their mission was not to place blame or discover who didn't do their jobs but address the "limited intelligence failures". After stalling for two years Bush reluctantly agreed to help but stonewalled and refused to supply requested data and info.
That should have been another red flag something was amiss. Most of the key current and past White House and administration players were not required to testify under oath, another thing that should have made folks go hmmm?. Was that another obvious signal the fix was in? If the 9-11 Commission was about "intelligence failures", why weren't National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency representatives called to testify in public, the NSA has super secret, sophisticated global eavesdropping technology; surely the "Islamic fanatics" living in caves transferring money electronically must have spoken to one another using the phone or E-mail.
In fact many of the highjackers were supposedly known to the FBI, and Immigration, so it strains credibility to think NSA CIA, DIA FBI et al didn't pick up enough activity to coordinate and keep tabs on their communications and movements? Also why wasn't the FBI's existing eavesdropping/monitoring technology used to track the rash of "Put" options that took place right before 9-11. Someone was planning to make a bundle off of their knowledge of the impending catastrophe but the 9-11 Commission never addressed that, how come?
We could go on, my point is, the 9-11 Commission did its job. It ignored the obvious and now is recommending more domestic surveillance, more secret police and spying which will be done on ordinary citizens?!!
They get three birds with one stone: a cover-up of the real 9-11 culprits, they blanketly target Arab and Islamic elements as the enemy and they move AmeriKKKa closer to a fascist police state by calling for a cabinet level intelligence co-ordinator, amidst already cacophonous predictions of future terrorist attacks. You gotta admit these dudes are slick.
Junious Ricardo Stanton
Letter to Thomas Kean from Sibel Edmonds
Dear Chairman Kean:
It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11 [2001], during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9-11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American citizen, a former FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice inspector general investigation, and a witness for your own 9-11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:
After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of "extensive backlog of untranslated documents", and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up (please refer to the CBS 60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (please refer to Senator [Charles] Grassley's and Senator [Patrick] Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
Today, almost three years after [September 11], and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has forgone any accountability whatsoever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left unaddressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the bureau's investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI's targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI's targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as "Not Pertinent". Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI's investigations and our fight against terrorism. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain [September 11-related] detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret Clearance. Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen's case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (please refer to Senator Leahy's and Grassley's letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley's statement on CBS 60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to [FBI] director [Robert] Mueller, the inspector general criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments' security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic-language units of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has forgone any accountability whatsoever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important "chit-chats" and "chatters" are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four to five major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counter-terrorism Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing "302" forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after [September 11] the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice inspector general. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours' testimony by Mr Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice inspector general with specific information regarding this issue (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the [September 11] attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the "use of airplanes", "major US cities as targets", and "Osama bin Laden issuing the order". Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing (please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with director Mueller and [Attorney General] John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a "time limit" excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Over two years ago, and after two "unclassified" sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary-level English. He had failed English-proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist-related information, and he was sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic-language detainees (Turkish, Uzbek, Turkmen, etc). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen's case (please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). CBS 60 Minutes showed Kevin's picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantanamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI (please refer to CBS 60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice inspector general had a detailed account of these problems (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen's case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Taskesen's case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish- and Turkic-language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI's hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions. Yet your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI's hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a [city name omitted] field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This special agent, in light of the [September 11] terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and re-translated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided not to send the re-translated information to the special agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the re-translation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice inspector general (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11, while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks, the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI's largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9-11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic-language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11] terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with counter-terrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to [September 11], and remains in effect after [September 11]. If counter-intelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities, and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then that information is not shared with counter-terrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited "direct pressure by the State Department", and in other cases "sensitive diplomatic relations" is cited. The Department of Justice inspector general received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue (please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours' testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of "protecting certain foreign business relations". The victims' family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under "safeguarding certain diplomatic relations". Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain US officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, "intelligence czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?
I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the front line in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.
I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI's translation unit during the most crucial times after the [September 11] terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the bureau's language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by no means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a senior Republican senator, Charles Grassley, and a senior Democrat senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice inspector general's report on my allegations, "none of my allegations were disproved". As you are fully aware, even FBI officials "confirmed all my allegations and denied none" during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission's hearings, nor your commission's 567-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report's coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote 25). Yet your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.
In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing "visible", because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing "visible" because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its 567-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre-[September 11], without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability whatsoever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.
Respectfully
Sibel D Edmonds
CC: Senate Judiciary Committee
CC: Senate Intelligence Committee
CC: House Government Reform Committee
CC: Family Steering Committee
CC: Press
Whistleblower explodes 9-11 Commission Report
By Ritt Goldstein
[Original source unknown]
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's own September 11 whistleblower has done it again, this time taking aim at the 9-11 Commission itself.
Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator who has in effect been silenced by the bureau and the US Justice Department, said in an open letter to commission chairman Thomas Kean that the FBI had suffered from a litany of errors and cover-ups of those errors, which had been reported to the 9-11 Commission by Edmonds and others, yet the commission report "contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks".
"In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security," wrote Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American whose services as a translator were terminated by the FBI after she claimed vast wrongdoing within the bureau's translation unit.
Edmonds' open letter, while skirting around certain issues that she is prohibited by gag orders from revealing, is chilling in its revelations that, contrary to public claims by the administration of President George W Bush, the FBI was in possession months before September 2001 of intelligence that Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization was planning a major attack on the United States, using airplanes as a weapon.
These revelations are not new, though the open letter is remarkable in its specificity and naming of names. Previously, while being careful not to violate the legal silencing measures imposed on her by the FBI, the courts and the Justice Department, she has leveled damning criticisms in the media of her former employers and what she has termed the Bush administration's "anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes".
"But that aside," she told radio interviewer Jim Hogue in April, "we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system? They should be counteracting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen."
That interview took place before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon which the United States issued its final report on the September 11 attacks. Despite hours of testimony to the commission about what she knew of FBI failures leading up to the attacks, nearly nothing of this was mentioned in the report.
"While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up," Edmonds wrote in her letter. "I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this.
"Today, almost three years after [September 11], and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue ..."
Specific charges made by Edmonds included the case of a Turkish translator, whom she named, and who "for months ... blocked all-important information related to ... semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with ... [The translator] and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic-language units of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations."
Edmonds also spoke of a translator put in charge of sensitive operations who not only could not speak English well enough to pass FBI proficiency tests, but he also could not speak the languages he was in charge of translating. Despite the fact that his case was made public on CBS television's 60 Minutes, and "after admitting that [he] was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads," Edmonds revealed.
But while Edmonds' letter delivered a cascade of specific allegations, perhaps the most explosive charge she makes concerns information the bureau was said to have received four months prior to September 2001, information warning of the September 11 plan. While both President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly denied that there was any indication that airplanes would be used as a terror weapon, Edmonds revealed that in April 2001 the bureau had information that bin Laden was "planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four to five major cities"; "the attack was going to involve airplanes"; some of those involved were already "in the United States"; and the attack would be "in a few months". Edmonds states that the information came from "a long-term FBI informant/asset" and that it was sent to the "special agent in charge of counter-terrorism" in Washington. She also charges that after September 11 "the agents and translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue".
Further to that, she writes, "The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the [September 11] attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the 'use of airplanes', 'major US cities as targets', and 'Osama bin Laden issuing the order' ...
"All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and [translator] Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even [FBI] director [Robert] Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ... ?"
Given the sweeping nature of Edmonds' knowledge of intelligence failures in the lead-up to September 11, it is probably not surprising that the US government has used its legal clout to try to shut her up. In what the July 29 New York Times termed "an unusually broad veil of secrecy", the Justice Department ordered the details surrounding Edmonds' allegations a matter of "state secrets". On May 13, Attorney General John Ashcroft had signed an order forbidding her to testify in a case brought by the families of September 11 victims, invoking rarely used "state secrets" authority. Edmonds was also broadly prohibited from discussing the facts surrounding her assertions.
It is unclear what personal consequences this latest whistleblowing may have for Edmonds. But notably, none of her prior revelations have been determined erroneous; rather, they have increasingly been found accurate.
A July 21 letter from FBI director Mueller to Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, notes that an inspector general's report found her whistleblowing "a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services". Mueller's letter also noted that, based upon the report's findings, a new FBI determination to pursue "discipline of FBI employees" and "additional investigation" of Edmonds' allegations had yet to be made.
Mueller's July 21 letter, of which Asia Times Online obtained a copy, also pointedly outlined that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "noted that Ms Edmonds, as a contract employee, did not qualify for 'whistleblower' protection".
With her open letter to the 9-11 Commission providing what can only be termed a damning mantra of revelation, on six separate occasions within the text Edmonds identically questioned how huge budget increases and the creation of an insulated "intelligence czar" could alleviate "systemic and departmental" problems.
Mueller's letter to Hatch outlined that the "OIG criticized the FBI's failure to adequately pursue Ms Edmonds' allegations of espionage" regarding the above-mentioned translator who "hastily left the United States in 2002".
Again, the OIG's report is known to have criticized the bureau's conduct regarding its pursuit of Edmonds' claim of ongoing espionage, with Edmonds presently revealing that "hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents" were taken outside the bureau to "unknown recipients" by her co-worker in question.
Edmonds described the FBI's perspective upon this as being "that it would not look good for the bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public", concurrently citing the blemish that the last FBI spy scandal had left, that of Robert Hanssen.
Her letter is particularly noteworthy for its specific naming of those involved in the wrongdoing she cites, and in providing corroboration of her account, including such by those within the government. Notably, two key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Iowa Republican Charles Grassley and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, had requested the OIG's investigation of Edmonds' FBI allegations in 2002, Grassley terming her "very credible".
On July 9, the two senators jointly wrote to Ashcroft, Mueller and Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine requesting that the OIG's pertinent reports be made publicly available.
The senators' letter specified three OIG reports: one on Sibel Edmonds, another on the FBI translation program, and a third upon whether information "obtained by the FBI and other federal law-enforcement agencies" preceding September 11 "was not acted upon, or not acted on in the most effective and efficient manner". The senators requested that these documents either be declassified or made available to the public via summary. Asia Times Online has obtained a copy of this letter in which the senators highlight that they are seeking "to understand how important clues were overlooked", and that the information in question is significant to both the "public interest" and "congressional oversight".
Leahy and Grassley emphasized that they "fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability". They also observe that a failure to provide the OIG's findings "could damage the public's confidence not only in the government's ability to protect the nation, but also in the government's ability to police itself".
Again, from what has emerged from the classified OIG action, none of Edmonds' accounts of FBI wrongdoing appear to have been found erroneous.
In what critics of the Bush administration have long seen as a contrast, a March 22 Washington Post op-ed piece by Condoleezza Rice stated: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists." And according to an April interview Edmonds gave to the United Kingdom's Independent newspaper, she termed Rice's claim "an outrageous lie", saying, "I saw papers that show the US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes," referring to the April information she has now written of.
Of particular note is that Edmonds did provide several hours of secret testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Cutting to what she perceives as part of the US government's shortcomings, in her present letter Edmonds strongly emphasizes an "unspoken policy of 'protecting certain foreign business relations' ... 'safeguarding certain diplomatic relations'", as substantively contributing to the general lack of candor she charges.
On July 22, 2002, Sibel Edmonds launched a civil suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against the Justice Department. The suit cited an FBI release of information that she was the "subject of a security review", that she had been retaliated against by the bureau for her whistleblowing activity, and that there had been "interference" with her ability to obtain future employment as well as a wrongful "termination" of her FBI services.
Asia Times Online has obtained a copy of the court's recent decision, and in its presentation of the case's "Factual Background" - beyond the allegations Edmonds widely made - it notes that Edmonds asserted that "the safety and security of the Plaintiff (Edmonds) and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Plaintiff's sister to be interrogated 'and taken/arrested by force'". It also notes that on May 8, 2002, Senator Grassley wrote to Mueller regarding what he perceived as the gravity of Edmonds' charges, urging Mueller to "emphasize to [FBI] officials ... that retaliation against current or former FBI employees is not acceptable, especially when retaliation endangers a person's family member".
On July 6 the court decided Edmonds' case, finding that "the plaintiff's case must be dismissed, albeit with great consternation, in the interests of national security", doing so as Ashcroft invoked the seldom-used "state secrets privilege", in effect precluding a trial.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS?
NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today.
Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news.
So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day?
No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys.
Who put deadly anthrax in the mail? Where were the jet fighters that were supposed to protect America's skies that morning? And what was the role of our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
There are dozens of unanswered questions about the 2001 attacks, but we've narrowed them down to 20 - or 9 plus 11.
1. What did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice tell President Bush about al Qaeda threats against the United States in a still-secret briefing on Aug. 6, 2001?
Rice has suggested in vague terms that the president's brief - prepared daily by the CIA - included information that morning about Osama bin Laden's methods of operation - including hijacking. But when the congressional committee probing Sept. 11 asked to see the report, Bush claimed executive privilege and refused to release it.
2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?
On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?
3. Who made a small fortune "shorting" airline and insurance stocks before Sept. 11?
On Sept. 10, 2001, the trading ratio on United Airlines was 25 times greater than normal at the Pacific Exchange, where traders could buy "puts," high-risk bets that the price of a company's stock will fall sharply. The next day, two hijacked United jetliners crashed, causing the company's shares to plummet and ultimately leading the airline into bankruptcy. CBS News later reported that at intelligence agencies, "alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market" on the day before the attacks.
The unusual stock trading suggests that someone with a sophisticated knowledge of finance also had advance information about the impending attack. But two years later, no one has been charged in this matter, and officials have not indicated even if the probe is still open.
4. Are all 19 people identified by the government as participants in the Sept. 11 attacks really the hijackers?
Probably not. Just 10 days after the attacks, a report by the British Broadcasting Corp. said that some of the supposed hijackers identified by the FBI appeared to be alive and well. The BBC story said Abdelaziz al-Omari, named as the pilot who crashed the jet into the World Trade Center's North Tower, was reported by Saudi authorities to be working as an electrical engineer. He reported his passport had been stolen in Denver in 1995. Saudi officials said it was possible that another three people whose names appear on the FBI list also are alive.
The article, which can be read at Unanswered Questions, makes a persuasive case that another man was posing as Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of hijacked Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pa. So why did this story line vanish into thin air?
5. Did any of the hijackers smuggle guns on board as reported in calls from both Flight 11 and Flight 93?
Quite possibly. An internal Federal Aviation Administration memo written at 5:30 p.m. on the day of the attacks said that a passenger aboard American Airlines Flight 11 - Israeli-American Daniel Lewin - had been shot to death by a single bullet before the jet slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The FAA insists the memo was a mistaken "first draft," even though the
alleged shooting is described in great detail.
Aboard Flight 93, passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, Deena, in a 9:27 a.m. cell-phone call: "The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, and they are telling us there is a bomb on board."
Why has this angle of Sept. 11 not been investigated in more detail?
6. Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?
During the depths of the Cold War, Americans went to bed with the somewhat reassuring belief that jet fighters would intercept anyone launching a first strike against the United States. That myth was shattered on 9/11, when four hijacked-jetliners-turned-into-deadly-missiles cruised the American skies with impunity for nearly two hours.
Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command seem unaware of literally dozens of warnings that hijacked jetliners could be used as weapons? Why does NORAD claim it did not learn that Flight 11 - the first jet to strike the World Trade Center about 8:45 a.m. - had been hijacked until 8:40 a.m., some 25 minutes after the transponder was shut off and an astounding 15 minutes after flight controllers heard a hijacker say, "We have some planes..."?
Why didn't the fighters that were finally scrambled at Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia fly at top, supersonic speeds? Why didn't fighters immediately take off from Andrews Air Force Base, just
outside Washington, D.C.? Why was nothing done to intercept American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, when officials knew it had been had been hijacked some 47 minutes earlier?
And why has no one been disciplined for the worst breakdown in national defense since Pearl Harbor?
7. Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?
In arguably the greatest understatement in U.S. history, Bush told a questioner at a California town-hall meeting in January 2002 that 9/11 "was an interesting day." Interesting, indeed. In the two years since the attacks, questions have only grown about the president's bizarre behavior that morning, when he was informed in a Sarasota classroom that America was under attack.
"I couldn't stop watching the president sitting there, listening to second-graders, while my husband was burning in a building," World Trade Center widow Lorie van Auken, a leader of relatives of Sept. 11 victims who have raised questions about the attacks, told Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.
Why did Bush read a children's story about a pet goat and stay in the classroom for more than a half-hour after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and roughly 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him that it had been a deliberate attack? Why didn't he take more decisive action, and why wasn't he hustled to a secure area while the attacks were clearly still under way?
Conspiracy advocates have cited these strange lapses as evidence that Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time, but why would anyone with advance knowledge appear so clueless?
For a fascinating read on the subject, go to: An Interesting Day.
8. How did Flight 93 crash in western Pennsylvania?
The most popular version - that heroic passengers who fought with the hijackers successfully stormed the *censored*pit - has become so widely accepted that people were jarred last month when an Associated Press report seemed to contradict it. The AP story took one line out of a congressional report and wrote that the FBI now believes the hijackers crashed the plane on purpose.
Many were dismayed that the FBI would change its story, but the government had never put out an official story. Some unidentified government officials had first floated the hijackers-crashed-the-plane-on-purpose theory in late 2001.
Based solely on circumstantial evidence from several cell-phone calls made by passengers, most of the public and the mainstream media have come to believe that the plane crashed because of a struggle between the passengers and the hijackers.
Meanwhile, the FBI reportedly has enough hard information about what really happened on Flight 93 to have worked up a flight-simulation video. But that video, the *censored*pit audio recording and the hard data from the other "black box," the flight data recorder, is still top secret.
The issue symbolizes the government's continuing refusal to release information about what really happened on Sept. 11. Even some relatives of Flight 93 victims are growing unhappy that more information has not been publicized.
9. Was Zacarias Moussaoui really "the 20th hijacker"?
Almost certainly not, even though the allegation has been repeated hundreds of times in the media. The Moroccan native, who has been in custody since his August 2001 arrest on immigration charges after he attended a flight-training school in Minneapolis, has admitted that he is a member of al Qaeda and wanted to commit terrorist acts in America. But he arrived here much later than the Sept. 11 hijackers and reportedly had no contacts with them.
The issue is important because some family members of Sept. 11 victims who are seeking information about what happened that day have been turned down because of the ongoing Moussaoui case.
10. Where are the planes' "black boxes"?
Nothing is more critical to learning about air disasters than the so-called "black boxes." They are the 30-minute audio recordings of *censored*pit chatter and the fight-data inputs which show the speed, direction and operational condition of the plane, and which are encased in material designed to withstand a high-speed crash. Yet the government has continued to keep a lid of secrecy on the black boxes from Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and from Flight 93.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. Why not? Why not release the information to the public? Why has a docile mainstream media not demanded this information?
And how come none of the four "indestructible" black boxes was recovered from the World Trade Center, even as investigators said that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers had been found in the rubble, undamaged, a week after the towers's collapse?
11. Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?
CBS News reported that the defense secretary was making notes about invading Iraq even before the fires from Flight 77 had been extinguished on the other side of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H." - Saddam Hussein - "at the same time. Not only UBL" - Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Rumsfeld and a number of other Bush administration officials have ties to a once-obscure policy group called the Project for a New American Century. In a 2000 white paper, PNAC - which had long urged an American invasion of Iraq - said that for the United States to assert itself properly as the world's lone superpower, "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" - would be required.
That new Pearl Harbor came - two years ago today.
12.Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?
7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, was not struck by an aircraft on Sept. 11, yet the building mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that afternoon. Apparently debris from the jetliner attacks on the adjacent twin towers started a fire at No. 7. But as the New York Times noted: "No building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire." Investigators have speculated that excess diesel
fuel for emergency generators fanned the flames, but the full story may never be known.
Some questions also have lingered about why the two 110-story towers collapsed. But investigators think the burning jet fuel - compounded by paper-and-electronics-laden cubicles and possibly insulation matter - burned long enough, at temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees, to weaken the structural steel.
13. Why did the Bush administration lie about dangerously high levels of toxins and hazardous particles after the WTC collapse?
Because apparently some White House officials felt that the health of the American economy and Wall Street was more important than the health of New York City residents who lived nearby. For example, on Sept. 16, 2001, a draft press release from the Environmental Protection Agency said: "Recent samples of dust gathered by OSHA on Water Street showed higher levels of asbestos in EPA tests." That was deleted and replaced with this: "The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."
A key figure in the changes was the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who - you can't make this stuff up - is a lawyer who formerly represented the asbestos industry.
In fact, the EPA told workers and residents that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan at a time when some test results had not been analyzed and other key tests had not even been performed. The outcome? Key medical professionals say thousands of New Yorkers have developed respiratory illnesses associated with exposure to the dust. Symptoms include periodic gasping for air, a choking sensation and unusual sensitivity to airborne irritants, apparently from a type of "occupational asthma" called Reactive Airways Disease Syndrome.
14. Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?
We'll never know, but a widely reported rumor was that it was right here in the Keystone State. The speculation is the vice president spent the days after the attack at Site R, a secretive Cold War-era site, also known as Alternate Joint Communications Center, deep inside Raven Rock Mountain. The mountain is in western Pennsylvania, near Waynesboro.
15. What happened to the more than $1 billion that Americans donated after the attack?
The largest recipient, the American Red Cross, says it already has used $741 million from its Liberty Fund to help more than 55,000 families cope with the death of loved ones, serious injuries, physical and mental health concerns, financial loss, homelessness and other effects of the attacks.
Of that, $596 million was in the form of direct financial assistance to families of those killed or seriously injured, as well as to displaced workers, residents and emergency personnel who were seriously affected. Depending on individual needs, this financial assistance included up to a full year's living expenses, estate and special-circumstances cash grants, and more.
16. What was the role of Pakistan's spy agency in the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl?
The idea that Pakistan is considered a leading American ally in the war on terror is both ironic and a bit disturbing when one considers that there are proven links between Pakistan's intelligence agency, the notorious ISI, and the Taliban, as well as likely ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.
In October 2001, the Wall Street Journal and many reputable news organizations in South Asia reported that the head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, was fired after being linked to a $100,000 payment that had been wired to al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta in America to pay for the Sept. 11 attacks. The New York Times said the intelligence service even used al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India.
In recent weeks, two troubling reports have emerged. The highly regarded French journalist Bernard-Henri Levy has written that Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl had been murdered by elements of the ISI because he'd learned that al Qaeda "is largely controlled by the Pakistani secret service" and that Islamic extremists control the nation's nuclear weapons. And investigative reporter Gerald Posner writes that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah not only revealed a link to top Saudis but also to high-ranking Pakistani air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir. Mir, who is said to have cut protection deals in secret meetings with bin Laden, died earlier this year in a plane crash that also killed his wife and closest confidants.
17. Who killed five Americans with anthrax?
Actually, it's not clear whether this question should even be on this list. Two years later, it's not known whether the anthrax-laden letters that killed five Americans from Connecticut to Florida, and targeted some leading Democratic pols and TV news anchors, had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, the list of potential suspects - al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam, crackpot U.S. scientists - hasn't been narrowed down. Our government's utter cluelessness about a reign of terror that rattled the nation and dominated the headlines in fall 2001 is an investigative failure of epic proportions.
One man, a former Army biomedical researcher named Steven J. Hatfill, has been labeled "a person of interest" by the FBI, but nothing definitive has linked Hatfill to the crime. Just this summer, federal investigators drained a Frederick, Md., pond where they speculated the anthrax letters might have been assembled, but tests of soil samples taken after the draining yielded no evidence of biological weapons. And now Hatfill has sued the government for invading his privacy - in a case that may never be solved.
18. What happened to the probe into C-4 explosives found in a Philadelphia bus terminal in fall 2001?
Do you remember this front-page headline from Oct. 20, 2001: "In Phila. locker, a lethal find; Explosive 'would probably have leveled' bus depot." You can be forgiven if you don't. There's been no mention in local media since late 2001 of the alarming discovery of one-third of a pound of lethal C-4 and 1,000 feet of military detonation cord in a locker at the Greyhound bus terminal in Center City, even though it's possibly the most direct link between Philadelphia and domestic terrorism.
Investigators conceded a couple of months into their probe that the trail had gone stone-cold. They speculated that the material had been stolen from an Army base and that the culprit, who rented the locker on Sept. 29, 2001, decided that the material was too hot to handle after the Sept. 11 attacks. The truth may never be known.
19. What is in the 28 blacked-out pages of the congressional Sept. 11 report?
It's not a total mystery. Everyone has acknowledged that the pages contain highly embarrassing information about links between the Sept. 11 hijackers and the government of Saudi Arabia, America's supposed ally in the Middle East and home to the world's largest oil reserves. One of those officials is said to be Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, whose wife, Princess Haifa, indirectly funded at least two of the Sept. 11 terrorists during their time in San Diego. The prince is so close to the Bush family that he's known, incredibly, as "Bandar Bush." This week, Time reports that just after the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. commercial airspace was still closed to our citizens, Bush allowed a jet to stop at 10 U.S. cities to pick up and fly home 140 prominent Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden.
A new must-read book by investigative reporter Posner - "Why America Slept" - takes the conspiracy to the highest of levels of the Saudi government. He says a top bin Laden lieutenant, Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002, stunned investigators when - allegedly given the "truth serum" sodium pentothal - fingered three top Saudis. They were Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the Westernized owner of 2002 Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem; Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief, and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir.
The most incredible part of the story is what happened next. In an eight-day period in late July 2002, Prince Ahmed died at age 43 from a heart attack, Prince Turki died in a car crash and Prince Fahd "died of thirst." Coincidence? What do you think?
20. Where is Osama bin Laden?
Remember how President Bush vowed on Sept. 17, 2001, that he was determined to catch bin Laden "dead or alive"? Well, the good news is that if he wants bin Laden "alive," there's still a chance that could happen. Intelligence experts now agree that bin Laden successfully escaped his Tora Bora hideout in Afghanistan back in December 2001 - when the U.S. failed to commit ample manpower to the chase - and that the al Qaeda leader is alive and well, and plotting new attacks.
"We don't know where he is," Army Col. Rodney Davis, spokesman for America's forces in Afghanistan, said recently. But Newsweek seems to know where to find bin Laden: in the remote, mountainous - and lawless - Kunar province of Afghanistan. The magazine chillingly reported that just five short months ago, bin Laden convened the biggest terror summit since Sept. 11 at a mountain stronghold there. The participants reportedly included three top-ranking representatives from the Taliban, several senior al Qaeda operatives and leaders from radical Islamic groups in Chechnya and Uzbekistan. The topic was carrying out attacks against U.S. interests inside Iraq.
The most chilling aspect of the Newsweek report is that bin Laden has access to biological weapons and is determined to find a way to use them against the United States. A source from the Taliban told the magazine: "Osama's next step will be unbelievable."
But this week, ABC News reported that the hunt for bin Laden has been narrowed to a different area - a 40-square-mile section of the Waziristan region of Pakistan. The report said that local residents suspected of trying to inform Americans about bin Laden's whereabouts were executed in broad daylight.
WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com
The 9/11 Whitewash
Blaming No One
It takes a lot of whitewash to cover over the murder of 3,000 Americans, but that’s what you get when you appoint a “hand-picked” panel to investigate a tragedy like 9-11.
The great virtue of selecting each member on an investigative team, (like the Bush Administration did) is that the results are assured before the first bit of evidence is examined. No embarrassing allegations or blame, just a “shrug of the shoulders” and “let’s move on”.
In Bush-world the “buck never stops”, it just keeps circulating until the public loses interest.
This is the reality of the “500 plus” page 9-11 report, that dismisses the incompetence (or treachery) of the people at the top, as a “failure of imagination.”
There was no failure of imagination. According to the report the President received “at least 12 warnings from the CIA that an attack was imminent”. Either, Bush and his cronies were asleep at the switch or they made damn sure the switch was in the right position for their “Pearl Harbor-like event”. (Alluded to in the Project for the New American Century)
The extent of the “whitewash” was painfully apparent last night on PBS’s Jim Lehrer News Hour. In a Margaret Warner interview with Condoleezza Rice, Warner (who always asks the “tough” questions) asked Rice, “Do you think it was a failure of imagination?”
Rice, who has been at the center of the 9-11 storm from the very onset, broke into a wide, Cheshire cat smile, unable to contain her glee. She knew (along with everyone else in the Bush Administration) that the report put to rest any implication of responsibility or, heaven forbid, culpability on the part of those in charge. Instead, it drew the broadest of conclusions, suggesting that even the “American people shared the blame for 9-11 for underestimating the terrorist threat”. (I’m not making this up)
Both commissioners of the 9-11 team appeared on The News Hour on Thursday, passing “o so softly” over the details, instead, opting to stick to their “talking points”. Those talking points could have been predicted before they went “on air”.
Both Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton emphasized that “When everyone is to blame…no one is to blame” (Again, I am not making this up)
Democratic hack, Hamilton went so far as to admit that, “We decided early on that we weren’t going to play the blame game.”
Say what?
The Administration convenes a panel to investigate the greatest act of mass murder in the country’s history and Hamilton doesn’t want to find out who is responsible?
This is pure gold.
Kean’s admissions weren’t much better. He took the approach that we were simply “caught napping” and so “we should focus on the future, not the past.”
Astonishing….an investigation that “focuses on the future”. This is a script worthy of Orwell.
At least now we know that the expressed intention of the commission leaders was to “never lay a glove” on Bush or his cronies.
They succeeded admirably.
As for the “Independent” Commission’s recommendations; the greatest emphasis was put on the need for a “National Intelligence Director”, who will have authority over the many disparate intelligence organizations and Congressional committees.
As Tom Kean said, “He should serve at the pleasure of the President”, assuring that the position will be filled by a political operative capable of maligning the facts in the same way the Pentagon’s OSP (Office of Special Plans ) did prior to the war in Iraq.
I expect this position to be “fine-tuned” by the Bush Administration to become the foundation of an American Secret Police…the Bush KGB.
It’s only a matter of time.
MIKE WHITNEY
The 9/11 Commission Report is a Fraud
The 9/11 Commission Final Report is a complete fraud. Reading the very first chapter of the report, and comparing it to what has been documented by the mainstream media can, and will, prove this.
The first blaring fraud of this report is what it doesn’t say.
It says nothing of substance about the multiple confirmed war games running on 9/11. Only one such exercise, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, is mentioned by name, once, but merely in a footnote of the report. The multiple war games have been documented by the mainstream press extensively, but widely ignored even by the so-called 9/11 Commission.
During the commission’s final public hearing on June 17, 2004, General Ralph Eberhart, the man heading NORAD on 9/11 was asked – who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of 9/11?
He responded – No Comment. The Commission asked no question of substance regarding the war games in their report or in pubic hearings.
For a detailed account of the up to five war games running on September 11, 2001, purchase “The Truth & Lies of 9/11: America’s decent into fascism at the end of the age of oil.” This book will be available at FTW before the election this November.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
The second blaring fraud of this report is what it did say.
For those who don’t know, NORAD is part of the American military. It is the organization whose mandate is to watch the sky. In chapter 1, the report states that NORAD perceived the following threats to America from the air:
Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat,
But later in the very same chapter the report states:
[the] military [was] unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
This is a complete & total lie, which can, and will, be proven as such in this report. The commission feels obligated to state this lie not once, but three times in chapter one of their report. The report goes on to state
The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States—and using them as guided missiles—was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11
The report repeats this lie one more time when it says FAA/NORAD protocols to respond to a hijacking on 9/11 presumed the following:
the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
That’s the lie in triplicate. Now let’s examine the truth.
Suicide hijacking scenarios had been known to be a real possibility since at least 1995. The final report itself specifically references this fact. Exercises for such scenarios had been proposed & conducted in the past, shortly before 9/11, and on the morning of 9/11 itself.
The list of intelligence and exercises for such a scenario is extensive. At the G8 Conference in Genoa Italy in July of 2001 (just two months before the 9/11 attacks) Italian and Egyptian authorities had been aware of threats that airliners would be hijacked and crashed into the conference to kill President Bush. This threat is mentioned, in part, later in the commission’s report.
On April 18, 2004 in an article titled “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,” USA Today reported a drill planned in July of 2001 and conducted “later” which posed hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets – including the World Trade Center.
How can the commission say there was a “failure of imagination” for such a scenario occurring when it has been documented in the mainstream press that such scenarios were thoroughly exercised by NORAD & all related agencies?
The chapter 1 fraud doesn’t end there. The report goes on to state the following about FAA protocols:
The protocols did not contemplate an intercept
Oh really?
If that is true, then why do the FAA protocols footnoted for this statement – from FAA regulations Air/Ground Communications Security Order 7610.4J – state the following:
Section 2. ESCORT PROCEDURES
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan. [emphasis added]
How can the commission state that an “intercept wasn’t contemplated” for a fighter escort when the FAA law they are referencing uses the word “intercept” to define the escort procedure they are speaking of?
This is Orwellian!
It harkens back to Dick Cheney’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on September 16, 2001 where he had made the exact same implication – indicating the word “intercept” meant “shoot-down” which it does not. Interception is part of the FAA’s Standard Operating Procedure – as indicated by FAA law governing the skies on 9/11 and to this very day. Jared Israel produced an in depth report on this back in November of 2001.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_911murder.html
And these are just some of the lies is in the first chapter! Many more lies are within the 9/11 Report. No section of this report should be endorsed without full recognition of the blaring fraud throughout its pages.
I’ve spent at least 1,000 hours researching 9/11 as a journalist as well as being a 9/11 Truth Activist in Long Island, NYC, at the footprint of Ground Zero, at Union Square Park, at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem and beyond. I would now like to step outside of my social sculptural role of journalist & activist and speak from my heart.
I am disgusted with this report. The lies so blatant, so transparent, and I can honestly say this is exactly what I thought would occur. The cover-up is complete. The whitewash was skillful, but clear to anyone paying close attention. As an American citizen I am heartbroken. I am ashamed of my country – specifically the government and private military contractors.
Martha Stewart wasn’t convicted of a crime so much as she was convicted for the cover-up. The 9/11 Commission is guilty and complicit in the murder of over 3,000 people by spitting on their graves with lies, omissions, half-truths, and with a “see no evil, hear no evil” policy while evil is all around them. This is especially true with Sibel Edmonds, and Indira Singh, but there are so many more!
Richard Ben Veniste, Chairman Thomas Kean, Jamie Gorelick, Slade Gorton, Bob Kerry, Fred Fielding, Timothy J. Roemer, James R. Thompson, John F. Lehman, Lee Hamilton and especially Phillip D. Zelikow – you are all guilty of the 9/11 Cover-Up.
To 9/11 family members everywhere, who lost loved ones that tragic day, I call out to you all to rise-up. Don’t listen to those who would tell you to “Move On” while they have a bumper sticker of the towers on their windshield which reads, “We will never forget.” Don’t wave the flag for a report that uses lies to trumpet new changes to further the loss of civil liberties, Big-Brother biometrics systems and the destruction of the Constitution instead of fixing the real problem – organized crime running the state.
To the American and Global public, I say commit yourself to any and all actions you deem appropriate and necessary. Visit www.911Truth.org and www.911visibility.org to see if any actions there resonate with you to get involved. Get DVD’s, videotapes & CD’s that promote 9/11 Truth and help educate. Come out to the RNC in NYC the end of August. I’ve just been informed that www.NY911Truth.org has hundreds of “Expose the 9/11 Cover-Up” signs that have arrived in New York. We need volunteers to help assemble the signs and distribute them at the RNC. Most importantly, be creative, and come up with your own ideas to promote 9/11 Truth. I front the progressive hip-hop group CLARITY which has completed an entire hip-hop CD on 9/11 Truth titled, “This is Not a Test” that is educating the youth.
http://www.delcanton.com/cds/Clarity_-_This_is_not_a_test_-_Mind_Body_Soul-download.asp
Think for yourself! Be creative!
You want 9/11 Truth on the table? Then get it there! No one else will do it – only you will do it. Only WE will do it. I never wanted to be a journalist, but rather became one out of civic duty. We all need to start doing our part. I need to do more. Don’t expect anything to happen if you don’t happen.
By 2005 9/11 will no longer be an activist issue. By that time the activist issues will be resisting the police state, resisting (much more apparent) fascism, and resisting the draft. 9/11 Truth is our best attack right now. This is the only time I will advocate a pre-emptive strike – 9/11 Truth is the only possible pre-emptive strike against fascism in America and against what Dick Cheney called, “The war that will not end in our lifetimes.”
Choose your side.
www.NY911Truth.org
Post a Comment
<< Home