Simple 9/11 Truth facts refuting the Daily Beast attack on Ron Paul
Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast authored an opinionated hit piece on Ron Paul for expressing mild fact-driven beliefs that the full truth is not known about the September 11th attacks. It is sad that a news website with so many resources was unwilling to acknowledge real facts about 9/11 Truth in the process of attacking Ron Paul for speaking the truth.
Former Rep. Ron Paul believes that the government knew beforehand, in detail, about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and that the information has been kept from the public in a classified section of the 9/11 commission report.
When the host of Money and Markets, Charles Goyette, recently said that it is “shocking that the American people are prohibited from knowing the whole truth about 9/11,” Paul countered: “Boy, that’s for sure. It’s shocking, but then, when you stop and think about it, shouldn’t we expect this from our government? Which is really sad.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
But political risk could not stop the elder Paul, who then went onto say: “I’ve come to the conclusion that all government commissions are designed to protect the government. … I believe that if we ever get the full truth [about 9/11], we’ll find out that our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it.”
Reasonable man that he is, Paul conceded that the U.S. government probably didn’t actually plot 9/11 because, you know, that would be crazy: “Does [foreknowledge of the attacks] prove that our president and others actually sat down and laid the plans and did this? I don’t think it does, but I think it does show that one of the reasons why they want to cover it up is because they don’t want to say, the FBI and the CIA were, at the time, spending $40 billion a year to spy on everybody to make us safe and secure, and therefore they really messed up, so they had to hide that.”
Paul then offered that “our own government did more harm to the liberties of the American people than Bin Laden did.”
The vaunted question of who actually did 9/11 gets murky answers and none of them are good.
At WTF News, it won’t be said that the attacks were done by one single entity like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bush/Cheney administration, “the government” or anything else vague in that context. All of the previous parties named have evidence that shows complicity, willful blindess and inexplicable lies that conflict with the official story. However the singular word for those entities is really not appropriate as people responsible within those entities do not represent the whole. It should also be noted that these 28 pages should not attribute all blame to Saudi involvement as that would ignore serious evidence on the parts of the others named above.
Beyond that, the scope of this particular article will deal with only publicly available info which refutes all of the basic fallacies in the Daily Beast article.
1. The classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report
FACT: There are 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report that have remained classified since the release of the public report.
There is also a 28 page section of the report which is still unreleased. That is prima facie evidence that the world doesn’t know the whole story. Ironically, the info deals with evidence of support networks and where the money and logistics help came from, a subject to be explored more by this campaign. Former Senator Bob Graham discusses this in 2011 article.
From the outset of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, it seemed implausible that the hijackers — most of whom spoke no English and had never been to the U.S. — could have executed the heinous plot on their own. The inquiry proved those suspicions justified, and a 28-page chapter in its report centered on sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. That chapter remains censored, denied to the American people.
Sadly, those 28 pages represent only a fraction of the evidence of Saudi complicity that our government continues to shield from the public, under a flawed classification program which appears to be part of a systematic effort to protect Saudi Arabia from any real accountability for its actions. For example, after a nearly eight year delay, the CIA recently responded to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted on behalf of the 9/11 families in 2004, for reports and documents cited in the notes of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report. Unfortunately, when it came to documents such as a 16-page CIA report titled “Saudi Based Financial Support for Terrorist Organizations,” our own government redacted every word of substantive text.
Despite the carefully orchestrated campaign to protect our Saudi “friends,” ample evidence of Saudi Arabia’s intimate ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks has come to light. The executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow, stated in 2007 that while at that time he did not feel the evidence established “Saudi government agents,” were involved “there is persuasive evidence of a possible support network…”
The information indicating there were networks, foreign sources of support within the United States other than al-Qaeda, and that those networks had the backing of Saudi Arabia, is today stronger than ever.
Here are some of the pieces of the puzzle. –> huffingtonpost.com 2011
Why is so much information classified as 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Kean asked?
Kean said when he headed the commission, “Most of what I read that was classified shouldn’t have been.” He said. “Easily 60 percent of the classified documents have no reason to be classified – none.”
2. Ron Paul is not the only Senator or House Representative with this position.
The point of Nuzzi’s article was to use the inflammatory headline to drive web traffic (money). The only intentional motivation for Nuzzi’s article could be to use Ron Paul and 9/11 Truth to generate this controversy because anything else is either lazy reporting or sheer ignorance.
— WTFRLY.com (@WTFRLY) August 31, 2014
There is a bipartisan bill HR 428 with purpose of having the 28 page section declassified.
H. RES. 428
IN THE HO– USE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 2, 2013
(for himself and Mr. Lynch) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)
Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States.
Whereas President George W. Bush classified 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001;
Whereas the contents of the redacted pages are necessary for a full public understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States;
Whereas the Executive Branch’s decision to maintain the classified status of these pages prevents the people of the United States from having access to information about the involvement of certain foreign governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001; and
Whereas the people of the United States and the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deserve full and public disclosure of the results of the Joint Inquiry: Now, therefore, be it
That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
the President should declassify the 28-page section of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001; and
the families of the victims and the people of the United States deserve answers about the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States.
Mark Dayton (who may or may not have received a death threat which stopped his persistence)
Tom Daschle (VIDEO)
Kirsten Gillibrand seems concerned
3. Saudi Involvement
Before getting to specifics related to Saudi involvement, review the series of events regarding US government allowing key Saudis INCLUDING THE BIN LADEN FAMILY to leave the country.
The frantic rush to get Saudi Arabian nationals – including members of the Bin Laden family – out of America in the days after the 2001 attacks led to public outrage, and was featured in Michael Moore’s seminal but flawed documentary, Fahrenheit 911. Less was made of a return trip by Crown Prince Abdullah, then de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, in 2002. The Crown Prince, Prince Saud al-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan were scheduled to meet president George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice at the president’s ranch in Texas.
No fewer than eight airliners arrived from Saudi Arabia, and as the planes landed, US intelligence learned that two members of the royal entourage were on a terrorist watchlist. The next day, Osama Basnan reported his passport stolen to Houston police – proving he was in Texas the same day as the crown prince. Were the wanted men on the planes Basnan and al-Bayoumi?
According to the Wall Street Journal, the FBI planned to “storm the plane and pull those guys off” until, evidently fearing an international incident, the State Department intervened.
If there was ever a time to play Hollywood style FBI raid, it was then.
For the specifics, this is just one small angle of what is known, it is not the full smoking gun by any means, but it largely proves complicity before and after the attacks.
But only recently has wider attention been paid to the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Bin Laden unit to tell anyone that “muscle” hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, were in the country.
The chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Keane, is now on record  as calling this “one of the most troubling aspects of our entire report”. How is it that, despite having known for several months about al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, nobody at Alec Station saw fit to mention them to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the counter-terrorism policy board in Washington, Immigration or the Defense Department?
The Bin Laden Issue Station – codenamed Alec by insiders such as US Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer – was the CIA unit dedicated to reporting on al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and militants in Afghanistan. It was this unit that had called on authorities in Malaysia to monitor the Kuala Lumpur “terror summit” at which plans for 9/11 were probably finalized. Both al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were at that meeting.
Accounts differ as to exactly when the CIA became aware of the hijackers’ presence in America. But specific orders were issued not to share the information: Doug Miller, an FBI agent loaned to the Bin Laden unit, was among those who received the instructions. In his book Pretext for War, author James Bamford quotes another FBI agent loaned to Alec: “[T]hey didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business – that’s why they didn’t tell … that’s why September 11 happened.”
* * * * * * * * * * *
In an interview for the documentary Who Is Richard Blee?, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke was another insider to hint at possible Saudi involvement. Sensationally, Clarke also accused Department of Central Intelligence head George Tenet of personally withholding evidence from Washington.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Backtrack to January 2003: Prince Bandar bin Sultan is head of the Saudi Embassy in Washington. Bandar was the man at the center of the Al-Yamamah arms deal, a corruption scandal involving the exchange of arms for crude oil with Britain. A White House insider since he arrived in Washington nearly two decades before, Bandar’s close ties with the Bush family are common knowledge. Less widely known is that in January 2003, the Saudi Prince sat with vice president Dick Cheney, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers discussing US strategy for the invasion of Iraq.
In his book Plan of Attack, investigative journalist Bob Woodward claimed that when Bandar was handed a map labeled “Top Secret Noforn” in the vice president’s office, not even the secretary of state had been informed that his country would be at war. Colin Powell has denied this, but the incident serves to illustrate the prince’s extraordinary access to the inner workings of government.
All the more shocking, then, that between 1998 and 2002, up to US$73,000 in cashier cheques was funneled by Bandar’s wife Haifa – who once described the elder Bushes as like “my mother and father” – to two Californian families known to have bankrolled al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. The very same would-be terrorists protected by the CIA.
Princess Haifa sent regular monthly payments of between $2,000 and $3,500 to Majeda Dweikat, wife of Osama Basnan, believed by various investigators to be a spy for the Saudi government. Many of the cheques were signed over to Manal Bajadr, wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, himself suspected of covertly working for the kingdom.
The Basnans, the al-Bayoumis and the two 9/11 hijackers once shared the same apartment block in San Diego. It was al-Bayoumi who greeted the killers when they first arrived in America, and provided them, among other assistance, with an apartment and social security cards. He even helped the men enroll at flight schools in Florida.
When al-Bayoumi moved to England just days before the attacks, his apartment was raided by Scotland Yard. Beneath the floorboards were discovered the phone numbers of several officials at the Saudi Embassy.
* * * * * * * * * *
Then there is the suppressed testimony of Special Agent Steven Butler, described by officials familiar with his account as “explosive”.  Butler had been monitoring a flow of Saudi money to the would-be hijackers. After he testified, staff director for the 9/11 Committee Eleanor Hill sent a memo to the Justice Department detailing Butler’s allegations. When reporters quizzed the Justice Department about the content of Butler’s testimony, they were told it was classified.
If possible Saudi Arabian involvement in 9/11 raised eyebrows at the Justice Department, what would they have made of mysterious but little publicized meetings between the Saudi ambassador and George Tenet? In his book State of War, author James Risen recounts how Tenet “set the tone for the CIA’s Saudi relationship by relying heavily on developing close relationships with top Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan …”
Around once a month, Tenet would slip away to Bandar’s estate in McLean, Virginia, for talks so secretive he refused to tell officers working under him what they were discussing. Colleagues would complain that it was difficult for them to tell what deals were being made with the Saudis. Were al-Midhar or al-Hazmi ever mentioned?
“Bandar and Tenet had a very close relationship,” confirmed one CIA officer.
Here are more key pieces of info
Released Documents Cite Connections Between 9/11 Terrorists, Florida Family
Florida Federal Judge Orders 9/11 Re-Opened
Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
Did the Saudi Intelligence Chief and Other High-Ranking Officials Trade on Inside Information Regarding 9/11?
4. The 9/11 Commission knew it was being lied to by government officials
The Commission knew it was being lied to by almost every department of the government it solicited for info. Multiple members and the Commission co-chairs were already speaking out and the Washington Post reported on the wide scale lies in 2006.
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
Although the commission’s landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department’s early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
For the full picture, this is from the 9/11 Top 50 report on the Commission itself.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a reason that the actual fatal series of events on 9/11 is only 6% of the official report. Considering the study by the Center for Public Integrity which documented 935 false statements by Bush Administration officials related to Iraq possessing “weapons of mass destruction” and linking Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11, there was an environment in which lies were frequent in many parts of the government.
There are a few quotes commonly seen in relation to 9/11 Commission members revealing the lies around the official story.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
A 2006 Salon article covers a few of the Commission members that know they were lied to but aren’t sure what the lies amount to and dismiss conspiracy theories.
I asked Gorelick if she believed the commission had been sufficiently open to investigating the idea that the government, and not terrorists, was behind the attack. “I think it’s fair to say that our assumption going in was not that the World Trade Center was blown up by our own government,” she said, “but had the facts led us there we would not have hesitated to go there. And we ourselves blew up lots of myths — for example, that the 19 hijackers were undetectable, or that there was a relationship between 9/11 and Saddam.”
Slade Gorton, the former Republican senator and commission member, told me that the most serious threat to the commission’s work so far came not from conspiracy theorists but from Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., who alleged that the commission ignored information that the classified military program Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 plotters before the attacks. Gorton and the other commissioners believed that the commission weathered that storm with its reputation intact.
Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”
A portion from 911proof.com sheds more light on the disparity.
But let’s back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures”, so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.
The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the “pre-emptive war” doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).
The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.
More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, “there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.“
For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director’s urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission’s investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word “explosion” does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government’s account which were ignored by the Commission.
Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now “question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report”, and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and “suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts”.
Moreover, the former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses. He has called for a new investigation.
And a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center.
Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.
And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.
Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”.
The article goes on to state “a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.’”. In other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty.
The same journal points out that “Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.”
And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?
Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?
And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime. (Like we discussed in 36)
Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?
Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.
Read the 9/11 Commission memo detailing how 9/11 Commission witnesses were intimidated by government “minders”.
Both the leaders of 9/11 Commission and the Joint Intelligence Inquiry into 9/11 agreed the “minders” were problematic and “obstructed” the investigation. Staffers made it clear that intimidation by minders was widespread and had not only occurred with their team’s witnesses. The memo was discovered by an independent researcher in the National Archives.
The memo, entitled “Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses,” states the following:
Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”
Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;”
Minders’ notetaking “facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission’s lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.”
Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions.”
CLELAND: Because… but look at what’s happening. The Administration, the White House, has put several blocks in the road. One, they run all the information to the 9/11 Commission through a political coordinator in Ashcroft’s Justice Department. Duh. Why that?
Secondly, they want to put minders — that’s people who sit in the room when we have an interview with people in NSA, FBI, CIA, Department of… in DIA — in the Pentagon, and Immigration and Naturalization Services. They want to put minders in there. That to shut down information. That’s not to reveal information.
More on the Commission and conflicts of interest via 911research.wtc7.net
In the fall of 2002, the “National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” was established, partly in response to pressure from families of victims of the 9/11/01 attack.
Originally, President Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, famous for his role in cover-ups and widely considered a war criminal, as chairman of the Commission.
However, Kissinger soon stepped down in order to avoid answering questions about potential conflicts of interest, which would have required him to disclose secret clients.
Kissinger was replaced by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, and Lee H. Hamilton was selected as the vice chair. Thereafter the body became commonly known as the “Kean Commission” or the “9/11 Commission”.
Senator Max Cleland, who initially served on the Commission, was the only outspoken member.
He compared the Kean Commission to the Warren Commission:
The Warren Commission blew it.
I’m not going to be part of that.
I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially.
I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions.
I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that.
In November of 2003, President Bush appointed Cleland to a position on the board of the Export-Import Bank, prompting him to step down from the Commission.
He was replaced by probable war criminal Bob Kerrey.
As of May, 2004, the Commission consisted of the following members:
Thomas Kean (chair) director of oil giant Amerada Hess. business ties to Saudis Khalid bin Mahfouz. co-chairman of Homeland Security Project. CFR member. Lee H. Hamilton (vice chair) member of Homeland Security Advisory Council. former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and
House Select Intelligence Committee. chair of committee investigating Iran/Contra. CFR member.
Richard Ben-Veniste partner in the Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw law firm which represented Westfield Corporation and Westfield America — insurance beneficiaries
of the court-ordered multi-billion dollar payout for the World Trade Center destruction.
Bob Kerrey vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
Kerrey said in a 1999 Washington Post column that
the Vietnam war (which killed over 2 million civilians)
was a “just war.”
Fred F. Fielding worked for John Dean as White House counsel to Nixon –
“Deep Throat” of Watergate fame,
avoided prison time.
Jamie S. Gorelick current and former partner, along with Commission General Counsel Daniel Marcus, of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, a law firm representing Prince Mohammed al Faisal against the August 2002 lawsuit by victims’ families against several Saudi princes and banks, and the Sudanese government. vice-chair of mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Former deputy to Janet Reno. CFR member. Slade Gorton served two years on the Senate Intelligence Committee. John F. Lehman former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan.
disgraced in a number of scandals, including Tailhook.
Timothy J. Roemer member of the House Intelligence Committee. James R. Thompson chairman of the large Chicago-based law firm Winston and Strawn, whose clients have included American Airlines, Boeing, and a number of WTC tenants. Philip Zelikow member of George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board;
member of Bush-Cheney transition team.
Philip Zelikow: Calling the Shots
Chairs Kean and Hamilton served as the public face of the Commission.
Their conflicts of interest should be concern enough, but the real work of the Commission was in the hands of Philip Zelikow, a fact documented by David Ray Griffin, in his book devoted to exposing biases, omissions, and distortions in the Commission:
The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions.
… as executive director, Zelikow was in charge of the Commission’s staff, and it was these staff members — not the Commissioners we saw on television — who did most of the actual work of the Commission.
The Commissioners would have carried out their own distinctive work — their discussions and interviews — on the basis of the material provided by the staff.
Kean and Hamilton refer to this fact in their statement that the “professional staff, headed by Philip Zelikow, … conducted the exacting investigative work upon which the Commission has built” (xvi-xvii).
Griffin enumerates some of Zelikow’s many connections
to the Bush White House:
- Member of the National Security Council of the Bush I administration
- Aid to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft under Bush I
- Co-Author of book with Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor for Bush II
- Director of Aspen Strategy Group, to which Rice, Scowcroft, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz belonged
- Member of Clinton to Bush II transition team
- Member of Bush II’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, until being appointed to 9/11 Commission
Because of the determinative role of Philip Zelikow in the Commission’s work, Griffin dubbed the Commission’s final report the “Kean-Zelikow Report.”
Washington’s Blog on Zelikow and influence
As everyone knows, Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, is an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true. We all know that he controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article). Zelikow is arguably the single most responsible person in covering up the truth about 9/11.
Well, it turns out that Zelikow also wrote a hit piece against Pearl Harbor truth for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Washington’s Blog on Lehman, another PNAC conspirator.
But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?
Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:
“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest” (3:48 into video)
He went on to say:
“All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest” (4:09 into video)
This is important because many people have assumed that — even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest — the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.
Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”. Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC’s plea for “a new Pearl Harbor”. See this video and this essay.
Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland on the lies and corruption that made him walk away from the 9/11 Commission
Democracy Now (2004)
To talk about the commission, we are joined by one of its former members, former Georgia senator Max Cleland. After his appointment to the commission in 2002, Cleland became the chief critic of the White House stonewalling over releasing documents and lack of cooperation.
In October last year, Cleland said the Bush administration was purposely stalling the investigation because of the 2004 election. Cleland said, “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”
In November, after the White House set conditions for the examination of documents Cleland said, “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.”
In December 2003, Cleland stepped down from the commission to become a member of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Max Cleland, former Georgia senator. In 2002, he was appointed to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In December 2003, he stepped down from the commission to become a member of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We welcome former senator Max Cleland to Democracy Now!
MAX CLELAND: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: Good to have you with us. Can you talk about the hearings and why you feel that the 9-11 commission that you served on has been compromised?
MAX CLELAND: Well, first of all, let’s look at what Richard Clarke has said. That’s the man in the White House serving four Presidents, three Republicans and one Democrat, the man responsible for monitoring terrorist activity and threats to the United States. He has come out with a scathing indictment of President Bush, saying he has handled the problem terribly because he had an obsession, basically, he and his top advisers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, with Iraq. Not an obsession with Osama bin Laden and the terrorist cadre that was increasingly being formed in the 1990’s that is responsible, we now know, for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors, or an increasing number of attacks and then ultimately the attack on 9-11. And yet this administration has chosen to focus on Iraq, not al Qaeda. Why? I think that is why the 9-11 commission has been dissed because if you really go into it, you really go into 9-11. You realize that this government had more information at its disposal and, in many ways, failed to understand the threat from al Qaeda, or discounted people like George Tenet who, from 1998 on, said that we were at war with al Qaeda. So, what happens here is that the real information that we did have from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. about al Qaeda was relatively dissed and then Cheney and others went to the C.I.A. and said, look, give us the information that we really want. Richard Clarke recounts in his book that the 12th of September, after Condoleezza Rice had put Richard Clarke in charge of the emergency response in the situation room. The next day Richard Clarke goes in the situation room and they’re all talking about Iraq, not al Qaeda. Why is that? Why would the President continue to insist without any shred of evidence to connect Saddam Hussein with this attack? And why would Rumsfeld, on the day of the attacks, September 11, as revealed by Bob Woodward’s book “Bush at War” published two years ago, in his handwritten notes, say put it all together, tie it all together? Because they had a predisposition back to 1992 to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because I think the Neocons, the Right-wing in America, felt that president Bush I got beaten primarily because he didn’t take out Saddam Hussein because — so that became the real litmus test for foreign policy for the Neocons and for the Right wing. And once Bush got elected and Cheney was Vice President and Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Wolfowitz was the number two in the Department of Defense, the Cheney-Wolfowitz plan dating from 1992, to take out Saddam Hussein became the operative foreign policy agenda. Item number one. We now know from secretary O’Neill, a Republican, who was Treasury Secretary under George Bush for a while, that within 10 days of the inauguration of President Bush, he was talking about invading Iraq. So, now if we really examine 9-11, we find that this administration, President Bush, has used 9-11 and the tragedy to this country and to the families in this country, the over 3,000 people who were lost, used that as an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein, not a reason to create the war in Iraq. So, they created a war that they were already predisposed to do and 9-11 gave them the excuse. That is why Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. That is why Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre are still blowing up people by the hundreds most recently in Spain, which changed that government and now Spain is withdrawing from Iraq.
I mean, we have a killer and killer organization on the loose and this President has chosen another course to pursue because of his own predilections to I guess avenge his father or follow the Neocon path that Saddam Hussein was the real enemy. The real enemy is Al Qaeda and that’s what the 9-11 commission will increasingly find in testimony and they will increasingly find that this government had more information about Al Qaeda from the FBI, dating back to 1994 that planes were planned to be used to hit major targets like big buildings. And if you follow the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Al Qaeda in many ways was behind that and why — why — they didn’t take their eye off the ball.
But this administration took its eye off the ball and, with a war in Iraq, has got our cream of American forces now bogged down there. We’re losing two soldiers a day and I think it is a disaster.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Max Cleland also served on the 9-11 commission. A pair of public interest groups, the 9-11 Family Steering Committee and the 9-11 Citizens Watch have called for the resignation of the Director of the Independent 9-11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow. It turns out that in Richard Clarke’s book, he reveals how Zelikow participated in Bush administration briefings on Al Qaeda prior to 9-11-and they’re saying that this compromises him, since the mandate of the commission was to investigate the source of failures. It is now apparent why they said there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We can now see that trail would lead to the staff Director himself. Your response.
MAX CLELAND: That’s not the staff director’s fault, it is the White House’s fault. It’s president Bush’s fault. President Bush personally has nixed the effort of the 9-11 Commission to get all the documents in the White House, especially the Presidential daily briefs, which basically tell the Commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regards to the potential attack on 9-11 and the attack itself and the follow-up. He has personally nixed that information coming to 9-11. That means to me that all of the members of that commission will never get to see the real documents that I think are sensitive. The President, as I think John Kerry mentioned, had time to go to rodeo, but didn’t have time to appear fully before the 9-11 commission.
Truth of the matter is, the White House has played cover-up and a slow walk to this game from the beginning. Now after sewing to the wind, they’re reaping the whirl wind. Now what they’ve done is forced the Congress to extend the 9-11 Commission two more months, which kicks the final report in July right before the Democratic National Convention. That’s not the Democrats’ fault. That’s not the 9-11 Commission’s fault. That is the fault of the White House, to slow up this thing and it never even held any public hearing for six months.
AMY GOODMAN: Now Senator Cleland, we should say that you are actively campaigning for Senator Kerry.
MAX CLELAND: I am.
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of being a Commissioner, for the periods you served on the 9-11 Commission, what access to documents did you have?
MAX CLELAND: Well, first of all, not much. While I was there, through December of last year, and I was on the commission from December 15 of the previous year, 2002, to December of this past year, for a year. I was there for a whole year. I was ready to go to work December 15.
AMY GOODMAN: You have 10 seconds.
MAX CLELAND: The commission had to subpoena the F.A.A. for documents, had to subpoena NORAD for documents and they will never get the full story. That is one of the tragedies. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, former Georgia Senator, and former member of the 9-11 Commission, Max Cleland. That does it for the show. Tomorrow, we bring you highlights of today’s 9-11 hearings.
5. Foreknowledge, Able Danger, NORAD drills and the inability to see the attacks coming
Ron Paul believes it is very possible that “our government had it in the records exactly what the plans were, or at least close to it” referring to foreknowledge that should have indicated the attacks were coming and somehow failed to stop them. The article to this point has many documented instances of lies and deception around the investigation and specific info. These are largely related . Looking past the known surveillance of the Saudis and multiple hijackers, start with Able Danger, who’s lead whistleblower, retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. (He is a regular on Fox News now Olivia Nuzzi, not good enough?)
Read more in this 9/11 Top 50 update
Able Danger in a nutshell, as described by Wikipedia: Able Danger was a classified military planning effort led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was created as a result of a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early October 1999 by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, to develop an information operations campaign plan against transnational terrorism.
Anthony Shaffer was one of the major players in this operation. This operation identified four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers a year before the terror attacks, one of them being Mohammad Atta. Shaffer has stated that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly evaluate intelligence on 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. In October 2003, according to his statement to Congress, Shaffer told the 9/11 Commission that in 2000,a DIA data-mining program known as Able Danger had uncovered two of the three terrorist cells eventually implicated in the September 11 attacks. Shaffer told the Commission that DIA leadership declined to share this information with the FBI because military lawyers expressed concerns about the legality of doing so. Shaffer also said that he briefed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet on three separate occasions regarding his unit’s activities. The 9/11 Commission Report did not mention Shaffer’s allegations, but in 2005 and 2006 the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Curt Weldon, publicized Shaffer’s allegations in public statements and hearings.
More on Rep. Weldon
Rep. Curt Weldon presses
Shaffer’s job, as the head of the DIA’s Stratus Ivy program, was to provide Able Danger with top secret, code word intelligence derived from DIA’s Integrated Database (IDB) on intelligence from foreign military organizations around the world and the National Security Agency’s signals intelligence (SIGINT) and geo-spatial databases, including Anchory, Oilstock, and Texta.
In an August 12, 2005 press statement, then-Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) wrote, “Able Danger was about linkages and associations of individuals identified with direct links to Al-Qaeda and not about dates and times. To clarify, Able Danger was a Department of Defense planning effort, tasked to Special Operations Command (SOCOM) by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The task assigned to Able Danger was to identify and target Al-Qaeda on a global basis and, through the use of cutting edge technology (data-mining, massive parallel processing, neural networking and human factors analysis) and enhanced visualization and display tools, present options for leaders (national command authority) to manipulate, degrade or destroy the global Al-Qaeda infrastructure.
“The 9/11 Commission has released multiple statements over the past week, each of which has significantly changed — from initially denying ever being briefed to acknowledging being briefed on both operation Able Danger and Mohammed Atta. The information was omitted primarily because they found it to be suspect despite having been briefed on it two times by two different military officers on active duty. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission also received documents from the Department of Defense on Able Danger. Despite their varied statements, two critical questions remain unanswered.
“1) Why did the Department of Defense fail to pass critical information obtained through Able Danger to the FBI between the summer and fall of 2000?
“2) Why did the 9/11 Commission staff fail to properly follow-up on the three separate occasions when they received information on Able Danger and Mohammed Atta?
“I will continue to push for a full accounting of the historical record so that we may preclude these types of failures from happening again.”
Before getting to more specifics, this particular detail shows the scale of the cover-up
WMR also learned from the DIA source that links between lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and some of his hijacking team members, on one hand, and CIA and Israeli intelligence assets and agents, on the other, were also discovered by the Able Danger operation in 2000.
Able Danger began to suffer pressure from the Clinton administration in 2000 and, according to Army Major Eric Kleinsmith, LIWA’s intelligence head, during May and June of 2000 some 2.5 terabytes of data, equivalent to all the holdings in the Library of Congress, collected on the “al Qaeda” cell was ordered destroyed by the general counsel for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the DIA’s liaison to the Able Danger effort at the U.S. Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was later retaliated against when he publicly stated that Able Danger was completely terminated by the Bush administration some four months before the 9/11 attacks.
Another highly classified DIA program that was monitoring “Al Qaeda” operatives and was shut down in the months prior to 9/11 was code-named Dorhawk Galley. Dorhawk Galley may have involved surveillance of U.S. and Israeli intelligence operatives who were coordinating their efforts with the lead hijackers and their cells in the United States and abroad.
The nature of the specific information available before the attacks makes it hard to deny that there was not only a failure to communicate, but deliberate efforts to hide this info from others who could stop the plans.
The continuity of coverup and conspiracy from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration to suppress Able Danger follows a disturbing pattern that is demonstrated in these cases directly related to 9/11:
- Hamburg Cell . Mohammed Atta, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and their roommates in Hamburg came under surveillance by German intelligence and the CIA in 1998 because of their association with al-Qaeda operatives in Hamburg who had been linked to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Those operatives included Mamoun Darkazanli, Mohammad Haidar Zammar, Said Bahaji, and Mounir al-Motassadek. The CIA station chief in Hamburg, Tom Volz, who posed as a U.S. embassy employee, actually tried to recruit Darkazanli as an informant in late 1999 and 2000. CIA agent David Edger shadowed the Hamburg Cell for several years, before returning to the U.S. in 2001 to take a professorship of political science at Oklahoma University at Norman, coincidentally, just a few blocks from an apartment where an al-Qaeda cell operated that included 9/11 terrorists Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui.
- San Diego Cell . Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed federal government failures, acknowledged that the failure to identify hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar when they entered the U.S. was one of the biggest “lost opportunities.” The CIA had tracked both men to the “secret” al-Qaeda planning meeting for 9/11 in Malaysia, where they and other participants were photographed and videotaped by the CIA and Malaysian intelligence. The FBI claims that the CIA didn’t inform them about the two men, so they had no way of knowing about them.That won’t wash. Available evidence shows the FBI had multiple tails on the duo in San Diego, where Hazmi and Midhar lived with former San Diego State professor Abdussattar Shaikh, an acknowledged longtime undercover asset of the FBI! What’s more, the two terrorists had regular contacts with several other area jihadists who had long been under FBI surveillance, including Omar al-Bayoumi, an agent of the Saudi government whom federal authorities acknowledge as a primary financial conduit for Hazmi and Midhar. Hazmi worked (illegally) at a San Diego convenience store/gas station owned by Osama Mustafa, a militant who had been under FBI surveillance since 1994 because of his violent threats and his membership in the PLO and PFLP terrorist groups.These and a host of other red flags had caused FBI Agent Stephen Butler to press his superiors to take action against Hazmi and Midhar, but they refused. “He saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there,” said one congressional investigator of Butler’s predicament. FBI officials have blocked Butler from testifying before any of the 9/11 investigations.
- Phoenix Cell . FBI informant Aukai Collins, who monitored Middle East terrorist suspects for the FBI for four years in Phoenix, claims to have told the FBI about 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour while Hanjour was in flight training in Phoenix. Collins said the FBI knew Hanjour lived in Phoenix, knew his exact address, his phone number, and even what car he drove. “They knew everything about the guy,” Collins claims. In July 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sent an electronic memo to FBI headquarters in Washington outlining his investigation into area flight schools that led him to believe al-Qaeda may be using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists as pilots. He recommended that the FBI should conduct an investigation of flight schools nationally to see if this was happening. His memo was never acted on.
- Brooklyn Cell . The official 9/11 Commission Report has this to say about Ali Mohamed and his terrorist cell: “As early as December 1993, a team of al Qaeda operatives had begun casing targets in Nairobi for future attacks. It was led by Ali Mohamed, a former Egyptian army officer who had moved to the United States in the mid-1980s, enlisted in the U.S. Army, and became an instructor at Fort Bragg. He had provided guidance and training to extremists at the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn, including some who were subsequently convicted in the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.” Known as “Al Qaeda’s California connection,” Mohamed worked for the FBI’s Sacramento office, while training terrorists and escorting top al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on a fundraising tour of the Golden State in 1995.Mohamed pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2000 and was held in U.S. custody. Incredibly, he has been released and is now again on the streets. He can hardly be anything except a government agent provocateur.
- Minnesota . Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” would have gotten away scot-free if FBI officials in Washington had had their way. Thanks to FBI field agents like Coleen Rowley, who tenaciously dug in their heels on the issue, he was not released and was still in custody when the 9/11 attacks occurred.
- Norman Cell . In addition to Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the al-Qaeda cell that operated out of Norman, Oklahoma, included convicted felon Melvin Lattimore, a convert to militant Islam who now goes by the name Majahid Abdulquaadir Menepta.Mr. Lattimore/Menepta’s credit card was used to help finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing masterminded by Ramzi Yousef. He was identified by an FBI informant as a top suspect in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was identified by witnesses interviewed by this magazine as being in the company of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City. Menepta’s roommate Hussain al-Attas drove Moussaoui to Minnesota. According to FBI documents, 9/11 hijacker Salem al-Hazmi was also seen at Menepta’s apartment, and when FBI agents visited the apartment three weeks before 9/11, they saw several men fleeing through the back door of the apartment. The airline ticket for 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah (United Airlines Flight 93) was purchased from an Oklahoma University computer terminal just a few blocks from Menepta’s apartment.Like Ali Mohamed, Mr. Lattimore/Menepta is almost certainly a federal agent provocateur. As we have reported in a previous article (“Al-Qaeda’s OKC-9/11 Ties,” July 26, 2004), it is almost impossible rationally to explain his record in any other way. When Menepta was picked up and prosecuted, it was for only a minor weapons violation. He was sentenced to a few months in prison and is now back on the streets. Thus, a man who has been tied to the three most important terrorist attacks in U.S. history — 1993 WTC, 1995 OKC, and 9/11 — has been purposely set loose.The current coverup of the terrorist bombing in Norman, Oklahoma, outside the stadium during the Oklahoma University-Kansas State football game on October 1 is yet another wake-up call. The 85,000 fans inside the stadium — and a national television audience — were the intended targets. Fortunately, the suicide bomber was unable to get inside the stadium and took only his own life. However, federal authorities have rushed to cover up all evidence that the bombing was a terrorist effort involving foreign nationals.The official story is that the bomber was a mentally unstable student, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, with no ties to Islamic jihadists. However, news organizations and confidential sources in Oklahoma have challenged that account, producing contradictory evidence showing that Hinrichs was indeed involved with a ring of Pakistanis who were Islamic fanatics. (See article on page 19.)
Much has been debated about the scale of the massive military drills on 9/11, what is not up for debate is that the majority of air resources that would have prevented the attacks were hundreds of miles away while involved in “eerily” similar drills including false radar images and more.
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.
“Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft,” the statement said. “These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.”
A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.
On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn’t anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.
On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it “too unrealistic.”
President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, “Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.”
The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.
But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were “hijacked.” Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.
NORAD officials have acknowledged that “scriptwriters” for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.
Speaking of scriptwriters, there was that time an X-Files spin-off television show featured a terrorist plan to hijack planes by remote control and fly them into the Twin Towers. This aired 6 months before the 9/11 attacks. Actor Dean Haglund talked with Alex Jones about how the CIA introduced the script and later dropped stronger and stronger hints.
Haglund went on to describe the pilot episode of the Gunmen in which the three character basically had to stop a plane from flying into the World Trade Centre.
The pilot episode for ‘The Lone Gunmen‘ (an X-Files spin off) featured an extremely eerie plot where a government faction posing as terrorists hijack a 727 by remote control and attempt to fly it into the World Trade Center
This was aired [six] months before the event actually happened. Haglund’s character manages to gain control of the aircraft seconds before it hits and averts disaster.
“Part of the plot, as it said in the script was that this event would be used to start an international war on terror.” he commented.
How is this possible?
A small faction within the government wanted to carry this out in order to create a new enemy and prevent the arms trade going flat after the end of the Cold War. The cover to make everyone stand down in the episode and allow the attack to succeed was the wargames scenario that also actually happened on 9/11.
From the pilot for ‘The Lone Gunmen’ – March 4, 2001
Infowars also covers the military-industrial complex influence on movies and the industry at large.
The show was used to subconsciously manipulate people to believe that if these events did actually happen, it would be like a film, not a part of reality, therefore we should not worry too much. Anyone who would dare to say that the Government were responsible for such terrorist attacks would immediately be branded a “lunatic conspiracy theorist, like those guys from the X-Files.”
Interestingly, Haglund also revealed that representatives of the FBI and NASA would frequently approach X-Files series creator Chris Carter with plots for stories and noted also that CIA and other government officials frequented Hollywood parties to plant script ideas.
It is well-known that the Pentagon has a heavy influence in most big budget military films– trading access to bases, planes and other equipment for heavily influence and control of the message in scripts– and it is clear that such government forces meddle in other areas of media as well.
Corbett Report’s 5 minute guide to 9/11 Truth
Letter from Sibel Edmonds to the 9/11 Commission
Dear Chairman Kean:
It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, during which time we have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission 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” [pdf]. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report and its recommendations with 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, as a witness to the commission, made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues I am not aware of were also 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 omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American citizen, a former FBI 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, request your response to the following questions and issues.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, we, the translators at the FBI’s largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down or even stop translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of an “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 translations, 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 from October 2002 provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (please refer to Sen. Grassley’s and Sen. Leahy’s letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). Apparently, this confirmed report has been 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 acount 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 Feb. 11, 2004).
Today, almost three years after 9/11, 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 counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts. Your report omits any reference to this most serious issue, foregoing any accountability whatsoever, and your recommendations refrain from addressing this issue, which will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why does your report exclude this information 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 bureaucrat, the “intelligence czar,” in a cocoon away from the action, address and resolve this problem?
Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish translator, was hired by the FBI after Sept. 11 and placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau’s investigation. Dickerson was granted top secret clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Dickerson used to work for semi-legit organizations that were FBI targets of investigation. She had ongoing relationships with two individuals who were FBI targets of investigation. For months, 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.” Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI’s investigations and our fight against terrorism. With the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, she took hundreds of pages of top-secret intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. With Feghali’s assistance, she forged signatures on top-secret documents related to 9/11 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 to have this security breach and espionage case investigated and publicized, especially after the Robert Hanssen scandal. The Melek Can Dickerson case was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It received major coverage by the press. According to Director Robert Mueller, the inspector general criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue the espionage report on Melek Can Dickerson. 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.
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, the same people remain in charge of translation quality and security. Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and no criminal investigation has been opened. Not only does the supervisor who facilitated this criminal conduct remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI’s counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. Your report omits these significant incidents, and your recommendations do not address this serious security breach and likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and 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 from translation. Why does your report 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 an “intelligence czar” solve this problem?
More than four months prior to the Sept. 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 or 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 Counterterrorism 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 9/11 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 a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001. Furthermore, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller saying that Mueller was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing. Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on Feb. 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, locations, witness names, and contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004 and given to your investigators). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. 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).
Almost three years after Sept. 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 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and its 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 U.S. 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, D.C., and the FBI Washington Field Office in Washington, D.C. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered was one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why does your report 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 not asking him questions regarding this significant incident? (Please remember that you ran out of questions to ask during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a “time limit.”) How can budget increases remedy the failures of mid-level bureaucrats at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of an “intelligence czar” fix 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 a lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked at FBI HQ as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everyone at FBI HQ 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 (Turks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, etc.). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, yet the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Furthermore, these detainees were either released, detained or prosecuted based on translations by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Sen. Grassley and Sen. Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen’s case (please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). The program 60 Minutes showed Kevin’s picture and listed him as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantanamo Bay, as confirmed by the FBI. The Department of Justice Inspector General provided a detailed account of these problems. I provided your investigators with a specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this.
After over two years since Kevin Taskesen’s case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since 60 Minutes broadcast Taskesen’s case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position as sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to translate 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 hiring department who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism remain in their positions. Yet your report does not mention this case or the chronic problems within the FBI translation, hiring and screening departments. Accountability for those responsible for these practices that endanger our national security is not brought up even once in your report. Why does your report exclude these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received?
In October 2001, approximately one month after the Sept. 11 attack, an agent returned a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office to have it re-translated. This special agent rightfully believed that, considering the suspect under surveillance and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed information that could prove 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 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 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, Feghali sent the agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. Feghali argued that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The special agent never received an 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. This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General.
Only one month after the catastrophic events of Sept. 11, while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, 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 ongoing terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconduct. After this supervisor’s prior misconduct was reported to the FBI’s higher-level management, the Inspector General’s Office, the United States Congress, and the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to supervisor of the FBI’s Arabic language unit. Today, Mike Feghali remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving the chit-chat 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 9/11 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. Why does your report exclude this information despite all the evidence and briefings you received?
The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information within and between intelligence agencies. The public has still not been told of the intentional obstruction of intelligence. The public has not been told that certain information, despite its relevance to terrorist activities, is not shared with counterterrorism units. This was true prior to 9/11, and it remains true today. If counterintelligence receives information about terrorism that implicates certain nations, semi-legit organizations or the politically powerful in this country, then that information is not shared with counterterrorism, regardless of the consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents have cited “direct pressure by the State Department.” The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed evidence regarding this issue. I provided your investigators with an account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities.
After almost three years, the American people still do not know that thousands of lives are jeopardized under apolicy of “protecting certain foreign business relations.” The victims’ family members still do not realize that answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years have been blocked in the interest of “safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.” Your hearings and your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken, unwritten practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Despite your full awareness of criminal conduct by high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations, even though you are required to do so. How can budget increases resolve these problems when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can an “intelligence czar” override these policies and practices?
I know for a fact that intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as a relatively insignificant issue. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack will probably come in the form of a text in a foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to a translation unit headed 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 criminal activities and security breaches, and who has covered up failures and criminal conduct within the department. That message may go to an unqualified translator such as Kevin Taskesen, so it may never be translated correctly and acted upon. That message may go to an agent of a foreign organization who works as an FBI translator. If an attack then occurs, one that could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell the families of the 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 in the crucial months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and in light of my firsthand knowledge of certain cases within the Bureau’s language units. As you are fully aware, the problems cited in this letter are by no means based upon personal opinion or unverified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents have been 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, your commission’s hearings, 567-page report and recommendations do not 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 an 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 disregarded 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 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-9/11, 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 putting a gold-lined porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth without first treating the root.
Sibel D. Edmonds