9/11 Info Dump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:40 pm

[p.28 of dump]

This FOX Noise series was an eye-opener; it was soon taken down from the Fox website ("This Story No Longer Exists"). I got the transcript back when from Cryptome:

FOX NEWS – 4-Part Carl Cameron Report on Israeli Spying

24 December 2001 – http://www.cryptome.org

Fox News, beginning mid-December, reported a four-part series on alleged Israeli spying on the US telecommunication systems through firms which provide telephone billing and assist FBI wiretaps. Recently the series was withdrawn by Fox News without explanation. The series has been recovered from private archives for publication here.

When the series first appeared it seemed to be another case of Israel bashing, in particular the parts that rehashed years-old allegations (we've linked to a 1996 GAO report cited by Fox, and other alleged participants' Web sites). And the series may well be calculated disinformation, if not by Fox then by its sources.

However, Fox's unexplained yanking the series is worth noting. Except for a few comments on the Net, there has been no mainline media follow-up on the reason for the yank. If Fox found that the reports are in error, that is the sort of thing that usually brings heat from competitors. If the withdrawal was due to government intervention that would indeed be news, but hardly unprecedented these days. If the yank was due to private intervention that too would be worth learning about -- who, when, why.

Note: Links within reports added by Cryptome.

Part 1 of 4
[No date available.]

Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40684,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.)

BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work.

Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn't tell us before Sept. 11. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four-part series.


CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.

Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid '90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity."

The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.

Documents say they, "targeted and penetrated military bases," the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, "stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units."

Another part of the investigation has resulted in the detention and arrests of dozens of Israelis at American mall kiosks, where they've been selling toys called Puzzle Car and Zoom Copter. Investigators suspect a front.

Shortly after The New York Times and Washington Post reported the Israeli detentions last months, the carts began vanishing. Zoom Copter's Web page says, "We are aware of the situation caused by thousands of mall carts being closed at the last minute. This in no way reflects the quality of the toy or its salability. The problem lies in the operators' business policies."

Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.? A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."

A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, "the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target."

The document concludes: "Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives."

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy here in Washington issued a denial saying that any suggestion that Israelis are spying in or on the U.S. is "simply not true." There are other things to consider. And in the days ahead, we'll take a look at the U.S. phone system and law enforcement's methods for wiretaps. And an investigation that both have been compromised by our friends overseas.

HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?

CAMERON: It's very explosive information, obviously, and there's a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected — none of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.

HUME: Going into the fact that they were spying on some Arabs, right?

CAMERON: Correct.

HUME: All right, Carl, thanks very much.

Part 2 of 4

Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40747,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.)

Could information that fell into an Israeli-based private communications company impeded the Sept. 11 inquiry?

BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on the approximately 60 Israelis who had been detained in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorism investigation. Carl Cameron reported that U.S. investigators suspect that some of these Israelis were spying on Arabs in this country, and may have turned up information on the planned terrorist attacks back in September that was not passed on.

Tonight, in the second of four reports on spying by Israelis in the U.S., we learn about an Israeli-based private communications company, for whom a half-dozen of those 60 detained suspects worked. American investigators fear information generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeded the Sept. 11 terror inquiry. Here's Carl Cameron's second report.


Fox News has learned that some American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them, by knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone. How?

By obtaining and analyzing data that's generated every time someone in the U.S. makes a call.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What city and state, please?

CAMERON: Here's how the system works. Most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the U.S. are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private telecommunications company.

Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.

In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret National Security Agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what's called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands ­ in Israel, in particular.

Investigators don't believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. “Widespread data mining techniques and algorithms.... combining both the properties of the customer (e.g., credit rating) and properties of the specific ‘behavior….’” Specific behavior, such as who the customers are calling.

The Amdocs memo says the system should be used to prevent phone fraud. But U.S. counterintelligence analysts say it could also be used to spy through the phone system. Fox News has learned that the N.S.A has held numerous classified conferences to warn the F.B.I. and C.I.A. how Amdocs records could be used. At one NSA briefing, a diagram by the Argon national lab was used to show that if the phone records are not secure, major security breaches are possible.

Another briefing document said, "It has become increasingly apparent that systems and networks are vulnerable.…Such crimes always involve unauthorized persons, or persons who exceed their authorization...citing on exploitable vulnerabilities."

Those vulnerabilities are growing, because according to another briefing, the U.S. relies too much on foreign companies like Amdocs for high-tech equipment and software.
"Many factors have led to increased dependence on code developed overseas.... We buy rather than train or develop solutions."

U.S. intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of information, and Amdocs insists that its data is secure. What U.S. government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime.

And that would not be the first thing that such a thing has happened. Fox News has documents of a 1997 drug trafficking case in Los Angeles, in which telephone information, the type that Amdocs collects, was used to "completely compromise the communications of the FBI, the Secret Service, the DEA and the LAPD."

We'll have that and a lot more in the days ahead ­ Brit.

HUME: Carl, I want to take you back to your report last night on those 60 Israelis who were detained in the anti-terror investigation, and the suspicion that some investigators have that they may have picked up information on the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and not passed it on.

There was a report, you'll recall, that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, did indeed send representatives to the U.S. to warn, just before 9/11, that a major terrorist attack was imminent. How does that leave room for the lack of a warning?

CAMERON: I remember the report, Brit. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the 14th. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and general, and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion being, perhaps those sources and methods were taking place right here in the United States.

The question came up in select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today. They intend to look into what we reported last night, and specifically that possibility ­ Brit.

HUME: So in other words, the problem wasn't lack of a warning, the problem was lack of useful details?

CAMERON: Quantity of information.

HUME: All right, Carl, thank you very much

Part 3 of 4

Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40824,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.)

Carl Cameron
Friday, December 14, 2001

This partial transcript of Special Report with Brit Hume, Dec. 13, was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. Click here to order the complete transcript.

BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on an Israeli-based company called Amdocs Ltd. that generates the computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, U.S. investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.

In tonight's report, we learn that the concern about phone security extends to another company, founded in Israel, that provides the technology that the U.S. government uses for electronic eavesdropping.

Here is Carl Cameron's third report.


The company is Comverse Infosys [lawful interception solutions], a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm, with offices throughout the U.S. It provides wiretapping equipment for law enforcement. Here's how wiretapping works in the U.S.
Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation's elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies. Custom computers and software, made by companies like Comverse, are tied into that network to intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.

The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise, and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system.

Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that "law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted."

Congress [sic, probably Comverse] insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.

Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.

And sources say that while various F.B.I. inquiries into Comverse have been conducted over the years, they've been halted before the actual equipment has ever been thoroughly tested for leaks. A 1999 F.C.C. document indicates several government agencies expressed deep concerns that too many unauthorized non-law enforcement personnel can access the wiretap system.

And the FBI's own nondescript office in Chantilly, Virginia that actually oversees the CALEA wiretapping program, is among the most agitated about the threat. But there is a bitter turf war internally at F.B.I.

It is the FBI's office in Quantico, Virginia, that has jurisdiction over awarding contracts and buying intercept equipment. And for years, they've thrown much of the business to Comverse. A handful of former U.S. law enforcement officials involved in awarding Comverse government contracts over the years now work for the company.

Numerous sources say some of those individuals were asked to leave government service under what knowledgeable sources call "troublesome circumstances" that remain under administrative review within the Justice Department.


And what troubles investigators most, particularly in New York, in the counter terrorism investigation of the World Trade Center attack, is that on a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place ­ Brit.

HUME: Carl, is there any reason to suspect in this instance that the Israeli government is involved?

CAMERON: No, there's not. But there are growing instincts in an awful lot of law enforcement officials in a variety of agencies who suspect that it had begun compiling evidence, and a highly classified investigation into that possibility ­ Brit.

Part 4 of 4

Original source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40981,00.html (File no longer available on Fox News.)

TONY SNOW, HOST: This week, senior correspondent Carl Cameron has reported on a longstanding government espionage investigation. Federal officials this year have arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an "organized intelligence-gathering operation." The Bush administration has deported most of those arrested after Sept. 11, although some are in custody under the new anti-terrorism law.

Cameron also investigates the possibility that an Israeli firm generated billing data that could be used for intelligence purpose, and describes concerns that the federal government's own wiretapping system may be vulnerable. Tonight, in part four of the series, we'll learn about the probable roots of the probe: a drug case that went bad four years ago in L.A.


CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Los Angeles, 1997, a major local, state and federal drug investigating sours. The suspects: Israeli organized crime with operations in New York, Miami, Las Vegas, Canada, Israel and Egypt. The allegations: cocaine and ecstasy trafficking, and sophisticated white-collar credit card and computer fraud.

The problem: according to classified law enforcement documents obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops’ beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught admitted to having hundreds of numbers and using them to avoid arrest.

"This compromised law enforcement communications between LAPD detectives and other assigned law enforcement officers working various aspects of the case. The organization discovered communications between organized crime intelligence division detectives, the FBI and the Secret Service."

Shock spread from the DEA to the FBI in Washington, and then the CIA. An investigation of the problem, according to law enforcement documents, concluded, "The organization has apparent extensive access to database systems to identify pertinent personal and biographical information."

When investigators tried to find out where the information might have come from, they looked at Amdocs, a publicly traded firm based in Israel. Amdocs generates billing data for virtually every call in America, and they do credit checks. The company denies any leaks, but investigators still fear that the firm's data is getting into the wrong hands.

When investigators checked their own wiretapping system for leaks, they grew concerned about potential vulnerabilities in the computers that intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls. A main contractor is Comverse Infosys, which works closely with the Israeli government, and under a special grant program, is reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by Israel's Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Asked this week about another sprawling investigation and the detention of 60 Israeli since Sept. 11, the Bush administration treated the questions like hot potatoes.

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I would just refer you to the Department of Justice with that. I'm not familiar with the report.

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained. With respect to why they're being detained and the other aspects of your question ­ whether it's because they're in intelligence services, or what they were doing ­ I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that.


CAMERON: Beyond the 60 apprehended or detained, and many deported since Sept. 11, another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents describe as "an organized intelligence gathering operation," designed to "penetrate government facilities." Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military, which is compulsory there.

But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping. Earlier this week, the Israeli embassy in Washington denied any spying against or in the United States ­ Tony.

SNOW: Carl, we've heard the comments from Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell. What are officials saying behind the scenes?

CAMERON: Well, there's real pandemonium described at the FBI, the DEA and the INS. A lot of these problems have been well known to some investigators, many of who have contributed to the reporting on this story. And what they say is happening is supervisors and management are now going back and collecting much of the information, because there's tremendous pressure from the top levels of all of those agencies to find out exactly what's going on.

At the DEA and the FBI already a variety of administration reviews are under way, in addition to the investigation of the phenomenon. They want to find out how it is all this has come out, as well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political ramifications of the story itself ­ Tony.

SNOW: All right, Carl, thanks.


Here are comments on the series by Ronald Rivest, a premier US cryptographer and security scientist:
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:41:33 -0500
To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com
From: "Ronald L. Rivest" <rivest@mit.edu>
Subject: Israeli compromise of U.S. telecommunications?

I found the following four-part report by Carl Cameron rather shocking:
Why should we be freely giving to Israeli corporations information (call records, CALEA information) that requires court orders to obtain in this country? Such information is obviously sensitive, and the well-motivated efforts to strengthen and protect our national infrastructure should reasonably include mandating that such information not be routinely handled by any foreign entities...

A more recent story indicates that the compromise was probably severe; criminals were escaping detection because of the compromise:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 4826.shtml

This vindicates concerns many of us have expressed over the years about creating single points of failure in wiretapping systems (e.g. the vulnerability of key escrow, etc.). Of course, in this case the vulnerability was intentionally created, it seems, by giving critical capabilities to foreign entities...

Ronald L. Rivest
Room 324, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139
Tel 617-253-5880, Fax 617-258-9738, Email <rivest@mit.edu>

Excerpted from: Economic Espionage: Information on Threat from U.S. Allies (Testimony, 02/28/96, GAO/T-NSIAD-96-114).
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1.1

According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of Country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally. Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country. Country A seeks this information for three reasons: (1) to help the technological development of its own defense industrial base, (2) to sell or trade the information with other countries for economic reasons, and (3) to sell or trade the information with other countries to develop political alliances and alternative sources of arms. According to a classified 1994 report produced by a U.S. government interagency working group on U.S. critical technology companies,\2

Country A routinely resorts to state-sponsored espionage using covert collection techniques to obtain sensitive U.S. economic information and technology. Agents of Country A collect a variety of classified and proprietary information through observation, elicitation, and theft.

The following are intelligence agency examples of Country A information collection efforts:

An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization
responsible for collecting scientific and technological
information for Country A paid a U.S. government employee to
obtain U.S. classified military intelligence documents.

Several citizens of Country A were caught in the United States
stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery
gun tubes.

Agents of Country A allegedly stole design plans for a classified
reconnaissance system from a U.S. company and gave them to a
defense contractor from Country A.

A company from Country A is suspected of surreptitiously monitoring
a DOD telecommunications system to obtain classified information
for Country A intelligence.

Citizens of Country A were investigated for allegations of passing
advanced aerospace design technology to unauthorized scientists
and researchers.

Country A is suspected of targeting U.S. avionics, missile
telemetry and testing data, and aircraft communication systems
for intelligence operations.

It has been determined that Country A targeted specialized software
that is used to store data in friendly aircraft warning systems.

Country A has targeted information on advanced materials and
coatings for collection. A Country A government agency
allegedly obtained information regarding a chemical finish used
on missile reentry vehicles from a U.S. person.

\2 Report on U.S. Critical Technology Companies, Report to Congress
on Foreign Acquisition of and Espionage Activities Against U.S.
Critical Technology Companies (1994).

[NYFD, Zarrillo, WTC &tc.]

Richard Zarrillo, "EMT working in fire operations as the special event coordinator.":

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... 110161.PDF

File No. 9110161


Interview Date: October 25, 2001
Transcribed by Nancy Francis



MR. CASTORINA: Today's date is October 25th,
2001. I'm Ron Castorina conducting an interview in the
office of BITS. Your name –

MR. McCOURT: Tom McCourt.

MR. CASTORINA: -- is also accompanied with
me conducting this interview.

Q. Your name, sir?

A. Richard Zarrillo.

Q. And your rank and title?

A. I'm an EMT working in fire operations as the
special event coordinator.

Q. Can you tell me, on September 11th, 2001, the
events that took place that day, whatever you can

A. Sure. While sitting at my desk, probably
just after the first plane had hit the tower, Chief
Ganci had come running across the hall yelling
something about a plane hitting the twin towers. Most
of us thought he was joking until we looked out the
window and saw one of the towers had flames coming out
of it. I placed a call to Chief Peruggia to ask him
his location. He told me he was just coming over the
Verrazano Bridge about to get in the HOV lane. I told
him maybe you want to start heading to Manhattan, I'll



meet you in the city, this way we could hook up and do
whatever we needed to do. At that point he thought I
was joking. He cursed at me and hung up. Captain
Nahmod was sitting next to me and he said we need to
get some equipment, find out who's going, who's not
going, try and make our way there.

I spoke with Chief Peruggia. He called me
back and said maybe you and Abdo, Captain Nahmod, need
to head into the city to be part of the command,
runners or administratively, whatever we can do to help
out. I was able to locate a helmet from one of the
people in RCC. Captain Nahmod and I tried to find a
car to get into the city. Chief Ramos was bringing us
downstairs to get a pool car, so I think Commissioner
Drury happened to be walking in at the wrong time and
we asked him to drive us into the city.

I'm not sure of the exact time, but I believe
as we were coming over the Brooklyn Bridge was when the
second plane hit the second tower. We parked -- I want
to say it's on like Broadway right off of Vesey Street,
between Vesey and Barclay. Captain Nahmod and I
started heading down Vesey Street towards where we
thought the command post would be. At that time we had
received a page per Chief Peruggia to go into OEM at



No. 7 World Trade and activate our post in OEM.
Captain Nahmod and I were running down Vesey Street
stepping over airplane pieces, several bodies and

Q. Can you describe how much debris was around?

A. There was what looked like the front wheel
assembly of an airplane. Unknown the size of the plane
that had hit, it just looked like it was one pair of
wheels on an assembly, pieces of metal with rivets in
them, a few body parts scattered around.

Q. Was debris still falling?

A. Debris was falling. It looked like birds.

There were people falling from the towers or jumping,
whatever it was they were doing. Abdo and I went into
No. 7, activated OEM, placed calls to EMS Citywide,
RCC, to tell them we were there and we were activated.

Maybe five, ten minutes, not even ten minutes
later, a rep from OEM came into the main room and said
we need to evacuate the building; there's a third plane
inbound. That was the only thing I really heard
because I said, Abdo, we've got to go, and we made it
down to the lobby of the building, street level, met up
with Chief Peruggia in the lobby of the building. He
said that there was no third plane but we needed to



re-establish OEM right there so we can coordinate what
was going on. He had already been to the command post,
so he told us, and he was trying to release people back
to be operational. He was looking for the Fire guy to
go back in. He was there with Captain Yakimovich. In
OEM with Captain Nahmod and I was Chief Maggio, who is
now retired, and another firefighter from the 1st
Division. We were really trying to establish OEM and a
treatment sector in the lobby of the building because
there were people coming around us.

Again, times are a little fuzzy initially for
me. A few minutes later, John came to me and said you
need to go find Chief Ganci and relay the following
message: that the buildings have been compromised, we
need to evacuate, they're going to collapse. I said
okay. I went down Vesey Street towards West.

Q. You were by yourself?

A. I was by myself, me and my helmet and my
radio. I got to the corner of Vesey and West. I found
some EMS vehicles. I think I saw Chief Gombo there.

I'm not really sure. I mentioned to the EMS people
there, again, not knowing who they were, I said you
need to get away from here, the building might
collapse, we need to leave this spot.



As I was walking towards the Fire command
post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's
the boss? I have to give him a message. He said,
well, what's the message? I said the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With
a very confused look he said who told you that? I said
I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings
are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said,
hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are
going to collapse. His reply was who the fuck told you
that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci,
Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was
initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM.
The message I was given was that the buildings are
going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At
that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down
and that's when the building came down, the first tower
came down.

The command post was situated right in front
of 3 World Financial, the American Express Building.

The garage was open and as that rumble started and we
saw it was coming down, the firemen that were in the
command area, I believe most of the chiefs, we all ran



into the garage of that building. It became dark, hard
to breathe. Nobody had any equipment because most of
the firemen dropped everything as they were running.

It became an obstacle course to get into the garage.
Again, it's sketchy with time, but it may
have been anywhere from ten to 20 minutes by the time
we found an emergency exit to get out of the building.
It was dark. There was no light.

Q. Who were you with at this point? Were you by

A. I had two firemen. What I did was I took
about ten or 15 running steps into the garage and
hugged into a corner of a wall, an indentation, and I
felt like two or three guys get in behind me and
actually made it a tighter huddle. The dust, the cloud
came rolling in. It got dark. As the dust and the
noise started to settle, we were all tapping up to see
where each other were.

I met up with Chief Cassano at the stairwell,
and I believe Chief Carrasquillo was around there. I
know I met up with him outside on the lobby of Vesey
Street from that building, when we got out. Lots of
firemen, you know, faces, no names I could really
identify, except for Sal.



We made it up the staircase into the lobby, I
believe it was 3, it may have been one of those little
cross lobbies that were there, and got out onto Vesey
Street. I met up with EMT Mike Ober, who had been
driving Chief Kowalczyk. He was his driver for a
while. I met up with him. I found Chief Carrasquillo,
who was with Chief Cassano, a few others, you know,
faces, again, that I found, and we were walking around
trying to make -- what happened? It was still cloudy,
that very fine but heavy dust that was in the air.

Once I got out of the building, maybe ten
minutes from there, that unforgettable rolling started.

Q. The same sound you heard earlier?

A. The same sound I heard earlier.

Q. Where were you at this point?

A. I was on West and Vesey, probably in the
middle of the intersection, trying to find people that
I knew. At this point I didn't know where John was,
where Abdo was. I don't know what happened to No. 7.

I knew the building was coming down. I watched it come
down on us, but I don't know where anybody else is.

As that roar was happening on the second time
around, I was running down Vesey Street towards the
water with a few thoughts in my head. One, if I hit



the water, I was swimming home, or just getting into
the water for cover, if necessary. The marina was
right there. I ended up making a right on North End
Avenue and there was a building -- EMS, again, I know
Chief Villani was there. I saw Chief Pascale later
on. I believe Chief Kowalczyk was in there also. The
MERV was stationed on North End Avenue for a while and
I remember emergency service was on the southbound side
of North End near Vesey for a while also. We made it
into that building as the second one came down. Again,
the clouds and all the other debris.

Q. You were protected in that building?

A. In the building.

Q. Which building was that?

A. There was a building right there on the
corner. Maybe 15, 20 feet off the corner, there was an
entrance into a building, and that's where -- it was
mostly glass windows and we were concerned that the
glass was going to implode.

Q. Did that face the river?

A. It faced the river and that was protection in
my view.

Q. About a three-block distance?

A. It's actually one city block, but still that



cloud came over and passed and –

Q. Did it get black there, too?

A. It got really dark. Most of us were looking
for cover, trying to avoid anything else that was
coming down. While we were in that building, we were
told -- again, I don't know where anybody is.

Q. You had no radio, right?

A. I had a 400 radio. I couldn't get through to

Q. Were you hearing anything, Mayday, anything
on the radio?

A. No. The 400 -- I was on EMS Citywide and I
don't know if my radio was clogged or the batteries.
It could have been a hundred different things.

Q. Can you just mark on the map where you were?
Just roughly.

A. We were right about here.

Q. Okay.

A. I didn't know where John was. Outside of the
job, John, Abdo and I are old friends and that was my
concern, you know, how am I going to tell these guys'
wives, we all live near each other, that I followed his
direction and now I can't find either of them.
While we were in this building, we were told



that there was a gas main rupture or a gas leak and we
needed to evacuate that building.

Q. Who told you this?

A. It was just somebody, a security guard or
somebody. But then Chief Villani and all the other
chiefs that were in there said we need to gather all of
our equipment because they had set up a treatment area,
there were ten sets of equipment with stretchers from
ambulances, and we all took all that stuff out and
started heading down North End hoping to find -- or
maybe it was down toward -- no. Down North End Avenue
to try and find another place we could go into.

Again, at this point there was a lot of
disorientation. Nobody really was fully aware as to
what was going on. The radios had gone silent, you
know, guessing, because the repeater tower went down.
Nobody knew what was going on. I thought I heard a
helicopter. There were a lot of people running, lots
of patients or would-be patients running past us.

Q. Where were they headed?

A. Anywhere they could get away from. The

Q. Heading away from the buildings?

A. Running north on West Street. I went into –



there was a school not too far down from here. I meet
up with Mike Cahill from Division 6 and Gerald Garcia.
They were down there. The MERV had already tried to
find another place to set up and was moving down North
End Avenue. I think it was Garcia. We went into a
school. I wanted to just wash my face off, use a
bathroom, and as we were in that school building, we
were told we had to evacuate that building because,
again, a gas rupture. That came from one of the school
officials, a name I couldn't tell you. Face? Probably
not now recognize.

We made it back on to West Street, I don't
remember what the cross was, and we started heading --
I heard people saying we're going to Chelsea. I heard
Chief Pascale say she was going up to Chelsea Piers, we
were going to try and re-establish up there, you know,
do a count and try to run the operation.

When I went to that other building, I lost
most of those people, except for Cahill, and then when
they told us to evacuate that building, I just had to
get out of there. My thoughts were that I needed to
get home, get my wife from midtown and just get home
for my daughter.

I got onto West Street and met up with



Captain Stone, Greg Brady from Division 1. I found
Chief Hirth and Grace Cacciola and they said we're all
going up to Chelsea, let's go re-establish our command
up there, again, not knowing where anybody else was.
You see the plumes of smoke, the dust cloud that was
coming down, but we just really wanted to find a safe
place for that. Probably about ten blocks up West
Street you heard the jets flying overhead, so lots of
thoughts running through people's heads, what's
happening to us here?

Q. What kind of jets?

A. Military jets.

Q. Military jets?

A. Yes.

Q. This is –

A. This is right after the second collapse.

Q. After the second collapse?

A. Well, if I say 15 minutes from the time we
got to that school building and started walking towards
Chelsea, maybe ten, 15 minutes had passed by the time
that –

Q. Half an hour?

A. Again, I do apologize for that.

Q. No, everybody has that problem.



A. Time wasn't –

Q. There's no perception of time.

A. It's still very surreal. There I was talking
to Chief Ganci and relaying that the building is going
to come down and then it came down on us. It's very

We hitched a ride with a police van up to the
Chelsea Piers. Chief Kowalczyk was there, Chief
Pascale, a slew of ambulances. There had to be 50 non
city ambulances up there from everywhere. I saw
Captain Boyle there. I met up with Captain Pinkus.
Captain Stone, myself, Brady, Chief Hirth and Grace
went into the -- there was some restaurant on the edge
of the Chelsea Pier area, you know, to try and clean up
a little bit, use the rest room, which I needed to do a
while ago. I met up with a lot of my counterparts from
the Secret Service because that's where their fallback
was becoming. All their agents from the building were
in there.

Mark Stone said he felt his shoulder was hurt
and Chief Hirth was looking to get out of there to go
someplace else. He wanted to check -- I honestly don't
know what was going through his head. He said I need
to go away from here, I need to go get a car, I need to



go to the division or a hospital. Whatever the case
may have been, they took Captain Stone to Bellevue to
be treated. He was treated and released.

Chief Pascale and Chief Kowalczyk were
establishing their command, and doing this for -- you
know, between chiefs and what I do now, I fell into
that command structure to say, okay, I'm here, let me
help you with this, and I handled staging and some
other logistical issues with them for about two or
three hours, and then I made my way back down to the
command post. Probably within an hour of us getting up
to Chelsea, Chief Kowalczyk said to me that John is
okay, he heard him on the radio, and that he was going
down to the command post that's been re-established to
either help out or take over from him.

Then, like I said, a few hours later,
Lieutenant Nevins and I made our way down south back to
Chambers Street where the other command post had been
established. That's really about it.

MR. CASTORINA: I think you've covered
virtually everything. The time now is 1202. The
concludes the interview.

"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:06 am

[p.29 of dump]

The significance of this 2000 WTC elevator refit is disputed, but in any case it's worth considering. I saved this magazine article about it in PDF, once available on the magazine's site. PDF files don't upload but I found the text here (sans the many many photos in the magazine):

Elevator World magazine, March, 2001

http://web.archive.org/web/200605191659 ... 2.html-ssi


by Robert Baamonde, Jr.

At a time when new construction is dominating the market, ACE Elevator undertook what was perhaps, one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry's history. This "towering" achievement took place at New York City's prestigious World Trade Center (WTC), with the completion of the first six members of the elite "Shuttle Fleet."

This project was originally intended to operate with the existing 275kW motor-generator sets that were specifically designed for the WTC project. However, both the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and ACE Elevator Co. Inc. had the collective vision of utilizing cutting-edge, solid-state-drive technology to replace the existing motor generator sets.

All the parties involved felt that implementing this innovation would significantly enhance the elevators' operation and eliminate countless problems associated with the motor generator rotating elements. Although similar technology is used every day throughout the elevator industry, no equipment available at the time met the power requirements demanded by this type of installation.

New technology had to be developed to achieve what was in mind. The WTC shuttle fleet represents, arguably the largest, fastest and most menacing equipment in the industry. The dynamics of the shuttle cars, together with unique logistical obstacles from within the complex, posed challenging engineering and installation scenarios far exceeding the typical modernization program.

Towers A and B consist of a total of 46 shuttle elevators, capable of moving up to 460,000 pounds, at speeds of 1,600 feet per minute. Within a 60-second time frame, as many as 4,000 passengers travel distances exceeding 100,000 vertical feet in a single roundtrip and some 75 miles of large diameter hoist cable are used to lift these vertical beasts.

Yet, with an installation abundant in highly specialized componentry, the heart and soul of this operation remains the highly customized "Motor-Drive System." Although having endured a tedious, and at times exasperating, engineering evolution, ACE Elevator prevailed in implementing and installing new silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) drives on the shuttle fleet. This upgrade made a positive impact on both the fleet's efficiency and overall operation.

The contribution this innovation made was instrumental in the WTC's recognition as Building Owners and Managers Association's (BOMA) "Building of the Year." This honor was bestowed upon the Port Authority at both the regional and national levels.

Original Technical Specifications

The existing generator sets were replaced with SCR drives. Due to the power requirements of the aforementioned equipment, new drive componentry would be design-specific to WTC. ACE engineers, in conjunction with outside vendors, developed a system capable of powering the massive equipment with no negative effects to the building's power supply.

The use of SCRs for this installation required an isolation transformer, choke and harmonic filter as outlined below.

Isolation Transformer: 450 KVA-4250 lbs. (WPI)
Choke: 5MH-500A-2280 lbs. (WPI)
Harmonic Filter: 210KVAR-1280 lbs. 350BP(TVI)
SCR Drive: DSD-412 10 to 1250 amp (MagneTek)

The size of the new SCR drive enclosure was too large to fit in the elevator machine room. The choke and isolation transformer were also too large to be installed within the machine room space. The original motor-generator room, which could house this equipment, was located seven floors below the machine level. In order to support the combined weight of the new equipment in the existing motor generator room, a steel platform had to be erected, consisting of steel I-beams welded to the building steel and steel plates attached to the I-beams forming a mounting foundation. All the above equipment was isolated from the building steel by special high tensile rubber pads.

Installations of two separate trough runs (one high voltage and one communication) from the elevator motor room to the motor generator room seven floors away, proved a challenge. A run of approximately 80 vertical feet, employed over 300 running feet of 2-1/2" x 8" and 2"x 2" trough raceway. This run traveled through plaster ceilings, concrete floors and around structural steel. The remote location necessitated the installation of a new 800 amp service disconnect switch with a remote shunt trip, installed in each motor generator room.

The following represents the tasks encountered by the modernization teams of ACE Elevator. The WTC shuttle fleet would present engineering obstacles both technical and logistical. Unique in design, prior to the modernization, equipment of choice would have to interface with one of the most technically challenging elevator installations industry wide.

Capacity (lbs.): 10,000

Speed (fpm): 1,600

Travel in Feet: 1,350

Hoist Motor: 339 HT 52,000 (lbs.)

Horsepower: 350

Generator (Original): 275kW 10,000 (lbs.)

Roping: 1:1 double wrap

Hoist Ropes: 13/16"

Comp Ropes: 1-1/2"

Safety: Duplex wedge clamp (car and counterweight)

Buffers (oil type): 84" stroke car and cwt. (2) car (2) counterweight

Operation: Group Automatic

Door Configuration: 2 SPD center opening (62" x 84") front and rear

Cab (Platform) size: 7'3" X 13'3"

A harmonic filter was installed for the purpose of dissipating and reducing harmonics thereby preventing electrical contamination of building power that is often caused by SCR drive systems. In addition, installation of line starters and circuitry were also utilized, preventing the in-rush of 480v to the primary side of multiple isolation transformers. If and when the building went to an emergency power condition, line starters could provide the sequential re-energizing of the fleet.

The CEC-built controller originally utilized a tape reader for position; however, high rise and speed warranted modifications to a tapeless system. Special proximity limits were designed for reliability and reduced maintenance. High capacity and rise along with rope stretch necessitated the development of special circuitry to facilitate proper relevelling during the loading and unloading process.

As with any high-rise steel building, high winds can raise havoc with high-rise elevators. During windy days when the sway of the building is greater than 1 mG, the speed of all the shuttle elevators are automatically reduced to 1,000 feet per minute, with a degraded speed curve. Also due to the building design, two express elevators share a common hoistway enclosure, therefore special software was designed to insure that the two shuttle cars sharing the same hoistway enclosure would never start to run in the same direction at the same time. An adjustable software delay allows the cars to run in the same direction after a minimum gap of 20 floors.

The capacities and speed at which the WTC shuttle cars operate, made the replacement of the motor generator sets with SCR drives quite a challenge.

FDNY Chaplain Resigns After Remarks About 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Published: September 30, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) -- The fire department's Muslim chaplain abruptly resigned Friday after saying in a published interview that a conspiracy, not 19 al-Qaida hijackers, may have been responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"It became clear to him that he would have difficulty functioning as an FDNY chaplain," Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta told reporters an hour before Imam Intikab Habib was to be officially sworn in. "There has been no prior indication that he held those views."

Habib told Newsday that he was skeptical of the official version of the attack on the World Trade Center, which killed 343 members of the Fire Department of New York. The newspaper published the interview hours before the swearing-in ceremony Friday.

"It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours," Habib told the newspaper. "Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"

The 30-year Guyana native joined the department as chaplain on Aug. 15 after the FDNY's Islamic Society recommended him for the part-time position, which pays $18,000 a year.

Scoppetta said Habib, who was educated in Islamic law in Saudi Arabia and preaches at a New York mosque, had appeared qualified and passed a background check.

"It's sad," said Kevin James, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel. "We had no idea those were his views. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not the right person for the chaplain."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/nyreg ... oref=login

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... _ID=131225

Fire Engineering magazine

"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002—Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at <AHREF="HTTP: http://www.fireengineering.com?fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

$elling Out the Investigation

By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire?

Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action


then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

also see: New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: Jan 4, 2002. pg. 7
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews ... 2F11+PROBE

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe
By Joe Calderone
NY Daily News Chief of Investigations

A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction.”

The New York Times
December 25, 2001


Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall


Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.

Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of New York, have joined the call for a wider look into the collapses. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Schumer said he supported a new investigation "not so much to find blame" for the collapse of the buildings under extraordinary circumstances, "but rather so that we can prepare better for the future."

"It could affect building practices," he said. "It could affect evacuation practices. We live in a new world and everything has to be recalibrated."

Experts critical of the current effort, including some of those people who are actually conducting it, cite the lack of meaningful financial support and poor coordination with the agencies cleaning up the disaster site. They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed.

While agreeing that any building hit by a jetliner would suffer potentially devastating damage, experts want to examine whether the twin towers may have had hidden vulnerabilities that contributed to their collapse.

The lightweight steel trusses that supported the tower's individual floors, the connections between the trusses and the buildings' vertical structural columns, as well as possible flaws in the fireproofing have been drawing scrutiny from fire safety consultants and engineers in recent weeks.

"Two buildings came down," said Joseph F. Russo, director of the Center for Fire Safety Engineering at Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, referring to the twin towers. "That suggests some degree of predictability."

"And if it was predictable," Mr. Russo said, "was it preventable?"

Family members of some victims have added their voices to the calls for a wider investigation.

The exact scope of an expanded inquiry has not been defined. But the central desire is to learn any lessons that might be hidden in the rubble and to pinpoint the exact sequence and cause of the collapse, regardless of whether it was inevitable from the moment the planes struck, members of the investigative team and others said.

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.

Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.

"The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled," said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.

"Hindsight is always 20-20, but this was a calamity like no other," said Mr. Monahan, who was designated by the mayor's office to respond to questions about the investigation. "And I'm not trying to backpedal from the decision."

Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.

The investigation, organized immediately after Sept. 11 by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the field's leading professional organization, has been financed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A mismatch between the federal agency and senior engineers accustomed to bypassing protocol in favor of quick answers has been identified as a clear point of friction.

"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.

"FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. "It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it."

A spokesman for FEMA, John Czwartacki, said the agency's primary mission was to help victims, emergency workers and to speed the city's recovery, and added, "We are not an investigative agency."

But given the assignment to examine the structural failures at the World Trade Center, the agency has so far spent roughly $100,000 and Mr. Czwartacki said that more financing could be expected after the group produced what he called an "interim document" in the spring.

"I've heard the calls for the N.T.S.B.-style investigation," Mr. Czwartacki said, referring to appeals by engineers and some families of trade center victim for an exhaustive examination like those done by the National Transportation Safety Board when a plane crashes. "I don't think this study will do it for them."

Mr. Czwartacki added that it was premature to comment on whether team members were receiving necessary information because the study has not been completed. Regardless of what any investigation might find, it is unclear how many civilian lives would have been saved if the buildings had not collapsed, because so many died on the burning upper floors.

Despite the universe of unknowns, the calls for more extensive investigations of various kinds are coming from engineers, fire experts and professional organizations in New York and across the nation.

"What some of us are calling for is a probe or reassessment," said Loring A. Wyllie Jr., a member of the National Academy of Engineering and chairman emeritus and senior principal at Degenkolb Engineers in San Francisco. Mr. Wyllie, who has investigated many building collapses after earthquakes, said the work would involve "a critique of our building practices" in search of greater safety after Sept. 11.

He added that intensive studies of building failures in disasters like the Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles in 1994 had led to important structural advances.

Calling an intensive new investigation "absolutely necessary," Mr. Russo, of Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, said the expense could be justified by the payoff of better safety in high-rises of the future. Other experts take a still wider view, favoring a study that would look at the implications of the collapses -- a nearby, 47-story building, 7 World Trade Center, also fell on Sept. 11 after burning for most of the day -- for fire codes, building standards and engineering practices across the board.

National organizations charged with addressing building and fire safety issues have sent letters urging the federal government to invest as much as $15 million a year to study the vulnerability of buildings to terrorist attacks and possible changes to fire and safety standards.

"There is an urgent and critical need to determine the lessons to be learned from these events," reads a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers, dated Nov. 15.

In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.

"They wanted to do a lot of things on their own," said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps. "Which they're very capable of doing."

But during a recovery effort that received worldwide praise, the city made one decision that has been endlessly second-guessed. To deal with nearly 300,000 tons of crumpled steel, the city quickly decided to ship it to scrap recyclers.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said.

But Mr. Monahan, the City Department of Design and Construction spokesman, pointed out that members of the investigation team were eventually allowed to visit the site and inspect steel at the scrapyards and continue doing so.

Some experts have suggested that the only way to definitively determine the sequence and cause of the collapse is to recover large amounts of steel from the areas near where the planes struck, and possibly reassemble sections of the towers.

Others say such a reconstruction of an entire section might be impractical, but also expressed discomfort with the impediments they said they have faced in their investigation.

For example, three months after the disaster, Ronald Hamburger, an expert in structural analysis at A.B.S. Consulting in Oakland, Calif., and a director of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, said he had not even been given access to basic blueprints describing where the steel and other structural elements had been when the World Trade Center was whole.

"I'd like to be able to have a set of the drawings for all of the affected buildings," Mr. Hamburger said. "I don't have that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/nyreg ... b9&ei=5070

Again Szymanski, with reservations, but lots of info and it's something I saved, so tossing it on the pile (although I've skipped a couple of AFP/Chris Bollyn pieces, just because).

WTC Basement Blast And Injured Burn Victim: North Tower Collapsed From Controlled Demolition

WTC janitor pulls burn victim to safety after basement explosion rocks north tower seconds before jetliner hit top floors. Also, two other men trapped and drowning in a basement elevator shaft, were also pulled to safety from underground explosion.

June 24, 2005

By Greg Szymanski

What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy.

But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11.

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.

He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.

All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?

Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying "Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one."

Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions.

His eye witness account, ignored by the media and the government, points the finger squarely on an official cover-up at the highest levels since the government contends the WTC fell only from burning jet fuel. And after listening to Rodriguez, it’s easy to see why the Bush administration wants him kept quiet.

Bush wants him quiet because Rodriguez’s account is ‘proof positive’ the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel. And Bush knows if he’s caught lying about this or caught in a cover-up, it’s just a matter of time before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

In fact, Rodriguez’s story is so damaging – so damning – it literally blows the lid off the government story, literally exposing the whole 9/11 investigation as a sham and a cover-up of the worst kind.

And it appears the cover-up also extends to the media.

NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why?

His eyewitness account, backed up by at least 14 people at the scene with him, isn’t speculation or conjecture. It isn’t a story that takes a network out on a journalistic limb. It’s a story that can be backed up, a story that can be verified with hospital records and testimony from many others.

It’s a story about 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms

So why didn’t NBC or any other major news outlets cover the story? They didn’t run it because it shot the government story to hell and back. They didn’t run it because "the powers that be" wouldn’t allow it.

Since 9/11, Rodriguez has stuck to his guns, never wavering from what he said from day one. Left homeless at times, warned to keep quiet and subtly harassed, he nevertheless has continued trying to tell get his message out in the face of a country not willing to listen.

Here is his story:

The Miracle

It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.

"It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning," said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.

But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.

Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.

"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word."

After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower.

In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors.

"I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors.

"Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs."

Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his descent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower.

The Tragedy

The concerted effort by the media and the government to silence Rodriguez is the tragedy behind this American hero’s story. And there is no question, Rodriguez is a "silent hero" for saving so many lives and for having the courage to continue telling his story against tremendous odds.

In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST).

NIST, an independent investigative group funded by the government, put the finishing touches this week on its 2 year $35 million 9/11 investigation. This week Rodriguez made his final plea to have his story heard while testifying at the final public hearing held in New York.

" I disagree 100%with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.

"Also, The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower."

Besides the explosions, Rodriguez also has provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he stumbled across one of the supposed 19 Arab hijackers inside the WTC several months before 9/11.

"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission. "Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange. I didn't forget about it"

Rodriguez, claims he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001, telling an FBI agent about the incident a month after the attacks. Never hearing back from the bureau, he later learned agents never followed up on the story.

"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks," said Rodriguez.

Regarding the media’s apathetic approach to his story, Rodriguez said immediately after 9/11 some newspapers picked it up but his words were never taken seriously and quickly forgotten.

"During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it," said Rodriguez. "Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didn’t understand who I was dealing with.

"I have been receiving this type of subtle harassment for years, but I keep telling everybody I can’t be intimidated because I am on a mission. Whenever someone asks why I keep talking or warns me that I could be killed, I just tell them I have nothing to lose.

"I tell them I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now. I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."

Besides trying to tell his explosive story, Rodriguez has been active raising money for 9/11victims, being involved with charity groups that have raised more than $122 million. He says he has used over $60,000 of his own money, originally earmarked to buy a new house, in order to get at the truth behind 9/11.

Also seeking justice at the highest level, Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against President Bush and others, alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes in the deaths of more than 3,000 at the WTC.

The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government’s motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue.

"Even if the case goes no farther, I feel we have scored a victory by winning this first battle," said Rodriguez. "At least the judge seems willing to listen which is a victory of sorts. However, I sincerely hope we can eventually take the case all the way to trial and reveal the truth to the American people about 9/11."

Greg Szymanski

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/ar ... /28031.htm

Michael Rivero may have jumped the shark awhile ago, but this collection of quotes and tidbits is good (though some links may no longer work, the firefighter quotes, etc. are real, many still up on YT):


9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and
Explosions in the WTC

The word "explosions" does not appear in the Official 9/11 Commission Final Report.

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.'' [NY Times]

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell. [People]

Explosions occurred below the aircraft impact levels in both towers prior to the collapses.


Collapse: WMV video download:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... .below.wmv


9/11 NBC News broadcast:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.mp3
(475kB mp3 - to download file right click the link and select 'Save Target As')

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."


Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem: "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." [People]


[Note: the article (see below) was removed from the People website: http://people.aol.com/people/special/0, ... -3,00.html


[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. [Prison Planet]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_la ... bombs.html

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."

WMV video download (181kB)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... losion.wmv

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."

MOV video download (321kB)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... osions.mov

It appears there were three explosions prior to each collapse:

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

WMV video download (231kB)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... ness.2.wmv

"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."

WMV video download (280kB)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... ness.1.wmv

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

[WMV video download (231kB)]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... snbc.2.wmv


Edited mp3 file of 9/11 firefighters' transmissions


The above mp3 is edited from the radio transmissions of North Brunswick Volunteer Fire/Ladder Company #3 on 9/11. The mp3 begins with the collapse of the south tower, @3:23 there are three beeps - this signifies that time has moved on roughly 20 minutes to the collapse of the north tower.


New York court decision denying access
to complete oral histories/interviews of 9/11 firefighters and other workers,
and access to phonecalls made to 911 on that day.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ ... _00091.htm

Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
Press Associates, Inc.
May 23, 2004

NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.

"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.

While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."

This is worth a careful read:

United in Courage

People magazine
September 12, 2001

http://people.aol.com/people/special/0, ... -3,00.html

Some were on their way to work in lower Manhattan. Others were already sitting at their desks, checking e-mail, sipping coffee or reading their morning papers. Still others were working in kitchens and garages when they heard and felt the sickening crash. Bathed in soot and shaken to their souls, they are the survivors of what New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani called "one of the most heinous acts in world history." The life and death drama that followed the twin attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center resembled, said many who lived through the buildings' destruction, nothing so much as a big-budget Hollywood movie, with bodies falling from the sky, steel and concrete raining down on dazed onlookers, dark smoke billowing for miles and hundreds of heroes tending to the trapped and injured. "It looked like the end of the world," says Abdullah Jones, 44, an office assistant who was standing a few hundred feet from Tower No. 2 when it collapsed. "It was a massive inferno, worse than any movie. It was hell breaking loose." Here are the wrenching firsthand stories of those who witnessed the unthinkable.

Kim White, 32, an administrative assistant at Thebeast, a financial tech company on the 80th floor of 1 World Trade Center, was talking with an office temp when the first plane struck.

All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on. I ran towards the reception area. It was completely collapsed, but the receptionist was able to crawl out from under it. People started to panic. We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell, and then people began to calm down. At that time we all thought it was a fire. Someone was joking, "I hope it wasn't another bomb." Everyone was trying to keep things up-tempo. We got down as far as the 74th floor, and someone there pulled us into their office. They had a TV on, and we saw that a plane had crashed into the building. Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.

It took about 40 minutes to get to the bottom. We were trying to get out through the building's lower level when all of a sudden the power shut off and the lights went out. The police yelled, "Run!" Then something behind me collapsed. The building was starting to come down. All you saw was black, it was so dark. Now everybody was screaming. I got out with a coworker, I grabbed his hand and we headed out together. Once we got outside, he went back in to assist, but I was so messed up, I just kept on walking. A detective came up to me and asked me if I was okay. I had an asthma attack and I had debris in my eyes, but I was okay.

Bob Borski, 32, a financial director at the AIG insurance organization, with offices six blocks from the World Trade Center, was standing on the 15th floor with his boss, watching as the first tower burned. Then he saw United Airlines Flight 175 heading for the second tower.

It just doesn't fit into your mind -- I'm used to seeing planes and helicopters disappear behind the building. And then they come out the other side. But this was so low and it literally disappeared into the building. You think, well, what would that look like? Would it bounce off? But it's like the building swallowed up the plane. It was a swift explosion, it wasn't resounding. It was boom -- like a door shutting. Quick and loud. That silvery shiny plane, just going right into the building -- I'll replay it in my mind over and over.

At about 9 a.m., investment banker Richard Egües, 34, emerged from the downtown 2 subway line to walk toward his office at the World Financial Center.

On the street I saw crowds of people looking south. I looked up and saw gaping holes in both towers. As you looked more closely you began to see little things flying down, and then you realized they were bodies of people who had jumped from the building. I saw the somersaults, the floating bodies. It was like they were in slow motion, sort of turning around. You had to think there must have been such total desperation.

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.

There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it.

Carl Cunneff, 36, an oil broker who works at the World Financial Center, located across the street from the WTC.

I was taking cover beneath the overhang of a building when I saw this big booklet fall from the sky and land on the sidewalk. I picked it up. It was a spreadsheet book with the name Cantor Fitzgerald. It's a financial company where some of my friends work on the 102nd floor. I thought, "That floor must be gone."

Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball. We thought there might be other planes. So we all started running toward the Hudson River to the ferry service to New Jersey. The ferry was packed with people crying and hugging one another, not knowing if their coworkers were dead or alive.

All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on. I ran towards the reception area. It was completely collapsed, but the receptionist was able to crawl out from under it. People started to panic. We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell, and then people began to calm down. At that time we all thought it was a fire. Someone was joking, "I hope it wasn't another bomb." Everyone was trying to keep things up-tempo. We got down as far as the 74th floor, and someone there pulled us into their office. They had a TV on, and we saw that a plane had crashed into the building. Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.

It took about 40 minutes to get to the bottom. We were trying to get out through the building's lower level when all of a sudden the power shut off and the lights went out. The police yelled, "Run!" Then something behind me collapsed. The building was starting to come down. All you saw was black, it was so dark. Now everybody was screaming. I got out with a coworker, I grabbed his hand and we headed out together. Once we got outside, he went back in to assist, but I was so messed up, I just kept on walking. A detective came up to me and asked me if I was okay. I had an asthma attack and I had debris in my eyes, but I was okay.

John Frey, 52, an American Stock Exchange specialist on Wall Street, was just leaving the trading floor when Tower 2 was hit.

It was dark out with debris, like nighttime but you could see. It was snowing debris. A foot and a half of gray dust you were walking through. I was walking towards the Battery when a cloud of black ash overcame us. It was completely pitch black. You could not see your hands. I heard people bumping into people and falling and screaming for help. I was completely disoriented. I couldn't even tell which way was the sidewalk. I could see absolutely nothing. I wasn't sure if I was blind or if it was that black. My eyes were stinging so badly. I wandered around in the dark for 15 minutes and I was beginning to think I was going to die. I had trouble breathing. My eyes were closing. I was wandering around trying to get a landmark. Eventually a cop saw me and put me on a bus. I got off at about 32nd Street on the East Side. I went to a pharmacy to get some drops for my eyes. The cashier looked at me and started to cry.

Trade Center repair and maintenance man Evan Silverman, 30, was scheduled to be working on the elevators for Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of Tower 2.

We were in the sublevel in Building 2 and we get a call to get out of the building. I didn't hear a thing. As I came up, I see people running in the lobby, people screaming, just going nuts. We ran outside, then I seen the building's on fire. Next thing we know, the foreman calls on the radio, "Come to Building 2, I want to do a head count." We're all standing in the lobby and the second plane hits. All of a sudden we're running again. I ran to the Seaport. After a little while, we do another head count. We were going to go in for a rescue, with the elevators, try to get people out. Next thing you know, the building's collapsing. I'm in shock. I never seen nothing like this. I was doing what everyone else was doing, running, trying to stay calm. Now I'm out of work. But thank God I have my life.

Homemaker Sandy Silverman is the mother of Evan Silverman.

My daughter called just before 9 a.m. "Did you hear from Evan?" I turned on the TV. I was screaming. I thought the worst. When I saw the building ... I thought he was gone. He called my husband at work at 11 a.m., but I wanted to hear his voice myself. Finally he called me at 2 p.m. I said, "Evan, if something would have happened to you, I would have went with you." He said, "I'm all right, Mom." I said, "I love you." God gave him a second chance. It's like you're born twice. It's so sad, all those people. My son said one of his friends, his wife works there. He went back in to look for his wife. And now they can't find him.

Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower.

How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.

Mel Immergut, 54, is chairman of the international law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, based across the street from the World Trade Center.

My law firm employs about 800 people and (10 hours later) we have hundreds of people unaccounted for. At the moment, we have no way of tracking them down, so we're trying to organize a phone chain. The next step for us is to give whatever counseling and aid we can to our employees, some of whom have said that they're not sure they can work in a high-rise again. Then we're going to help others, like the law firms that were in the World Trade Center who no longer have offices to go to. My suspicion is that downtown Manhattan is going to be closed for a good period of time. The most amazing story I heard was from a friend who received an e-mail right before the first plane crashed into the towers, from a friend of his who was on the flight -- actually on the flight from Boston to Los Angeles. The e-mail said, "We've been hijacked." And a minute later the plane crashed into the building. The person in the airplane had one of those little BlackBerry portable e-mail machines, and sent his e-mail, probably having no idea the plane was going to crash.

Garban-ICAP broker Dan Monchek, who was working in the World Trade Center at the time of the first terrorist bombing in 1993, was at his computer screen on the 26th floor of 1 World Trade just before the first plane hit.

This was far worse: I remember in 1993 feeling very secure -- "Hey, we got out" -- but this time I'm down there in the lobby and it looks like something you'd see in the Third World. It didn't seem like New York, American at all. In 1993 we had smoke, a little bit of shake. This was a lot scarier. Last time you got the sense that everything was going to be okay. This was like an action flick without the heroes. There's no happy ending.

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield manager David Schnitzer, 59, made his way down from the 24th floor of World Trade Tower 1.

I managed to get to the ferry to New Jersey in lower Manhattan. Everybody was crowding onto the boat -- there were hundreds of people down there, and I thought the dock was going to sink. Going across to New Jersey, we watched the towers burn. I've been in New York through blackouts. I was in the Army during the Vietnam era. But this surpassed all of that. I just kept thinking, "It's a terrible world." Meanwhile, I'd been trying to call my wife on my cell phone and finally got through. She was worried sick and had been trying to call me for an hour. I just told her, "I'm alive." She picked me up at the train station, and when I walked over to her, my knees were shaking.

Some Sept. 11 SCANNER LOGS — I have four transcript files but now only find one of the transcripts online, here:

http://web.textfiles.com/politics/INTER ... canner.log

Files too big to upload here, this is what it looks like:

--- Log opened Thu Sep 01 01:41:53 2005
01:42 -!- Topic for #scanner: | http://ods.org:8001/scan | http://tinyurl.com/dc4tx | | http://www.goodphuck.com:8088/listen.pls
01:42 [Users #scanner]
01:42 -!- Irssi: #scanner: Total of 87 nicks [7 ops, 0 halfops, 5 voices, 75 normal]
01:42 -!- Channel #scanner created Thu Sep 1 00:40:33 2005
01:42 -!- Irssi: Join to #scanner was synced in 1 secs
01:45 <+Blacklite> b12 to a10
01:46 <+Blacklite> go ahead, I'm uh, (unt) texaco parking lot
01:46 <+Blacklite> 10-4 I'm on the the a (unt) get off to the north
01:46 <+Blacklite> 10-4 drive down
01:46 <+Blacklite> put my lights on in the parking lot for you

Shifting gears a bit...

[Pentagon/remote control &tc.]

It's the little things.
"Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft."

Army unit piecing together accounts of Pentagon attack

By MILAN SIMONICH, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON -- They are soldiers on the capital city's saddest mission.
Each working day, a three-man military history unit uncovers firsthand stories of the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon.

The terrorism here killed 189 people, including the five hijackers who crashed a commercial jet into America's military headquarters.

Now the Army's 305th Military History Detachment has the job of making sense of the madness. It is interviewing every willing survivor and witness -- a number that could climb into the thousands -- to write the U.S. government's book on the Pentagon assault and the lessons that can be learned from it.

The job is full of pain.

One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.

Faced with so many funerals of friends and colleagues, the director of the office, Robert Jaworski, agonized over which ones to attend. He could not possibly be at all of them.

Jaworski's plight was extreme, but not so different from what the military historians find every day. Just about every witness or survivor gets emotional when recounting Sept. 11.

"In most interviews there's a tear or two," said Sgt. 1st Class Dennis Lapic of Industry, Pa., who is a member of the history unit.

Before Sept. 11, Lapic spent most of his working life as a territorial sales manager for a manufacturing company. His duties with the 99th Reserve Support Command consumed only a few weeks a year. Now he is on active duty with a two-year assignment to find out everything he can about the attack on Washington.

That job was daunting enough for the Army to dispatch a second unit, the 46th Military History Detachment from Little Rock, Ark., to help with the interviews.

In all, the Army has 66 such units devoted to compiling history from battles and missions around the world. The Pentagon project is unprecedented because it will attempt to unravel an attack on domestic soil that indiscriminately killed civilians.

Even Pearl Harbor was different in that respect. All but 68 of the 2,403 Americans who died in the Japanese attack on Hawaii were soldiers and sailors.

More than three months after the Pentagon was hit, nuggets of information continue to emerge as witnesses step forward.

One day last week, Lapic ventured to Arlington National Cemetery to interview a groundskeeper who watched in horror as the plane crashed into the Pentagon.
The worker, William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.

Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

"My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched," Middleton said.

In those first minutes, he thought he had seen a plane in trouble, not a terrorist attack.

Middleton and his co-workers at Arlington continued to work Sept. 11 as Washington offices closed and buildings emptied. The cemetery crew had no choice. Funerals were scheduled and burials had to be completed, chaos and all.

As Middleton labored, he could see the destruction less than a mile away at the Pentagon, where the U.S. military mobilized for war.

Another Arlington worker who declined to be interviewed in front of the media told a story that the military historians had not heard in the 244 interviews they had conducted through last week. The man said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.

The interviewers ask every witness what might have been done to prevent the attack. It is more than protocol. They want to know if somebody may have seen or heard something hours or days earlier that could have been useful in stopping the attack.

When the interviews are completed, the findings will be published in book form and kept at the Army Center of Military History. The researchers hope their work will be a thorough account of the Pentagon attack, as well as a guide on what should be done to prevent terrorist attacks.

Along with facts for the book, the historians collect tidbits on what the attack did to the nation's psyche.

"I felt complete anger. If I wasn't an old man, I might volunteer to go back into the service," said Middleton, 54.

The history detachments for the Pentagon project are based at Fort McNair, a Washington post established in 1791 as Old Arsenal Penitentiary. Until now, the installation's most notable brush with American history involved the murder of President Lincoln.

Four people who conspired with Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth were hanged there July 7, 1865. The executions occurred as a nation torn by civil war tried to heal itself.

Now the military historians see their research on the Pentagon attack as one way to help people cope with today's crisis.

"There can be a cathartic effect to people talking about what they have seen and gone through," said Maj. Robert Smith of Germantown, Md., commander of the 305th History Detachment.
Last edited by Elvis on Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:13 am

[p.30 of dump]

[Conspiracy, incompetence theory &tc.]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, one of the best writers on 9/11:

IN TWO POSTS: "Notes" follow in next post.


9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis

How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorise Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

:: A Reply to ZNet’s 'Conspiracy Theory?' Section ::

by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed


I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry

II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

III. David Corn and the Magic All-Explanatory “Incompetence Theory”

IV. Michael Albert Knows What Bush Knew

V. Misconstruing the Anthrax Case

VI. The Institutional Pattern of Provocation for War

VII. The Irrationality of Attempts to Delegitimise 9/11 Inquiry

VIII. Whitewashing the Israeli Mossad

IX. Whitewashing Pearl Harbour

X. Whitewashing the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

XI. Missing the Point




Acceptance of the official narrative of what happened on September 11, 2001 has become widespread, not merely on the right, but also on the left. In this paper, I take issue with the writings of several commentators who attempt to forcefully argue firstly that acceptance of the official narrative is justified, and secondly that certain kinds of inquiry into anomalies and inconsistencies in that narrative are illegitimate and unnecessary. The main bulk of this writing is available online at a new section at the well-known progressive website ZNet, and is somewhat representative of the mainstream approach to 9/11.[1]

In reviewing the work of these commentators on 9/11, I analyse in detail the failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of facts related to 9/11; the failure of U.S. defence measures on 9/11; the historic and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative; and some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the linkages between U.S. government, military, intelligence, and corporate policy, and the ease with which the September 11 terrorist attacks went ahead.

I. Automatic Dismissal of a Legitimate Line of Inquiry

Numerous respected commentators on both the left and right of the political spectrum have ardently criticised widespread speculation that the Bush administration had advanced warning of the September 11th terrorist attacks, sufficient to prevent them from occurring. When Democrat Party U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney called for a full investigation into the events surrounding September 11 – and particularly into the warnings received by the U.S. intelligence community suggesting that the administration may have known more than it is letting on – she was publicly derided. “We deserve to know what went wrong on September 11 and why”, stated McKinney.

“After all, we hold thorough public inquiries into rail disasters, plane crashes, and even natural disasters in order to understand what happened and to prevent them from happening again or minimizing the tragic effects when they do. Why then does the Administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack upon our nation?

“… Sadly, the United States government is being sued today by survivors of the Embassy bombings because, from court reports, it appears clear that the U.S. had received prior warnings, but did little to secure and protect the staff at our embassies. Did the same thing happen to us again?”[2]

Cynthia McKinney’s comments here echoed her earlier statements in a Pacifica radio interview: “We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11... What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”[3]

In response, on the right, Bush spokesman Scott McLellan declared: “The American people know the facts, and they dismiss such ludicrous, baseless views.”[4] Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, is quoted: “All I can tell you is the congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society.”[5] Nationally syndicated right-wing U.S. columnist Kathleen Parker joined the escalating chorus of condemnation:

“She’s black, which means people give her a pass lest they be perceived racist… None of which is to suggest that Cynthia McKinney is a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, or even a socialist rabble-rouser who despises her own country. On the other hand, using McKinney’s own talent for inferential dot-connecting, she just might be.”[6]

And on and on. The right-wing chorus of automatic denunciation appears to be based on the implicit assumption that the Bush administration is entirely guilt-free of any sort of role in implementing policies that may have facilitated the September 11 attacks, knowingly or unknowingly (McKinney specifies neither). Unfortunately, leading commentators on the left-end of the political spectrum appear to have joined in the obligatory chorus of derision. They are supported in this by the mainstream assumption that the reason the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the attacks is simply because of bureaucratic incompetence.

II. The “Incompetence Theory” of the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

That assumption has been adopted even by the private U.S. intelligence firm Stratfor, which produces independent intelligence on worldwide affairs. On September 16th 2002, Stratfor commented:

“We have no doubt that, after the databases have been searched, it will be found that U.S. intelligence had plenty of information in some highly secure computer. The newspapers will trumpet, ‘CIA knew identity of attackers.’ That will be only technically true. Buried in the huge mounds of information perhaps once having passed across an overworked analyst’s desk, some bit of information might have made its circuit of the agencies. But saying that U.S. intelligence actually ‘knew’ about the attackers’ plots would be overstating it. Owning a book and knowing what’s in it are two vastly different things.”[7]

On 20th May, commenting on the outbreak of controversy in Washington DC over “what Bush knew and when”, Stratfor elaborated on this perspective in some detail, arguing that the colossal 9/11 intelligence failure was a consequence of the structural fragmentation of the U.S. intelligence community:

“The Central Intelligence Agency, as the name suggests, was founded to centralize the intelligence function of the United States. It was a good idea then and it is a good idea now. Unfortunately, it is an idea that has never been truly implemented and from which, over time, the government has moved intractably away. A centralized intelligence capability is essential if the United States is to have a single, integrated, coherent picture of what is happening in the world. A bureaucratically fragmented intelligence community will generate a fragmented picture of the world. That is currently what we have.”[8]

While it is clear that a generally “fragmented picture of the world” is a likely consequence of a “bureaucratically fragmented intelligence community”, in itself this does not demonstrate that the capabilities of that community in developing specific intelligence on various aspects of the world is completely dysfunctional. Rather it suggests that the U.S. intelligence community will find it hard to develop an integrated, coherent understanding of world affairs and their interrelationships.

What is likely to be developed instead, are somewhat uncorrelated and/or disconnected pockets of intelligence on various aspects of world affairs. This, however, obviously does not entail in itself that the intelligence produced will be inaccurate with respect to those aspects. On the contrary, it simply indicates that while the U.S. intelligence community is capable of developing accurate intelligence on specific disparate aspects of world affairs, due to the structural fragmentation among the various agencies that constitute the intelligence community, a coherent overall intelligence picture of the world based on comprehension of the complex influences and interconnections between these disparate aspects will be extremely hard to form. Indeed, Stratfor itself grasps this implication:

“It is unclear whether any of these agencies completely understand their own internal vision, let alone that they are able to transmit a comprehensive picture to the CIA (which is supposed to integrate all this into a coherent world view and serve it up to the president and other senior officials for action).”

Clearly, the problem here does not necessarily relate to the task of focusing and gathering intelligence on a particular threat to U.S. national security – rather it relates to the integration of disparate intelligence into “a coherent worldview”. Structural stumbling blocks thus principally affect the coordination of the U.S. intelligence community in this respect. Attempting to account for a U.S. intelligence failure with respect to the specific issue of developing intelligence on a particular aspect of world affairs - such as a particular threat to U.S. national security – on the basis of such structural stumbling blocks, is therefore theoretically unwarranted.

In other words, while it is certainly possible that such structural stumbling blocks may have had some sort of role in any such intelligence failure, to suppose that they wholly account for the failure without an in-depth factual analysis of the failure itself (based on inspecting the collection and analysis of the related data) is nothing but gratuitous speculation. Indeed, given that such structural fragmentation principally affects the integration of intelligence into a “coherent worldview” (“a single, integrated, coherent picture of what is happening in the world”) it is highly unlikely that this fragmentation alone would be sufficient to result in a wholesale intelligence failure on any isolated specific aspect of world affairs, i.e. a specific threat to U.S. national security.

Stratfor, however, makes the mistake of extending the scope of the implications of the structural fragmentation of the U.S. intelligence community to the community’s failure to act with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11th – which of course was a specific threat to U.S. national security. Yet clearly this is unfounded based on Stratfor’s own assessment. Stratfor does go on to provide a useful examination of the specific ways in which the relative fragmentation of the U.S. intelligence community can, and has, affected the integration of analysis of information, thus preventing the development of a coherent intelligence product on world affairs.

“… [T]he U.S. intelligence system is overwhelmingly geared toward the collection, rather than the analysis, of information. The result is inevitable: a huge amount of information is gathered, but it is never turned into intelligence… The collection capacity of the United States, both technical and human, is vast. But it is deliberately and institutionally compartmentalized in such a way that prevents a coherent perspective from emerging.”[9]

Without, however, factually assessing the information on the September 11 terrorist attacks collected and analysed by the U.S. intelligence community, it is impossible to know whether this problem of emphasising collection over and above analysis, was the principal reason for the intelligence failure. It is further unlikely that the institutional compartmentalisation of the U.S. intelligence community contributed to its failure to develop a coherent perspective on the specific threat to U.S. national security of Al-Qaeda, because that compartmentalisation primarily affects the development of “a coherent worldview” – not a specific aspect thereof. It is the connection and coordination of intelligence on different aspects of world affairs into an integrated whole that is institutionally problematic as a consequence of the intelligence community’s compartmentalisation. Intelligence on specific issues is not implicated here.

It is, therefore, both theoretically and empirically incorrect for Stratfor to claim that: “Given this incredible tangle of capabilities, jurisdictions and competencies, it is a marvel that a finished intelligence product is ever delivered to decision makers.” This extreme conclusion is contradicted by the fact that the U.S. intelligence community has a demonstrable record of success. U.S. military intelligence expert Richard K. Betts, Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, and former member of the National Commission on Terrorism, observes in Foreign Affairs: “Paradoxically, the news is worse than the angriest critics think, because the intelligence community has worked much better than they assume…

“Contrary to the image left by the destruction of September 11, U.S. intelligence and associated services have generally done very well at protecting the country. In the aftermath of a catastrophe, great successes in thwarting previous terrorist attacks are too easily forgotten - successes such as the foiling of plots to bomb New York City’s Lincoln and Holland tunnels in 1993, to bring down 11 American airliners in Asia in 1995, to mount attacks around the millennium on the West Coast and in Jordan, and to strike U.S. forces in the Middle East in the summer of 2001.”[10]

A particularly pertinent Yale University study by U.S. intelligence expert Loch K. Johnson – former Assistant to Defense Secretary Les Aspin and Regents Professor of Political Science at the University of Georgia – examines how, and how well, intelligence efforts have guarded and advanced perceived U.S. interests. Analysing in detail a series of intelligence successes and failures, Johnson refutes common charges of ineptitude that have followed embarrassments such as the Aldrich Ames case. He argues convincingly that the successes of the CIA and the intelligence community far outweigh such setbacks. Most crucially, he discusses how even the failures are often laid at the wrong door: good intelligence has often been ignored by the upper political echelons of the Washington bureaucracy.[11]

In this context, to prematurely presume in the absence of facts that an intelligence failure on a specific national security threat is because of incompetence induced by the institutional compartmentalisation of the intelligence community, is unwarranted. On the contrary, as documented by Johnson, most often such failures are not related to the quality of the intelligence product itself, but rather because the political bureaucracy does not act on accurate intelligence received.

Stratfor, at least, admits that: “We remain certain that if we searched all of the databases and memos we would find that the U.S. government had collected much of the information that would have been necessary to prevent Sept. 11. It was there.” Yet the organisation then makes a logical leap in assuming, without having actually examined the data itself and what was done with it, that this information “wasn’t collated, integrated, or analyzed and therefore could not be disseminated.” But in light of the above analysis, there is simply no good reason at all to assume that this is the case, particularly when we understand that the institutional compartmentalisation of the intelligence community only makes it unlikely that the CIA will be capable of developing “a single, integrated, coherent picture of what is happening in the world”, rather than any coherent specific threat assessment. Indeed, this position is supported by the fact that there has been a string of U.S. intelligence successes in the last decade, in comparison to which there have been relatively few – though of course tragic - failures.

III. David Corn and the Magic All-Explanatory “Incompetence Theory”

Cruder renditions of the “incompetence theory” of the surprising lack of action on the part of U.S. intelligence in relation to September 11 have come from partisans of the left. These renditions are articulated in a much less sophisticated, and even more badly argued, manner than the position of groups such as Stratfor.

Washington Editor of The Nation, David Corn, for example, argues that: “… anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or, does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington - particularly those of the national security ‘community’ - do not work well together.”[12] Corn fails entirely, however, to specify exactly in what respect(s) this is the case. Unlike Stratfor, he does not clarify the nature of particular structural discontinuities between different bureaucratic and intelligence agencies and in what way they have problems integrating. As a consequence, his blanket statement about the national security community “not working well together” fails to actually communicate anything significant at all. Because the assertion is devoid of even a minimal attempt at factual specification of what this implies, it is effectively vacuous. But as we have seen above, while it is undoubtedly obvious that the intelligence community suffers from institutional compartmentalisation, this does not mean that the community is completely incompetent and dysfunctional. Rather, as Stratfor admits, it impairs the functioning of the community in the preparation of integrated intelligence to develop “a coherent worldview.” Corn’s attempt to apply the specific problems that these agencies have working together due to institutional compartmentalisation in an extended and general manner is without any foundation.

Indeed, Corn’s extreme portrayal is contradicted by a report in the Washington Post in May 2001 which observed that the two specialised U.S. intelligence agencies the FBI and the CIA have “in recent years” developed a very close “working relationship”. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has been “credited with greatly improving the FBI’s ability to counter terrorist threats”, as well as “for altering the FBI’s working relationship with the CIA, which long had been strained.” As noted by CIA Director George J. Tenet: “Director Freeh’s vision, leadership and commitment have been directly responsible for the unprecedented strategic partnership between the FBI and the CIA”, a partnership that in the past few years has borne fruit in a verifiable record of frequent intelligence successes, outweighing failures. Tenet commented for instance that: “Very significant successes in the counterterrorism and counterintelligence areas… are evidence of the remarkable cooperation that has existed between our two agencies in recent years.”[13]

That assessment put forth by the Post and by Tenet is corroborated by the following conveniently ignored fact, demonstrating that federal agencies have been working together very well indeed on the issue of counter-terrorism: A body of experts known as the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) exists, which was effectively chaired by White House Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. The CSG constitutes a connecting point for “all federal agencies”, whose members are “drawn mainly from the C.I.A., the National Security Council, and the upper tiers of the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and the State Department,” and who meet “every week in the White House Situation Room.” The CSG assesses “all reliable intelligence” related to counterterrorism received by these agencies and departments. The CSG was meeting almost every week in the period prior to the September 11 attacks, working incessantly on the specific threat of the impending Al-Qaeda plot.[14]

Nevertheless, Corn continues: “If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policy-making circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence.”[15] There is an elementary contradiction between this and Corn’s previous assertion. Here, Corn assumes that there could never have been any intelligence reports predicting the September 11 attacks, because if there had been, certainly “these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policy-making circles”. In other words, the reports would circulate around the intelligence community on the way to reaching the higher political echelons. That, of course, would require that at least in some significant respect, the agencies of the intelligence community are capable of coordinating and analysing information. Yet in his previous assertion, Corn assumes in a vague manner that the agencies of the “national security ‘community’” simply do “not work well together”. But these two generalised stances are mutually inconsistent.

The main problem here is that Corn keeps his commentary within the realm of theory, without actually assessing in a meaningful manner the available data on warnings of the 9/11 attacks received by the U.S. intelligence community.[16] And as we have shown above, the “incompetence theory” of the 9/11 intelligence failure is devoid of substantial factual basis.

IV. Michael Albert Knows What Bush Knew

This style of “analysis” of the 9/11 intelligence failure has been adopted by other writers on the left. U.S. political commentator Michael Albert of ZNet, for example, states bluntly that: “Supposing we had the means to answer the question about Bush’s foreknowledge of 9/11, it would at most reveal that U.S. intelligence services lack competence.”[17]

Albert does not supply any evidence for why this is the case. Instead, having acknowledged the existence of a question “about Bush’s foreknowledge of 9/11”, he supplies a vague and ready-made answer that “at most”, the U.S. intelligence community “lacks competence.” But clearly Albert has no meaningful grasp of the structural discontinuities between various agencies in the U.S. intelligence community and what specific problems they create – instead he assumes the existence of a blanket wholesale “incompetence”, and decides without any factual basis that this is the only plausible explanation of why the U.S. government failed to foil the September 11 attack. For instance, he also flies in the face of the fact noted above, that on the specific issue of counter-terrorism U.S. intelligence agencies were very closely coordinating their operations and information, on a regular basis, in the months leading up to 9/11.

In other words, Albert gives the impression that he already has the answer to the question, and thus since the answer “at most” will be “incompetence”, then there is no need to pursue further inquiry. Unfortunately however, it appears that Albert arrives at this conclusion without any factual analysis or inquiry at all: “Of course these agencies lack competence. Moreover, what good does demonstrating the incompetence of U.S. intelligence agencies do peace and justice? Should bolstering surveillance budget allotments be a new progressive program plank?” Having decided from the outset that U.S. intelligence agencies “lack competence” – although like Corn, Albert fails to provide any specific factual insight into what exactly is implied by this blanket description – Albert assumes that this undefined “incompetence” undoubtedly explains the Bush administration’s failure to prevent the September 11 attacks. The way in which this undefined theory of “incompetence” magically explains all and every anomaly in the official mainstream 9/11 narrative is disconcerting.

But as discussed above, a proper understanding of the specific implications of the U.S. intelligence community’s institutional compartmentalisation does not lead one to the undefined blanket conclusion that the community suffers from a general “incompetence”, but rather that this compartmentalisation has very precise connotations for the integration of intelligence information into “a coherent worldview”. In other words, as already discussed, on both a theoretical level based on analysis of the structure of the intelligence community as well as on an empirical level based in part on comparative analysis of the record of U.S. intelligence successes and failures, the conclusion that the Bush administration’s failure to prevent the September 11 attacks was simply due to “incompetence” is premature.

Given that most intelligence failures appear to have resulted not from the inaccuracy of the intelligence product, but rather from good intelligence being ignored by the higher political echelon, there is no justification to simply assume that an “incompetence theory” of the U.S. failure to foil the 9/11 plot provides a sufficient explanation of that failure.[18] Albert’s underlying assumption of “incompetence” is thus baseless. Ultimately, we have to investigate the facts surrounding 9/11 before making a judgment on 9/11 – otherwise our judgment is will be devoid of any substantial and relevant factual basis.

Albert’s essential argument for why “the left” should stop asking “what Bush knew and when” is circular, and thus self-defeating. He assumes from the outset that the intelligence community failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks simply because of some vague and undefined “incompetence”. He then argues that since that it is the case, anybody calling for more understanding of “what Bush knew and when” is falling into the right-wing agenda of saying that since U.S. intelligence is incompetent, more U.S. dollars should be thrown at the CIA. He then argues that “the left” should not become party to a programme to mindlessly increase the U.S. intelligence and defense budget which will then be used for more wars and acts of terror worldwide.

But Albert’s entire argument rests on the assumption that he already knows (somehow) the generalities of “what Bush knew and when” – i.e. that he knows that Bush did not know. In other words, Albert begins his argument by assuming that he already knows that Bush failed to foil the attacks due to intelligence “incompetence”, and that since this is the case, there is no need to ask “what Bush knew and when”. This boils down to an elementary contradiction: We do not need to ask the question “what Bush knew and when” because we already know the answer, even though in fact we do not know the answer at all as evidenced by Albert’s total failure to prove his “incompetence” assumption. As such, Albert’s attempt to convince “the left” that they should not even bother asking the question “what Bush knew and when” is based on baldly (and falsely) assuming that he knows the fundamental essence of the answer, and that since the answer is “incompetence”, it is not worth pursuing. This, of course, is incoherent.

V. Misconstruing the Anthrax Case

Ironically, the only piece of “evidence” offered by Albert to support his thesis of the overarching “incompetence” of the U.S. intelligence community is that: “… these are the U.S. same [sic] intelligence agencies that can’t find the perpetrator of the recent anthrax attacks, even though the anthrax came from Fort Detrick, Maryland, and even though, given the skills required, the number of possible culprits is a handful.” Unfortunately, this particularly factoid is of Albert’s own construction. Anybody who has been following the anthrax case would be aware of credible evidence that U.S. intelligence does, in fact, know pretty much who the perpetrator of the attacks is, but has been prevented from arresting the individual under high-level government pressure.

This information comes from a leading U.S. expert on biological warfare, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Program for the Federation of American Scientists, and a Research Professor of Environmental Science at the State University of New York. Rosenberg, who according to BBC correspondent Susan Watts has high-level government connections, states that the FBI had already identified the perpetrator of the Winter 2001 anthrax attacks, but was “dragging its feet” in making an arrest and pressing charges, for fear that secret government activities would be exposed. The Trenton Times reported that according to Rosenberg, “the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a strong hunch about who mailed the deadly letters. But the FBI might be ‘dragging its feet’ in pressing charges because the suspect is a former government scientist familiar with ‘secret activities that the government would not like to see disclosed’.”[19]

The charge was made in a February 18th address at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Citing sources she described as “government insiders” with whom she has been in contact, she testified that the FBI had known since last October the identity of the person who mailed lethal quantities of anthrax in letters to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Patrick Leahy, and several media outlets. Her sources further informed her that although the individual in question had been interrogated several times, he had not been arrested. “We know that the FBI is looking at this person, and it’s likely that he participated in the past in secret activities that the government would not like to see disclosed,” Rosenberg said.

“And this raises the question of whether the FBI may be dragging its feet somewhat and may not be so anxious to bring to public light the person who did this.

“I know that there are insiders, working for the government, who know this person and who are worried that it could happen that some kind of quiet deal is made so that he just disappears from view.

“I hope that doesn’t happen, and that is my motivation to continue to follow this and to try to encourage press coverage and pressure on the FBI to follow up and publicly prosecute the perpetrator.”[20]

In light of Rosenberg’s revelations, other experts concur. Steven Block of Stanford University, for example - an expert on biological warfare - told the Dallas Morning News that: “It’s possible, as has been suggested, that they may be standing back because the person that’s involved with it may have secret information that the United States government would not like to have divulged.”[21]

U.S. investigative journalist and former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, who has also testified in hearings before U.S. Congress as an expert on U.S. covert foreign policies, has written a particularly insightful and comprehensive analysis of the available data on the anthrax attacks for Counterpunch, described as “America’s best political newsletter” by Out of Bounds Magazine. Madsen’s conclusions are worth noting:

“… the FBI has never been keen to identify the perpetrator because that perpetrator may, in fact, be the U.S. Government itself. Evidence is mounting that the source of the anthrax was a top secret U.S. Army laboratory in Maryland and that the perpetrators involve high-level officials in the U.S. military and intelligence infrastructure… Forget unfounded conspiracy theories. The evidence is overwhelming that the FBI has consistently shied away from pursuing the anthrax investigation [under government pressure].”[22]

It should be noted that in this case, again, the evidence suggests that the failure of U.S. intelligence lies not with the accuracy of the intelligence product, but with the refusal of the higher political echelon to act upon it. This is not the place to undertake a detailed analysis of the anthrax issue, but it suffices to conclude that Albert clearly has no basic grasp of this subject. Nevertheless, he comments on it in support of his argument. Unfortunately, this is representative of Albert’s entire approach to 9/11. He appears to have no understanding, nor any interest in evaluating the actual data around 9/11 and related issues such as anthrax, but still feels ready to comment on them anyway. The simple problem that this creates is that ultimately, Albert’s commentary on 9/11 ceases to retain credibility.

VI. The Institutional Pattern of Provocation for War

Given that a proper analysis of the structure, capabilities, recent coordination and record of success of the U.S. intelligence community provides little – if any - support for the “incompetence theory” of a counterterrorist intelligence failure, it is likely that the 9/11 intelligence failure was a consequence of the higher political bureaucracy refraining from acting on intelligence. In this context, it is perfectly legitimate to investigate the 9/11 intelligence failure with due consideration given to both the admittedly unlikely “incompetence theory”, as well as what might be termed “the political inaction” theory, of which the “foreknowledge hypothesis” is one variation.

Either way, the likelihood of political inaction being behind the administration’s failure to foil the Al-Qaeda plot, in itself implicates the existence of a web of strategic and economic influences acting upon the political establishment, which resulted in such political inaction. And given that this is a far more tenable and probable possibility than mere “incompetence”, then it is essential to investigate the matter more thoroughly - including specifically an evaluation of the information (and what was done with it) about the 9/11 attacks available to the U.S. intelligence community.

It seems that the fundamental problem here is that the 9/11 intelligence failure is not seriously investigated, nor understood at all in any meaningful manner by Corn, Albert, and other similar commentators both on the left and right. Yet despite having no meaningful understanding of this failure, these commentators are happy to articulate their opinions on the matter anyway, by putting forth a variety of circular, inconsistent and/or effectively vacuous conclusions and statements about the very same failure. Those very vague conclusions are then taken as good reason to avoid investigating the 9/11 intelligence failure from certain angles, such as for instance the distinct possibility that the political bureaucracy did not act on good intelligence received. Ultimately then, pure speculation as a result of lack of understanding of the 9/11 intelligence failure, is used to justify that very lack of understanding.[23]

But there are, in fact, very pertinent reasons not to blindly accept the official “incompetence theory” adopted by so many in the mainstream, tolerated barely by elements of the right-wing to save face, and uncritically parroted by naïve commentators on the left. In a reply to Michael Albert’s ZNet commentary, Canadian social philosopher Professor John McMurtry at the University of Guelph refers to these reasons in detail:

“Shocking attacks on symbols of American power as a pretext for aggressive war is, in fact, an old and familiar pattern of the American corporate state. Even the sacrifice of thousands of ordinary Americans is not new, although so many people have never died so very fast... The basic point is that the U.S. ‘secret government’ (Bill Moyers’ phrase) has a very long record of contriving attacks on its symbols of power as a pretext for the declaration of wars, with an attendant corporate media frenzy focussing all public attention on the Enemy to justify the next transnational mass murder. This pattern is as old as the U.S. corporate state - from the sinking of the battleship Maine to start the Spanish-American War in 1898, through the fabricated attack on the U.S. battleship Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 along with the fabricated attack by Egypt on the client-state Israel in 1967, to a reiteration of the same general pattern in setting up the War Against Iraq from 1991 on - a war that has murdered by bombing and embargo intent an average of 5000 Iraqui children every month since. This executive branch war is still in motion. It started and it continues by the same overall pattern as 9-11. In the case of Iraq, the war was precipitated by the green light given by the U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, who said that the U.S. was ‘neutral’ regarding the climaxing dispute over oilfields between Iraq and Kuwait just before Saddam ordered troops into Kuwait. ‘Saddam fell into the trap’ were the insider words of Jordan’s foreign minister after the event.

“Throughout there is one constant to this long record of hoodwinking the American public into bankrolling ever rising military expenditures and periodic wars for corporate treasure. This decision structure ruled before and through 9-11, and has escalated after it - to fabricate or construct shocking attacks on U.S. symbols of power to provide the pretext and the public rage to launch wars of aggression against convenient and weaker enemies by which very major and many-levelled gains are achieved for the U.S. corporate-military complex.

“… Consider this earlier Republican version of 9-11. ‘Operation Northlands’ was a unanimous Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to ‘contrive’ the occurrence of an atrocity against U.S. citizens by Castro’s Cuba to justify a full-out U.S. invasion. Its scenarios included planting bombs and shooting down a U.S. passenger plane. There are many variations on this structure of geostrategic thinking. I analyse this regulating pattern in my new book, Value Wars, from Pluto Press.”[24]

Here, the essential implications of McMurtry’s point is the following: The possibility that the Bush administration had ample warning of the September 11 attacks but deliberately refused to act in order to generate a pretext for the consolidation of the U.S. corporate-military complex should not be discounted, in light of the well-documented historical record, which illustrates that such a policy is nothing new. On the contrary, McMurtry rightly notes that it is rather systematic. Given that the same essential decision-making structure responsible for that history continues to exist today, it is hardly reasonable to dismiss the need to discern whether the latest terrorist atrocity against the U.S. was not merely another element of the same underlying pattern. But that is exactly what Albert does, by refusing to even seriously consider whether that is the case – instead he only assumes the opposite without substantial basis.

U.S. political scientist Professor Steven R. Shalom of William Paterson University in New Jersey, co-writing with Michael Albert, extends the same vacuous style of analysis in a lengthy ‘ZNet Instructional’ on conspiracy theories.[25] Their paper begins with a detailed discussion comparing what they consider to be the fundamental elements of “conspiracy theory” with those of “institutional theory”. Their main concern appears to be to demonstrate that any consideration of whether the Bush administration played a deliberate role in facilitating the September 11 terrorist attacks amounts to indulging in “conspiracy theory”, which most of the time represents “a departure from rational analysis”, which is thus, most of the time, a priori incorrect – and thus not worth serious consideration:

“Conspiracy theorists begin their quest for understanding events by looking for groups acting secretly, either outside usual institutional norms in a rogue fashion, or, at the very least to manipulate public impressions, to cast guilt on other parties, and so on. Conspiracy theorists focus on conspirators’ methods, motives, and effects. Personalities, personal timetables, secret meetings, and conspirators’ joint actions claim priority attention. Institutional relations largely drop from view.

“... An institutional theory emphasizes roles, incentives, and other institutional dynamics that promote or compel important events and, most important, have similar effects over and over. Institutional theorists of course notice individual actions, but don't elevate them to prime causes. The point of an institutional explanation is to move beyond proximate personal factors to more basic institutional factors. The aim is to learn something about society or history, as compared to learning about particular culpable actors. If the particular people hadn't been there to do the events, most likely someone else would have.

“To the institutional theorist, the behavior of rogue elements is far less important than the ways in which the defining political, social, and economic forms lead to particular behaviors. An institutional theory of the U.S. missile attacks on Sudan or the Iran-Contra affair focuses on how and why these activities arose due to the basic institutions of U.S. society, not on the personal quirks of a womanizing Clinton or a loose-cannon Ollie North.”

While Shalom and Albert acknowledge that there are “of course, complicating borderline cases”, they fail to grasp the point articulated by McMurtry, that so-called conspiratorial behaviour is very often a direct consequence of a wider framework of institutional dynamics. Historically, political, social and economic forms in the United States have frequently led to such behaviour. By citing several well-known examples from the historical record, McMurtry highlights the fact that U.S. military intelligence “has a very long record of contriving attacks on its symbols of power as a pretext for the declaration of wars, with an attendant corporate media frenzy focussing all public attention on the Enemy to justify the next transnational mass murder. This pattern is as old as the U.S. corporate state.”[26] The existence of such a systematic historical pattern is evidence of a deeply-entrenched web of institutionalised decision-making structures at the helm of the U.S. military intelligence community. This institutional dynamic is what produces the pattern of manufacturing provocations for war, often by permitting or pushing forward attacks on symbols of American power. It is thus perfectly reasonable and legitimate to ask whether the September 11 terrorist attacks were also a late product of the same institutional dynamic.

Shalom and Albert, however, take issue with the citation of ‘Operation Northwoods’ as an example of this institutional dynamic:

“Conspiracy theorists have pointed to the Operation Northwoods document as proving that U.S. leaders were capable of 9-11. The document is a recently released top secret 1962 memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposing the staging of attacks on U.S. targets that would appear to be coming from Cuba, as a way to justify a U.S. attack on the island.”

Whether or not Northwoods is taken as an example of this institutional dynamic, previous instances of contriving attacks on U.S. symbols of power as a pretext for the declaration of wars are systematic enough to demonstrate that this is a method employed by U.S. decision-making structures when elite military, political, strategic and economic considerations converge on making such a method appear favourable, in terms of meeting elite institutional interests. Nevertheless, Shalom and Albert argue that Northwoods is not a relevant example here:

“But… the Joint Chiefs didn’t call for killing U.S. citizens. They did propose sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees (though we don’t know whether the Joint Chiefs would have arranged for a U.S. vessel to fortuitously be on hand to pick up the refugees in the water), but with regard to the shoot down of a plane filled with U.S. college students, the plan was to switch an actual planeload of students with an ‘unmanned’ drone that would be shot down, supposedly by Cuba. Elsewhere, Operation Northwoods proposes blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay in a ‘Remember the Maine’ replay, but explicitly refers to a ‘non-existent crew’. The document also suggests attacks on Cuban refugees in the United States ‘even to the extent of wounding.’ So if this document is supposed to show us what U.S. officials are morally capable of, it seems to suggest that they are capable of lying, deceit, conspiring to wage a war of aggression - but not killing U.S. citizens. Moreover, as far as we can tell, the plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs was rejected by the U.S. civilian leadership.”

Unfortunately, from the outset Shalom and Albert mistake the primary value of an analysis of the Operations Northwoods document to be that the U.S. decision-making structure is capable of arranging the killing of its own citizens. One does not need Northwoods to know, however, that the U.S. decision-making structure views U.S. citizens as expendable. The willingness of the government to send ever larger numbers of young soldiers to their death in the Vietnam War is a single obvious illustration of that expendability. Other examples are numerous, such as how the U.S. government has many times knowingly subjected its citizenry to a dangerous – and potentially lethal - test of biological weapons.[27] The primary value of analysing the plan hatched by the Joint Chiefs outlined in the Northwoods document is in providing proof of the U.S. military intelligence infrastructure’s willingness to resort to the long-standing method of, in McMurtry’s words, fabricating or constructing “shocking attacks on U.S. symbols of power to provide the pretext and the public rage to launch wars of aggression against convenient and weaker enemies by which very major and many-levelled gains are achieved for the U.S. corporate-military complex.”

As George Washington University’s National Security Archive records, Operation Northwoods “describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba…

“These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake ‘Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,’ including ‘sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),’ faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a ‘Remember the Maine’ incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.”[28]

Indeed, there are enough other examples from the historical record such as Pearl Harbour (discussed below), some mentioned by McMurtry, proving decisively that the U.S. decision-making structure at the helm of the U.S. military intelligence community is morally capable of allowing U.S. citizens to be killed to serve geostrategic interests.

Furthermore, simply because something did not happen in the past, certainly does not prove the lack of propensity for such an event to occur in the future, given the necessary conditions. As Shalom and Albert themselves admit, “it makes sense to develop institutional theories because they uncover lasting features with ubiquitous recurring implications. On the other hand, if an event arises from a unique conjuncture of particular people who seize extra-systemic opportunities, then even though institutions undoubtedly play some role, that role may not be generalizable and an institutional theory may be impossible to construct.”

Taking this admission a step further, it is certainly plausible that as a consequence of a very institutional dynamic, the system itself develops in a manner that is not necessarily the same as before, but institutionalises novel and perhaps unpredictable features. On a merely theoretical basis, therefore, one cannot fully predict the future (otherwise we would all be political astrologists), or assume that events will remain stuck within a particular institutional trajectory. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the very institutional trajectory of the U.S. decision-making structure has operated in such a manner as to develop and consolidate its power in progressively new, and even worse, features, than before. A close analysis of the Cabinet members of the current Bush administration, for instance, discloses therein the unprecedented conjuncture of officials representing the most powerful elements of the U.S. military, intelligence and corporate complex. Never before has an administration been so directly wired into the ruthless U.S. military-industrial complex.[29]

In that context, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that the September 11 terrorist attacks were the outcome of the same sort of considerations – rooted in long-standing political, social and economic forms - that gave rise to the Operation Northwoods plan, and other previous U.S. operations along similar lines.

VII. The Irrationality of Attempts to Delegitimise 9/11 Inquiry

Shalom and Albert, however, appear intent on labeling any such inquiry as a plunge into irrationalism. Discussing the irrational element of “conspiracy theory”, they attempt to show that in general most “conspiracy theories” are unscientific:

“… it is a basic requirement of scientific beliefs that they be in principle falsifiable, that there be the possibility of disconfirming evidence. If a scientific hypothesis predicts X, and instead not-X occurs (and recurs repeatedly with no off-setting explanations for the discrepancy), then the hypothesis ought to be doubted. If the hypothesis flouts prior knowledge as well as current evidence, and is accepted nonetheless, then the behavior is often no longer scientific, nor even rational…

“Where God’s mysterious ways salvage the religious believers’ failed predictions, added layers of conspiracy salvage disconfirmed conspiracy theories. To the conspiratorial mind, if evidence emerges contradicting a claimed conspiracy, it was planted. If further evidence shows that the first evidence was authentic, then that further evidence too was planted.”

This description of such irrational, unscientific “conspiracy theory” is then applied to September 11. All those who argue the legitimacy of investigating whether the Bush administration may have deliberately facilitated the 9/11 attacks are lumped into one contrived category of “conspiracy theorists”, and subsequently dismissed for proposing absurd uninteresting ideas without foundation. This is achieved essentially by listing a large number of “conspiracy theories” - many of which are arguably untenable, a few of which are plausible - and then simply discarding them all as intrinsically absurd without even attempting to address the matter with a factual analysis:

“Here are some of the leading 9-11 conspiracy theories:

1. The World Trade Center was destroyed not by planes but by explosives.

2. The planes were not hijacked at all, but commandeered by remote control by NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command).

3. The planes were hijacked, but the hijackers were double-crossed and the planes were taken over by remote control by NORAD.

4. The hijackers were actually working for the U.S. government.

5. U.S. intelligence knew about the plot, but intentionally did nothing so as to cause massive deaths that would mobilize public support for a war on terrorism that would benefit the government.

6. The plot was actually organized by the Mossad.

7. The Mossad knew about the plot, but did nothing, hoping that the massive deaths would mobilize public support for Israel’s war on the Palestinians.

8. Tower 2 of the World Trade Center was hit by a missile.

9. There was a joint plot by rogue elements in the CIA, the Mossad, other U.S. government agencies, Mobil (being investigated in a criminal case, all of the evidence against whom was in FBI offices in the World Trade Center), and Russian organized crime (which profited especially from Afghan heroin with which the Taliban was interfering).

We should be forthright here. None of the above strike us as remotely interesting much less plausible.”

The entire approach here, however, is misleading. ZNet began its crusade against 9/11 “conspiracy theories” by criticising the idea of Bush foreknowledge of the attacks. Shalom and Albert, however, extend this criticism without warrant by lumping virtually all angles of analysis of the U.S. role which contradict the official narrative of 9/11 together, dismissing them all. In doing so, they also dismiss the distinctly plausible possibility already noted above that the Bush administration did receive sufficient warning of the attacks to prevent them, but failed to act. Crucially, at no point in their analysis do Shalom and Albert undertake a meaningful analysis of the relevant facts, which are widely available on the public record. They give no argument as to why this possibility is inherently implausible – nor for that matter do they give any good reason as to why any of the above theories are inherently implausible, other than asserting “forthrightly” that this is the case, and qualifying the assertion by noting that none of these theories happen to fit in with their personal understanding of “how the world works”. It is only because of this sleight-of-hand that their discussion appears to take the form of rationality. In fact, they are merely doing what they themselves criticise to be unscientific: theorising about 9/11 based on shoddy long-held but untenable assumptions, without any proper analysis of the available data.

Let us take, for example, their “conspiracy theory” number 4:

4. The hijackers were actually working for the U.S. government.

At face value, without bothering to look at relevant credible reports on this subject, it is easy to dismiss this as “implausible.” But a cursory analysis of relevant facts certainly strongly suggests that the hijackers had some sort of high-level U.S. military connection. According to reports in Newsweek, the Washington Post and the New York Times, after September 11, U.S. military officials gave the FBI information “suggesting that five of the alleged hijackers received training in the 1990s at secure U.S. military installations.”[30] Newsweek has further elaborated that U.S. military training of foreign students occurs as a matter of routine, with the authorisation - and payment - of respective governments, clarifying in particular that with respect to training of Saudi pilots, “Training is paid for by Saudi Arabia.” The hijackers, we should note, were almost exclusively Saudi; 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families:

“U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s. Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source… NEWSWEEK visited the base early Saturday morning, where military police confirmed that the address housed foreign military flight trainees… It is not unusual for foreign nationals to train at U.S. military facilities. A former Navy pilot told NEWSWEEK that during his years on the base, ‘we always, always, always trained other countries’ pilots. When I was there two decades ago, it was Iranians. The shah was in power. Whoever the country du jour is, that’s whose pilots we train.’ Candidates begin with ‘an officer’s equivalent of boot camp,’ he said. ‘Then they would put them through flight training.’ The U.S. has a long-standing agreement with Saudi Arabia - a key ally in the 1990-91 gulf war - to train pilots for its National Guard. Candidates are trained in air combat on several Army and Navy bases. Training is paid for by Saudi Arabia.”[31]

The U.S. government has attempted to deny the charges despite the name matches, alleging the existence of biographical discrepancies: “Officials stressed that the name matches may not necessarily mean the students were the hijackers because of discrepancies in ages and other personal data.” But measures appear to have been taken to block public scrutiny of these alleged discrepancies. On 16th September, news reports asserted that: “Officials would not release ages, country of origin or any other specific details of the three individuals.” This situation seems to have continued up to the time of writing. Even Senate inquiries into the matter have been studiously ignored by government law enforcement officials, who when pressed, have been unable to deny that the hijackers were training at secure U.S. military installations. When Senator Bill Nelson, for instance, in outrage asked the FBI whether the hijackers were being trained by the U.S. military, they refused to give a definitive answer, instead admitting that “they are trying to sort through something complicated and difficult.”[32]

Which leads us to wonder: What on earth has the U.S. military been up to in relation to Al-Qaeda? Is it not reasonable to consider whether these hijackers were working for the U.S. government in some way in light of these reports (especially given that it has happened before in relation to the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, the perpetrator of which was a former U.S. Army Sergeant)? And given the non-response of the FBI to specific questions on the matter, does this not suggest that they are hiding something? There is not yet a clear-cut answer to these questions, but that is exactly why this issues need to be researched in greater depth. Clearly, this anomaly in the official narrative, which has broad implications in terms of the ramifications of U.S. military intelligence policy toward its Middle East allies, is worth exploring further. In their arbitrary wholesale rejection of so-called “conspiracy theories”, Shalom and Albert are clearly also debunking legitimate lines of inquiry that have basis in fact.

VIII. Whitewashing the Israeli Mossad

There are other examples of this. Let us take, for instance, their two Mossad-related “conspiracy theories”:

6. The plot was actually organized by the Mossad.

7. The Mossad knew about the plot, but did nothing, hoping that the massive deaths would mobilize public support for Israel’s war on the Palestinians.

By bluntly stating two variations of the possibility that the Israeli Mossad had some sort of connection/involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks, and then dismissing them wholesale, Shalom and Albert seem to be suggesting that as far as “the left” is concerned, any attempt to investigate the evidence of an Israeli connection to 9/11 is inherently illegitimate. But by assuming from the outset, without basis, that the idea of an Israeli connection is implausible, they actually demonstrate only their ignorance of history.

It is certainly well-documented, for example, that Israel has quite regularly perpetrated terrorist attacks against its U.S. and British benefactors. This is nothing new, as documented by U.S. political commentator John Leonard in the Afterword to my 9/11 study, The War on Freedom. Leonard shows that there is in fact a rich history here, analysis of which discloses a consistent pattern of provocation. Menachim Begin[33] led the 1946 Zionist truck bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, timed to spur British troop withdrawals and give Zionist militias a free hand against the poorly armed Palestinians, taking the lives of just under 100 British guests.[34] Such covert Israeli intelligence operations have evolved into a sophisticated pillar of state strategy, from amateur beginnings in the 1950’s, when the exploits of some provocateurs became public. In the Lavon affair, Israeli “private citizens” blew up American and British property in Egypt, blaming it on the Muslim Brotherhood, but were caught by the police.[35] The bombing of synagogues in Iraq by Zionists inciting their brethren to flee to Palestine also became public knowledge.[36] The New Zealand Herald cites the testimony of an ex-Mossad agent on the Achille Lauro hijacking, who exposed the atrocity as an Israeli “black propaganda operation.”[37]

Does this, in itself, prove that the Israeli military intelligence infrastructure was in some way involved in 9/11? Of course not. But it proves propensity, since this infrastructure has a long record of conducting terrorist attacks – not only against U.S. and British targets but also against Jews (not to mention Palestinians). What brings this propensity into the limelight of a proper contemporary analysis of 9/11 are a number of facts, documented by Leonard in The War on Freedom, proving beyond doubt the reality of some sort of dubious Israeli involvement. Among the pertinent facts he plucks from the public record, are the following.

In the first of a four-part investigative documentary TV series on the Israeli connection to 9/11, FOX News correspondent Carl Cameron reported on how U.S. authorities had detained active members of an Israeli spy ring operating in the U.S., believed by authorities to be linked to the 9/11 attacks:

“A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States [emphasis added]… investigators suspect that they [sic] Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – ‘tie-ins’. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – ‘evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.’ Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism.”[38]

The Weekly Planet reports that “addresses of many” of the “Arabs under scrutiny by the U.S. government” systematically “correspond to the specific areas where the Israelis set up operations.” One extremely pertinent example is “an address for the Sept. 11 hijacking leader, Mohammad Atta,” which is “3389 Sheridan St. in Hollywood, Fla., only a few blocks and a few hundred feet from the address of some of the Israelis, at 4220 Sheridan.” The strange coordination between Atta and Israeli intelligence operatives is not an isolated case. About a “dozen Israelis, including the alleged surveillance leader, had been based in Hollywood, Fla., between January and June [2001] – quite possibly watching Arabs living nearby who are suspected of providing logistical support to Osama bin Laden’s network.” Indeed, ten of the 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers lived in Florida, bolstering conclusions reported by a FOX News reporter that “the students-cum-spies might have gained advance knowledge of aspects of the Sept. 11 terrorists” – or even worse, may have been directly involved in some way.[39] The respected French journal Le Monde further reports that there were “more than one-hundred Israeli agents, some presenting themselves as fine arts students, others tied to Israeli high-tech companies. All were challenged by the authorities, were questioned, and a dozen of them are still imprisoned. One of their tasks was to track the Al-Qaida terrorists on American territory – without informing the federal authorities.”[40]

The detained Israelis, in other words, had been part of an intelligence operation that had very possibly been tracking the hijackers, and had both the means and the opportunity to discover the terrorist plot. Indeed, somewhat ominously, the U.S. government has refused to disclose already existing “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11,” ensuring instead that it remains “classified” (unlike direct evidence of an Al-Qaeda involvement). Most crucially, if U.S. authorities recognise the existence of an Israeli connection to 9/11, including the distinct possibility of foreknowledge (not to mention as yet undisclosed “tie-ins”), why are Shalom and Albert arbitrarily dismissing the same? There is no need to comment on this further – it is clear that the facts speak for themselves in warranting a further inquiry into an Israeli linkage to the September 11 attacks. Such an inquiry is clearly legitimate based on the facts. We do not need to delve into specific “conspiracy theories”, or a discussion of them, to understand the legitimacy – and necessity – of such an inquiry, which obviously has broad implications for the nature of the relationship between the United States and Israel, as well as the current direction of Israeli intelligence policy.

Ironically then, the “incompetence theory” of the 9/11 intelligence failure and other issues related to September 11 adopted by Shalom and Albert, fits nicely into their own description of an irrational and unscientific hypothesis: “If the hypothesis flouts prior knowledge as well as current evidence, and is accepted nonetheless, then the behavior is often no longer scientific, nor even rational.” It is noteworthy that their hypothesis not only flouts “prior knowledge” on the historic pattern of provocation for wars noted by McMurtry, Leonard, and others, but also completely ignores “current evidence” available on the 9/11 attacks. As such, their hypothesis is not only unscientific, it is irrational.

IX. Whitewashing Pearl Harbour

A particularly stark example of this is their answer to their self-posed question “Do all the ignored warnings about 9-11 prove conspiracy or just incompetence?”:

“Actually, ignored warnings prove neither. It is possible, for example, that there were many warnings but that these warnings were not readily distinguishable from the thousands of other intelligence reports being received at the same time. Despite the conspiracy theories claiming FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor, it remains the case that the most compelling explanation for the missed warnings in 1941 was the inability to detect the significant information from the noise. (This is the argument of Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, 1962.)”

Many things are possible. What we are interested in, however, is not what was or was not “possible” in relation to September 11th, but what actually happened. Speculation on what could or could not have been the case is not always helpful in decisively discerning the reality of the matter. It is, of course, very easy for both “conspiracy theorists” and “institutional theorists” to continue sitting in their respective bubbles of irrelevant “theory” with respect to 9/11, Pearl Harbour, and any other event. None of them, however, will in reality have the slightest clue what they are talking about unless they leave the bubble of “theory” and enter into the domain of factual analysis. Shalom and Albert, however, like the extreme “conspiracy theorists” they criticise, completely fail to do this in a meaningful way. Their dismissal of the “conspiracy theories claiming FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor” is a particularly illustrative example of this. Instead of discussing the matter by referral to the documented facts, they cite the stale hypothetical argument of Roberta Wohlstetter put forth in 1962.

But that sort of blanket dismissal of the case for President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbour is no longer tenable. The History Channel (U.S.A.) recently aired a BBC-produced documentary, Betrayal at Pearl Harbor, which demonstrated using, among other historical records declassified U.S. documents, that then U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his chief military advisers knew full well that Japan was about to spring a “surprise attack” on the U.S. under the latter’s provocation, but allowed the attack to occur to justify U.S. entry into war.[41] Detailed documentation of this fact has been provided by historian Robert Stinnett in his recent study, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Stinnett served in the U.S. Navy from 1942-46 where he earned ten battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation. Examining recently declassified American documents, he concludes that far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America.[42]

“Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, saw an opportunity to counter the U.S. anti-war movement by provoking Japan into a state of war with the U.S., and triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact. Memorialized in a secret memo dated October 7, 1940, McCollum’s proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan. President Roosevelt acted swiftly, and throughout 1941, implemented the remaining seven provocations. The island nation’s militarists used the provocations to seize control of Japan and organize their military forces for war against the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands. During the next 11 months, the White House followed the Japanese war plans through the intercepted and decoded diplomatic and military communications intelligence. At least 1,000 Japanese radio messages per day were intercepted by monitoring stations operated by the U.S. and her Allies, and the message contents were summarized for the White House. The intercept summaries from Station CAST on Corregidor Island were current—contrary to the assertions of some who claim that the messages were not decoded and translated until years later—and they were clear: Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7, 1941, by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Oceans.”[43]

Other elements of the case have also been put well by Daryl S. Borgquist, a U.S. Naval Reserve Public Affairs Officer and a Media Affairs Officer for the Community Relations Service Headquarters at the U.S. Department of Justice: “President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the national office of the American Red Cross to send medical supplies secretly to Pearl Harbor in advance of the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack…

“Don C. Smith, who directed the War Service for the Red Cross before World War II and was deputy administrator of services to the armed forces from 1942 to 1946, when he became administrator, apparently knew about the timing of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Unfortunately, Smith died in 1990 at age 98. But when his daughter, Helen E. Hamman, saw news coverage of efforts by the families of Husband Kimmel and Walter Short to restore the two Pearl Harbor commanders posthumously to what the families contend to be their deserved ranks, she wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton on 5 September 1995. Recalling a conversation with her father, Hamman wrote:

‘… Shortly before the attack in 1941 President Roosevelt called him [Smith] to the White House for a meeting concerning a Top Secret matter. At this meeting the President advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese. He anticipated many casualties and much loss, he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area at a P.O.E. [port of entry] on the West Coast where they would await further orders to ship out, no destination was to be revealed. He left no doubt in my father’s mind that none of the Naval and Military officials in Hawaii were to be informed and he was not to advise the Red Cross officers who were already stationed in the area. When he protested to the President, President Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack [sic] within their own borders…

‘He [Smith] was privy to Top Secret operations and worked directly with all of our outstanding leaders. He followed the orders of his President and spent many later years contemplating this action which he considered ethically and morally wrong. I do not know the Kimmel family, therefore would gain nothing by fabricating this situation, however, I do feel the time has come for this conspiracy to be exposed and Admiral Kimmel be vindicated of all charges. In this manner perhaps both he and my father may rest in peace.’”

In a detailed historical account published by the respected journal Naval History, affiliated to the U.S. Naval Institute, Borgquist documents the U.S. government’s foreknowledge and provocation of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, through analysis of many other aspects of the relationship between the government and the Red Cross.[44]

Thus, we see how compelling evidence of the U.S. government’s role in both provoking and permitting the attack on Pearl Harbour is simply ignored by Shalom and Albert. As a result, their commentary on these matters fails to retain any credibility. Thus, they ignore a key example of how the U.S. government and military intelligence infrastructure has in the past deliberately provoked acts of terrorism against U.S. targets, anticipating U.S. casualties, in order to justify military action.

X. Whitewashing the 9/11 Intelligence Failure

Unsurprisingly then, their attempt to support the case for an “incompetence theory” of the 9/11 intelligence failure follows the same method of ignoring the most compelling facts:

“One of the main arguments for foreknowledge of 9-11 is that any rational person looking at the warnings and evidence accumulated by U.S. officials before 9-11 would have concluded that an attack was going to occur. To not have put in motion measures to stop it therefore proves complicity.

“Consider two clues:

“The FAA has a “Red Team” whose job it is to try to smuggle explosives and weapons past airport checkpoints to test airport security. According to Bogdan Dzakovic, a member of the team, airport security failed 90 percent of the tests, but the FAA did nothing about it, essentially blocking further tests.

“A report by the Library of Congress to the National Intelligence Council stated: ‘Suicide bomber belonging to Al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the C.I.A. or the White House.’

“These clues would lead some to conclude that the president ‘must have known’: But the ‘president’ who must have known in these cases was Bill Clinton. Dzakovic had his tests squelched in 1998 (Blake Morrison, USA Today, 25 Feb. 2002, pp. A1, A4) and the Library of Congress study was written during the Clinton administration (quoted in William Safire, ‘The Williams Memo,’ New York Times, 20 May 2002, p. A19). So either Clinton too was in on the plot (and his top aides, Gore, Cohen, Albright?) or else it’s possible to have received such reports and still not done anything even though one wasn’t a conspirator.”

It is worth noting that this presentation of the “evidence” is nothing but a laughable straw man. Shalom and Albert thus achieve their objective of construing any consideration of “what Bush knew and when” to be absurd, by presenting as extremely weak a case as possible, and then observing that, of course, the case is extremely weak. But this is simply another vacuous circular argument.

We will here cite just a few documented facts from my more extensive study, The War on Freedom, which demonstrate that the U.S. intelligence community had developed very precise information on the September 11 terrorist attacks prior to those attacks, information which was widely known among U.S. agencies.

The New Yorker reports that according to Richard A. Clarke, U.S. National Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the White House, about ten weeks before 11th September, the U.S. intelligence community was convinced that a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda on U.S. soil was imminent. Seven to eight weeks prior to the 11th September attacks, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of an impending Al-Qaeda attack against the Untied States that would likely occur in several weeks time: “Meanwhile, intelligence had been streaming in concerning a likely Al Qaeda attack. ‘It all came together in the third week in June,’ Clarke said. ‘The C.I.A.’s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks’.” On July 5th, Clarke “summoned all the domestic security agencies—the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the F.B.I.” and informed them “of an impending attack.”[45]

Approximately 4 weeks prior to 11th September, the CIA took seriously specific information of an impending Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil. The Associated Press reports that: “Officials also said the CIA had developed general information a month before the attacks that heightened concerns that bin Laden and his followers were increasingly determined to strike on U.S. soil.” A CIA official affirmed that: “There was something specific in early August that said to us that he was determined in striking on U.S. soil.” AP elaborates that: “The information prompted the CIA to issue a warning to federal agencies.”[46]

So it is clear that the U.S. intelligence community was anxiously anticipating an imminent Al-Qaeda attack in the next few weeks. But that is not all. The specific method of the attacks – using planes as missiles or bombs – was also known by U.S. intelligence. The U.S. intelligence community received warnings six months before 11th September, warnings which were repeated again three months before that date, that “Middle Eastern terrorists” planned to hijack planes to use as missiles against prominent American buildings. These warnings were not ignored or dismissed. On the contrary, they were taken very seriously by the U.S. intelligence community. Newsbytes, an online division of the Washington Post, reported in mid-September that:

“U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals at least three months ago that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture, according to a story in Germany’s daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).

“The FAZ, quoting unnamed German intelligence sources, said that the Echelon spy network was being used to collect information about the terrorist threats, and that U.K. intelligence services apparently also had advance warning. The FAZ, one of Germany’s most respected dailies, said that even as far back as six months ago western and near-east press services were receiving information that such attacks were being planned. Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified, the FAZ said.”[47]

The last comment - “Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” - is crucial. It clearly indicates that in response to the ECHELON warnings, the entire U.S. intelligence community - all U.S. intelligence agencies - were on alert for a hijacking attempt that would attempt to hurl planes into “symbols of American” culture. So the U.S. intelligence community knew both that an Al-Qaeda attack was imminent, and also that the attack would attempt to use civilian planes as bombs to hit prominent U.S. targets.

John McMurtry cites another revealing piece of evidence indicating specifically that U.S. intelligence had been aware that these targets were located in lower Manhattan – the World Trade Center is of course the most prominent terrorist target in that district, particularly since it had already been targeted in the past by terrorists linked to bin Laden in 1993:

“Perhaps most remarkably, there had been direct warnings from the Republican Party’s own past Chief Investigative Council for the House Judiciary Committee to the closed decision circuits of Congress and the Bush administration. Representing F.B.I. special agents suing the U.S. Justice Department (along with Washington-DC Judicial Watch), David Philip Schippers reported in Houston on October 10 on the ‘Alex Jones Talk Show’ that these agents knew of a plan of bin Laden’s network to attack Lower Manhattan with ‘commercial airlines as bombs’ long before 9-11, but were blocked from investigative and preventative action by F.B.I. and U.S. Justice Department command, and threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they published this information. Attorney-General Ashcroft himself, reports Schippers, refused to return calls on this matter to his fellow senior Republican for four weeks before 9-11.”[48]

At the same time, U.S. intelligence was aware that suspected terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden were training at U.S. flight schools. The Washington Post reported, for instance, that the FBI had in fact known this for several years - yet, absolutely nothing had been done about it:

“Federal authorities have been aware for years that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the United States and abroad, according to interviews and court testimony… A senior government official yesterday acknowledged law enforcement officials were aware that fewer than a dozen people with links to bin Laden had attended U.S. flight schools.”[49]

All this information was widely known in the U.S. intelligence community. U.S. intelligence operatives were fully aware of their dire implications. But they were forced into a state of inaction by the studious passivity of Washington. One active FBI counter-terrorism investigator, for instance, testifies that it was widely known “all over the Bureau, how these [warnings] were ignored by Washington...

“All indications are that this information came from some of [the FBI’s] most experienced guys, people who have devoted their lives to this kind of work. But their warnings were placed in a pile in someone’s office in Washington... In some cases, these field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th. So we were all holding our breath… hoping that the situation would be remedied.”[50]

David Schippers himself told me in an interview that according to his contacts in the intelligence community, who had approached him in May 2001 about an impending Al-Qaeda attack from the air on lower Manhattan, “there are others all over the country who are frustrated, and just waiting to come out.” The frustration of these intelligence officers, Schippers explained, was because of the obstructions of a “bureaucratic elite in Washington short-stopping information,” with the consequence that they have granted “terrorism a free reign in the United States.”

All this data, and much more, is extensively discussed in The War on Freedom. What is clear from this data is that it is wrong to assume that one agency had one bit of information, another agency had another, and due to incompetence either the information was not taken seriously or it was not connected, or both. On the contrary, the entire U.S. intelligence community was alerted to the relevant information, and took it seriously. Given that the White House Counterterrorism Security Group, coordinating the findings of all federal agencies, was working incessantly on the Al-Qaeda plot prior to 9/11, this is not surprising.

A few weeks prior to September 11th 2001, the intelligence community thus anticipated: an imminent Al-Qaeda terrorist attack on U.S. soil; the hijacking of civilian planes to be used as missiles to target iconic structures symbolic of American power; the targeting of buildings in lower Manhattan. But preventive action in response to this precise information – such as apprehending Al-Qaeda operatives at U.S. flight schools - was blocked from Washington.

The above analysis demonstrates that even a cursory inspection of some pertinent facts suffices to discredit the simplistic “incompetence theory”. Instead, the facts clearly indicate that the Washington political echelon simply refused to act on accurate and precise intelligence of the impending attacks. Why that might be is another matter that is also examined in my book.[51] But we may derive some insight into that by noting the acute observations of U.S. military expert Stan Goff – a former U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant and Lecturer in Military Science and Doctrine at West Point Military Academy - who points out that, contrary to the simplistic and misleading claim of Shalom and Albert that prior to 9/11 the Bush administration “already had immense power”, in fact “the U.S.’s ability to dominate the entire planet is unraveling…

“This is just part of a historical evolution that is at some point inevitable and I think it’s about to happen. I think what they’re doing now is not something they’re doing out of a position of strength but out of a position of desperation and panic. These are very panicked kind of m in a sort of broad overall view of things which makes them exceedingly dangerous. I think historically we can go back and see that when big capital gets in trouble and the market’s not working for them anymore they have to find a way, cause right now there is a worldwide production over-capacity that’s created a recession that’s about to go deep and about to go long and one of the ways that they’ve traditionally gotten themselves out of that is to liquidate a bunch of that capital and the best way to liquidate capital real fast is war. That’s the way they correct the problem they use non-market mechanisms to correct for a fallen rate of profit within a market economy. And I think what’s even more dangerous is we are looking at this huge imperial power that’s the United States right now and they’re trying to control everything at once and their empire is beginning to unravel on them and I think what is particularly dangerous for people like me and probably people like y’all and a lot of your listeners is that in the process of doing this they’re going to have to exercise more and more despotic measures at home to step on resistance…”[52]

Unfortunately, Shalom and Albert are only able to argue their case by refusing to conduct a meaningful analysis of the relevant facts. By keeping their “analysis” within a bubble of theory rooted in false assumptions, they attempt to justify why “the left” should remain within the same bubble and not bother looking at the facts and their implications. Once again, this only shows that as commentators on the September 11 attacks, they retain no credibility, since they have no significant grasp of the related data. While they rightly criticise the automatic “Obviously the World Trade Center attack was a U.S. government hoax”-conspiracy-bandwagon, they fall into the opposite extreme of uncritically buying into the official 9/11 narrative of ‘Obviously the World Trade Center attack was not foiled because of U.S. incompetence.’ The reality is far more complex. Picking and choosing one’s facts according to what conveniently fits into the pre-established framework of one’s pre-determined “conspiracy theory” or “institutional theory”, is simply a recipe for being alienated from the real world.

XI. Missing the Point

The rest of Shalom and Albert’s analysis continues to studiously miss the point, as usual by ignoring facts in an effort to justify why “the left” should also not bother to investigate the facts. They attempt to take on, for example, 9/11 “conspiracy theories” about President Bush allowing the attacks to go ahead by ensuring that the U.S. Air Force failed to respond on time. But they do not even attempt to assess the principal anomalies surrounding this whole issue, which have led many commentators to conclude that the official, magical, all-explanatory, undefined, catch-phrase “incompetence” is not sufficient to explain the scale of the breakdown of U.S. defence measures on September 11. The principal anomaly has, once again, been aptly and concisely articulated by Professor McMurtry:

“Although U.S. airforce interceptions of hijacked planes are normally only minutes-long, there was a stand-down of these automatic interception actions for all of the hijacked planes of 9-11, without one airforce plane turning a wheel for over two hours. The terrorists circled jumbo jets known to be hijacked around the military air-command’s front yard airspace until after all three of the buildings had been dive-bombed. Yet no disciplinary process nor formal investigation by the Pentagon, the F.B.I., Congress or the mass media was undertaken despite all the stunning breaches of defence routine, which together provided an open passage for the long-planned attack.”[53]

Veteran journalist George Szamuely – former editorial writer for The Times, The Spectator, and the Times Literary Supplement; as well as an associate at the Manhattan Institute, editor at Freedom House, research consultant at the Hudson Institute, and a contributor to Commentary, American Spectator, National Review, the Wall Street Journal, National Interest, American Scholar among many others – pinpoints the fundamental problem in the official narrative with further elaboration:

“Passenger jet hijackings are not uncommon and the U.S. government has prepared detailed plans to handle them. On Sept. 11 these plans were ignored in their entirety… Here are the FAA regulations concerning hijackings: ‘The FAA hijack coordinator…on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft… The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).’ Here are the instructions issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001: ‘In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will…forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.’… The U.S. is supposed to scramble military aircraft the moment a hijacking is confirmed.”[54]

In this context, the official “incompetence theory” of this inexplicable lack of adherence to mandatory standard operating procedures on the part of the National Military Command Center begins to fall apart. Award-winning Canadian journalist and media analyst Barry Zwicker - former correspondent for the Toronto Sun and the Globe and Mail, and currently a media critic on CBC-TV, CTV’s News1, and Vision TV - observes:

“Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead time and are 12 miles from the White house.

“Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the ‘Incompetence Theory.’ Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask - and other media need to ask - if there were ‘stand down’ orders.”[55]

Again, this is a legitimate line of inquiry deserving of further attention. Within the strict hierarchy of decision-making in the U.S. military establishment, standard operating procedures cannot be systematically violated unless an appropriate command to do so is received from above, and would normally not be violated without severe reprimand and immediate rectification. Military experts such as Stan Goff have asserted that the issue needs to be investigated, noting of the Bush administration’s attempts to pretend procedures were followed that: “There is a story being constructed about these events”. Goff also observes: “[A]t a very bare minimum… we’ve either got a criminal conspiracy or we’ve got criminal negligence on the part of this Administration. But in either case, there are parts of this thing that could have been prevented but nobody did a thing.”[56] Given the nature of the massive collapse of almost all related defence measures on September 11, involving the violation of standard operating procedures, it is reasonable to investigate the matter further to discern whether the cause was likely to be, as is the obvious deduction, stand down orders – an admittedly plausible explanation in context with the convincing evidence for Washington’s deliberate inaction in response to intelligence warnings.

Similar concerns apply to the official version of Osama bin Laden’s relationship to the United States. Instead of taking note of anomalies suggesting that the U.S. relationship to Osama is far more complex than the conventional wisdom would have us believe, Shalom and Albert ridicule simplistic straw man fallacies such as that bin Laden’s “former ties to the U.S… reveal the secret roots of a conspiracy.”

But they ignore facts indicating that the U.S. government’s attitude to Al-Qaeda is not as hostile as the mainstream may presume. It is well-known, for instance, that Al-Qaeda receives millions of dollars in financial support from members of the Saudi royal family – Saudi Arabia of course being a major client regime of the United States - perhaps including the bin Laden family which is under investigation by the FBI for funding Osama.[57] Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker that: “Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd…

“The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country’s religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it.”

Furthermore, the NSA intercepts “have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region.” According to one senior U.S. intelligence official, the Saudi regime had “gone to the dark side.”[58]

President George W. Bush had, for example, blocked intelligence investigations into Saudi terror connections prior to September 11. Here are just two credible press reports on this matter. BBC Newsnight reported high-level blocks on U.S. investigations into bin Laden-related terror connections, based on what appear to be attempts to protect U.S. corporate interests - including the fact that President Bush Jnr.’s fortune was built on doing business with the Saudi bin Laden family:

“The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden’s chief U.S. representative… Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle Corporation, a little known private company which has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after September 11… I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a U.S. intelligence agency. He tells me that while there’s always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it’s gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to ‘back off’ investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents… FBI headquarters told us they could not comment on our findings.”[59]

Bush Jr.’s order to “back off” the bin Laden family and Saudi royals followed previous orders dating back to 1996 – the year when Saudi funding of Al-Qaeda was uncovered - frustrating efforts to investigate the latter. The London Guardian has elaborated that: “FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the U.S. before the terrorist attacks of September 11…

“U.S. intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied… High-placed intelligence sources in Washington told the Guardian this week: ‘There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis.’ They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to ‘back off’ from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan. ‘There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.’”[60]

Clearly, neither Saudi Arabia nor President Bush, are interested in genuinely cracking down on the funding of Al-Qaeda. That is clear from the blocks on Saudi terror connections imposed by Bush and his predecessors, for years. It is clear from the behaviour of Saudi royals, for years. The implications are even more damning when we consider credible reports that the bin Laden family, with whom the Bushes have very close financial ties, also funds Osama bin Laden.[61]

There is little doubt then that the Bush administration is effectively conniving with the Saudi support of Al-Qaeda terrorism, by allowing it to continue and even worse, actively protecting it from investigation by repeatedly obstructing U.S. intelligence inquiries. There are dire implications here that need to be investigated, perhaps in terms of the role international terrorism might play in providing a pretext for foreign and domestic policies, where otherwise a pretext could not be found. Is that why successive U.S. administrations tolerate the financial support of Al-Qaeda by their key clients? To what extent does the web of strategic and economic interests behind the decision-making structure responsible for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East lead successive administrations to form and protect regional alliances which are intrinsically unstable, despite knowing the domestic consequences and dangers in terms of international terrorism? Again, even a cursory inspection of a few relevant facts clarifies the legitimacy and necessity of this line of inquiry, and demonstrates that questioning the official narrative about the relationship between bin Laden and the U.S. is perfectly reasonable.

Shalom and Albert move on from this to tackle the question of “looking at who benefits to see who must be responsible – doesn’t that imply conspiracy?…

“First of all, we know from mystery writers that there is often more than one suspect with a motive. Does the U.S. government gain from 9-11? Yes. Does Israel? Yes. But what about Russia (which now has a freer hand in Chechnya)? Yes also. How about China? Yes, also, with its free hand in Xinjiang, and the far lower likelihood that the United States will try to isolate it. If one goes through history and uncritically and mechanically applies the ‘who benefits?’ principle, one finds it a poor guide to understanding.”

Their attempt here to equate “looking at who benefits to see who must be responsible” with a penchant held by “mystery writers” is disingenuous. As they themselves admit, looking at who benefits is “often useful, but hardly definitive”. But if we are at all mildly interested in understanding 9/11, then we will have to therefore admit the usefulness of asking the question “who benefits?”, and therefore the usefulness of analysing specific evidence for whether the prime beneficiaries contributed to the crime from they benefited. But Shalom and Albert sidestep that implication by equating the “who benefits?” principle with conspiratorial mystery writing. Indeed, no one is claiming that “who benefits?” as an isolated principle is automatically an all-explanatory catchphrase for all historical phenomena! Again, as usual Shalom and Albert fail to deal with the essentials of the argument and hence only refute another pathetic straw man.

In fact, “who benefits?” is a standard forensic question that is used by law enforcement officials when investigating a crime, in the attempt to isolate the main suspects. Of course, this forensic principle is not used to solve the crime, and therefore not definitive! But it is used as at least one basic criterion of gathering a legitimate/likely list of suspects to be investigated. There is nothing irrational, conspiratorial, or mysterious about this entirely normal method of initial forensic inquiry. Based on that method, it is reasonable to investigate the role of the Bush administration and the U.S. military-corporate complex, if any, in the September 11 attacks, with an open and impartial attitude – since they are the most direct, primary beneficiaries.

Shalom and Albert also fail to acknowledge that the issue of who benefits from 9/11 does provide a plausible explanation of why the Bush administration would refuse to act on accurate intelligence of an impending Al-Qaeda attack (an issue which they refuse to analyse in any meaningful manner). It is of course possible that they did not anticipate the extent of the destruction the 9/11 attacks would cause, as McMurtry notes:

“Shocking attacks on symbols of American power as a pretext for aggressive war is, in fact, an old and familiar pattern of the American corporate state. Even the sacrifice of thousands of ordinary Americans is not new, although so many people have never died so very fast. This scale of the 9-11 massacre is what makes most people doubt that even the ilk of Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush Jr. could be complicit in such a crime. There is a point to be made here. It is indeed likely that the deaths were not anticipated because of the unexpected tidal downsweep of igniting jet fuel through the Twin Tower elevator shafts. Even the most experienced New York firefighters were astonished by the building collapses that thus occurred.”[62]

Rather, Shalom and Albert present the forensic principle of “who benefits?” as if it is offered as the only piece of evidence that “implies conspiracy”. In fact, this standard forensic principle gives us a good reason to ask the question of whether the most immediate and direct beneficiaries – the Bush administration and the U.S. military-industrial complex – of the 9/11 attacks were in some way involved in those attacks.

In other words, it gives us good reason to begin an investigation into the subject, rather than fanatically dismiss the issue without any serious consideration, as Shalom and Albert do, and ask “the left” to do. Most crucially, the key point that they ignore is that the “who benefits?” principle, connected to the available data indicating that the Washington political echelon refused to act on accurate intelligence on the impending Al-Qaeda attack, provides a plausible explanation of that studious inaction, both prior to 9/11 and on the very day of the attacks.

That indeed is the assessment of leading U.S. intelligence expert Tyrone Powers, a former FBI Special Agent specialising in counterterrorism - now Professor of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice at Anne Arundel County Community College and Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice, Legal Studies and Public Service. I corresponded with Powers about the 9/11 intelligence failure in the aftermath of the recent controversy on Capitol Hill about “what Bush knew, when”. He told me that in his view, based on the facts that have recently surfaced on the public record, there was “credible information from the FBI, CIA and foreign intelligence services that an attack was imminent”. The information indicated that an Al-Qaeda hijacking attempt was probable. But no measures were enforced by the Bush administration – such as increasing security measures at airports in accordance with long-standing recommendations – to prevent such hijackings.

Powers puts this in context with what he describes as the “consequentialism” inherent to the decision making process of leaders, which he has witnessed firsthand in his intelligence and counter-intelligence background: “... on occasion, [damaging] acts are allowed if in the minds of the decision-makers, they will lead to ‘greater good’,” and as long as the damage is contained within certain limits. Powers further refers to a variety of combined institutional influences and issues: pressure on intelligence agencies to vastly reduce their powers; concern over the “blowback” from the controversies of the Presidential election; the desire on the part of elements of the intelligence community to “reconstitute the CIA” after its perceived “emasculation by the Clinton administration”; the belief among these elements that such a reconstitution required “a need, a demand and a free hand that would be given by a democratic Congress [only] if there was a National outcry”. He then told me that: “My experience tells me that these incidents would have reached the level at which the ‘consequentialism’ thought process would have been made a real option” - in other words, that elements of the intelligence community and the administration may have deliberately failed to act in the belief that the resultant damage would contribute to a “greater good”, providing a pretext for such policies as the reconstitution of the CIA. However, Powers emphasises that this policy would have been the result of a “miscalculation” - a failure to anticipate the extent of this damage: “But the amount of destruction wrought on a civilian population shocked even the advocates of this policy.”

In other words, the U.S. intelligence community had sufficient information of an impending Al-Qaeda hijacking attack, Powers argues reviewing the available evidence, but was probably blocked from undertaking preventive action from above. Elements of the Bush administration, he suggests, may have done so to protect or further their perceived interests - the “greater good” - perhaps in justifying domestic and foreign policies they are now pursuing.[63]

If a U.S. intelligence expert of Powers’ standing believes that this is a more plausible explanation of the available facts than the “incompetence theory”, how can Shalom and Albert dismiss it as not “remotely interesting, much less plausible”? Their stance is simply irrational.


The rest of the comments made by Shalom and Albert in their ‘ZNet Instructional’ are rooted in the body of fallacies, mistaken assumptions, vacuous analysis, and avoidance of facts that they amass in their previous observations. The fundamental problem with their work, and with the work of others who adopt the same frame of ideas, is that they do not appear to have any sort of handle on the facts – nor do they appear to have any “interest” in analysing them, basically due to their fundamental faith in the accuracy of the official 9/11 narrative.

Starting from the effective assumption that they know that Bush did not know, they attempt to convince “the left” that therefore we should not bother investigating the matter. The same circular principle is applied wholesale to every other gaping hole in the official 9/11 narrative. This, of course, does not do ZNet – an otherwise brilliant social justice resource – nor anyone else for that matter, any justice. As we have seen above, even a cursory inspection of the facts suffices to show that investigating the U.S. government role in relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks is a legitimate line of inquiry.

Furthermore, it is clear that the facts pose a considerable challenge to the conventional wisdom about the 9/11 attacks, exposing glaring anomalies that need to be addressed. These anomalies in the mainstream version of events suggest a much wider picture of long-standing institutional corruption, involving the intertwined relationship between the interests of the U.S. military-corporate complex and the operation of international terrorism.[64]

NOTES are in following post.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:28 am

[p.31 of dump]

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis

— CONTINUED from previous post:


[1] See http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm and scroll down to ‘Conspiracy Theory?’

[2] Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, in interview with Dennis Bernstein, Flashpoints, News Radio, KPFA, 12 April 2002. Transcript available at Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MCK204B.html.

[3] Interview of Cynthia McKinney, Pacifica Radio, 25 March 2002.

[4] Washington Post, 12 April 2002.

[5] Atlanta-Journal Constitution, 12 April 2002.

[6] Parker Kathleen, ‘McKinney’s minions march to different drummer’, Tribune Media Services, 22 April 2002, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kath ... 422.shtml; Parker, ‘Conspiracy Theories Laughable’, Tribune, 24 April 2002, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kath ... 0424.shtml.

[7] Stratfor, 16 September 2001, http://www.stratfor.com.

[8] Stratfor, ‘Sept 11: What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?’, Strategic Forecasting LLC, 20 May 2002.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Betts, Richard K., ‘Fixing Intelligence’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002. Excerpt available at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020101f ... gence.html.

[11] Johnson, Loch K., Secret Agencies: U.S. Intelligence in a Hostile World, Yale University of Press, 1996.

[12] Corn, David, ‘The Loyal Opposition: The 9/11 X-Files’, Tom Paine, 1 March 2002, http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5206.

[13] Walsh, Edward and Vise, David A., ‘Louis Freeh To Resign As Director Of the FBI’, Washington Post, 2 May 2001, p. A01.

[14] Wright, Lawrence, ‘The Counter-Terrorist,’ New Yorker, 14 January 2002.

[15] Corn, David, ‘The Loyal Opposition: The 9/11 X-Files’, op. cit.

[16] For that sort of in-depth assessment, see Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq, ‘Did Bush Know? Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures’, Media Monitors Network, http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html. This is Chapter 4 of my new study of the 9/11 attacks, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001, Media Messenger Books, June 2002, http://www.thewaronfreedom.com.

[17] Albert, Michael, ‘What Did Bush Know, When?’, ZNet, 21 May 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/a ... shknow.cfm.

[18] For such a comparative analysis see Johnson, op. cit.

[19] Dee, Joseph, ‘Anthrax Suspect ID’d’, Trenton Times, 19 February 2002, http://www.nj.com/mercer/times/index.ss ... R1IUB.html. Also see BBC Newsnight, ‘Anthrax attacks’, 14 March 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiov ... newsnight/
[20] A detailed account drawing on several press reports is Martin, Patrick, ‘FBI knows anthrax mailer but won’t make an arrest, U.S. scientist harges’, World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), 25 February 2002, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb20 ... -f25.shtml.

[21] Madsen, Wayne, ‘Anthrax and the Agency: Thinking the Unthinkable’, Counterpunch, 8 April 2002, http://www.counterpunch.org/madsenanthrax.html.

[22] Ibid.

[23] To Corn’s credit, it should be noted, in other articles he has called for an investigation to 9/11, albeit primarily on grounds of uncovering “incompetence”. The only problem here is that if one begins an investigation having already made up one’s mind what the general problem was, the danger arises that the investigation will likely be skewered, limited and conditioned from the start by one’s assumptions, leading to evidence against one’s original assumptions being ignored.

[24] McMurtry, John, ‘Reply to ZNet Commentary of May 22, 2002: What Did Bush Know?’, ZNet, 8 June 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/mcmurty.cfm.

[25] Shalom, Stephen R. and Albert, Michael, ‘Conspiracies or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond’, ZNet, 2 June 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/Instruction ... albcon.cfm.

[26] McMurtry, op. cit.

[27] See Madsen, op. cit.

[28] NSA News, ‘Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962’, National Security Archive, George Washington University, 30 April 2001, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430.

[29] This point is discussed lucidly and concisely by U.S military expert Stan Goff, a former U.S. Special Forces Master Sergeant and Lecturer in Military Science and Doctrine at the West Point Military Academy: “Start with Bush. Start with the de facto president right now. He was the CEO of Harken Energy. That is his own little company, you know. As it turns out, he wasn't very good at it. You know, his dad, was an oil man. So you've got two generations in oil right there. Okay. And his dad was also you know the former President, the former Vice-President, the director of Central Intelligence. George Herbert Walker Bush is on the board of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is right now a $12 billion dollar equity company, but it's heavily invested in all kinds of things, including oil and it's also I think 11th or 12th whatever, biggest defense contractors in the country right now. It's getting very incestuous. And in fact, Carlyle put Bush junior on the board of one of its subsidiaries, which is Cater Air. A little shuttle service, a little puddle jumper service. Sort of as a sop to dad. The new ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan, is a Dallas lawyer and an old Bush booster. Jordan works for a Baker Botts. That's a firm with offices in Riyadh. And Baker Botts represents Carlyle Group over there. And the Baker in Baker Botts is James Baker, who was Secretary of State for George Herbert Walker Bush, but he is also the guy that engineered the whole Florida coup d'etat, in the 2000 election. He was the midwife of that little venture. Some of the other folks in Carlyle, Fidel Ramos, former Chief of the Philippines. Park Tae Joon of South Korea. John Major. Everybody remember John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs? And you can go back with the Bush family. Prescott Bush, Rockefellers, Duponts, Standard Oil, Morgans, Fords, all these other folks were anti-Semites and anti-Communists way back. They also actually financed the rise to power of Adolph Hitler. They financed it. I mean, that's a historical fact. It's irrefutable. And Prescott Bush did business with the Nazis all the way up to 1942 until he was censured by the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act. And after the War, he turned right around and ran for Congress in Connecticut and won. This is an interesting family. Anyway, Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton Oil. Got $34 million before he took office in stock options from Halliburton. As the CEO, Cheney, and I'm looking at my notes, oversaw $23.8 billion dollars in oil industry contracts to Iraq alone. Now this is interesting, because Cheney found the loopholes in the embargo on Iraq. Now the attack on Iraq was done when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense. He stepped down as Secretary of Defense and turned right around and became the CEO of Halliburton, took advantage of the loopholes and went back there and made $23.8 billion dollars in Iraq by rebuilding the infrastructure that we bombed out of existence. Halliburton is also involved with the Russian mob. They've got sort of two things going on. One is oil and the other is drug trafficking. Halliburton is a story all by itself. Secretary of State, Colin Powell. This man has no diplomatic credentials. He was the former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and all of sudden he is in charge of the entire diplomatic corps of the United States. That's interesting just by itself. He has cash holdings or stock holdings in a number of defense contractors. Tony Prinicipi, Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Lockheed Martin, defense contractor. The biggest defense contractor in the world. Andrew Card, Chief of Staff. . General Motors. Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England. General Dynamics. Secretary of the Airforce, James Roche, Northrup Grummond.. Secretary of the Army, General Thomas White retired. Enron Energy. These folks are (chuckles) all defense contractors or oil people. The whole bunch of them are. Donald Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense. What people don't realize is he is also the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. They get big defense contracts. But he is also with General Signal Corporation, a defense contractor. And interestingly enough, he is also heavily invested in biotech, which is probably gonna make a killing here pretty soon with whatever Anthrax vaccines. Cheney and I've got a picture of Cheney and Rumsfeld in May 2000 at the Russian-American Business Leaders Forum together. Arms around each other, and smiling. Dick Armitage. Deputy Secretary of Defense, he's a guy like me, he's a former special ops guy, Seal. He had to leave the Reagan Administration because he was up to his neck in Iran contra drug problems. And now he's working directly with the Russian Mafia. And he is also a board member of Carlyle. Remember that? Chief of Carlyle is Mr. Carlucci, who is also with the Middle East Policy Council, you see how this stuff intersects? Commerce Secretary is Donald Evans who owns Colorado Oil Company. You have to take a very close look at this cabinet, which I think was constructed in a very systematic way to figure out what their foreign policy priorities are.” (Interview with Stan Goff by Mike McCormick, 24 October 2001, http://www.interlog.com/~cjazz/goff.htm)

[30] Wheeler, Larry, ‘Pensacola NAS link faces more scrutiny,’ Pensacola News Journal, 17 September 2001.

[31] ‘Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases,’ Newsweek, 15 September 2001.

[32] See my Chapter 4 of The War on Freedom, ‘Did Bush Know?’, op. cit.

[33] Begin was a leader of the Jewish underground, the Irgun, and of the Likud party. He served as Prime Minister, and shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize with Anwar Sadat.

[34] ‘Mid-East: Palestine Time-Line,’ Index of articles on ‘Recovered History,’ from The Progressive Review, http://prorev.com/recovered.htm. Pittman, James O., ‘Negotiation Strategy in Hostage Situations,’ U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, May-June 1996, http://das.cs.amedd.army.mil/journal/J9636.HTM: “Menachim Begin, the former head of the state of Israel, who began his political growth as a member of the Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL), eventually rising to lead the IZL and participated in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in the name of Zionist liberation from British rule.”

[35] Hirst, David, ‘The Lavon Affair,’ in The Gun and the Olive Branch, Futura, 1984; relevant excerpts at www.mideastfacts.com/lavon_hirst.html. The scandal brought down the Israeli government, but the plotters got a hero’s welcome home.

[36] See first-hand testimony from an Iraqi Jew, Naeim Giladi, ‘The Jews of Iraq,’ The Link, published by Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU), Vol. 31, No. 2, April-May 1998. “About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs,” recalls Giladi. “The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic countries was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm work that was beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews. Ben Gurion needed the ‘Oriental’ Jews to farm the thousands of acres of land left by Palestinians who were driven out by Israeli forces in 1948… Documents, including some that I illegally copied from the archives at Yad Vashem, confirm what I saw myself, what I was told by other witnesses, and what reputable historians and others have written concerning the Zionist bombings in Iraq, Arab peace overtures that were rebuffed, and incidents of violence and death inflicted by Jews on Jews in the cause of creating Israel.” See Giladi’s book, Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews, AMEU, 1992. See also Christian Science Monitor, ‘Israel’s Palestinian puppets:’ “the recruitment of collaborators has become a crucial plank of Israel’s security,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0522/p01s04-wome.html .

[37] According to testimony of ex-Mossad agent Ari Ben-Menashe in New Zealand Herald, October 2000, at http://www.howlingatthemoon.com/pacific ... CT2000.htm. More on Mossad is found in books like Gideon’s Spies by Gordon Thomas, and By Way of Deception by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.

[38] FOX News, 11 December 2001. The transcript is available at http://www.firefox.1accesshost.com/cameron.html.

[39] Suggs, John F., ‘The Spies Who Came in from the Art Sale,’ Weekly Planet (Tampa Bay), March 20, 2002, http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2002-03-20/news_feature.htm.

[40] Cypel, Sylvain, ‘An Enigma: Vast Israeli Spy Network Dismantled in the U.S.’, Le Monde, 5 March 2002, http://www.antiwar.com/rep/lemonde1.html.

[41] History Channel, ‘Betrayal at Pearl Harbor,’ 7 December 2001.

[42] Stinnett, Robert B., Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, Touchstone Books, 2001.

[43] Stinnett, ‘Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys,’ Providence Journal, The Independent Institute, Oakland, 7 December 2001.

[44] Borgquist, Daryl S., ‘Advance Warning? The Red Cross Connection,’ Navy History, The Naval Institute, May/June 1999.

[45] Wright, Lawrence, ‘The Counter-Terrorist,’ op. cit. Under pressure from Congress, the White House has finally officially admitted that the U.S. intelligence community had information that Al-Qaeda was planning an imminent attack through hijacking. However, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has gone on record denying that U.S. intelligence had any other specific information, such as that the planes might be used as missiles (BBC Newsnight, 16 May 2002). This denial, however, is patently false, as demonstrated by the reports on the public record discussed here. U.S. intelligence not only had the information, but had believed it, and acted upon it in the intensification of related surveillance.

[46] Solomon, John, ‘CIA Cited Risk Before Attack,’ Associated Press, 3 October 2001.

[47] Stafford, Ned, ‘Newspaper: Echelon Gave Authorities Warning of Attacks,’ Newsbytes, 13 September 2001, http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170072.html. ECHELON is a vast intelligence information collection system capable of monitoring all the electronic communications in the world. It is operated by the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. While no government agency has ever confirmed or denied its existence, an EU committee that investigated ECHELON for more than a year confirmed that the system does exist in early September 2001. The EU committee reported that Echelon sucks up electronic transmissions “like a vacuum cleaner”, using keyword search techniques to sift through enormous amounts of data. The system covers the whole world’s electronic communications with 120 satellites. For more on ECHELON see Bamford, James, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, Doubleday, 2001.

[48] McMurtry, John, ‘Decoding 9-11’, http://www.snowshoefilms.com/mcmurtryDecoding.html. This article is adapted from the Preface of McMurtry’s forthcoming book Value Wars: The Global Market Versus the Life Economy, Pluto Press, London, August 2002.

[49] Fainaru, Steve and Grimaldi, James V., ‘FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools,’ Washington Post, 23 September 2001.

[50] Grigg, William Norman, ‘Did We Know What Was Coming?’, The New American, Vol. 18, No. 5, 11 March 2002, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/ ... weknow.htm.

[51] See my Chapter 7, ‘The New War: Power and Profit, at Home and Abroad’, in The War on Freedom, op. cit.

[52] Interview with Stan Goff, op. cit.

[53] McMurtry, op. cit.

[54] Szamuely, George, ‘Nothing Urgent,’ New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2, http://www.nypress.com/15/2/taki/bunker.cfm

[55] Zwicker, Barry, ‘The Great Deception: What Really Happened on Sept. 11th Part 2,’ MediaFile, Vision TV Insight, 28 January 2002, http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight ... _Jan28.htm.

[56] Interview with Goff, op. cit. Also see my Chapter 5, ‘The Collapse of Standard Operating Procedures on 9-11’, in The War on Freedom, op. cit.

[57] Extensive documentation on this and related issues is in my Chapter 6, ‘American Ties with the Most Wanted Man on Earth’, in The War on Freedom, op. cit.

[58] Hersh, Seymour, M., ‘King’s ransom: How vulnerable are Saudi royals?’, New Yorker, 22 October 2001. Also see Indyk, Martin S., ‘Back to the Bazaar,’ Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002.

[59] BBC Newsnight, ‘Has Someone Been Sitting On The FBI?’, BBC 2, 6 Nov. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/
[60] Palast, Gregory and Pallister, David, ‘FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated,’ The Guardian, 7 November 2001.

[61] Reports on this subject from respected sources such as ABC News, Judicial Watch, BBC Newsnight, and others are discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of The War on Freedom, op. cit.

[62] McMurtry, op. cit.

[63] Interview with Tyrone Powers, Institute for Policy Research & Development, 22 May 2002. Powers articulated the same views in an interview with Bob Slade on 98.7 Kiss FM, this May.

[64] Those anomalies and their implications are discussed extensively in my book, The War on Freedom, op. cit.

Mr. Nafeez Ahmed is a British political analyst and human rights activist based in London. He is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission. This article is based partly on research in Ahmed’s new book on the U.S. role in the 9/11 attacks, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001.

[Kevin Ryan/NIST/WTC &tc.]

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures

Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/10 ... story.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanicala ... fSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStat ... 04WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

I don't remember where I got this, attributed to a Usman Farman, maybe it's apocryphal, but it made the rounds and appears in a book by Rebecca Solnit:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ikky4 ... 22&f=false

9/11 Account by a Manhattan Muslim:

"I was on my back, facing this massive cloud that was approaching, it must have been 600 feet off, everything was already dark. I normally wear a pendant around my neck, inscribed with an Arabic prayer for safety; similar to the cross.

A hesidic Jewish man came up to me and held the pendant in his hand, and looked at it. He read the Arabic out loud for a second. What he said next, I will never forget.

With a deep Brooklyn accent he said “Brother, if you don’t mind, there is a cloud of glass coming at us, grab my hand, let's get the hell out of here”. He helped me stand up, and we ran for what seemed like forever without looking back.

He was the last person I would ever have thought, who would help me. If it weren’t for him, I probably would have been engulfed in shattered glass and debris."
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:16 am

[p.32 of dump]

[Sibel Edmonds, Dickersons, FBI &tc.]

Published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by the lndependent/UK
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/s ... t=3&dir=70

'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

by Andrew Buncombe in Washington

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

The issue ­ what the administration knew and when ­ is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.
To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "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."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd


2 FBI Whistle-Blowers Allege Lax Security, Possible Espionage

By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 19, 2002; Page A10

In separate cases, two new FBI whistle-blowers are alleging mismanagement and lax security -- and in one case possible espionage -- among those who translate and oversee some of the FBI's most sensitive, top-secret wiretaps in counterintelligence and counterterrorist investigations.

The allegations of one of the whistle-blowers have prompted two key senators -- Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) -- to pose critical questions about the FBI division working on the front line of gathering and analyzing wiretaps.

That whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds, 32, a former wiretap translator in the Washington field office, raised suspicions about a co-worker's connections to a group under surveillance.

Under pressure, FBI officials have investigated and verified the veracity of parts of Edmonds's story, according to documents and people familiar with an FBI briefing of congressional staff. Leahy and Grassley summoned the FBI to Capitol Hill on Monday for a private explanation, people familiar with the briefing said.

The FBI confirmed that Edmonds's co-worker had been part of an organization that was a target of top-secret surveillance and that the same co-worker had "unreported contacts" with a foreign government official subject to the surveillance, according to a letter from the two senators to the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. In addition, the linguist failed to translate two communications from the targeted foreign government official, the letter said.

"This whistleblower raised serious questions about potential security problems and the integrity of important translations made by the FBI," Grassley said in a statement. "She made these allegations in good faith and even though the deck was stacked against her. The FBI even admits to a number of her allegations, and on other allegations, the bureau's explanation leaves me skeptical."

The allegations add a new dimension to the growing criticism of the FBI, which has centered in recent weeks on the bureau's failure to heed internal warnings about al Qaeda leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Last month, FBI agent Coleen Rowley also complained about systemic problems before the attacks. Rowley works in Minneapolis, where agents in August unsuccessfully tried to get a search warrant to look into the laptop computer of a man now described as the "20th hijacker."

Finding capable and trustworthy translators has been a special challenge in the terrorism war. FBI officials told government auditors in January that translator shortages have resulted in "the accumulation of thousands of hours of audio tapes and pages" of untranslated material. After the attacks, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III issued a plea for translators, and hundreds of people applied.

Margaret Gulotta, chief of language services at the FBI, said the bureau has hired 400 translators in two years, significantly reducing the backlog on high-priority cases while upholding strict background checks. "We have not compromised our standards in terms of language proficiency and security," Gulotta said.

In the second whistle-blower case, John M. Cole, 41, program manager for FBI foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, said counterintelligence and counterterrorism training has declined drastically in recent years as part of a continuing pattern of poor management.

Cole also said he had observed what he believed was a security lapse regarding the screening and hiring of translators. "I thought we had all these new security procedures in place, in light of [FBI spy Robert P.] Hanssen," Cole said. "No one is going by the rules and regulations and whatever policy may be implemented."

Edmonds and Cole have written about their concerns to high-level FBI officials. Edmonds wrote to Dale Watson, the bureau's counterterrorism chief, and Cole wrote to Mueller. Both cases have been referred to Justice's Office of the Inspector General, which is investigating, government officials confirmed.

The FBI said it was unable to corroborate an allegation by Edmonds that she was approached to join the targeted group. Edmonds said she told Dennis Saccher, a special agent in the Washington field office who was conducting the surveillance, about the co-worker's actions and Saccher replied, "It looks like espionage to me." Saccher declined to comment when contacted by a reporter.

Edmonds was fired in March after she reported her concerns. Government officials said the FBI fired her because her "disruptiveness" hurt her on-the-job "performance." Edmonds said she believes she was fired in retaliation for reporting on her co-worker.

Edmonds began working at the FBI in late September. In an interview, she said she became particularly alarmed when she discovered that a recently hired FBI translator was saying that she belonged to the Middle Eastern organization whose taped conversations she had been translating for FBI counterintelligence agents. Officials asked that the name of the target group not be revealed for national security reasons.

A Washington Post reporter discovered Edmonds's name in her whistle-blowing letters to federal and congressional officials and approached her for an interview.

Edmonds said that on several occasions, the translator tried to recruit her to join the targeted foreign group. "This person told us she worked for our target organization," Edmonds said in an interview. "These are the people we are targeting, monitoring."

Edmonds would not identify the other translator, but The Post has learned from other sources that she is a 33-year-old U.S. citizen whose native country is home to the target group. Both Edmonds and the other translator are U.S. citizens who trace their ethnicity to the same Middle Eastern country. Reached by telephone last week, the woman, who works under contract for the FBI's Washington field office, declined to comment.

In December, Edmonds said the woman and her husband, a U.S. military officer, suggested during a hastily arranged visit to Edmonds's Northern Virginia home on a Sunday morning that Edmonds join the group.

"He said, 'Are you a member of the particular organization?' " Edmonds recalled the woman's husband saying. "[He said,] 'It's a very good place to be a member. There are a lot of advantages of being with this organization and doing things together' -- this is our targeted organization -- 'and one of the greatest things about it is you can have an early, an unexpected, early retirement. And you will be totally set if you go to that specific country.' "

Edmonds also said the woman's husband told her she would be admitted to the group, especially if she said she worked for the FBI.

Later, Edmonds said, the woman approached her with a list dividing up individuals whose phone lines were being secretly tapped: Under the plan, the woman would translate conversations of her former co-workers in the target organization, and Edmonds would handle other phone calls. Edmonds said she refused and that the woman told her that her lack of cooperation could put her family in danger.

Edmonds said she also brought her concerns to her supervisor and other FBI officials in the Washington field office. When no action was taken, she said, she reported her concerns to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, then to Justice's inspector general.

"Investigations are being compromised," Edmonds wrote to the inspector general's office in March. "Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field. Translations are being blocked and circumvented."

Government officials familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified said that both Edmonds and the woman were given polygraph examinations by the FBI and that both passed.

Edmonds had been found to have breached security, FBI officials told Senate investigators. Edmonds said that two of those alleged breaches were related to specific instruction by a supervisor to prepare a report on the other translator on her home computer.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

If you've ever had doubts about Tom Flocco, he's an idiot for sure, but back in the day he did some okay reporting on Sibel Edmonds:

(Interesting today to see Robert Mueller popping up in all this.)


Translator alleges FBI / State Dept espionage, possible treason

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON -- APRIL 27, 2004 01:30 ET -- TomFlocco.com -- Former FBI contract linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds did not back down regarding reported evidence she uncovered implicating espionage in the FBI and State Department when we recently asked whether she thought the explosive information would ever see the light of day.

Sibel Edmonds will attend a court hearing today in Washington, DC where FBI lawyers will attempt to block a subpoena to have her deposed as a witness by attorney Ronald Motley who represents hundreds of 9-11 family members in a $1 trillion lawsuit regarding terrorism finance.

"As you know, I cannot say much about that; but why do you think Attorney General Ashcroft asserted State Secret Privilege in my case when I decided to go public with what I had found in the translations?" she said, as we walked down the circular marble staircase from the second floor 9-11 panel hearing room to the ground floor atrium in the Hart Senate office building. Justice Department lawyers at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller invoked the arcane legal procedure which even allows the withholding of evidence documents from the judge.

We also asked Edmonds if she thought spies in the FBI and State Department contacted al Qaeda operatives--confirmed to be living in the United States--about ongoing plans for President Bush’s new government policy directive [signed on September 4, 2001] which would authorize tightened American security. This, but also whether espionage within the Bush administration may have played a part in accelerating the attacks which occurred just seven days later.

Edmonds, 33--fluent in English, Farsi, Turkish and Azerbaijani--who worked out of the Washington, DC FBI field office for six months, told TomFlocco.com, "You’ll have to ask the Attorney General about that," but she added somewhat cryptically, "I can say that Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has said that the information I have is 'very credible.' "

Attorney General John Ashcroft testified that he flew on a private jet to Milwaukee on the morning of September 11. Earlier reports indicated that he changed from a commercial jet to a private one due to reported terrorism "threat assessments" which government officials refuse to make public simply by redacting the "sources and methods" used in obtaining the intelligence. Commission members failed to ask Ashcroft to explain the contents of the threat assessments and why they influenced his decision to use a private jet.

The translator alluded to additional but more volatile allegations in a phone call on Friday night to Kyle Hence, cofounder of 9-11 Citizens Watch, who said in a widely distributed email that Edmonds told him "if what she knows is revealed, it could lead to charges of treason being leveled against officials at top levels of the U.S. government."

Hence added, "If that is the case, then all those who have been involved in keeping this information from getting to the public are complicit in this treason."

Americans might not have to wait too long to find out. In a Washington, DC courtroom this morning, FBI attorneys will appear before Judge Reginald Walton in an attempt to block attorney Ronald Motley’s subpoena request to depose Edmonds as a witness for his $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of 9-11 families to tell what she knows about prior warnings of the attacks.

Interestingly, this morning the Supreme Court will hear Judicial Watch attorney Paul J. Orfanedes--representing the legal watchdog group’s president, Thomas Fitton, with attorneys from the Sierra Club, argue an appeal to open the books on Vice President Richard Cheney’s energy task force meetings. Public access to the documents could have implications related to peak oil and future shortages, foreign finance supporting the September 11 terrorist attacks, and whether energy may have played a part in the onset of the Iraq War if executive privilege is overturned.

Missed Opportunity: Genoa and the G-8

All this followed on the heels of President Bush’s recent press conference where he said "we had intelligence from Genoa [July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy less than two months before the attacks]," adding that he had no idea that planes would be used as weapons to be flown into U.S. buildings.

However, the White House press corps never asked Bush about a London news report that said "The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present." (BBC 7/18/01)

According to the Los Angeles Times (9-27-2001) and a 7-22-2001 White House press release, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city's airport.

In July 2000, U.S. intelligence reported the spike in warnings related to the July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. The reports included specific threats discovered by the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service that al-Qaeda would try to kill Bush while he attended the summit. (CNN, 3/02) The reports were taken so seriously that Bush stayed overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, and other world leaders stayed on a luxury ship (CNN, 7/18/01), begging the question whether Mr. Bush and his secret service detail knew why anti-aircraft guns were set up around them and why airspace was being cleared. The press corps never asked.

Officials at the time stated that the warnings were "unsubstantiated" but after 9/11 claimed success in preventing an attack. The distortion of the Genoa information kept the public and the airlines uninformed about the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Reporters never asked Bush whether the Genoa anti-aircraft guns surrounding the G-8 conference would have qualified as the presidential "inkling" he needed a few weeks later before September 11, to "move heaven and earth to protect the American people."

The White House scribes also failed to question the contents of the still-secret Ashcroft "threat assessment" memos which caused the Attorney General to eschew a commercial flight to Milwaukee on 9-11, but also the July 5, 2001 intelligence memo cited by sources: "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." (CIA Intelligence Report for White House, July 5, 2001 -- 60+ days prior to 9/11 -- Newsweek, 5-1-2003 / The Hill, 5-1-2003)

Given such intelligence warnings as July 5, a case could be made that the August 6 presidential briefing was declassified to divert attention away from potentially more damaging information.
Out of the television spotlight?

A March 24 online story broke the first news shortly after Edmonds’ first full-blown public press conference concluded around noon just outside the hearing room after CIA Director George Tenet finished his 9-11 Commission testimony.

It took a full day before more reports reached the public, even as Meet the Press host Tim Russert had to quote from the London Independent the following Sunday because major U.S. newspapers and television news stations had still not reported Edmonds’ new charges that Ashcroft had offered her a raise and a full-time job if she would not go public with her allegations. All this in front of a huge press contingent and multiple television cameras.

9-11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste mentioned Sibel Edmonds by name at the last hearing during FBI Director Robert Mueller’s testimony; however, he did not question Mueller about Edmonds' astonishing charges, saying "it would be inappropriate to address Edmonds’ allegations in public," adding that they were nevertheless serious.

But Motley’s deposition subpoena may force the charges out into the open--something the FBI and the administration seem desperate to avert by appearing on Tuesday to block its implementation.

In a short interview immediately after her first press conference, Edmonds told TomFlocco.com "My translations of the pre 9-11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, with detailed and date specific information enough to alert the American people."

The former part-time Bureau linguist who was fired and gagged by a federal judge also told this writer that "translators before me had ongoing personal relationships with the subjects or targets of the FBI and Justice Department pre 9-11 investigations--linked to intercepts and other intelligence--in June - July - August, just prior to the attacks."

In a Senate floor speech on April 8, 2004, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that "On June 19, 2002, Senator Grassley and I sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General regarding allegations mad by an FBI whistleblower that posed several important questions about the problems in the FBI’s translator program that have never been addressed."

FBI Director Robert Mueller asked Attorney General Ashcroft to invoke State Secret Privilege in order to block evidence documents in Sibel Edmonds' lawsuit from the judge hearing her case but also from public access. The seldom-used executive privilege also effectively gagged Edmonds from publicly discussing what she discovered in the pre-9/11 intelligence wiretaps.

Leahy added "On March 2, 2004, I sent a letter to the Attorney General and FBI Director Mueller repeating some of what I asked before and asking about new issues that have since been raised. Needless to say, no answers have been forthcoming." Leahy has not alluded thus far as to how he and Senator Grassley will handle the FBI and DOJ defiance.

On April 11, 2004 Edmonds sent a letter to Grassley and the Judiciary Committee--but also the 9-11 Commission--wherein she enumerated questions for FBI Director Mueller's testimony, implying that the Bureau allowed several top targets of FBI [terrorist] investigations to leave the U.S. months after the attacks without questioning them.

She also raised a question directed to Mueller as to whether information from investigations concerning terrorists and their supporters' activities was intentionally blocked and whether FBI field agents re-sent blocked or mistranslated information to the Washington field office to be checked again due to suspicions about original translations.

More explosively, however, was Edmonds' question for Mueller as to whether it was true that administrative personnel, after becoming aware that [pre-9/11] translations were being intentionally blocked and mistranslated, engaged in cover-ups and never provided [FBI] field agents with accurate translations.

The former wiretap translator told Democracy Now in a radio interview, "The Inspector General’s Office report was supposed to be released in October, 2002; but my sources are telling me that they are going to seal this report, and it will never be made public," adding "they are citing the reason is because this case would create substantial risks of disclosing classified and sensitive national security information that could cause serious damage to our country’s security."

Edmonds continued, "They are citing that this privilege is very rare and is asserted to prevent certain information getting--becoming public or hurting diplomatic relations. I would underline this phrase, diplomatic relations several times." Edmonds did not reveal the name of the subject-country in question.

Senator Grassley told CBS News "60 Minutes" in its FBI internal abuse segment in 2002 that "she is credible, and the reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

Second linguist warned FBI: 'planes and suicide operatives'

At the conclusion of Ashcroft's recent testimony before the 9-11 panel, reporters listened intently as Sibel Edmonds approached Commissioner Jamie Gorelick to express concern that public testimony was needed from whistleblowers who have information they found in pre-attack intelligence wiretaps.

According to reports, former FBI linguist Behrooz Sarshar said that in April 2001 he told two counter-terrorism agents at Edmonds' Washington FBI office that "al Qaeda planned to carry out terrorist attack in major U.S. cities, including New York, using planes and suicide operatives." (World Net Daily, 3-28-2004 and 4-6-2004)

There was talk among some 9-11 family members after Mueller's testimony that Sarshar may be considering leaving the country out of personal safety concerns.

Sarshar, a veteran Iranian intelligence officer stationed in Afghanistan who fled from Iran in the 80's and has been on the FBI payroll for ten years, briefed both the 9-11 Commission and a Senate aide to Grassley and a lawyer representing Senator Leahy.

According to the reports, the former FBI linguist asked for immunity to testify about the April, 2001 warning he gave to two Bureau agents who took notes, and a case agent who filed a report with supervisor Thomas Frields. None of the FBI personnel have been called by the commission to testify about the explosive information--and the notes and report about Sarshar's intelligence tip have also been kept under wraps.

Like Edmonds, Sarshar was also threatened with imprisonment: "If you talk about these things, you’ll be locked up," leaving questions as to what the Bureau is so intent upon hiding.

During a recent Meet the Press segment, Commission Chairman Thomas Kean confirmed Edmonds' and Sarshar's private testimony: "We’ve had all her testimony and it's under investigation," while Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton said "we talked to people she’s identified."

By simply redacting the sources and methods used to obtain information and compelling public testimony under oath from Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar, the Commission would ease public suspicion about the contents of key pre-attack intelligence documents and why the FBI and Justice Department are so intent upon covering up what the two translators know.

Reggie Walton is another name that frequently pops up in the right places at the right times.


Legal Eagles Eye Ashcroft Over 9/11 Whistleblower

by Fintan Dunne, Editor
24th June, 2004

Judge Reggie Walton won't have 9/11 whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds to kick around any longer. At one time, Edmonds stood alone. Now some big legal guns have wheeled into her case --which is fast becoming the most prescient threat to the whitewash engineered by the 9/11 commission.

Edmonds is currently under a gag order on foot of legal applications by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, over her claims of alleged corruption and 9/11-related cover-ups in the FBI translation unit which she joined just after the September 11th attacks.

Yesterday, the nonprofit watchdog Project On Government Oversight (POGO) sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and the US Department of Justice (DOJ), citing the latter's legal maneuvers in the Edmond's case as an interference with POGO's ability to perform oversight on the DOJ's actions.

The case is likely to land before Bush-appointed Reggie Walton of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, who is already adjudging Edmond's unlawful dismissal suit against her former employer, the FBI.

POGO argue that the DOJ's retrospective reclassification of information relating to Edmonds' claims contained in unclassified Senate Judiciary Committee briefings in 2002, is both unlawful and unconstitutional.

Georgetown University Law Center professor and Director of Public Citizen Litigation Group, David Vladeck represents POGO.

In another development yesterday, the Motley Rice legal team representing families of 9/11 victims --in a suit mainly against various Saudi interests, submitted to the judge a comprehensive list of detailed questions [pdf] they would like to put to Ms. Edmonds in support of their suit.

The renowned Ron Motley, who took on the the tobacco industry and handled Medicaid legal actions is leading his firm's legal effort.

Last week, Vietnam-era whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg stood side by side with Edmonds on the steps of the court, to back her protest at yet another delay in her case and warn Ashcroft that he might share the fate of A.G. John Mitchel --who served prison time over the Pentagon Papers case

Time was, when Edmond's stood alone, that Judge Walton could get away with treating her with legal disdain.

Walton's court has bedeviled Edmonds with last-minute adjournments and hearings scheduled at short notice. And he consigned her to legal limbo by declining to make a final ruling on Ashcroft's October, 2002 move to declare her information a state secret.

That let Ashcroft win by default, because Walton gagged Edmonds with a provisional order while she awaited his final ruling.

But the combined legal and public weight of: the relentless Edmonds and her lawyer Mark Zaid; POGO, Public Citizen and their supporters; Motley Rice, the families of 9/11 victims, Daniel Ellsberg and Professor Vladeck will not be as easily treated with the same legal derision which has characterized his handling of Edmonds' case to date.

The POGO lawsuit is not filed on behalf of Edmonds, but to defend POGO's own right to conduct oversight reviews of the DOJ. The suit asks the court to require the agency to declassify the Edmonds material.

The information in question, from briefings to the Senate Judiciary Committee was referenced in letters from US Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to DOJ officials. The letters were posted on the senators' Web sites, but were removed after the reclassification. POGO has the letters and wants to initiate public debate by posting them on the Internet.

"We believe the Department of Justice reclassified the information to stifle congressional oversight of the department and shield it from legitimate public inquiry," said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director. "It is absurd to reclassify information that has been in the public domain for so long"

POGO's suit contends that the information is not reasonably recoverable because it was posted publicly on the Web and is still available on numerous Web sites.

Edmonds has placed detailed, specific information before three Congressional inquiries --including the 9/11 Commission. Public discussion of those specifics would likely seriously undermine the commission's imminent final report.

The true focus of the commission is now clear, following recent comments by commissioner John Lehman, the former secretary of the Navy on NBC's "Meet the Press." He predicted the panel will support centralization of the nation's intelligence agencies as the only way to prevent future terrorist attacks.

"You're going to see unanimous recommendations on the intelligence community...," said Lehman. "Centralization will enable information to get to people "in a position to make a difference," he said.

Under cover of their shallow investigation of 9/11, with the stick of their criticism as a lever, the commission is empowering a singular, Orwellian security apparatus, which is but another step in the increasing integration of the G8 countries' intelligence services.

At their recent summit, the G8 announced a global aviation-security plan, under which the United States will hand personal data on US air travelers to G8 (and other countries') security services, including Russia.

The 9/11 Commissions' centralization focus is another incremental step in this bureaucratic globalization of intelligence.

It's a process in which accountability clearly plays no role.

All the while, Edmonds has been stuck in the legal mud of her interminable appearances before Judge Reggie Walton. She, and her explosive information should instead have been the centerpiece of public hearings at the 9/11 commission.

Indeed, were they taking their job seriously the commission itself should long ago have rushed to defend it's investigations against Ashcroft's actions.

Is it relevant to their 9/11 inquiries that the FBI may have been penetrated prior to the attacks by an extra-national intelligence network linked to drug trafficking and money laundering?

Is it relevant to their inquiries that the State Department quashed post-9/11 investigations which were intersecting with that network.

Is it relevant to their inquiries that the 9/11 terror plot itself, intersects with the same semi-legitimate criminal network.

Ashcroft's legal actions give us the answer: dangerously relevant.

Edmonds' is not just battling a recalcitrant judge. She is resisting the determination of the 9/11 commission to see no evil, as it builds a new super-agency from the flawed bureaucracy which allowed 9/11. The commission has abandoned it's own star witness to the machinations of John Ashcroft.

However, Edmonds no longer stands alone. Now she has company. Next week is expected to see a flurry of further filings by the legal eagles.
With practiced ease, the Washington spin machine is just about to close the book on 9/11. But, it ain't over.

Not until this brave lady sings.

Welcome to the real 9/11 inquiry.

24th June, 2004
Fintan Dunne


Al-Qaida Tried to Pentrate FBI's Translation Service

by Fintan Dunne, Editor
18th June, 2004

A transcript of the 9/11 Commission hearing on June 16, 2004 reveals that the FBI's intelligence translation service was a target for penetration by a senior Al-Qaida operative.

The details barely appear in the Washington Post transcript
of proceedings, despite confirming claims by FBI whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds that covert external agents had infiltrated the FBI, and had ensured vital intelligence remained hidden.

The revealing details were in the text of a handout given to all attendees, minutes before the hearing started on 16 June. It was a statement to the commissin by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, US Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, who has prosecuted Al-Qaida cases.

In it, Fitzgerald says that senoir Al-Qaida operative, Ali Mohammed had tried at one point to get a job in intelligence translation with the FBI.

Expurgated Transcript as reported by Washington Post

>> FITZGERALD: We heard that same technique when we interviewed one of the bombers who was caught, who described the four cells, and we saw it in place. In that particular case, the man who was part of the intelligence cell that did the surveillance was a U.S. citizen named ali Mohammed, with 17 years experience in the Egyptian military prior to that. He went and joined the U.S. Army for three years, was in the United States, helped train some of the people who later carried out the World Trade Center bombing, went back to Afghanistan and helped train a lot of the top leadership in al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, in these various techniques. Then he went as a U.S. citizen and surveilled a dozen targets in Nairobi in December 1993. <<

Full Transcript available at the 9/11 Commissin hearing:

>> FITZGERALD: One of the more chilling examples of al Qaeda's espionage was Ali Mohamed. Mohamed did not pledge bayat to al Qaeda but he trained most of al Qaeda's top leadership - including Bin Laden and Zawahiri and most of al Qaeda's top trainers. Mohamed taught surveillance, countersurveillance, assassinations, kidnaping, codes, ciphers and other intelligence techniques. Mohamed surveilled the American embassy in Nairobi in 1993. And he was well trained to do it: Mohamed spent 17 years in the Egyptian military (with commando training and experience in embassy security). He left the Egyptian army to join the United States Army and was stationed at the Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg from 1986 to 1989, when he became an United States citizen. He gave some training to persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he arranged Bin Laden's security in the Sudan in 1994 after an attempt on Bin Laden's life, and he visited the al Qaeda cell in Kenya. From 1994 until his arrest in 1998, he lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator and working as a security guard for a defense contractor. When he was interviewed as a potential witness in a terrorism trial in December 1994, telephone records showed that he called to the Kenyan Al Qaeda cell to let people know - and we now know he was told by Al Qaeda not to come back. He had otherwise been scheduled at the time to conduct surveillance of American and others targets in West Africa. Mohamed is proof that al Qaeda members often hide in plain sight.

Similarly, those who sought to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa in June 1995 had established front businesses two years earlier so as to establish a presence along the route of Mubarak's motorcade. And al Qaeda gathers intelligence from media accounts, the Internet, Congressional hearings and court proceedings.

A search of Ali Mohamed's California home turned up a sensitive sealed document from the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman with notations indicating that it was sent by him to the head of the Kenyan al Qaeda cell for delivery to Bin Laden. <<

Commission member Roemer questions Fitzgerald

>> ROEMER: Mr. Fitzgerald has pointed out in his statement very eloquently about a man by the name of ali Mohammed, who helped train the top leadership for al Qaeda on all kinds of security codes, ciphers, surveillance. He comes to the United States and applies for jobs as an FBI translator and at a Defense contractor.

Now, they seek to penetrate us. We have not done a very good job penetrating them.

Mr. Fitzgerald, and then Ms. Doran and "Dr. K" how do we rebuild this human intelligence that we vitally need in this country, with diversity and language skills and capabilities, so we are going after them and getting them?

FITZGERALD: That's not my area of expertise, but I'll tell you, the hard part is -- we need it badly, but the hard part for "Dr. K" and his folks is we have to watch out that the people who don't apply for the job as translators and don't walk in the door to be human sources aren't looking for al Qaeda. One of the classic intelligence techniques is the people that come in and pretend to work for you and gather information and feed it back. And we've seen indications that al Qaeda will do that.

May 21, 2004
Gagging Congress

by Sibel Edmonds

Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Department of Justice, and the FBI have been engaged in covering up my reports and investigations into my allegations for over two years now: They have blocked the release of all documents related to my case that were requested under FOIA for over two years. They have asserted the rarely invoked State Secret Privilege in my court proceedings. They have blocked the release of the DOJ-IG report of its investigations into my reports and allegations. They have quashed a subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 911. And now they are gagging the United States Congress.


They are not protecting the 'national security' of the United States. On the contrary, they are endangering our national security by covering up facts and information related to criminal activities against this country and it's citizens. To this date the American people have not heard the real facts of these criminal activities, nor of the involved semi-legit organizations, nor of the connected officials. The Department of Justice and this administration are fully aware that making this information public will bring about the question of accountability. And they do not want to be held accountable. It is for these reasons that I have been striving to get the Congress to hold its own public hearings regarding these issues. I no longer intend to go behind their secured-closed doors to testify. I intend to testify openly, publicly, and under oath.


State Dept. Quashed 9/11 Links To Global Drug Trade
-FBI Whistleblower

BreakForNews.com, 7th June, 2004
by Fintan Dunne, Editor

LATEST> Sibel Deniz Edmonds was awaiting a June 14 court hearing to
determine if she could publicly tell the full story of intelligence failures
over the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government wants her knowledge to
remain a state secret. Judge Reggie Walton has now called off the
hearing --no reason cited, and no future date scheduled. The fourth
time he's done this in past two years. Sibel Edmonds will held a
press conference with Daniel Ellsberg at 3rd & Const. Ave. on
Monday, June 14, at 9:30 AM in front of the Court.

Even as a judge prepares to permanently silence her, a former FBI translator of intelligence has implicated the US State Department in quashing investigations which had linked the 9/11 terrorist network to a global drug trafficking ring.

Sibel Edmonds, whose closed-door revelations to Congressional inquiries have been declared state secrets, says that as a result, FBI investigations were ordered terminated.

"There are certain points..., where you have your drug related activities combined with money laundering and information laundering, converging with your terrorist activities," Ms. Edmonds told BreakForNews.com.

(Interview - 7:00 min.) http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds040607.mp3

"Certain investigations were being quashed, let's say per State Department's request, because it would have affected certain foreign relations [or] affected certain business relations with foreign organizations," she said in an exclusive interview.

"And, as it has been asserted within the state secret privilege... That was something the State Department did not want to have."

Edmonds also indicated that the FBI's translation service had been penetrated by an intelligence group not linked to any government.

"Intelligence is also gathered by certain semi-legitimate organizations --to be used for their activities," said Edmonds. "It really does not boil down to countries anymore...[ ] When you have activities involving a lot of money, you have people from different nations involved.... It can be categorized under organized crime, but in a very large scale."

Because of a provisional gag order issued by Judge Reggie B. Walton which prohibits revealing specific details, Edmonds can only paint a picture in the broadest of brush strokes.

But her measured words hint at politically explosive connections between criminal drug/intelligence networks, and the 9/11 attacks.

"You have [a] network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to... whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. [It] is only then that you really see the big picture."

"And you see certain semi-legitimate organizations that may very well have a legit front, but with very criminal illegitimate activities --who start coming at you from these investigations."

"And the picture becomes, actually, very clear. Crystal clear."

In December, 2001, a fellow translator with top security clearance tried to recruit Edmonds to a semi-legitimate intelligence network --part of an organization which was itself already a target of FBI investigations.

When Edmonds reported the recruitment approach to her superiors she was fobbed off.

The translator was working on FBI material related to those investigations. Because of that translator's activities, two top targets of FBI investigations left the United States.

That is the type of critical failure undermining any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks which has emboldened Edmonds to continue to highlight the issues.

Edmonds has testified in closed sessions before the September 11th Commission and both the Judiciary Committee and Select Intelligence Committee of the U.S. Senate. Some lawmakers have huffed and puffed over her revelations, but their rhetoric has proved to be just hot air.

No action has been taken by any of those bodies to substantially address her concerns. Meanwhile the Department of Justice process is stalled by the usual "awaiting a report" tactic.

Despite the disinterest of the FBI or its oversight mechanisms, and the retrospective classification of her testimony to Congressional inquiries as state secrets, Edmonds is resolute --and well past the point of no return in her battle for the truth.

"Over two years have passed," she says. "I'm hoping there will be at least one.. just one Congressman, one Senator, who will be willing to take a stand, and come forward, and put out this information.... And I'm still looking for that one courageous person."

Such a representative will be the exception to the current rule. By way of illustration, Edmonds quotes a recent communication from an unnamed representative:

"Sibel Edmonds will not make any friends in the Congress, if she continues pressuring us and if she continues demanding action. That's not how she will not make friends here -she will make only enemies."

With friends like that --who needs enemies.

"If they don't want to be pressured, then they should not run for office," says Edmonds.

Unsurprisingly, Edmonds' evidence has languished in Congress.

Since October, 2002 the judge in her dismissal suit against the FBI has allowed the government's state secret application to bind her --without ever making his final determination on the issue.

However, as soon as the Motley Rice legal firm subpoenaed her for it's legal suit on behalf of 9/11 victims' families, the government went hotfoot to Bush-appointed Judge Reggie B. Walton, to seek to bar her testimony from the case.

That was a panic move spurred by the prospect of her evidence becoming public, says Edmonds.

Late last week, Judge Walton ordered the Department of Justice to state why "sensitive information cannot be disentangled from nonsensitive information," and why Edmonds cannot proceed with her suit.

If the FBI argues well, Edmond's case could be sunk. On 9th June, the judge will hold an in camera session with government lawyers. He is to announce a final decision on 14th June.

In his latest order, Judge Walton admitted that denying Edmonds her day in court would be "draconian."

Conversely, he also indicated his sympathy with the government's refusal to allow disclosure of any intelligence, by citing a legal precedent:

"...Seemingly innocuous information can be... fitted into place to reveal with starting clarity how the unseen whole must operate."

Perhaps Judge Walton reads the NY Times.

Last month, when an FBI official defended the agency's actions to the NY Times, the terms used were strikingly similar to the words of the judge, last week in his order.

"The problem is that while these pieces of information may look innocuous on their own," the FBI official told the NY Times. "You put them all together and it reveals a picture of sensitive intelligence collection...."

Maybe that coincidence arose because the judge and the FBI read the same newspaper. Perhaps it's that they read the same legal books.

Or sing from the same hymn sheet.

And you thought the various 9/11 inquiries were after the truth?

I think this is a repeat, posted earlier in the dump; there may be other repeats, sorry; see previous dump pages for more on Sibel Edmonds.

August 13, 2002

Hon. John Ashcroft
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear General Ashcroft:

We are writing jointly in order that you might allay our concern about the status of the investigation into allegations made by Sibel Edmonds, a former contract linguist in the Washington Field Office of the FBI. Although we understand that the matter is currently under investigation by the Inspector General, we are troubled that the Department of Justice, including the FBI, may not be acting quickly enough to address the issues raised by Ms. Edmonds' complaints or cooperating fully with the Inspector General's office.

By way of background, Ms. Edmonds first raised concerns about security problems and the integrity of important translations earlier this year. Unfortunately, nearly every person at the FBI who was notified of the situation reacted by questioning why Ms. Edmonds was "causing trouble." Indeed, the FBI's first internal security action in this case focused on Ms. Edmonds, instead of the allegations that she raised in good faith as a whistleblower and which bore on national security and the war against terrorism.

Ms. Edmonds has made a number of serious allegations, some of which the FBI verified during an unclassified briefing for Judiciary Committee staff on June 17. First, Ms. Edmonds has alleged that a contract monitor in her unit ("monitor") chose not to translate important, intelligence-related information, instead limiting her translation to unimportant and innocuous information. The FBI has verified that this monitor indeed failed to translate intelligence-related information, but has attributed the failure to a lack of training as opposed to a malicious act.

That conclusion is directly related to Ms. Edmond's second allegation. Ms. Edmonds alleged that the same contract monitor once worked for an organization associated with the target of a counter-intelligence investigation and that the monitor had unreported contacts with a foreign national who was a member of the target institution. Additionally, Ms. Edmonds states that some of the mistranslated recordings on which the monitor actually worked contained conversations by this same foreign national with whom the monitor had such contacts. Finally, the foreign national disclosed in recorded conversations that he handled intelligence matters. This fact was among the information that was not translated or summarized by the monitor.

Even after verifying these allegations, the FBI downplayed the importance of this matter and seemed to imply that it had ceased looking into the complaints as a security matter until after the Inspector General Office finishes its investigation. Anyone who remembers the long-time treachery of former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen would be concerned at this reaction. For years, Hanssen's bizarre actions were also written off as minor security breaches and unworthy of serious consideration. If even routine diligence had been exercised earlier, Hanssen could have been stopped from doing untold damage. The FBI needs to learn from its mistakes.

In addition to general concerns raised by this case, we have several specific concerns we wish to raise for your review. First, we have learned that a person central to the investigation -- the monitor referred to earlier -- will be leaving the country in early September, which most likely will be before the investigation is resolved. If you or your staff would like to know the identity of the monitor, please contact Inspector General Fine's office, with whom Senator Grassley's staff has been in touch. The monitor may hold dual citizenship with the United States and a foreign country and may possess a valid passport issued by that foreign country. Thus, there will be little or no assurance that the monitor will return or cooperate with an investigation in the future. Based on these facts, we would like your assurance that you are satisfied that there has been and will be no delay that will prejudice, in any way, the outcome of this investigation.

Furthermore, we would like your assurance that the Department of Justice, including the FBI, will fully cooperate in all aspects of the inquiry. For instance, we draw your attention to the fact that the FBI currently opposes depositions of the monitor and her husband as part of the investigation into this case. The FBI takes this position despite the fact that the monitor is no longer employed by the FBI, that the monitor's husband never worked at the FBI and even though the military agency that employs the monitor's husband does not oppose a deposition. Moreover, we understand that the monitor and her husband have signed a letter stating they will make themselves available for depositions. It is unclear, then, why the FBI is taking this position in the wake of such important allegations bearing on national security. We hope that you will ensure that the FBI is fully compliant with the Inspector General's inquiry as it proceeds.

Finally, we are concerned about the most crucial evidence in the case -- the recordings that were allegedly improperly translated. Because these bear directly on the veracity of Ms. Edmonds' allegations, we seek your assurance that the recordings will be properly maintained, turned over to the Inspector General's Office and promptly translated by a competent and independent authority. That way the validity of the complaint can be quickly evaluated.

We know that you share our concern that the FBI address issues bearing on national security in a prompt manner, regardless of whether or not they cast the FBI in a positive light. Only by honest evaluation can the FBI learn from its past mistakes. We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. We request a reply in writing by Wednesday, August 28, 2002.


Sen. Patrick J. Leahy

Sen. Chuck Grassley
Chairman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s-edmonds.p ... cleid=2960

July 9, 2004

Our Broken System

by Sibel Edmonds

On Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton made a decision and ruled on my case. Under his ruling, I, an American citizen, am not entitled to pursue my 1st and 5th Amendment rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The vague reasoning cited, without any explanation, is to protect "certain diplomatic relations for national security." Judge Walton reached this decision after sitting on this case with no activity for almost two years. He arrived at this decision without allowing my attorney and I any due process: NO status hearing, NO briefings, NO oral argument, and NO discovery. He made his decision after allowing the government attorneys to present their case to him, privately, in camera, ex parte; we were not allowed to participate in these cozy sessions. Is this the American system of justice we believe in? Is this the due process we read about in our civics 101 courses? Is this the judicial branch of our government that is supposed to be separate from the other two branches in order to protect the people's rights and freedom?

This court decision by itself would have been appalling and alarming enough, but in light of all other actions taken against my case for the past two years it demonstrates a broken system, a system abused and corrupted by the current executive, a system badly in need of repair.

Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to illegally gag the United States Congress regarding my case. And even worse, the United States Congress is readily complying with this illegal gag.

Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to hinder ongoing investigations such as those of the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ-Inspector General.

Under this broken system the Attorney General of the United States is getting away with interfering and tampering with pending cases under the judicial process, such as my court cases and the lawsuit by the 9/11 victim families.

John Ashcroft's relentless fight against me, my information, and my case, on various fronts, from the Congress to the courts, and from the 9/11 Commission to the Inspector General's Office, has been taking place under his attempt at a vague justification titled "Protecting Certain Foreign and Diplomatic Relations for National Security."

On September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost. Yet this administration has hindered all past and on going investigations into the causes of that horrific day for the sake of this vague notion of protecting "certain diplomatic and foreign relations."

As a result of the attack on 9/11, many thousands lost their loved ones and had their lives changed forever. Yet, this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act go free – untouched and uninvestigated – by simply citing "protection of certain foreign and diplomatic relations for national security."

Today, we are told that we are still under the threat of terrorists, and remain under various colors of the color-coded threat system invented and promoted by this administration. Yet, this same administration is relentlessly preventing any real investigations into finding out the facts, the real facts, regarding acts, semi-legit organizations, and people, involved in plots against this country and its people – under their sorry excuse of "protecting certain foreign and diplomatic relations."

Isn't it time to ask what diplomatic or foreign relations they keep referring to?
Isn't it fair to demand that they should let the people know what kind of foreign relations are worth 3,000 lives lost?

Isn't it this administration's obligation to justify these costs in lives and in our national security for the sake of maintaining certain foreign relations that benefit only the few?

Just take notice of the means this administration has used in my case alone to accomplish covering up and protecting those "foreign relations," and to dodge any accountability themselves: illegal reclassifications, secrecy, gagging congressional inquiries, blocking court proceedings, stopping investigations, invoking the rarely invoked State Secret Privilege, asserting national security.

It is apparent that this administration confidently expects the American people to sign blank checks unquestioningly. It is obvious that they believe they are entitled to unchecked power, unlimited authority, and unquestioning citizens' support. To them, our Bill of Rights under the Constitution is nothing more than an inconvenient roadblock to overcome; our American system of checks and balances can be bypassed by overusing national security; and people's dissent is a problem that can be diverted away by a culture of fear and complete submission to government authority.

As I have stated many times previously, I will continue this fight, since in taking my citizenship oath I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have the right and the obligation to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against John Ashcroft's assaults.


July 1, 2004

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds
FBI Whistleblower Talks to Antiwar.com by Christopher Deliso

Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring of 2002 after reporting her concerns about sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence to superiors. She first gained wide public attention in October of that year when she appeared on 60 Minutes on CBS and charged that the FBI, State Department, and Pentagon had been infiltrated by Turkish individuals suspected of ties to terrorism. On October 18, 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security. Edmonds is a key witness in a pending class-action suit filed by 9/11 families against the government. The following interview, conducted this past weekend for almost three hours by telephone, reveals sordid new details about U.S. intelligence practices.

Christopher Deliso: Sibel, first of all, thanks very much for speaking with us today. I'm delighted to have this chance to speak with someone of your experience and bravery in the face of governmental opposition and intimidation.

Sibel Edmonds: Well thanks very much for having me.

CD: Despite your media prominence, I don't think readers know so much about you. So can you tell us a bit about yourself? Are you from Turkey? Or just of Turkish descent?

SE: No, I am from Turkey originally.

CD: But you speak excellent English – and with an American accent too. That's why I thought maybe you were just of Turkish descent. So, how long were you in Turkey before coming to the U.S.?

SE: I had a pretty interesting upbringing. I was actually born in Iran, where I lived until I was two and a half. Then I lived in Turkey till I was 5, then back in Iran till I was 11. And then in Turkey again until I was 18.

CD: That's quite a lot of moving. Why did you come and go so much?

SE: My father is Azerbaijani. He was a doctor during the Shah regime. After the revolution, they kept useful foreigners like him. During the Iran-Iraq war, he was taken to the front lines, and we weren't allowed to leave the country.

CD: Wow! And when did you come to America?

SE: Actually, I came as a student in 1988. My idea was to study for three or four years and then go back to Turkey. But I guess you can't plan life in advance – in my third year I met my future husband and ended up staying.

CD: What drew you to eventually work for the FBI?

SE: Well, I actually studied criminal justice with a major in psychology at George Washington University. When I was finishing in 1997-98, I decided to apply for any kind of a job that would give me hands-on experience in criminal justice. I worked for the Alexandria [Va.] Juvenile Court, working with kids from a deprived background or who had been sexually abused or involved with drugs, etc. At that time I also thought I would apply with the FBI for a similar, hands-on job.

CD: As a linguist?

SE: No, actually I just applied for a general position. It was only after they'd seen all my qualifications and background that they said they were interested in my linguistic abilities.

CD: Now I know you speak Turkish – but what else?

SE: Because of my time in Iran, I also know Farsi. And Azerbaijani.
CD: Which is fairly close to Turkish.

SE: Yes, a Turkic language.

CD: So what did you do next? The FBI?

SE: Well, no, the process actually took a very long time. There was the linguistic proficiency test, forms to fill out, urine and blood samples and polygraph tests – the whole works. Then they said they'd need to do background checks, which would take anywhere from nine to 15 months, and finally they would call me to let me know about my application. And that was the last I heard from them for two or three years.

CD: Huh? What happened?

SE: Well I just went on with my life. I did other things. Sheerly out of curiosity, one day in January or February of 2001 I called the FBI up to see what had happened. They put me on hold, checked certain things, then came back on the line, and apologized profusely. Apparently, my application – along with 150 others – had been lost or had disappeared during the past couple years.

CD: Maybe that should have been a warning right there about their incompetence. So the files just disappeared from FBI headquarters?

SE: Actually, it was not headquarters we're talking about, it was the Tyson's Corner office where I'd taken the exam. Apparently they had moved within the same office complex, and maybe the files were lost then. Anyway, they were very apologetic and nice about it.

CD: So you had to apply all over again?

SE: No, they found some information about me remaining on one of their computers. And they promised they would speed up the background check process. But I told them, "look, I can't work for you now," because after all, my life had moved on at that point. Nevertheless they said they would get back to me later.

And so on September 14, 2001, I got a call asking how soon I could start work in their Washington field office. At the time I got their call, I was studying full-time and also working a part-time job. But in the wake of 9/11, with the government on television almost begging for qualified personnel, it was almost like – like duty calling, you know? So I went and met with them. When I explained my situation and other responsibilities they tried to be very flexible, saying I could work whatever hours I wanted, nights, weekends, whatever. That's how desperate they were for qualified translators. I got a job as a "contract" translator, which allowed more flexibility than if they hired me full-time.

CD: And you worked for them until March 2002, when you were fired for being a whistleblower, correct?

SE: Yes.

CD: And how did they handle that? Did you get some notice, or reason for your dismissal?

SE: No. I was literally thrown out of the building. They even didn't give me time to take all my family photos and personal items from my desk. I'm 5 foot 4 and 100 pounds, and you had all these big burly guys forcibly taking me out of the building. It was absurd.

CD: Did they threaten you in any way?

SE: Yes. This guy, one of my superiors, tried to act tough and threatened me that if I said anything to the press, the congress or even a lawyer, "the next time I see you will be in jail." I replied, "well, I maybe in jail, but I won't be the one behind bars."

CD: Wow. That's pretty brave.

SE: [Laughing] This is why one of the top guys, I am not sure whether it was the same guy, later called me a "nightmare."

CD: After they threw you out on the street, did they keep up the pressure?

SE: It was the worst at the beginning but then they saw they could do nothing. Right before the 60 Minutes interview, for example, they threatened that I would go to jail if I talked to the media, a senator or attorney. But that was all hot air.

The strangest thing was when the Turkish government issued an arrest warrant for my middle sister. I have the translated version, allegedly she was to be arrested for "high-level national security matters." Come on! My middle sister worked for KLM Airlines. She didn't even read newspapers – the most apolitical person I know.

Working Conditions in the FBI Translation Department

CD: So what hours did you end up working?

SE: I usually worked about four days a week, generally from 5 to 11 p.m. Basically 20 to 25 hours a week.

CD: Can you describe what your working conditions were like? For example, what was your office like? How many people were you working with?

SE: The FBI's Washington translation center is located about three blocks from headquarters, and is the largest and most important one of its kind in the country. They don't have centers like that in the L.A. or New York offices, for example. So this gigantic department is basically a connected room containing 200 to 250 translators, all working side by side, at very close quarters.

CD: What, in government-issue cubicles?

SE: Not even – maybe half cubicles. I mean, your shoulders were touching those of the translator next to you. It was that tight.

CD: What languages were covered in this office?

SE: Oh, a lot of languages. Certain departments had 25 to 30 translators. Some only had two. It was based on the perceived importance of the language in question.

CD: So you were put in to translate documents related to the war on terror, from Turkish into English, right?

SE: Yes, Turkish and the other two languages I spoke. For one of these I was the first formal person for one of them that they had, but I can't say which one.
Now the FBI has two kinds of translators – "linguists" and "monitors." The first are more highly qualified, can do the whole range of translating whether it be from documents, audio, verbatim, detainee interviews, etc. The latter, because their proficiency levels were lower in either English or the target language, and because they had obtained lower scores in one of the two exams, had a more limited role. For example, they weren't allowed to do verbatim translations, but more like summaries.

CD: Something like a general overview of a document, to judge whether it would require a closer look by someone better qualified?

SE: Exactly. A summary that a more qualified linguist could then translate verbatim if it contained important information.

CD: So you were in the first category, a full linguist?

SE: For Turkish and Azerbaijani I was, yes. But since I hadn't been practicing Farsi for practically 25 years, I was just allowed to be a monitor in that language. I passed all the FBI exams in written Farsi, but not all for speaking. So I didn't do, say, live interviews.

CD: Whom did you work with? Only fellow translators, or did you work with special agents from the field?

SE: Most of our immediate supervisors were former translators who became bureaucrats. They handled things like time sheets, insurance, and making travel arrangements for us when we would have to travel. But yes, I did work on a daily basis with special agents.

CD: From where? Washington or other places too?

SE: Well, the one special agent I worked with most frequently was from the local office, but also there were agents from FBI offices all over the country. They flooded us with urgent translation requests, especially dealing with assignments and investigations begun before 9/11, and connected with 9/11, but that had been neglected before. Close to 75 percent of my assignments then had to do with pre-9/11 intelligence.

CD: Did you get called out for special assignments in other cities?

SE: Yes, I went to other cities, for example to perform translations for detainees who did not speak English. Let's say an agent in Chicago has a detainee suspected of terrorist involvement, they need to know if he should be kept or released. If he doesn't speak much English it can be hard to know. So you need translators.

The Critical Importance of Translators

CD: People have disparaged the job and position as being "low-level." But from this, it sounds like very important work. Did you ever feel the agents were depending on you?

SE: Well, just think about it: if they don't know the language, they are not in a position to make decisions. You are. You're going through thousands of pieces of evidence, and have to decide which ones to do verbatim, which ones to summarize, which ones to throw away as being irrelevant. I mean, a transcript about someone's sex life is not particularly useful. But there might be important clues hidden in some at first glance not very interesting text. So the translator has to sift out what's important, before the analysts and agents even see it.

CD: So you're saying that you would see all of the raw data first, and then decide what to do with it and who would see it?

SE: Correct.

CD: And that they [the agents] don't have any way of knowing if you're telling the truth or giving them the right translation?

SE: Correct.

CD: So more or less, the agents are at the mercy of the translator?

SE: Correct. While the FBI's internal procedures say that a second translator should always take a look at every text, to prevent any faulty translations from occurring, that never happens.

CD: Really? Why not?

SE: Well, a lot of the translators would find that offensive, you know, the idea that someone might think they're not good enough and need to be babysat in their translating. It could end up in a fistfight.

The whole place is like that. It's like the Twilight Zone in there – you have to keep the Pakistani translators on one side of the room and the Indians on the other, or they will come to blows. You have to keep the Hebrew translators separated from the Arabic ones, and so on. It's so unprofessional it's ridiculous. Most of the time people spend trying to dig up dirt on one another. Really.

CD: From this, I gather that most of the FBI's translators are foreign-born?

SE: As far as I saw, yes, everyone was a naturalized citizen. And I understand that some of these guys had only been in the country for, like, four or five years. So they can't have been able to do really detailed background checks on all of them.

CD: But back to your working relationship with the field agents. Did you have to do anything else to bring them up to speed on the situation in question, or just translate the documents?

SE: For the record, I have to say that most of these agents were really, really good and they did their best despite all the nonsense and bureaucratic obstructions. But they can't be expected to be really successful if they don't have the right background. There was this one guy I worked with, he had formerly done the drug beat in L.A. and then was transferred to counter-intelligence. He was a great agent, but since he didn't have the right political and cultural background, he couldn't understand the translated texts in their proper context. And you also have to be up-to-date [on developments taking place in the country where the target language is spoken]. So I had to give him little notes explaining what it all meant.

CD: That does not sound very auspicious.

SE: It's so funny. You would think that that was supposed to be the job of the analysts. That the information would go first from the translators then to the analysts for color commentary, then finally to the agents to be acted on.
But no. You translate it, give it to the agent and if he decides it's important, he will send it to the analysts – maybe seven or eight days later!

CD: That said, what was the general modus operandi of your translations department? I mean, what percent of translators were both translating well and keeping their agents as informed as you were?

SE: A very few translators worked like I did – basically, the few people who actually cared. But also, note that the majority of agents didn't even realize they needed to understand more than the raw translated text to know what they should do next. So, a lot of times very important information was overlooked, simply because no one recognized its significance.

CD: Aside from these frustrations and letdowns, were there any cases in which you felt some of your work produced a clearly positive result through the actions of those you informed?

SE: Yes. Certain investigations I contributed to as a translator were successfully concluded by our agents. On one occasion, the intelligence agency of a certain foreign country sent a commendation letter to the agent I was partnered with, because they had taken an action based on information he had provided them – information which ultimately derived from me.

Incompetence, Corruption and Cover-ups: The Kevin Taskasen Affair

CD: In your October 25 2002 interview with 60 Minutes, "Lost in Translation," [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml] you charged the FBI with incompetence and greed – and also of allowing infiltration by foreign intelligence outfits. Some of these charges have also been substantiated by other sources, both congressional and from inside the bureau. For example, there's the Guantanamo Bay Turkish-English translator who actually didn't know either language very well, Kevin Taskasen, I believe? And he worked with you at some point?

SE: Correct.

CD: And also, your bosses told you to work more slowly, in some cases not at all, so that the department's seemingly huge workload would mean more funding the next year, right?

SE: Correct.

CD: Can you provide any more details on these subjects?

SE: Well, as for Kevin – he was this poor little guy who was very nice, his only fault as a translator being that he, well, didn't speak English.

CD: Really! Where was he from? How did he get that job, anyway?

SE: Kevin was from Turkey. He had met an American woman there, married her, and moved to America. But his lower-elementary-school-level English was only enough to get him a job as a busboy/dishwasher in a restaurant.
However, his wife worked in the languages testing center at FBI headquarters in Washington. Hers was the office that takes in the applications of aspiring translators and schedule language proficiency tests.

CD: So in other words, she used her connections to get him a job in the FBI, even though he wasn't qualified?

SE: Correct. There was an Arabic language supervisor in our department, who had about seven or eight family members under his wing, working away in the Arabic language section even though several of them weren't qualified, hadn't passed the proficiency test in either English or Arabic…

CD: So they made a bargain?

SE: Yes, he had made a deal with this woman, Kevin's wife. She had approved all of his extended family members to work for the FBI translations center, and so she then asked to do the same with her poor husband. And I can't really blame him at all, he was just a nice guy who dreamed of opening his own restaurant. But that's not likely to happen when you're working as a busboy for $6.50 an hour.

CD: How much do they pay in the translating department that he was hired to?

SE: The average is $40 an hour.

CD: So basically, what you had was a nudge-nudge wink-wink thing going on between the woman in the application office and the head honcho in the translation center.

SE: Correct. In light of what she'd done for him, the deal was that he [the Arabic supervisor] would turn a blind eye to her poor husband's incompetence for 3 years. He agreed and in October 2001 it started. Again, I can't blame Kevin. He would be coming to me every five minutes asking, "What does this word mean?" He was really trying, but he was struggling because he just didn't know English well enough. So I ended up having to do his work for him too.

CD: How long did this go on for? Did you alert your supervisors?

SE: Yes. I went to them and asked, "what is he doing here?" But nothing was done and only a few months later, in February of 2002, he was given a TDY [travel assignment] – to translate the testimony of Turkic-speaking detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

When told of this assignment, Kevin stood in front of all the other translators. He was crying, and said, "I can't do it, I just can't." I told him to go to the boss – and just say no, if he didn't feel capable. But he didn't.

CD: Come on! One would think that for the marquis interrogation center in the war on terror, the government would send only the best and brightest. Why did they even think of sending him?

SE: Aside from sending Kevin, the FBI had only two options, neither of them good for them. They could send me, as I was the only qualified Turkish linguist, but this raised a red flag considering that I had already started to make a fuss about how the game was being played. Their other choice was to humbly ask the NSA or DIA or another agency to borrow a Turkish-language translator. But they couldn't do this because there is all this intra-agency competition. None of them would ever let it look like their people weren't as good as the other agencies'. So it was partly a matter of pride.

CD: Do you know what happened to Kevin in Guantanamo?

SE: He didn't come back till mid-April [2002]. But surely while there he had heard information he wasn't able to convey properly in English. Maybe clues about 9/11, or about future terrorist attacks in the works. Or maybe information proving that some detainees had been wrongfully imprisoned.

That's another thing. What if a military detainee is on trial? You have to, you simply have to double-check the translations that are being used as evidence against the detainee. After all, you might be sending someone to his death based on faulty evidence! But all too often, they just put the stamp of approval on anything that says "FBI translation," because that is supposed to indicate automatically a certain unassailable level of quality.

CD: After coming back, and after the story broke proving he wasn't a qualified translator, what happened then? Did he get fired?

SE: No. After all that, he is back in Washington D.C., and is the head of the Turkish department in the FBI translations center. As far as I know, he is the only Turkish-speaking translator there now. Even after all this.

CD: Good God! One translator – and an incompetent one at that! Isn't that a national security liability?

SE: Yes, but you have to look at it from their perspective. What if they let him go, and he starts talking about what he knows? Either way, it's about control. If they fire someone, they might either corroborate my story, or even release documents that could prove damning for the FBI … it works out to be more of a liability for them to fire someone than to keep them in the office, where they can continue to compromise our national security.

Criminal Infiltration: The Mysterious "Semi-Legitimate Organizations"

CD: In a fascinating recent interview with Breakfornews.com, you say that with the synoptic view you acquired at the FBI, the "picture" of non-state organized crime linked with state institutions becomes "crystal clear." For the benefit of our readers, let me just re-quote one of your statements:

"[Y]ou have [a] network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to … whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. [It] is only then that you really see the big picture."

At several points you state that such organized crime networks employ "semi-legitimate organizations" as their point of interface with governments and the "legit" world. Can you explain exactly what you mean?

SE: These are organizations that might have a legitimate front – say as a business, or a cultural center or something. And we've also heard a lot about Islamic charities as fronts for terrorist organizations, but the range is much broader and even, simpler.

CD: For example?

SE: You might have an organization supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country. Hypothetically, say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose would be to hold folklore-related activities – and they might even do that – but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal.

CD: Such as?

SE: Everything – from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences with all these activities and international terrorism.

CD: So with these organizations we're talking about a lot of money –

SE: Huge, just massive. They don't deal with 1 million or 5 million dollars, but with hundreds of millions.

CD: From your previous testimony and the examples I want to bring up next, it would seem that organized crime with terrorist links is really holding the reins inside powerful governments, even the American one. No?

SE: That may be, but I don't know. I didn't get high enough up on the ladder to find out. With all of this suspicious and unprecedented "state secrets" obstructionism from Ashcroft, it might seem that way, but I don't have any direct information.

CD: But what do think, within departments such as the Pentagon and the State Department. Do you suspect certain high officials may be profiting from terrorist-linked organized crime?

SE: I can't say anything specific with regards to these departments, because I didn't work for them. But as for the politicians, what I can say is that when you start talking about huge amounts of money, certain elected officials become automatically involved. And there are different kinds of campaign contributions – legal and illegal, declared and undeclared.

CD: Could this apparent toleration of dangerous criminal groups in the midst possibly be interpreted to mean that American policy is driven by the "ends justify the means" philosophy?

SE: But how are the ends possibly met by such activities? To this day, I just can't see how. What is happening does not benefit 99.9 percent of Americans – just a very small elite.

I'm no expert, but from what I have personally seen I can say that our national security is being compromised every day, because important investigations are being stopped, and potentially important clues are being overlooked. It's absolutely incredible that even after 9/11, certain individuals, foreign businessmen and others, among others, are still escaping scrutiny.

Okay, perhaps talking about the pre-9/11 world they could get away with saying "we didn't know," but to continue doing so – I mean, what if we are attacked by nuclear or chemical weapons, what will be their next excuse? That "we didn't know" it could happen? Come on! I can prove they are lying, because they know.

The Jan Dickerson Affair: A Brief History

CD: Right. So let's discuss your specific experiences of criminal infiltration in the FBI, for example when one of your co-workers, Jan [originally "Can"] Dickerson, and her husband tried to recruit you into a criminal network that had infiltrated high levels of the U.S. government.

SE: Alright, sure.

CD: As I understand it, Jan Dickerson was also trying to protect one criminal associate – a Turkish-speaking suspect of an FBI investigation – by blocking translations referring to him. Yes?

SE: Correct.

CD: And this was an official working out of the Turkish Embassy in Washington –

SE: No, that part is not correct. I cannot talk about the position or the job of this person –

CD: But in the other media stories about your case, he was identified as –

SE: Yes, I know. The term "official" was used in the senators' memos from their [summer 2002] meetings with the FBI, and so then when cited by the media it became automatically assumed that he was government – but since this individual has never been named, I can only describe him as working on behalf of a "semi-legitimate" organization.

CD: Okay, so tell us about Jan Dickerson, and that experience.

SE: Well, I have to be somewhat general about this, but based on unclassified sources alone you can get a pretty good idea. Melek Can Dickerson was a Turkish woman –

CD: Originally from Turkey, like you?

SE: Yes, from Turkey, and she met her husband there, Douglas – Major Douglas Dickerson, that is. He was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Ankara. They met in 1991 and stayed in Turkey till 1994 or 1995. Then they went to Germany, where he was stationed after, for two or three years. And then they came to the U.S. in 1999.

CD: But first, regarding Turkey: do you know what Dickerson's function was there in the USAF?

SE: He was involved with weapons procurement for various Central Asian and Middle Eastern governments from the United States.

CD: Yo! Do you mean he was procuring weapons on an intra-governmental basis, or something else?

SE: Yes, from the U.S. government for these other governments. I assume it was all legal and part of his job.

CD: Okay, but in the process he could have built up contacts and connections with various unsavory characters in regional governments and in the arms trade –

SE: He could have, but I don't know.

CD: Anyway, what kind of countries are we talking about here?

SE: Oh… I don't know all of them exactly, but I guess these would be countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan –

CD: All of our favorites –

SE: [Laughter] Yes, right, countries like these and some Middle Eastern countries.

CD: And what about after Turkey? When they went to Germany?

SE: Well, he was stationed there, and while in Germany, Jan Dickerson started working for this semi-legitimate organization whose members, much later, were being investigated by the FBI, when I was working there.

CD: Fascinating, And this criminal group that the Dickersons were involved in, what kind of countries did it have connections with and where were its members from?

SE: Oh, that varied. Members came from all over; when you're dealing with those huge amounts of money you get people from everywhere.

CD: Americans?

SE: Of course. But also from Europe, Central Asia, etc. And this organization had branches throughout these places, in the U.S., Germany, and several other countries.

The Fateful Visit

CD: Now let's fast-forward to November 2001, when Jan Dickerson joined you at the FBI. What were her duties?

SE: She was a "monitor," the second type of translator, because she didn't have the scores on one of her two language proficiency exams. As a monitor she was supposed to make general summary translations, not verbatim.

CD: Did you have any idea at the time about her suspect allegiances?

SE: I had no idea at first. It was only after some suspicious behavior and then her and her husband's unannounced visit to our house that everything became clear.
One day in December [2001], my husband and I were at our home in Alexandria, Va., when the doorbell rang. It was Jan and Doug Dickerson. They also lived in Alexandria, so I didn't think of it as suspicious at first. I think the point for her was to introduce her husband to mine. We invited them in for coffee, and –

CD: She started trying to recruit you for their illegal activities?

SE: No, actually she herself did not. It was the husband who started talking about this semi-legitimate organization: "Hey, have you ever heard of this group?" he said, casually mentioning this organization to my husband. He replied, "Yeah, I know about them." And I started sweating, because I knew this organization was under FBI investigation, and I was by law not allowed to discuss anything about it with my husband.

CD: But, for your husband to have heard of it, it had to have been a group that was well known to the public as something fairly innocuous, right?

SE: Yes, as I said, a legitimate front. And Dickerson asked my husband if he'd ever thought of joining the organization.

CD: So there was something socially desirable about belonging in this group?

SE: Correct. And so my husband was kind of surprised, you know, because this wasn't the sort of group just anyone could belong to. "But I thought you had to be such and such a person, with such and such connections and references to get in," my husband was saying.

And then Major Douglas Dickerson smiled and pointed at me. "All you have to do is tell them where your wife works and what she does, and they will let you in like that," he said [snapping his fingers]. They wanted to sell me for the information I could provide, basically.

CD: What did you take this to mean? You would have to hand over classified FBI information –

SE: Correct. The information I could give these people would be worth a lot of money.

CD: And what would you get out of it?

SE: Well, money, and we could leave the country, you know, live a very comfortable life wherever we wanted. We would never have to work again, they promised.

CD: So what did you do then, with him propositioning your husband right in front of you?

SE: I tried to change the subject, because anything I might say on the subject would have been against the law, considering the ongoing investigation.

CD: When you went back to work, did you bring the matter up?

SE: I reported it two days later to my direct supervisor, a former Arabic translator. He told me he would file it immediately with the security department. This was in December 2001. When nothing happened, I pursued the matter with a special agent who had also been getting suspicious about some of Jan Dickerson's translations. When we finally got through to the security department, they said they'd never been notified in the first place about my complaint. I have all of the dated documents, emails, etc., still to prove it.

CD: Did Dickerson's protection of the suspects, and their larger infiltration of the American security apparatus, did these things have a deleterious effect on bureau investigations?

SE: As a result of their penetration, certain people who had been detained were released – people who had valuable information. And other targets of this investigation, key people, were allowed to flee the country, right up through January and February of 2002.

CD: These were foreign nationals based in the United States?

SE: Correct.

CD: Did you have any awareness of this exodus?

SE: I reported some of the suspects' names higher up as I came across them in our investigation. And you know what? Within two weeks, they had all left the country. Just vanished.

The Great Escape

CD: So what happened after? As far as I know, Jan Dickerson has quit the FBI and re-located to Belgium. Was she forced out when your story broke? Did she flee? And is her husband still in the Air Force?

SE: I assume that at the time of that conversation in our house, in December 2001, Douglas Dickerson was in the USAF because finally in August of the next year, the USAF held a formal investigation and confirmed this. This was a major violation of his high-level security clearance. By law he is required to report it if his wife or family members are involved with illegal activities.

Mysteriously enough, only two weeks after the formal Air Force investigation began, they both left the country, on September 9, 2002.

CD: Why did the government just let them escape?

SE: Well, after my case began in June 2002, the judge subpoenaed them and ordered the DOJ not to let them leave the country. But the Air Force gave them a free pass – by sending Major Dickerson off to Belgium to work something with NATO, a minimum two-year assignment.

CD: With NATO? Doing what?

SE: I don't know exactly, just that it was with NATO. So before leaving, a pretty angry Doug Dickerson had to make a declaration under oath that if he was requested by the court at any time he would return, and the FBI would pay for his flight.

CD: So there is still a chance that they will face justice someday?

SE: Well, we discovered that the Dickerson's also had bank accounts in several countries, some of which didn't have the appropriate extradition treaties with the U.S. … so I don't think so, no, I don't think it's likely. They're gone.

But the really outrageous thing is that, for the whole month we were subpoenaing them, starting in June 2002, Jan Dickerson was still working away in the FBI translations department, with her top-security clearance. This even though the FBI had simultaneously admitted to a congressional committee that not only had Jan Dickerson worked for this suspect organization in the past, but that she had maintained ongoing relationships with at least two individuals under investigation.

But How Could She Have Been Hired?

CD: Why was she allowed to stay, and keep her security clearance? Were they trying to protect someone higher up?

SE: I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. But I just don't know.

But at the unclassified meeting between the senators and FBI being held then, the former were in utter disbelief when the FBI admitted Jan Dickerson had been working for this semi-legitimate organization since long before she joined the bureau. "But how!?" asked the senators. You know what their answer was? "Well, she didn't write down any previous employers on her application."

CD: What? None?

SE: Correct. She didn't just neglect to mention that job, aside from others she put down. She just left the whole box blank! As if she had never worked a day in her life!

CD: And the FBI hired her? You can't even get a job in a bar without listing previous employers!

SE: Look, it took me a year and a half to get my background check performed. And that after filling out the complete application – at the bottom of which it states that failure to fill out the form correctly will result in a cash fine and jail term for perjury. A federal crime. So based on that alone, even aside from her other activities, Jan Dickerson should have been prosecuted!

CD: But instead she was hired – and kept on even after things heated up. There's something very, very suspicious about all this, especially considering the way Kevin Taskasen was hired. Do you believe another official on the inside, part of that crime ring, brought her in?

SE: I recently met with a reliable source who confirmed that Melek Can Dickerson was hired and granted TSC [top security clearance] without having to go through a background check/investigation, and that in light of [infamous FBI double-agent Robert] Hanssen the bureau is doing all it can to keep it quiet. Still, I have plenty of unanswered questions: why? By whom?

CD: That indeed seems to be the underlying question here. Did the FBI have anything else to say under this senatorial scrutiny?

SE: They made the quite pertinent point that she [Jan Dickerson] had failed to disclose her previous associations with the suspect organization. A shocked senator said, "If you gave her top security clearance, how could she not have been made to disclose [this information]?"

You know how they [the FBI] replied? "A lack of good training" was behind Dickerson's failure to properly disclose her various relationships.

CD: That's incredible. What was the reaction from the senators?

SE: They were persistent, mentioning that beyond that, hadn't she blocked pertinent information [in translations]? The FBI replied, "Oh, well, we've confirmed this in two or three cases."

Actually, there were hundreds of cases from November 2001 to February 2002 in which she obstructed investigations with her translations – or lack thereof.

CD: Right, how exactly would she do this?

SE: Well, as a monitor, she was supposed to give general translations – or not – and if not the document could be marked "not pertinent," and basically never be seen again.

In those few months, she managed to mark every file that mentioned this, these targets, [the Turkish suspect] as "not pertinent." Hundreds of files. Finally, this special agent working on the case got suspicious, and he tasked me with re-translating all of these documents.

CD: So how did that go? Did you find any damning information?

SE: Oh, yes. There was content that directly linked the suspects with the group under investigation.

CD: How many documents did you translate?

SE: Out of the pile of hundreds, I only got to 17 pieces before I was suddenly terminated.

CD: Can you tell us how long the FBI had been investigating these targets by the time you started working for them?

SE: A long time. There's really no time limit with the big criminal and counter-intelligence investigations, versus the counter-terrorism ones. These are investigations we'd never do anything about –

CD: Why?

SE: [Laughing] Because it would hurt certain foreign relations abroad, of course … and they don't want that. So even after 3,000 people lost their lives on 9/11, those behind these very lucrative illegal activities get a free pass. And they refuse to continue important investigations because of certain diplomatic relations that 99.9 percent of Americans gain no benefits from.

How the FBI Seduces Dissenters

CD: Sibel, I know you made a lot of complaints about several other examples of corruption and incompetence beyond the ones we have time to discuss. Can you just explain a little about how your superiors received your complaints?

SE: Sure. They used what we call the "hooking" procedure. When I first reported some of these translations failures and stalling tactics in December 2001 to my superiors, my mid-level manager said to me, "Now, Sibel, I understand you've been taking on a lot of coursework at your university. Why not take advantage of our workplace opportunities?"

When I asked him what he meant, this boss suggested that I could "bring my school bag" to work on Saturdays and Sundays, and just study. No work. I wouldn't even have to turn on my computer. He told me that I should then put myself down as having worked all those hours on the time sheet, so that, you know, I would be making something like $700 in a weekend – specifically for not working!
CD: Incredible.

SE: And this is what they say when you file a complaint.

CD: So is that the extent of how they tried to appease you and forestall complaints, or do you have other examples?

SE: That's funny, there is another really amazing example. They would come to me and say, "Sibel, we understand you've been going back to Turkey a couple of times a year to visit family. Before you go the next time, just let us know. We'll make it a TDY" [paid travel]. And all I'd have to do is stop off in some liaison office in Ankara a couple times, make my little appearance, and suddenly all my flights, hotels and expenses would be paid for by the FBI. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

CD: An offer you couldn't refuse, huh? I imagine most people in your position would take it.

SE: Oh, so many people will go for it … but if you do, then they [the FBI] can use it against you. Maybe discover irregularities in your expenses at some later date, "forged" documents, or else just hold it over your head. They love to do things like that to hold you in their power.

On another occasion when I complained about working conditions and practices, they actually offered to hire and train me as SA, special agent! I still have a copy of that offer. I said, "I'm not here to ask for a promotion, I'm trying to make a complaint!" Then they would just change the topic. They would go to any length possible to avoid accountability.

The Current Situation: Ashcroft's Obstructionism and a Legal Battle

CD: Sibel, I know you are eager to speak about the lawsuit you have filed against the Department of Justice, and John Ashcroft's questionable use of the "State Secrets Act" to place a gag order on you. Can you give us some background on this legal battle, and the current state of play?

SE: My case originally began in June of 2002, when I filed a First Amendment and Privacy lawsuit against the Department of Justice. In two unclassified meetings in June and July, eight people from two senators met with three FBI officials, including Margaret Gullota, who is still in charge of the FBI languages department. At these meetings, the FBI admitted that all of my charges were accurate. The memos taken down by Senators Grassley and Leahy, two very senior senators, confirmed this. That's very damning for [the FBI].

CD: I understand that Ashcroft's current restrictive tactics have revolved around this concept of classified versus unclassified meetings. Can you please distinguish precisely what is meant by each term?

SE: A classified meeting must be held in a secure room known as a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), you know, a room swept for bugs, checked for wiretaps, and everyone in there has to have top security clearance. But this wasn't the case in June and July 2002. They didn't follow any of these procedures in the meetings with the senators, because they were never requested to be classified by the FBI in the first place. So now all they can say is, "Whoops, those meetings should have been classified," and thus try to classify them after the fact.

CD: So how has the case gotten to this point? Has there been no progress at all?

SE: From the beginning, there has been zero activity. Four times I was given a hearing date, and four times it was cancelled without explanation.

However, the big law firm Motley Rice subpoenaed me in April of this year, as part of their lawsuit on behalf of family members of the 9/11 victims. Motley Rice wanted copies of all the memos those senators had written during that unclassified meetings in 2002. But as soon as they even listed some of the questions they were planning to ask me, it was suddenly "state secrets" time.

John Ashcroft – you can expect anything from that man – has now broken the law in trying to silence me. I have been speaking out for over two years, but only now is he saying "everything about Sibel Edmonds is classified." It's ridiculous.

CD: But by demanding all the information be dug up and reburied, isn't the DOJ actually bringing more attention to your cause?

SE: Exactly! That's just what it has done. These people are shooting themselves in the foot.

So, returning to the subpoena, I was scheduled to appear on April 27. Two days before, the DOJ started kicking and screaming to hold an emergency proceeding. This was the first time (on April 26) that I had the privilege of going before the judge President Bush had appointed, Reggie Walton. He was not the first judge who had been appointed to the case. Their tactic was to pass it around from judge to judge to make sure the case would never begin. Judge Walton has now sat on it for two years.

CD: But didn't the intervention of Motley Rice help at all? Did Judge Walton make a new hearing date for you?

SE: Well, on June 24 they filed an appeal. But, oh, my case is so messy and complicated. Judge Walton then set a hearing date for June 14, but of course he cancelled it two days later. Now he has said, and I can be verbally exact: "Tentatively, we will have a hearing on July 9, 2004." But it's not going to happen. They're going to drag this thing out. The judge has liberty to sit on it as long as he wants.

CD: But can't you file an appeal or complaint or anything to expedite the process?

SE: Well, yes you can file a complaint, but some in the legal community caution that this can actually backfire because the judge tends to grow more and more antagonistic if you do so.

CD: So basically, you have had no progress on this case.

Is the Tide Turning?

SE: Correct. We have had no progress. Except, now others are joining up. For the past two weeks, we have had new support from the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) and Citizen Watch.

CD: What have they been doing?

SE: The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) has declared that Attorney General Ashcroft violated their regulations when he put the gag order on me and ordered everything to be re-classified. There are three criteria that need to be met for a gag order to take effect: one, that the order must come from the head of the Department of Justice; two, that the information in question must be reasonably recoverable; and three, that the head of the DOJ first obtain the official approval of the ISOO.

However, only the first of these criteria was met – Ashcroft did indeed give the order. But the second criterion was obviously impossible – so many websites, newspapers and TV had long ago published all of the material relating to my case. It was and is everywhere. There is nothing "reasonably recoverable" about it.

And as for the third criteria, let alone not get permission, Ashcroft didn't even bother to notify the ISOO that he was re-classifying the information related to me. He showed contempt for the regulations by going around them.

CD: So in other words, the Attorney General's actions were completely illegal?

SE: Correct. Because these three criteria were not met, the DOJ has actually violated its own rules!

CD: Do you have the support of any congressmen? I know that Senators Grassley and Leahy, in particular, have stepped up to bat for you.

SE: Well it's very interesting, even though this issue is starting to get major media interest, like the recent articles in The New Republic and New York Times, these two senators are still complying with an order from Ashcroft that is completely illegal.

CD: How exactly?

SE: They have removed texts from their official websites detailing the unclassified meeting they had with the FBI in 2002. We found out when the New York Times printed a leaked memo, on May 19 or 20, that senators were ordered the information had been re-classified.

CD: You have expressed a desire for "one brave senator" to take up your cause. But what can they actually do, if the DOJ and judges rule in favor of classification?

SE: You know what they can do? Any senator or congressman can tell the press everything I have to say.

CD: Really? Doesn't that violate whatever the restrictions are the DOJ is putting on you?

SE: I'm authorized under law to testify in secret, in a secure room [SCIF] before a congressman. But if that congressman believes that national security overrides secrecy, he can put my testimony out there. That's what happened with Daniel Ellsberg. Senator Gravel poured out everything he had said before the congress because it was in the interests of the country. These people like John Ashcroft are actually endangering our national security by destroying civil liberties with such things as the Patriot Act. They are just cowards. They lack guts.

CD: So, have you given up on the elected officials to stick up for you?

SE: No, I haven't given up. I hope that there is at least one person in the congress who will convey my testimony in public. But I'm really starting to believe that the best way to do it is through the press. I recently briefed Congress Waxman (CA), again gave him all the information, but nothing so far. I went back into the SCIF, a black hole into which all information disappears and never comes out. Boy, if only those walls could talk.

CD: Have you ever thought of Representative Ron Paul of Texas? He strikes me as someone who would be sympathetic to your plight.

SE: I know of him, and I have heard that an activist person has been sending his office all the details of my case, but I have not received any request from them.

CD: Is that the way it has to work?

SE: Yes, I have to receive an official request first in order to be interviewed.

FBI Reforms: Still on Hold

CD: Even though you haven't been working for the FBI for over two years, can you give us any updates on the present state of affairs there? Have your revelations shaken things up at all, regarding the way they do business?

SE: From the few contacts I still have, 'cause most of them have been cowed into silence by now, nothing has changed.

CD: Haven't they even attempted any reforms in the translations department?

SE: No.

CD: You said that poor Kevin Taskasen remains the only Turkish-language "translator" there. Given the vast importance of the Turkic languages in today's most important national security issues, why does the FBI put such a low priority on finding good Turkish translators?

SE: That I don't know. But I agree with you, it really doesn't make sense.

Future Plans and Final Thoughts

CD: Do you think you were naïve about what it would be like, working for the FBI in the post-9/11 world?

SE: The amount of sh*t you get exposed to on the inside strips you of any innocence you may have had. In an analogy, take the war on drugs. They say they're fighting drugs and keeping America safe by attacking the low-level dealers and addicts on the street – but leaving the big-time, well-connected dealers alone. That is just disgusting.

CD: What are you planning to do next in your life?

SE: I will start a Ph.D. in January, either in the subject of public policy with relation to transparency, or else conflict resolution analysis, regarding Central Asia and Turkey.

CD: Would you work for government again, after what you've been through?

SE: I'd rather be a watchdog – you know, someone who would push Congress to follow their duties and exercise some oversight. It's really incredible, when I asked a congressman's staff whether they have oversight, they say, "Well … we do, but we don't." When I asked what that meant, he said, "Well, we can make a statement, but the DOJ doesn't listen to us." Then don't say you have it, if you don't!

CD: Have you any plans to write a book about your experiences someday?

SE: Well, maybe someday, but not until all of these legal battles are finished and everything is done. But these past two years I've been staying away from anything that can even remotely be seen as cashing in – the old "oh, she's out to make a profit from this" type of accusation. It's very frustrating for the government that they haven't been able to smear my name.

CD: Aha!

SE: Yes, that's one of the first things they try. To dig up dirt. They have their own ways of doing it – to look into your background, check any arrest record, if you've lied somewhere, etc. But they haven't been able to do that in my case and it is very frustrating for them.

CD: If you win the suit, what will happen next? Will you speak openly about everything you know?

SE: Well, just winning the suit is not enough. As long as the Justice Department considers this information related to my case a "state secret," they will use everything they can to quash it. Even if the judge rules and says no state secrets privileges can be granted, the DOJ will still buy time by appealing. So this will most likely be a long and difficult battle.

CD: If your full testimony is heard by the public, who or what agencies are going to be in the biggest trouble?

SE: Well, as for agencies I guess the DOJ, FBI, State Department. But in a way these agencies get some kind of immunity when you charge them like this … I hate to see how a lot of agents get stigmatized in this. Most of the field agents I met in the FBI were good, honest and hardworking individuals. They were trying to do their best, but up against this ingrown bureaucracy – this is where you have the problem, as will as with certain elected officials.

CD: What are they so afraid of?

SE: They're afraid of information, of the truth coming out, and accountability – the whole accountability issue that will arise. But it's not as complicated as it might seem. If they were to allow the whole picture to emerge, it would just boil down to a whole lot of money and illegal activities.

CD: Hmm, well I know you can't name names, but can you tell me if any specific officials will suffer if your testimony comes out?

SE: Yes. Certain elected officials will stand trial and go to prison.

More about Sibel Edmonds' case next post.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:43 am

[p.33 of dump]

Sibel Edmonds, the FBI, the courts and the Turks, continued:

This next was a CBS "Sixty Minutes" segment, which I think can still be viewed on YouTube.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ ... 6954.shtml

Lost In Translation
June 6, 2004

(CBS) This is the story of hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign language documents that the FBI neglected to translate before and after the Sept. 11 attacks because of problems in its language department - documents that detailed what the FBI heard on wiretaps and learned during interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI's language division, says the documents weren't translated because the divison was riddled with incompetence and corruption.

Edmonds was fired after reporting her concerns to FBI officials. She told her story behind closed doors to investigators in Congress and to the Justice Department. Most recently, she spoke with the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

She spoke with Correspondent Ed Bradley in October 2002.

Because she is fluent in Turkish and other Middle Eastern languages, Edmonds, a Turkish-American, was hired by the FBI soon after Sept. 11 and given top-secret security clearance to translate some of the reams of documents seized by FBI agents who have been rounding up suspected terrorists across the United States and abroad.

Edmonds says that to her amazement, from the day she started the job, she was told repeatedly by one of her supervisors that there was no urgency - that she should take longer to translate documents so that the department would appear overworked and understaffed. That way, it would receive a larger budget for the next year.

“We were told by our supervisors that this was the great opportunity for asking for increased budget and asking for more translators,” says Edmonds. “And in order to do that, don't do the work and let the documents pile up so we can show it and say that we need more translators and expand the department.”

Edmonds says that the supervisor, in an effort to slow her down, went so far as to erase completed translations from her FBI computer after she'd left work for the day.

“The next day I would come to work, turn on my computer and the work would be gone. The translation would be gone,” she says. “Then I had to start all over again and retranslate the same document. And I went to my supervisor and he said, ‘Consider it a lesson and don't talk about it to anybody else and don't mention it.’

"The lesson was don’t work, and don’t do the translations."

Edmonds put her concerns about the FBI's language department in writing to her immediate superiors and to a top official at the FBI. For months, she said she received no response. Then, she turned for help to the Justice Department's Inspector General and to Sen. Charles Grassley, whose committee, the Judiciary Committee, has direct oversight of the FBI.

“She's credible,” says Sen. Grassley. “And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.”

The FBI has conceded that some people in the language department are unable to adequately speak English or the language they're supposed to be translating. Kevin Taskasen was assigned to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to translate interrogations of Turkish-speaking al Qaeda members who had been captured after Sept. 11. The FBI admits that he was not fully qualified to do the job.

“He neither passed the English nor the Turkish side of the language proficiency test,” says Edmonds.

Critical shortages of experienced Middle Eastern language translators have plagued the FBI and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community for years.

Months before the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, one of the plotters of the attack was heard on tape having a discussion in Arabic that no one at the time knew was about how to make explosives - and he had a manual that no one at the time knew was about how to blow up buildings. None of it was translated until well after the bombing, and while the FBI has hired more translators since then, officials concede that problems in the language division have hampered the country's efforts to battle terrorism.

According to congressional investigators, this may have played a role in the inability to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. The General Accounting Office reported that the FBI had expressed concern over the thousands of hours of audiotapes and pages of written material that have not been reviewed or translated because of a lack of qualified linguists.

“If they got word today that within, in a little while, the Hoover Dam was going to be blown up, and it takes a week or two to get it translated, as was one of the problems in this department, you know, you couldn't intervene to prevent that from happening,” says Grassley.

In its rush to hire more foreign language translators after Sept. 11, the FBI admits it has had difficulty performing background checks to detect translators who may have loyalties to other governments - which could pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator who worked with Edmonds. The FBI has admitted that when Dickerson was hired the bureau didn't know that she had worked for a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's own counter-intelligence unit.

They also didn't know she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation. According to Edmonds, Dickerson tried to recruit her into that organization, and insisted that Dickerson be the only one to translate the FBI's wiretaps of that Turkish official.

“She got very angry, and later she threatened me and my family's life,” says Edmonds, when she decided not to go along with the plan. “She said ‘Why would you want to place your life and your family's life in danger by translating these tapes?’”

Edmonds says that when she reviewed Dickerson's translations of those tapes, she found that Dickerson had left out information crucial to the FBI's investigation - information that Edmonds says would have revealed that the Turkish intelligence officer had spies working for him inside the U.S. State Department and at the Pentagon.

“We came across at least 17, 18 translations, communications that were extremely important for the ongoing investigations of these individuals,” says Edmonds. “She had marked it as "not important to be translated."

What kind of information did she leave out of her translation?
“Activities to obtain the United States military and intelligence secrets,” says Edmonds.

She says she complained repeatedly to her bosses about what she'd found on the wiretaps and about Dickerson's conduct, but that nobody at the FBI wanted to hear about it. Not even the assistant special agent in charge.

“He said ‘Do you realize what you are saying here in your allegations? Are you telling me that our security people are not doing their jobs? Is that what you're telling me? If you insist on this investigation, I'll make sure in no time it will turn around and become an investigation about you,’” says Edmonds.

Sibel Edmonds was fired. The FBI offered no explanation, saying in the letter only that her contract was terminated completely for the government's convenience.

But three months later, the FBI conceded that on at least two occasions, Dickerson had, in fact, left out significant information from her translations. They say it was due to a lack of experience and was not malicious.

Dickerson quit the FBI and now lives in Belgium. She declined to be interviewed, but she told The Chicago Tribune that the allegations against her are preposterous and ludicrous. Sen. Grassley says he's disturbed by what the Dickerson incident says about internal security at the FBI.

Does the Sibel Edmonds case fall into any pattern of behavior, pattern of conduct on, on the part of the FBI?

“The usual pattern,” says Sen. Grassely. “Let me tell you, first of all, the embarrassing information comes out, the FBI reaction is to sweep it under the rug, and then eventually they shoot the messenger.”

Special agent John Roberts, a chief of the FBI's Internal Affairs Department, agrees. And while he is not permitted to discuss the Edmonds case, for the last 10 years he has been investigating misconduct by FBI employees. He says he is outraged by how little is ever done about it.

“I don't know of another person in the FBI who has done the internal investigations that I have and has seen what I have, and that knows what has occurred and what has been glossed over and what has, frankly, just disappeared, just vaporized, and no one disciplined for it,” says Roberts.

Despite a pledge from FBI Director Robert Mueller to overhaul the culture of the FBI in light of 9/11, and encourage bureau employees to come forward to report wrongdoing, Roberts says that in the rare instances when employees are disciplined, it's usually low-level employees like Edmonds who get punished and not their bosses.

“I think the double standard of discipline will continue no matter who comes in, no matter who tries to change,” says Roberts. “You, you have a certain, certain group that, that will continue to protect itself. That's just how it is.”

Has he found cases since Sept. 11 where people were involved in misconduct and were not, let alone reprimanded, but were even promoted? Roberts says yes.


FBI Director Admits Whistle Blower Fired for Blowing Whistle
By Staff and Wire Reports
Aug 2, 2004, 05:36

A classified Justice Department investigation determined that a whistle-blower's allegations of security lapses in the FBI's translator program were at least partly responsible for her firing, the FBI director told U.S. senators.

The agency's inspector general, Glenn Fine, did not conclude that the FBI had retaliated against the translator, Sibel Edmonds, when it fired her in April 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller wrote in a July 21 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.

But Mueller acknowledged he was concerned by Fine's determination that allegations by Edmonds "were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services," the director wrote, quoting from the classified report.

Edmonds alleges she was fired after complaining to FBI managers about shoddy wiretap translations and told them an interpreter with a relative at a foreign embassy might have compromised national security after the Sept. 11, 200,1 terror attacks by passing information from an FBI wiretap to the target of an investigation.

Edmonds' lawyer, Mark Zaid, said the Justice Department informed him yesterday it will consider his request for copies of the report and some supporting documents. The department is working on a version of the report that would be stripped of its classified information and could be released publicly.

The department's report concluded the FBI failed to adequately pursue Edmonds' allegation that her colleague committed espionage, Mueller disclosed in the letter. The director said the FBI conducted a "relevant investigation," but he promised to review the case and conduct a further investigation if necessary.

Mueller said he asked the inspector general to help determine whether any FBI employees should face disciplinary action, and he promised to report such an outcome to the Judiciary Committee.

A U.S. district judge earlier this month dismissed Edmonds' lawsuit against the government over her firing because he agreed with claims by Attorney General John Ashcroft and a senior FBI official that a suit could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.

Edmonds is appealing that ruling.

Mueller told senators that the Justice Department investigation into Edmonds' firing, which remains classified, determined that Edmonds never qualified for formal whistle-blower protection because she was a contract worker, not a full-time FBI employee.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue


Thursday, April 29th, 2004

Whistleblowers From Vietnam to 9/11: A Conversation with Daniel Ellsberg and Sibel Edmonds


AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds was hired after September 11 by the FBI to translate pre-9-11 intelligence gathered by the agency. She has publicly said on Democracy Now! and other media outlets that the US had considerable evidence Al Qaeda was planning to strike the United States using airplanes as weapons. She was subsequently subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Bush-connected Saudi Royal Family for allegedly aiding Al Qaeda. The Bush administration has requested the hearing be closed to the public and the press. On Monday, journalists and activists appeared at the court to object. Judge Walton yielded and the hearing was subsequently opened to scrutiny. However, Edmonds' testimony has been postponed until June, and the question of whether her deposition will be allowed remains unresolved until further review. How many lawyers walked into the court, Sibel Edmonds, on Monday, to take you on – to decide whether or not, or to argue against you being able to speak publicly?

SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, the government sent about eighty-nine attorneys there. It was a scene. It was a scene.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, what exactly are they saying? They're saying they want to impose a gag order on you now, but you already have a gag order on you?

SIBEL EDMONDS: Correct. The attorneys for Motley-Rice were arguing that they were only going to ask questions on information that has already been public. You know, on your show and in the newspapers, and also information given by the FBI to the Senate Judiciary Committees during unclassified meetings with them. However, now the FBI is saying that even that information is top secret and national security and it cannot be used even though the information is already public.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait a second, are they saying that they're asking for a further gag order that would prevent from you repeating what you have already said here, and in other places?

SIBEL EDMONDS: In a way that's what they are saying. They are saying any information that has already been public is still considered classified, and it should not have been public and the FBI should not have had this unclassified meeting with the senate discussing it, so regardless, that information cannot be used.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's backtrack. What have you said? What do you think is the most important for people to understand in this country that you learned as an FBI translator with top security clearance when you went back to the pre-9-11 wiretap conversations that you translated?

SIBEL EDMONDS: I have provided testimony to the Senate and to the 9-11 Commission and, to a certain extent, unclassified version of it to the press talking about translations that were either intentionally blocked or mistranslated that were given to the agents in various fields that contained the specific information about activities and the support network of Al Qaeda. That information has been public and the fact that this information was blocked intentionally has been already confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

JUAN GONZALEZ: When you say, Sibel, that the evidence – that the tapes and the translations were either intentionally blocked or inadvertently mistranslated, are you saying these were substantive errors that gave a different meaning to those translations?

SIBEL EDMONDS: Yes. Yes, and not only that, the reasons they were blocked, as I said, partially was incompetence and partially was intentional. Also, we had instances where what Attorney General Ashcroft is citing in this state secret privilege, certain investigations were not pursued due to diplomatic relations.

AMY GOODMAN: Sibel, in your testimony before the 9-11 Commission, Senator Grassley, a conservative Republican senator, said he finds you highly credible. It seems that what you have now said publicly, that the US knew before 9-11 airplanes could be used as weapons, that information was coming out before 9-11, contradicted what Condoleezza Rice had been saying before she was put under oath. It seems your testimony has changed her testimony. You said that what she originally said, before she was under oath and just speaking on the networks, et cetera, was an outrageous lie. What was it that you were saying?

SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, about a week before this hearing when Condoleezza Rice testified in front of the commission, she made the statement that we did not have any specific information. And at that time I said that statement was an outrageous lie because “we” includes the FBI, her advisers, and therefore, the statement was an outrageous lie. She corrected herself during the commission hearing by saying that she made a mistake, and she should have said “I” personally did not have any specific information, rather than using “we,” which again left this whole question of “we” unanswered, and the commission did not pursue, well, who does that leave behind. If she was not given this information, who was the rest of this “we?”

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Sibel Edmonds. She was an FBI translator with top security clearance after September 11 looking at the pre-September 11 wiretap conversations. You can tell us who was talking? Who you were translating?

SIBEL EDMONDS: I cannot. I am not allowed to talk about any specifics of the targets of the investigations or even what type of documents we were translating.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why have you come forward?

SIBEL EDMONDS: I have come forward -- I have been -- I have been out there for the past two years and two months. I came forward about a month before I was terminated, going to the Senate and presenting them with this information because some of these inactions and some of these issues were continued after September 11, months after September 11. The Bureau allowed certain targets and certain people to leave the country months after 9-11.

AMY GOODMAN: Like who?

SIBEL EDMONDS: I cannot talk about who, but people who should have been criminally prosecuted here, the real people who should be retained -- detained here and real people who really need to be investigated. And yet we hear about people being detained for INS violations, yet on the other hand, hypocritically, we allow other people to leave the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Where are these people from?

SIBEL EDMONDS: I cannot talk about that.

AMY GOODMAN: We will talk about what it means for you to take a stand like this and come forward. The 9-11 survivors and relatives of those lost wanting you to testify in their lawsuit, the US government not wanting you to. We're going to talk also with Daniel Ellsberg on the line with us now, another famous whistleblower in US history. In October, 1969, he began smuggling out of his office and Xeroxing a 7,000-page top secret study of US decision-making in Vietnam known as the Pentagon Papers. He did so with the intent of revealing these secrets to Congress and the American public, and in so doing, he set in motion actions that would eventually topple the Nixon presidency, and end the Vietnam War. He is author of "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers," once described by Henry Kissinger as the world's most dangerous man. Can you respond to what Sibel Edmonds is now doing as another whistleblower, she with the FBI?

DAN ELLSBERG: I'm very happy to be on the program with Sibel Edmonds. She’s certainly one of my heroes at this point, and I’m glad to have heard of her effort. I admire what she is doing very much. I think she's serving the country very well.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break for one minute, Dan Ellsberg, for stations to identify themselves, and then we'll come back to a conversation with Dan Ellsberg and Sibel Edmonds, two whistleblowers here in the United States. Stay with us. [break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I'm Amy Goodman in Washington, Juan Gonzalez is in New York. I head off to Boston today as we continue our "Exception to the Rulers" tour, tonight at Cambridge Forum at 7:00. We'll be there with Noam Chomsky, seeing listeners and viewers throughout the Boston area on public access TV and community radio. Then we head off to Santa Fe and Albuquerque on Saturday, to Houston on Sunday with KPFT listeners and Denver and Boulder through the next week as well as Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland and Eugene. Looking forward to seeing folks there. You can go to our website, democracynow.org/book to see the tour and find out where you can come out and celebrate your community media, your "Exception to the Rulers." We are talking about state secrets. We are talking with whistleblowers: Sibel Edmonds in our Washington studio, an FBI translator with top security clearance, or I should say an ex-FBI translator, who looked back before September 11 to translate and look at the pre-9-11 wiretap conversations. We're also joined by Daniel Ellsberg, one of the world's most famous whistleblowers, who released the Pentagon Papers. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, I'd like to ask Sibel Edmonds first and then Daniel Ellsberg as well: we journalists depend, for the information we get and distribute to the public, on whistleblowers, but little attention is paid to what happens to the whistleblower after they go public. I'd like to ask Sibel Edmonds, what has been your experience once you went public, what impact on your personal life has occurred, and as well with Daniel Ellsberg, although his is perhaps a little better known.

SIBEL EDMONDS: Well, it has been an uphill battle for two years and two months. And as you can see, I’m counting the days. There are times that it becomes so difficult when you feel like, okay, that that's basically it. There's not much left that I can do. Because after you pursue all three branches of the government and all formal official channels available to you that you can pursue, and as you see, nothing happens, and everything gets to be covered up. You get to this point that you think, well, maybe there is nothing to be done. But then, I guess I stop and remind myself that – well, it is not supposed to be this way. We supposedly have this transparency, although it's disappearing. Therefore, we are supposed to be having this accountability, which also is disappearing. We again are supposed to be having this system of checks and balances, which I’m still looking to find, and reminding that -- that makes me -- gives me the fuel to just go on and say, you know, if you do it and if you insist upon it, maybe -- maybe you can make a difference, and maybe you can change. Because the direction we are in right now, it just looks -- seems very alarming.

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. I want to repeat my admiration for what Sibel Edmonds has done for the last two years and what she's doing right now. From my own experience and that of other people that I have dealt with, I want to assure her that more can be done. She hasn't really tested the system all the way. She is sort of in the position that I was in ‘69 and ‘70 where I had given 7,000 pages of top secret documents to the Senate and was waiting for them to hold hearings and as I was promised several times by Senator Fulbright, but he backed out in response to the bureaucratic punishment that he was expected to get from the administration. It wasn't enough to give it to Congress. In the end, it took giving it to the press directly and to the public through the press to get Congress to really take account of it, and to get that information out. Even that didn't change the policy right away, but it set in motion some events which did have powerful effects in the end. So, what I’m saying here is that in a way, Sibel Edmonds is right now in the position that Katherine Gunn was before she decided to put out her document. She, too, was a translator -- was -- she's fired. A translator for the national security bureaucracy. She worked for the equivalent of our national security agency in England. She did in fact put out a document that was highly classified, and was put on trial for it. The trial -- she faced a couple of years in prison, and the trial actually was terminated when the government decided they didn't want to argue the legality of the war, which she would have brought up in court. What I’m saying is so long as the public has not heard from the people that you have told so far, which I take it include the 9-11 Commission and perhaps Congress, and when they have kept silence and as I understand it, have judged it is in their opinion not harmed national security for it to be out there, they're under a gag order for the administration, it remains for someone else, Sibel herself or someone else who knows this information on the staff or who has had access to it, to let the public know and to do that, at risk. To say that the risk is real, and it really is real, is not to say that it's -- it precludes the public getting that information. One can take the risk, and it takes courage, but as a matter of fact, it's very obvious to me that I’m talking to someone here who does have a lot of courage. Sibel Edmonds, already like yourself, Amy, and Sibel is the source, you as the journalist, have shown great courage so far. That courage can go to the point of accepting the risk of trial.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Daniel Ellsberg, when you took that step, when you -- when you made your information public to the "New York Times" and "Washington Post," what was the impact on your life? For those people who either were not alive then or are not old enough to know.

DANIEL ELLSBERG: The information was received in the public as confirming things that allowed more or less left wing people had believed or had suspected for a long time. There had been indications of it but no confirmation. For everyone at the least, it was a confirmation. For many people it, was an amazing revelation that president after president had consciously lied about aspects of the war, as is certainly the case right now. The impact of that on public opinion about the war was very great, and yet the public had already turned against the war in large by that time. It just -- they went more against the war in a way. Since the president wasn't paying any attention to the public opinion, it didn't actually affect his policy right away. The war went on. If you’d asked me a year after the Pentagon Papers came out, after bombing increased in many ways. I was asked that and I did say, I had to say, it had had no effect. It was worth putting out, it was educational, but it had no effect on the war. Actually, that was premature, because the president was so worried that I would put out -- President Nixon, that I would put out more information, documents -- documents that would bear on his policy, Nixon’s policy, that he took a number of act to shut me up that were then criminal. When those were found out, it did lead in part to his resignation and to the end of the war. Those acts are no longer criminal, most of them, under the Patriot Act. Our country has changed a good deal since then, but some of them are still criminal. Trying to beat me up on the steps of the Capitol is still a crime.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Sibel Edmonds what do you think of what Daniel Ellsberg has just said, the idea that the wrath of the state comes down before, in the case of Katherine Gunn in Britain, exposing documents that the US and Britain were spying on members of the UN Security Council. They said they would put her away for a very long time. It was a very frightening time, but in the end, they dropped the case. In the case -- the same with Daniel Ellsberg, do you feel the wrath of the state right now upon you, and in what ways, and do you think you might be ready to release documents – the kinds of things you might have told the 9-11 Commission about secretly, or privately?

SIBEL EDMONDS: First, I want to thank Dan, and also say that I am honored to be on the same show with him, because I have read all about him and I have tremendous amount of respect for Dan. And, I do agree. As I said, this has been going on two years and two months. I went through the appropriate steps, believing that they were appropriate to do and they were the means to achieve having the truth to get out, and I had gone to the inspector general's office, and they were supposed to release this report in Fall, 2002, and now they are not releasing it, a year-and-a-half after that deadline has been over. I have gone to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have gone to the OPR, and now finally, this is the 9-11, which is basically my last hope. It's true this investigation – if they don't make this public, then I have to step forward and just put an end to it. And I think the time is approaching.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you afraid?

SIBEL EDMONDS: There are times that I am afraid, but then again, I have to remind myself that this is my civic duty, and this is for the country, because what they are doing by pushing this stuff under this blanket of secrecy, what they are hiding is against the public's welfare and interest. And reminding that to myself just helps me to a certain degree overcome that fear.

AMY GOODMAN: Sibel Edmonds, I want to thank you for being with us, FBI whistleblower, 9-11 whistleblower. Daniel Ellsberg revealed secrets that helped to end the Vietnam War, the 7,000-page top secret study of US decision making in Vietnam known as the Pentagon Papers.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, call 1 (800) 881-2359.

http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php ... le&sid=391

US: Did Pentagon Reveal Name of Edmonds’ 'Semi-Legit' Group?

Posted on Thursday, August 05 @ 18:25:00 EDT by CDeliso

The ongoing saga of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ small war with the Department of Justice has garnered increasing media attention in recent weeks. However, this has almost entirely centered on free speech and legal issues: John Ashcroft’s gag order, Judge Reggie Walton’s dismissal of her case, and now, her open letter to the 9/11 Commission. Incredibly, the Commission’s final report failed to include her shocking testimony confirming crime, corruption and incompetence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – a failing that greatly diminishes the credibility and trustworthiness of the Committee itself.

However, this is just one dimension of a very far-reaching story.

For aside from Sibel Edmonds’ legal crusade is the issue of persons and organizations she encountered whose part-time activities touch on things from arms and drugs trafficking to espionage and even terrorism. Some of these figures (such as Can and Doug Dickerson) have been publicly named, but the Department of Justice gag order on Sibel has prevented her from doing anything more than alluding to the other, and presumably bigger fish involved.

That said, a previously unreleased document from September 2002 may contain a key to unraveling the mystery at the heart of the case: who or what are the “semi-legitimate organizations” that Edmonds has cryptically referred to as being the major players behind the major organized crime rings whom Edmonds charges with endangering American national security?

On 7 August 2002, Sibel Edmonds launched a complaint with the US Air Force over the suspected illegal activities of USAF Major Douglas Dickerson and his wife, Turkish-born FBI translator Melek Can Dickerson (more information on them see http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917).

On 10 September, Colonel James N. Worth, the director of the Inquiries Directorate in the USAF Office of the Inspector General, sent an official reply. This letter assured Edmonds that the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) had “…conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns,” and therefore the case was closed. Of course, this did not deter the indefatigable Edmonds, whose lawyers whipped off a letter challenging the validity and depth of the Air Force’s investigation – had one even taken place – on 19 September.

This 5-page challenge was addressed to Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, and copied to Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, previous backers of Edmonds’ cause.

Earlier today, Sibel Edmonds told us that, “…nobody has mentioned the DOD angle [of her case] to this date.”

Therefore we thought it would be appropriate to publish this last letter in its entirety (see below). According to Edmonds, the correspondence can be published because it “…was never classified… and their responses [were] sent via regular mail, thus, not classified either.”

While this letter mostly refers to long-known aspects of the case, there is one very striking reference which may shed light on a nagging mystery: who or what are the “semi-legitimate organizations” Edmonds has alluded to in the past?
According to the Edmonds team’s reply of 19 September, the USAF Inspector General’s letter had referred specifically to one American-Turkish Council, based in Washington, D.C., as being related to the Dickersons. For the Edmonds team, this was a very strange disclosure:

“…notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI’s investigation focused on ‘Major Dickerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council.’ This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter.”

We asked Sibel earlier today if the American-Turkish Council was in fact the name of the key “semi-legitimate organization” that had infiltrated the FBI during her time there. Because of the DOJ gag order she is currently under she could only say, “I cannot confirm that… they said it, we did not.”

Yet why would the Pentagon specifically name an organization, connecting it with the suspect in the case, if there was no relationship? And why would they bring it to the attention of exactly the people they would have wanted to conceal it from? Did they assume that the story would break, and therefore that it wasn’t worth concealing? Or was the whole thing merely a mistake, a misunderstanding, a typo? In any case, there are clearly suspicious shades of the old paradox, ‘are you still beating your wife?’ at work here.

Whatever it may or may not be, the American-Turkish Council [http://www.americanturkishcouncil.org] is a Washington-based “…business association dedicated to friendship and the promotion of U.S.-Turkish commercial, defense and cultural relations.” Again according to the ATC website, its “...diverse membership includes Fortune 500 and Turkish companies, multinationals, non-profit organizations, enterprises and individuals with an interest in U.S.-Turkish relations.” It boasts a star-studded board of directors, including Chairman and Retired USAF Lt. General Brent Scowcroft; President and CEO G. Lincoln McCurdy; Executive Vice-President George H. Perlman of Lockheed Martin; and several other ranking figures from corporate America.
Some of these as well as many other American and Turkish business heavyweights are also well-placed on the ATC Executive Committee (PDF).

Indeed, the ATC is clearly quite an important organization with the ability to bring together highly influential people. According to its website, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan addressed the organization’s “Golden Horn” members (i.e., those companies who cough up $9,500 annually) at a June event sponsored by Motorola, Raymond James, Boeing and Raytheon. In April, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers addressed the group. Every major company known to man is either a member or a well-wisher. And so on and so forth.

However, scrutinizing the posted schedule covering the 244-day period of January through August 2004, one finds only 18 days that actually mention scheduled events. And there are no scheduled events at all for September through December (though they’re no doubt still being planned). So, unless the ATC is hurting for secretaries to put things down in writing, they don’t do too much meeting.

Now the 64 million dollar question remains that, if the TAC or another organization like it was in fact a “semi-legitimate” organization, would all of its board members and officials therefore be wise to the illicit activities going on behind the scenes? Or just a few unsavory characters?

We put this question to Sibel Edmonds today. It was understood that we were speaking here only in hypotheticals, since after all she has never mentioned any organization by name.

So would such a nefarious side-business involve everyone? “No, it does not,” Edmonds replied. “It does not involve all on [the] board- but quite a few.”

Yet this is only the case in regard to board members of the largest such organizations, however: “with the smaller organizations, depending on their geographic location in the United States, [it can include] all of them.”

If the Pentagon did indeed inadvertently blow the cover of this “semi-legitimate organization” by mistake in the cited letter of 10 September 2002, it would answer a lot of questions – besides helping to put the pieces together in this jigsaw puzzle of intrigue.

So, what do we know for sure from previous information about the specific, unnamed organization(s) accused by her of infiltrating the FBI, compromising American national security and being involved with global organized crime and terrorism? They are:

-located in the Washington, D.C. area;

-very appealing to those with socialite ambitions, boasting as they do influential members from high society, big business and government;

-in cahoots with specific named and unnamed FBI and DOD employees, diplomats and “elected officials;”

-involved in highly lucrative international drugs, arms and money laundering affairs;

-allowed to continue with these activities because stopping them “…would hurt certain foreign relations abroad.”

And, what we know for sure about Sibel Edmonds’ prime suspects, the Dickersons? They:

-had interesting backgrounds- she Turkish-born, he an Air Force man formerly stationed in Turkey and tasked with weapons procurement there for countries including Uzbekistan and Turkey itself;

-asked Sibel Edmonds and her husband to join the specific “semi-legitimate organization,” unsuccessfully;

-disclosed that joining that organization would be very lucrative for the Edmonds’ and in return would require passing over classified FBI information;

-deliberately kept a FBI suspect of Turkish origin safe from investigators by obstructing translations;

-later threatened Sibel Edmonds and her family;

-allegedly influenced the Turkish government to harass Sibel Edmonds’ sister while in Turkey;

-were protected by the system, even after Edmonds’ allegations had been made, and allowed to escape to work for NATO in Belgium;

-have financial assets in Turkey, making “…both of them vulnerable to foreign influence.”

We mention these bits of salient information, deriving from the testimony of Sibel Edmonds and other sources, strictly as matters of public interest. Reader is left to make his own conclusions.

What follows is the previously unpublished document cited above, the letter of 19 Sept. 2002 from Sibel Edmonds’ lawyers to DOD Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz. The letter is reprinted as received from Sibel Edmonds, including bolded texting, the only changes being the removal of some unfriendly HTML tags and internal linking that caused formatting problems, hence footnotes are listed as endnotes.

September 19, 2002
Via Fax: (703) 604-8567

Joseph E. Schmitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.

Dear Inspector General Schmitz:

We represent Ms. Sibel Edmonds, who filed allegations regarding violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program by letter dated August 7, 2002. An inquiry into Ms. Edmonds’ allegations was opened under Hotline case number 85069.

By letter dated September 10, 2002, Colonel James N. Worth, Director, Inquiries Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Air Force, informed Ms. Edmonds that the matter was being closed as a result of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFSOI) having conducted a complete and thorough review of her concerns. I am writing to bring to your direct attention our concern that this matter was not thoroughly or completely investigated and that this matter was not properly handled. In addition, we ask that your office look into this matter further and investigate these very serious matters.

Ms. Edmonds alleged in her letter of August 7th that both Major Douglas Dickerson and his wife, Melek Can Dickerson,(1) have committed numerous violations of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Personnel Security Program. Improper contacts with foreign governments, officials or organizations by spouses of military personnel also constitute violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. In addition, a security risk may exist when an individual’s family members may be subject to duress or other potential influence by a foreign country.

Notably, in his letter of September 10th, Col. Worth states that OSI’s investigation focused on “Major Dickerson’s relationship with the American-Turkish Council.” This statement is very troubling for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Edmonds never even mentioned the name of this organization in any of her communications with the DOD, DOD IG, Department of the Air Force IG, and AFOSI, concerning this matter. Second, Ms. Edmonds’ concerns are not limited to whatever contacts Major Dickerson might have with the American-Turkish Council. Third, this statement by Col. Worth is evidence that the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not properly review Ms. Edmonds’ concerns in this matter. Fourth, Col. Worth’s letter characterized Ms. Edmonds’ concerns in the narrowest and most limited way which demonstrates that both the AFOSI and the Air Force IG did not appreciate the gravity and seriousness of Ms. Edmonds’ allegations in this matter.

There is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG has investigated the Dickersons’ relationships with other organizations and individuals which would be necessary in order to conduct a complete and thorough investigation of this matter. In addition, neither Ms. Edmonds nor her counsel was requested by AFOSI or the Air Force IG to provide additional information. Without obtaining additional information from Ms. Edmonds it would be impossible for the AFOSI or the Air Force IG to obtain the detailed information regarding the identities of the organization(s)/individual(s) and the scope of their relationships to the Dickersons. In addition, there are a number of other allegations of wrongdoing that have been made (a number of which have already been substantiated) against Mrs. Dickerson, which would constitute additional violations of the DOD Personnel Security Program. Once again, there is no indication that either the AFOSI or the Air Force IG is even aware of these matters involving Mrs. Dickerson which impact her husband’s clearance, let alone that a complete and thorough review of such allegations has taken place.

We are hereby providing you with additional information so that you may commence an investigation immediately. These allegations involve extremely serious matters, including but not limited to several leaks of sensitive information by Mrs. Dickerson to a foreign country and direct threats that were made by Mrs. Dickerson against Ms. Edmonds and her family. These allegations are also considered serious by the Senate Judiciary Committee. See, Letter from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy and Sen. Charles E. Grassley to Hon. John Ashcroft (August 13, 2002), attached hereto.(2) We also incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the attached August 13th letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to Attorney General Ashcroft.

Mrs. Dickerson was a contract monitor at the FBI Washington Field Office translations department and was granted a security clearance by the FBI to work as contract monitor to perform translation services for the FBI commencing in October or November, 2001. However, Mrs. Dickerson had past and ongoing associations with one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an ongoing FBI investigation and failed to disclose those associations to the FBI. In June, 2002, the FBI confirmed in an unclassified briefing to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that Mrs. Dickerson did, in fact, have undisclosed contacts with a foreign official who was the subject or target of an FBI investigation.(3)

Ms. Edmonds believes there is credible evidence that both Mrs. Dickerson and her husband, Major Dickerson, had ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with one or more foreign officials. Such improper contacts are not limited to whatever contacts the Dickersons may have with the American-Turkish Council. Notably, the public record already reflects that the Dickersons maintained frequent associations with foreign nationals (aside from whatever relationship with the American-Turkish Council they may have). We believe that those associations and the frequency of such associations were not reported by the Dickersons as required by FBI/DOJ and DOD requirements, and that these associations are such that the Dickersons would be vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from a foreign government.

Moreover, the Dickersons made statements to Ms. Edmonds and others that reflect that the Dickersons have a substantial financial interest in a foreign country that makes both of them vulnerable to foreign influence.

In addition, Mrs. Dickerson was assigned to translate information obtained from FBI wire-taps concerning one or more subject(s) or target(s) of an investigation, but she had past and ongoing improper and undisclosed contacts with the subject(s) or target(s). Mrs. Dickerson is suspected of leaking information to one or more targets of an FBI investigation to which she was assigned to perform translation services.

Mrs. Dickerson also improperly instructed Ms. Edmonds and another employee at the FBI not to listen and translate certain FBI wire-taps because Mrs. Dickerson claimed that she knew the subject(s) and was confident that there would be nothing important to translate concerning those subject(s) or their conversations.

When Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. Dickerson’s instruction and, after Ms. Edmonds reported Mrs. Dickerson’s conduct to FBI management, Mrs. Dickerson threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, a foreign country. Ms. Edmonds alleges that Mrs. Dickerson made such threats because Ms. Edmonds refused to go along with Mrs. Dickerson’s scheme to obstruct justice and because Ms. Edmonds reported her concerns about Mrs. Dickerson’s wrongdoing to FBI management.

As a result of misconduct by Mrs. Dickerson, numerous translations were not properly conducted, and/or intentionally not conducted, which threatened intelligence and law enforcement investigations related to September 11th and other ongoing counter-terrorist, counter-intelligence and law enforcement investigations. As a result of Mrs. Dickerson’s misconduct, extremely sensitive and material information was deliberately withheld from FBI translations.

In addition, FBI work order documents concerning translations related to September 11th investigations were falsified and contained forgeries of Ms. Edmonds’ name and/or initials.

By letter dated May 8, 2002, Ms. Edmonds, through counsel, notified Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, that as a direct result of the FBI’s failure to address or correct the serious misconduct and security breaches that were reported by Ms. Edmonds, the safety and security of Ms. Edmonds and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Ms. Edmonds’ sister to be interrogated “and taken/arrested by force.” Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter of May 8, 2002 to the Attorney General and FBI Director also provided them with a copy of the arrest warrant served by the foreign country at the residence of Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country together with a copy of the English translation of the arrest warrant.(4)

We believe that the warrant that was issued to Ms. Edmonds’ sister in the foreign country is the direct result of improper contacts between the Dickersons and a foreign country, and was a result of the threats that were made by Mrs. Dickerson when she threatened the lives and safety of Mrs. Edmonds and her family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, that same foreign country. In addition, we believe that the threats made by Mrs. Dickerson, and the issuance of the arrest warrant, were the result of improper and undisclosed contacts by Mrs. Dickerson and Major Dickerson with a foreign official. Such acts taken by Mrs. Dickerson (and other statements made and conduct by both Dickersons) would indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States which would also make Major Dickerson prone to provide information or make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States, and such acts reflect a level of personal conduct and outside activities that raise a security concern that may be disqualifying. Our concern in this regard is heightened by the fact that it is alleged that Mrs. Dickerson has maintained dual citizenship with a foreign country and has continued to possess a foreign passport from that same country as well as by the statements to others by both Major and Mrs. Dickerson that they have financial or business interests in that foreign country.

It is inconceivable how the Department of Defense could tolerate permitting one of its military officers to have access to classified information under such circumstances, especially when that officer’s spouse is alleged to have:

(1) threatened another person employed as a translator for the FBI on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence cases;
(2) committed other misconduct and serious security violations while employed by the FBI (such as having unreported contacts with one or more foreign officials while performing translation services for the FBI regarding conversations involving the same foreign officials); and
(3) to make matters worse, carried out those threats by leaking information about the FBI translator to a foreign country (or agents thereof) so retaliation could be carried out against members of the FBI translator’s family who resided in that foreign country. Moreover, as outlined above, there is more than sufficient information to require a security investigation of Major Dickerson based on foreign influence, foreign preference, personal conduct, security violations, and outside activities.
See, e.g., Adjudicative Desk Reference (ADR), Adjudicative Guidelines, Version 2.2, pp. 3-13 (July, 2001) (Guidelines B, C, E, K, and L).5

Additionally, we do not believe that Major Dickerson could be considered an “innocent spouse” and there is ample evidence that he was involved in (and/or had knowledge of and failed to report) many of the activities of his wife that comprise her acts of misconduct. Moreover, in light of the serious allegations raised against Mrs. Dickerson, and the alleged involvement of Major Dickerson in his wife’s nefarious activities with, or on behalf of, foreign interests, Major Dickerson is vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure from foreign interests.

We do not believe that these matters could have been thoroughly or completely reviewed in the short time that AFOSI and the Air Force IG devoted to reviewing Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th. After reviewing this matter further we believe that you will agree that Ms. Edmonds’ allegations of Personnel Security violations are very serious and that they warrant further investigation by your office. For all of the above reasons we hereby request that you re-open this matter and that the DOD OIG thoroughly investigate these matters.

Please direct all correspondence or communications about these matters to this office. If you, or anyone at the Department of Defense or Inspector General’s offices, has any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.


David K. Colapinto
Attorney for Ms. Edmonds

cc: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Senior Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

1.) Mrs. Dickerson is believed to be a United States citizen, but maintains dual citizenship with a foreign country and she is believed to possess a passport issued by that same foreign country. In addition, Mrs. Dickerson and her husband also are believed to have financial interests in that foreign country.
2.) We believe that the “contract monitor” mentioned by Senators Leahy and Grassley in their August 13th letter to Attorney General Ashcroft is Mrs. Dickerson.
3.) A copy of the June 19, 2002 letter from Senators Leahy and Grassley to the DOJ Inspector General, which referenced this FBI confirmation, was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ original letter to DOD OIG of August 6, 2002.
4.) A copy of Ms. Edmonds’ counsel’s letter to the Attorney General dated May 8, 2002 was attached to Ms. Edmonds’ letter of August 7th.
5.) The Adjudicative Guidelines are the “official U.S. Government policy that guides decisions on an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information.” See, ADR, p. 1. The ADR was developed by the Defense Personnel Security Research Center.

Gagged, But Not Dead

by Sibel Edmonds

May 16, 2005

The Appeal Court's decision on Sibel Edmonds' Case is out: "Case Dismissed. No opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court's decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification." Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she's not dead.

On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.

In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security...

Let's see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport would be considered a "Top Secret" document since it contains my place of birth, information considered state secrets. According to our government officials my Virginia driving license would be considered a "Top Secret" document, since it contains my date of birth, information considered state secrets and classified. Well, heck, even my resume would be considered "Top Secret" since it contains my linguistic credentials and my degrees. As of that day, I officially became a notoriously gagged whistleblower; but I continued on.

In May 2004, two years after two ranking senators (bipartisan) had publicly, and in public records and documents, announced me credible and my case and allegations confirmed and supported, the emboldened then Attorney General, struck again. This time, he, John Ashcroft, decided to gag the entire Congress on anything that had to with Sibel Edmonds and her case. He ordered two ranking senators to take everything referring to me off their websites; he ordered them to consider all documents and letters related to my case "Top Secret," and he commanded that they, the Congress, shut their mouth on any issue that in any way referred or related to me. Our senators obliged, disregarding the principles of the separation of powers, not honoring the United States Constitution, and not respecting their own prestige and status. As of that day, the United States Congress became officially gagged on Sibel Edmonds; but I continued on.

In June 2004, the United States District Court bowed to his highness, representative of our Executive Branch, John Ashcroft, and announced its decision to no longer honor the Constitution as it relates to citizens--right to due process: it dismissed the case and excused itself from providing any real explanation, due to any possible explanation, or lack of explanation, being classified as "Top Secret," and "State Secrets." Our court system too was not willing to stand up for its authority and its separation from the executive branch. In other words, the District Court willingly allowed itself to be gagged; but I continued on.

In July 2004, after two years of unexplained foot dragging, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, announced its long over due investigation of Sibel Edmonds--"case complete," and issued its report. The further empowered and emboldened then Attorney General stepped in on that same day and gagged his own Inspector General's findings and report by classifying the entire report as secret. The so called independent investigatory entity, the Inspector General, wrapped and duct taped its report, bowed, and left the scene now that it was formally and officially gagged on my case; but I continued on.

On April 21, 2005, for the first time in these three gagged years, my attorneys and I finally had, or thought we had, our day in court for our hearing before Appellate Court Judges. Just hours before our hearing, these judges issued an unexpected ruling, barring all reporters and the public from the courtroom for the Edmonds' Case hearing. Numerous media related entities tried to flex their lately weakened muscles and filed their motion to oppose this ruling. The judges denied their motion, and cited no reason; when asked for a reason they responded that they didn't have to provide any reason.

Everyone was kicked out of the courtroom; except for me, my attorneys, and the large troop of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All the doors to the courtroom were locked and guards were placed in front of each door to watch out for eavesdroppers. Then came the next shock: after bypassing our brief, asking a couple of puzzling and irrelevant questions, and allowing my attorneys 10 minutes or so of response, the Appellate judges asked my attorneys and me (the plaintiff) to leave the courtroom, so that the government attorneys could secretly answer questions and make their argument. The guards escorted us, the plaintiff, out, locked the doors, and stood there in front of the courtroom and watched us for about fifteen minutes. So much for finally having my day in court; here I was, with my attorneys, standing outside the courtroom and being guarded, while in there, three judges were having a cozy mingling session with a large troop of government attorneys. Then, it was over; that was it; we were told to leave. In other words, my attorneys and I were barred from being present in our own court hearing, and my case remained covered up and gagged; but I continued on.

On May 6, two weeks after the Kafkaesque court procedure, my attorneys and I were given the verdict: The lower court's decision was upheld, meaning my entire case, whether or not we had an Inspector General's Report that confirmed my allegations, whether or not we had several congressional letters confirming my case and my allegations, was prevented from proceeding in court due to some unspecified "State Secrets," and unexplained secrecy that applied to everything that had to do with me and my case; which were so secret that even the judges could not hear or see. In fact, the Appellate judges in my case did not cite any opinion or reason, because even the opinion itself would have been considered secret.

Doesn't this mean that the Appellate court and these three judges were in effect gagged? It appears so, but I will continue on.

In the past three years, I have been threatened; I have been gagged several times; I have continuously been prevented from pursuing my due process; all reports and investigations looking into my case have been classified; and every governmental or investigative authority dealing with my case has been shut up. According to legal experts familiar with my case, the level of secrecy and classification in my court case and the attitudes and handling of the court system in dealing with my case is unprecedented in the entire U.S. court history. According to other experts I am one of the most, if not the most, gagged woman anybody knows of or has heard of. Why?

Those of you who still think this case, my case, is about covering up some administrative blunder or bureaucratic mismanagement, please think again.

Those of you who may think that my Kafkaesque case, the unprecedented secrecy, is due to some justified and official higher reasons, please think again.

Those of you who may think that our government, our entrusted leaders, may have an ongoing investigation of criminals involved, please think again.

The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Justice, in its "Unclassified Report," has confirmed my core allegations. What were those core allegations, and who did they involve? Not only some low-level terrorist or terrorist organization; not only some "maybe" critical foreign entities. No; trust me; they would not go to this length to protect some nobody criminal or terrorist.

It is way past time for a little bit of critical thinking. The Attorney General cites two reasons to justify the unconstitutional and panic driven assault on me and my case. Reason one: To protect certain diplomatic relations - not named since obviously our officials are ashamed of admitting to these relations. Reason two: To protect certain U.S. foreign business relations. Let's take each one and dissect it. (I have given up on our mass media to do that for us!) For reason one, since when is the Department of Justice, the FBI, in the business of protecting US sensitive diplomatic relations??? They appear to be acting as a mouthpiece for the Department of State. Now, that's one entity that has strong reasons to cover up, for its own self, what will end up being a blunder of mammoth scale. Not internationally; not really; it is the American people and their outrage they must be worried about; they wouldn't want to have a few of their widely recognized officials being held criminally liable, would they?

As for reason two, I can assure you that the U.S. foreign business relations they may be referring to are not among those that benefit the majority of the American people; a handful of MIC entities and their lobbying arms can by no means be considered that, can they? In fact, the American people, their national safety and security, and their best interests are being sacrificed for a handful of those with their foreign business interests. Also, since when are nuclear black market-related underground activities considered official U.S. foreign business?

If you want to have the answers to these questions, please approach your Congress and ask your representatives for hearings - not behind closed doors quasi hearings - but open, public hearings where these questions can be asked and answered.

And lastly, for those of you who may think that since I have been gagged and stopped by almost all available official channels, I must be ready to vaporize into thin air, please think again. I am gagged, but not dead; not yet.


August 13, 2005
Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds
by Scott Horton

"Scott Horton: [P]erhaps your case is tied in with the AIPAC spy scandal?

"Sibel Edmonds: Absolutely. And I cannot go into any details. … But even the AIPAC spy scandal, as far as I'm reading today, is just touching the surface of it. It's going only to a certain degree. It doesn't go high enough, in what it involves and how far it goes, and that's as far, and the best – as far as I can explain."

The following is the transcript of my Aug. 13 interview with the courageous FBI linguist/whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. What connection does Sibel Edmonds' story have to the prosecution of Larry Franklin, Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman of the Pentagon/AIPAC spy scandal? And for that matter, to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? The answer has something to do with international drug, weapon, and money-laundering rings, and their ties to terrorists and unnamed officials of the Departments of State and Defense. This mess also goes back to at least 1997. Sibel says that when the truth comes out, it will make the AIPAC case look "lame" by comparison. Who are the State Department officials 1 and 2 and the Defense Department officials 1 and 2 referred to in the AIPAC indictments[1][2]? Are they the same unnamed officials in the new Vanity Fair piece about Edmonds? Are these the same neocons who hired Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi, lied us into war with Iraq, drew up the occupation plans, and leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press? Is the quashed federal investigation out of Chicago into corruption on the part of high-level members of both parties, referred to in the article as "the reason" Sibel was gagged by John Ashcroft, related to the investigation of terrorist financing by former agent Robert Wright? What does Patrick "Bulldog" Fitzgerald know about it? Which countries involved in the international heroin market are the subject of such "sensitive diplomatic relations" that their involvement in 9/11 should not be known to the people of the United States? Uzbekistan? Tajikistan? Kyrgyzstan? Pakistan? Kosovo?

The recent stories about the Army's "Able Danger" program having identified Mohammed Atta as the leader of a terrorist cell in New York a year before 9/11, coupled with Sibel Edmonds' statements in her own case and her reference to 25 other sworn and proven instances of precise knowledge of an impending attack that were omitted from the 9/11 commission report, ought to be enough to reopen the 9/11 case entirely.

All of the congressmen and senators who have heard her story, and Glenn Fine, the head of the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, agree: Sibel is telling the truth – not that they'll do anything about it.

Forget the cops, they're the criminals. The case has been filed with the Supreme Court, but we can't count on them. It's time to call our congressmen and demand public hearings into these questions immediately. Or are they in on it too?

Read the recent Vanity Fair article "An Inconvenient Patriot."
Read her Antiwar.com archives here.
See Christopher Deliso's excellent interviews of her here and here.


Scott Horton: Welcome back to the Weekend Interview Show, Sibel.

Sibel Edmonds: Thank you, Scott. Thank you for inviting me back on your show.

SH: It's very nice to talk with you again. It's kind of fun to question around the state-secrets privilege.

SE: Yeah, we'll try to have fun with that part.

SH: Tell us, first of all, we know you were a contract linguist for the FBI, which languages were you a specialist in?

SE: First of all, let me tell you that according to the Department of Justice, all the languages that I speak are considered "top secret classified" in the state secrets case, which is ridiculous. That means that even my resume is considered a top secret document. You can go and find it at all the Web sites that cite my languages. I speak Turkish, Farsi, this is the language spoken in Iran – the Persian language, and Azerbaijani.

SH: For what length of time did you work for the FBI?

SE: I worked for the bureau for a little bit longer than six months – six and a half months.

SH: And that was from pretty much right after Sept. 11th, through…

SE: Three days after Sept. 11th until March 22nd, 2002.

SH: We know already there were problems with some of your colleagues in the translation department which we will discuss in more detail later. Now the big story, why I brought you back on the show, is that finally a reporter has come from across the ocean to dig into this story. And it seems he's unearthed quite a bit from others in government who have had a chance to hear your whole story behind closed doors.

SE: I'm so glad you pointed out the fact that David Rose came from England and spent four or five months on this story, while for three – three and a half years nobody here, at least from the main press, has bothered to do so. And David worked diligently on this story and interviewed many officials in the FBI and from the Congress and basically put out this 11 page story. I'm very thankful to David and to Vanity Fair to a degree.

SH: It seems from this article that the reason he was so successful in being able to dig up all these the facts is that from the very beginning you have gone through all the proper channels, you told your story to all the people who should have had it told to them. So basically what David Rose did was follow you around and got anonymous leaks from the people you have been allowed to tell your story to in secret, right?

SE: See, this is why I love interviews with you Scott because you are right on the facts. Great. You are absolutely correct, because I testified several times before various representatives and senators in the summer of 2002, and gave them my testimony and as you know, two senators, Grassley and Senator Leahy. They came out three years ago, publicly they said the FBI, during their meetings with the Senate confirmed all my allegations and denied none – and in fact Senator Grassley said "she is very credible" because even the FBI management have corroborated all her stories and all her reports. And he pointed out that he was going to turn the department upside down and get to the bottom of this issue and here, three years later nobody has even touched it.

I have several gag orders. In fact, based on the research that my attorneys, the ACLU, has conducted, I am the most gagged person in United States history, believe me or not – someone who worked for six months as a language specialist at the FBI. As you know, they gagged the Congress in May 2004. The Department of Justice issued a gag order, and ordered the senators to pull off everything from their Web sites, and not to comment on anything that has to do with my case. The inspector general's report was gagged and completely classified. They issued the state-secrets privilege for the second time when the 9/11 family members attorneys subpoenaed my deposition, they came out and invoked this gag order. So there has been so many gag orders, and some of it so ridiculous that basically they are gagging even my existence. And as you pointed out, I've provided this information to the Congress, to the 9/11 commission – all tape-recorded – to the inspector general's office, and the Department of Justice. If today you were to call the Congress and ask them, they would say it's under investigation; well it's been for three and a half years. How can it be under investigation for three and a half years, with all these gag orders, and we have not gotten to the bottom of this thing, and these criminals have not faced prosecution in this country?

SH What sort of criminal investigation should we expect from the FBI on this matter when they are the ones to be investigated?

SE: That's exactly the problem. If you're in some company or in other places and you come across these criminal activities, who would you report it to? You would report it to the Department of Justice and the FBI. But what happens when you come across these criminal activities – and find out through the Department of Justice and the FBI and the fact they are blocking it from being investigated, then who do you go to? I have been asking this question, and that's why I started this court case three years ago (which is being gagged and stopped – they are fighting it ferociously) is so that maybe through the court system, we can subpoena witnesses and bring out these documents so I can give them to the American public and say "here are these documents."

SH: You have three branches of government to choose from. Obviously, your problem is with the executive branch in the first place. Now, you say that Congress has promised they would come to bat for you – Senators Grassley and Leahy – and they never did, all you have left is the courts. Have you had any success with the courts at all?

SE: No. To this day, they are not even allowing us any hearings. They go in private, and have these private, secret conferences with the judges, and then the judges come out and say, "OK, you cannot have any hearing." So, we filed with the Supreme Court last week, and by mid-October we will know whether or not the Supreme Court is going to accept the case, and question the legality of these gag orders. It's unconstitutional for the government to come and say, "we don't even have to present you with any reasons why we are issuing gag orders because the reasons themselves are classified." This is so Kafkaesque, Scott.

SH: It's interesting that the state-secrets privilege actually doesn't exist. There's no law that has ever been passed by Congress that even says such a thing. Wasn't it the Supreme Court that made up the state-secrets privilege in the first place?

SE: Yes, it's based on common law, and in fact, most judges don't even know how it is applied, and therefore that is another challenge we are bringing about: for the Supreme Court to look into this and say this is time for us to clarify just what the hell is this state-secrets privilege. If you were to go ask many attorneys in this country, they would tell you that, "Hey, I didn't know that the United States had any official secrets act," and they act surprised because even most attorneys don't know that we have this arcane draconian common law that is being exercised to gag people and rid them of their First Amendment rights.

SH: Sibel, let's see if we can figure out why they [the government] are going to such lengths to keep you quiet. Can you tell me, what is the American Turkish Council – let me rephrase that, can you tell me what the American Turkish Council is?

SE: Well sure, it's on the Web site. They are this lobbying organization for Turkish business and relationship between U.S. and Turkey. It's exactly like AIPAC

SH: Oh good, exactly like AIPAC!

SE: Exactly. In fact, they have so many crossovers, if you look at their members you will see many that are members of both organizations. And if you look at the people who are in the management and are in charge of these lobbying groups, you come across the same names, which is very interesting.

SH: That is very interesting. In fact, my next guest after you will be Bob Dreyfuss about the AIPAC spy scandal and something that occurred to me last night as I read the Vanity Fair piece An Inconvenient Patriot about you, was that some of the things I read about in there, and we'll try to get to some of this a little bit later, were about "unnamed Department of State and Department of Defense employees," which made me wonder whether perhaps your case is tied in with the AIPAC spy scandal case in any way.

SE: Absolutely. And I cannot go into any details – and maybe some other investigative journalist from across the ocean will come here and do the rest of this article – as article part two. But even the AIPAC spy scandal, as far as I'm reading today, is just touching the surface of it. It's going only to a certain degree. It doesn't go high enough, in what it involves and how far it goes, and that's as far, and the best – as far as I can explain.

SH: Thank you very much for that, and we'll see what we can make of it. Can I ask you how you first learned of the American Turkish Council?

SE: Oh, no, you can't.

SH: That's classified. Well, according to this article, which is written everybody by David Rose, it's in the current issue of Vanity Fair magazine. It's called "An Inconvenient Patriot." And I'm going to go ahead, because the states-secrets privilege has not been invoked against me so far – I don't think. David Rose says in this article – he basically talked to the congressional staffers who have debriefed you. And what they say, is while you were translating intercepts for the FBI you overheard American Turkish Council employees discussing criminal activity among both Republicans and Democrats, and even including the Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert. Can you cough or sneeze or blink twice or anything for me?

SE: All I can tell you is that the sources that David Rose interviewed – they were the people that were present during the investigation of the Congress and their meetings with the FBI, so I am sure that it was not based on hearsay that they made these comments. I am sure that they based it on the wiretap recordings they heard and the documents. So they didn't just come and say this is what it was without having all those documents and files from the FBI to go over, and I guess their statements were based on the evidence that was presented to them both by the inspector general's office – Glenn Fine briefed the Congress – because as you know the IG report was classified, but they briefed the Congress. So I guess they relied on the documents from the inspector general's office and the FBI to make those statements. I guess that was the case.

SH: So this just doesn't come from you but from the official investigations of your accusations as well?

SE: That's what I would assume because if these are Congressional sources who were in these investigations, and also David Rose spoke with certain FBI officials who were part of these files and case investigations within the FBI – they would not make comments on what they think it is but they would provide facts, that is my assumption. Otherwise, Vanity Fair would not print it.

SH: The article quotes one unnamed official as saying, "This is the reason why Ashcroft reacted to Sibel in such an extreme fashion. It was to keep this from coming out."

SE: Uh, when you say "this," I don't know. If you go to my CBS 60 Minutes transcript of October 2002 – even though they chose to broadcast mostly the administrative problems and issues – I had one statement there that said that this involved people, officials, well-recognized names in the Department of State, Department of Defense, and certain elected officials. So I believe the source is also quoted somewhere else talking about the fact that in the late '90s they were going to have a special prosecutor to uncover these criminal activities and corruption, including the politicians – this is in the article. But later, after the administration changed, they decided to cool it and not do anything with it, so they stopped the investigation and they went against the initial decision of having a special prosecutor trying and indicting these criminals in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Congress.

SH: Okay, before we get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of what was learned in those wiretaps about Dennis Hastert and other Republicans and Democrats involved with the American Turkish Council, let's go back and discuss – as much as you can say without going to prison – the role of Melek Can Dickerson in the intercept office where you worked at the FBI.

SE: As far as Dickerson goes, I would like to point out to one fact that hasn't really been talked about. In September 2002, there were 3 active investigations on Dickerson: one by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, one the Department of Justice, and the third by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in September 2002, while these three active investigations were taking place, the Dickersons left the country. They left their house, their car, and they fled the country and they were allowed to leave the country and they haven't come back. It's been three years, and they haven't come back.

SH: And it's even worse than that. Because Douglas Dickerson continued to be employed by the U.S. military. Didn't he have a job at NATO or something?

SE: Correct. And with access, unlimited access, because of his clearance, to the nuclear secrets of the United States.

SH: Well, let's get back to why that ought to concern anybody. Who is this guy Douglas Dickerson, and what do you ever have against him?

SE: As far as I know, Douglas Dickerson was stationed in Turkey between 1992 and 1997. During those years he came under certain… some investigation – but I don't know much about that investigation – that focused on certain bribery he accepted, and I don't know by whom and I don't have any details on that. And then he came to U.S., and even though he had this access and clearance, he was in touch with certain organizations – and that's plural again – and some of these organizations I would call "semi-legit." And while his wife worked for… this article in Vanity Fair says she worked for two years for American Turkish Council, but for the same two years she was also working for this organization called the ATA, American Turkish Association, and again that information is public. So she was working for these two organizations, and ATC has a lot of sub-organizations like ATA, ATAA with chapters all over the United States. They have hundreds of chapters. They have it in various states and several in certain states.

SH: And this woman, Melek Can, when she came and got her job working at the FBI – it says in this article that on two different official pieces of paperwork, she neglected to mention the fact that she had worked for the American Turkish Council, who, it turns out were – at least partly – the targets of the intercepts that she was overhearing and reporting on.

SE: Well, I cannot talk about the targets, however, that's correct. Melek Can Dickerson, in her application, did not disclose. In order to get the top secret clearance you have to disclose everywhere you have worked, every organization you have been a member of, and she had left every single one of those empty, blank, as if she had never worked a day in her life, never been a member of any organizations. Then after I reported these issues in 2002, within the FBI, they opened one investigation, and during the questioning, she was still telling them that no, she had never worked anywhere else, and that this was her first job that she had held, and had never worked for any foreign organization or lobbying firm, that she had not been a member of any organization. So, yes, that's correct.

SH: Interesting. So we have this "semi-legit" organization, the American Turkish Council, and this woman who worked for them for years comes and gets a job at the FBI helping with the translations. And now, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to talk about this, but the VF article goes into pretty astounding detail as to how she said, "You know, what we ought to do? Instead of dividing up the intercepts randomly, I ought to get all the important ones and you ought to overhear all the stuff that doesn't matter," and then, according to this Vanity Fair article, your common boss, Mike Feghali took her side.

SE: Correct. There is much more on Mike Feghali, and he himself, is, or was, was under investigation both by the inspector general's office and the Congress because his case goes even beyond Dickerson, which is very interesting, and he is still there in charge of Arabic translation, a division of the FBI Washington field office.

SH: Now Sibel, you had a different boss at the FBI, I guess the guy who was the customer of your information, a guy named David Saccer.

SE: Dennis Saccer.

SH: Oh, Dennis, my mistake. Now, who exactly was he, and I guess in this article it says that he sort of took your side against Mike Feghali and Melek Can Dickerson, right?

SE: Correct. In the FBI, at least for the language division, you basically have two supervisors, one would be the administrative supervisor, who actually has no control or supervision over your actual work or investigation. They just take care of your hours and your schedule, etc. – which was Mike Feghali. He was not an agent. Then the agent who was in charge of the main department of language that I was working for – because I did work for several language departments, Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani, but for the Turkish division it was Dennis Saccer – special agent Saccer.

SH: Okay now, he expressed concern to you, according to this article, that perhaps there was some espionage going on there on the part of Melek Can Dickerson. I'm curious, was that before or after Melek Can and her husband had come to your house and tried to recruit you and your husband?

SE: It was around the same time, and in fact, before I even found out about it he was reporting it to the FBI headquarters, and his boss, the supervisory special agent about suspicious activities by Dickerson in terms of certain wiretap information that was being lost, and documents that she was forging signatures on and various other cases that he had come across and this was even before I started reporting these issues to the FBI management.

SH: Well, and then when he found out about the new arrangement where Melek Can Dickerson was assigned all of the important stuff, and you were assigned all of the unimportant stuff, he had you go back and retranslate and take a look at some of the things that she had marked "not pertinent" right?

SE: Correct. He asked me and another language specialist to go over all those pieces of communication that were stamped "not pertinent to be translated" by Dickerson, – and some of them were really long conversations pieces – but to go back and translate them, and find out whether or not the information there was pertinent.

SH: And did you find that she had mostly been correct in marking things "not pertinent"?

SE: No, just the opposite. Just through our first batch, the first 10 or 12 communications that had been blocked we came across extremely important, pertinent – information that had to do with illegal activities between certain foreign elements and certain agencies in the United States.

SH: And for reporting all of this to your superiors, you are the one who was punished.

SE: Initially, actually, they wanted to give me a raise and a promotion. In return, they asked me to just leave it alone and not report it further up to the headquarters. And that's how it worked within the FBI's language division. There were things like that happening all the time. After I insisted that this needed to be investigated and went higher up, they started threatening me and retaliating against me. They busted into my home and confiscated my home computer – my husband's home computer – and they forced me to take a polygraph, and then later they fired me.

SH: Also it says in the Vanity Fair article that Melek Can Dickerson actually threatened you.

SE: Correct, that occurred in January 2002.

SH: If I remember correctly the quote was something to the effect of "Why are you doing this? You could be putting your family back in Turkey in danger."

SE: That's correct.

SH: Did anything ever come of this threat?

SE: Well yes… I really don't feel like going through that, because that is really hard for me to speak about because my family's life has changed. They had to come to the U.S. They had to apply for political asylum, in fact, the Congress helped them to apply for political asylum based on documents they received from Turkey that had various threats in it. But that is not the point I want to make as far as the country goes, and that's why I usually tell people that I don't think the issue here is about whistleblowing, being fired, being wronged – that is not the most important issue here. The most important issue is: What were these criminal activities, and why instead of pursuing these our government chooses to cover it up and actually issue classification and gag orders so the American public will not know about what is going on within these agencies within their government – and even within the Congress? That is my focus point, and I have been trying – it is what I have written and have said in my interviews – to steer away from the fact that yes, I was fired, yes I was wronged, and they retaliated against me, and how they ruined my life – which is all true. But this is not where I want to focus, and this is not where I want the country to focus, this is not where I want the Congress to focus. I'm not saying, "Look, they did wrong to me, and this is not fair." I'm saying, "I came forward because criminal activities are taking place – have been taking place – some of them since 1997." Some of these activities are 100 percent related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and they are giving this illusion that they are pursuing these cases, but they are not. If the case touches upon certain countries or certain high level people, certain sensitive relations, then they don't. But, on the other hand, they go and talk about lower-level criminal activity that boils down to people like Atta and Hamdi.

SH: So let's get into some of that criminal activity then. The semi-legit organization that I think you are most often referring to is the American Turkish Council, which is headed by Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser of the United States, and is packed with the leaders of Raytheon, Motorola, Boeing, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, and some of the most powerful company names in the military-industrial complex.

SE: Correct.

SH: Is the ATC just one of many semi-legitimate organizations that you are referring to, or is most of this story focused on the ATC itself?

SE: There are many.

SH: And many organizations that you actually were overhearing?

SE: I cannot talk to you about what I was overhearing, but as I have pointed out there are several organizations.

SH: Okay, and you mention when you talk about criminal activity, drug-running, money-laundering, weapons-smuggling…

SE: And these activities overlap. It's not like okay, you have certain criminal entities that are involved in nuclear black market, and then you have certain entities bringing narcotics from the East. You have the same players when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players, they are the same people

SH: Well, when we're talking about those kind of levels of liquid cash money we probably also have to include major banks too, right?

SE: Financial institutions, yes.

SH: Did you learn anything that implicated Brent Scowcroft and/or the leadership of the ATC in this corruption?

SE: As I said, I do not talk about this information. I do not talk about targets.

SH: I understand. And David Rose did write in the Vanity Fair article that there wasn't anything that he knows of that you found that directly implicated Brent Scowcroft.

SE: That again depends on who was the source and the particular information that that particular source provided, but I cannot confirm or not confirm it.

SH: I see. I want to get a promise out of you that when they finally lift this gag order, that I get to interview you first. I have a long list of questions that I can't ask.

SE: Sure. And believe me, once they lift the state-secrets privilege and once the court case actually begins and we have the witnesses and we can subpoena documents, it will be public. And it will be major. And it would make the AIPAC case look lame, actually.

SH: Oh, it will make the AIPAC case look lame?

SE: Correct.

SH: I can't wait. Let me go ahead and share with the people some things I know you're not allowed to talk about but are in the Vanity Fair article. Now [David Rose] talked to the debriefers from the different agencies, the FBI, the congressional investigators and, I believe, also the Sept. 11 commissioners, and they shared with him some interesting allegations that Sibel is not allowed to talk about or she'll go to prison. Most importantly that Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives, at least is implicated, in cooperating on some very important issues with the ATC, and that one of the phone calls overheard was that one of the ATC officials bragging that they bought the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert for $500,000, they gave him half a million in order to change his vote on an Armenian genocide resolution. I think we all know the genocide against the Armenians by the Turks in the 19-teens, and various states around the world have passed resolutions condemning that, and the Americans were about to pass a resolution – in fact, there's a pretty substantial Armenian population in California and the press all the time that this was happening pointed out that it was pretty obvious that Dennis Hastert was pushing this condemnation of Turkey for the genocide of the Armenians was in order to help some Republicans in California get reelected. But then, at the last minute he changed his mind and withdrew the resolution – right as a major helicopter deal was going through – this resolution that would have made Turkey look really bad. And according to David Rose in Vanity Fair, Dennis Hastert got paid $500,000 to change his position on that. Am I going off the story anywhere Sibel? Can you comment either way?

SE: No, but as I said, the reason I went to the Congress and to the 9/11 Commission had to do with criminal activities and the criminal activities I provided information on had a lot to do with 9/11. And it's very interesting for example this latest development with the 9/11 Commission and this information from the Department of Defense that had to do with Atta, right?

SH: Able Danger.

SE: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted. With my case they just said, "Refer to the inspector general's report," even though I had provided the commissioners with the documents and names of witnesses. So now today you're seeing the press talk about "Oh, one piece of information," which right now the Commission is denying: "We don't recall seeing that information." Well, I can put out 20 other cases. These are agents who worked for agencies such as FBI, CIA, some of them for 20 years, some for 18 years. I have their list, I have their affidavits that provided documents, and they were all omitted. But the media is treating it as if "oh, look, this one piece of information was omitted" from the 9/11 Commission report.

SH: And as you pointed [out], some of this information has been confirmed in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant…

SE: Correct.

SH: …who warned in April of 2001 – that was even confirmed by Mueller, the director of the FBI.

SE: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings, the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20 affidavits from experts and veteran agents

SH: This is all about the question of prior knowledge and who knew what, when before the attack.

SE: And also what happened afterward. I started working three days after Sept. 11 with a lot of documents and wiretaps that I was translating. Some of them dated back to 1997, 1998. Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says, "You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?

SH: Perhaps the same people who make it illegal [in order] to drive up the price? Maybe not, I don't know. Now listen, when you talk about the State Department cites diplomatic ties to foreign countries they would prefer not be stepped on. I'm sorry, but the word "Israel" is just screaming inside of my head here. I guess you can't give me any indication "yes" or "no" if that's what you're talking about?

SE: Well, one of the interesting things about the Vanity Fair article… I don't know how many people picked up on that. But they're saying Turkish countries. It's plural people. And to say OK, we're looking at this region of the world that nobody is referring to [in] the War Against Terror. OK, you're looking at Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and these are the countries that now we are busy establishing bases in. And a large portion of their GDP depends on narcotics, and there is a huge al-Qaeda presence in their countries. We don't hear anything about Balkan countries, and again, their direct ties and direct relevance to al-Qaeda. They are not even naming these countries. The role that Pakistan played before and the role that Pakistan is playing today. So, as I have said before, there are several countries, there are several organizations, and you can't just isolate one country or one organization.

SH: I want to get to your appearance on Democracy Now! earlier in the week, referring to officials at the State Department, you used the word "treason." And I wonder whether this is specifically referring to the Sept. 11 attacks and whether you have information that indicates complicity on the part of American elites who are part of these semi-legit organizations that funded Sept. 11, or are we talking seven degrees of Kevin Bacon here?

SE: Again, it's hard to talk about this around the gag order, but this is what I have been saying for the past three years, that's why I refer to the transcript of CBS 60 Minutes. These people who call themselves Americans and these people are using their position, their official position within these agencies – some of them in the Department of Defense, some of them in the Department of State – and yet, what they are doing with their position, with their influence is against the United States' national security, it's against the best interests of its people, and that is treason. Be it giving information to those that are either quasi-allies – and I would underline quasi, who one day will be another al-Qaeda – and who are already are engaged in activities that are damaging to our country, its security and its interests – and that is treason. So that's what I was referring to. And what would you call someone who, let's say if they were to go after Douglas Feith, and if they were to establish that Douglas Feith with his access to information, willingly, intentionally used the information he had and gave it to those that would one day use it or maybe right now are using that information against the United States. Would you call that treason?

SH: Well, if it's an overt act to benefit an American enemy then yes, that's treason.

SE: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies, these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.

SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

SH: Maybe a mixture of both. Thank you very much for your time Sibel. I sure wish they'd let you talk.

SE: Thank you, Scott. Maybe one day.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:07 am

[p.34 of dump]

FWIW: The 9/11 Citizens’ Commission – September 9, 2004
Symphony Space, New York, NY

Definitely some worthwhile testimony:



Transcribed by A+ Recording & Transcribing*
167 West 21st Street @ Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10011 http://www.aplusnyc.com

9/11 Citizens’ Commission – September 9, 2004
Symphony Space, New York, NY
Developed by 9/11 CitizensWatch & 911truth.org

Press Conference page 2
Introduction – Program Overview page 14
Commissioners – Opening Statements page 21
Victim Family Statements page 29
[Q&A in most cases follows witness testimony]
Witness Jenna Orkin page 32
Staff Statement by John Judge page 40
Witness Barrie Zwicker page 61
Witness Michael Springmann page 73
Witness Paul Thompson page 80
Witness Michael Ruppert page 90
Witness Indira Singh page 125
Reads Sibel Edmonds letter to Kean page 126
Staff Statement by Nick Levis page 154
Staff Statement by Carolyn Betts page 160
Staff Statement by John Judge page 170
Final Q&A page 179
Thank you and Conclusion page 198

KYLE HENCE: . . . hearings or the hearings that were conducted by the 9/11 Commission. We have a group of commissioners that will be hearing testimony provided by witnesses, authors, experts, whistleblowers and I’d like to first start by saying that who is not here yet. Dr. Faiz Khan, um, is an emergency room doctor and a local imam. He’s an American Muslim of Indian Afghani extraction. He is an M.D., he’s an emergency physician and internist in New York City, on duty on 9/11, treated victims, later at Ground Zero with rescue teams. He’s an assistant imam at various New York City and Long Island mosques and is on the advisory board of 9/11 Truth.org.

We have three commissioners. He’s the first. Secondly we have, on the far end of the table here, Bob McIlvaine and Bob is a 9/11 victim family member. He lost his son Bobby, in the, on the 106th floor of the north tower. And then we have Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia is a former congresswoman, four terms – is that correct, Cynthia?


KYLE HENCE: Five terms, excuse me. And she’s just won her primary and she’s running to regain her seat in congress. And she will be chairing the hearings to day. Originally we had planned to have Cynthia co-chair with Catherine Austin Fitts, life long Republican and former Assistant Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration.

00:00:04:28 Due to an emergency medical situation with a very close friend of hers she called late last night and said that she could not make it. So, she expressed her regret and that she does intend that are we to follow on this hearing with others and find financial and public support that she will be joining as a Republican member of the commission to co-chair it. She brings great expertis and, and insight to this process. So we miss her and we also miss Dr. Bob Bowman. Dr. Bob Bowman is a retired lieutenant colonel in the air force. He’s a Ph.D. and I believe he is a bishop in the United Catholic Church. His house was damaged in the recent hurricane so he’s not here.

00:01:00:09 However, we’re going to proceed anyway. So I’m going to turn it over briefly, very briefly to brief comments if they’d like to from Cynthia and Bob and then I’m going to introduce Michael Kane who represents New York 9/11 Truth.org and then we’ll turn it over to the witnesses very briefly just to say who they are and their affiliation and what they’ll be testifying to today. And then we’ll turn if over to members of the press who have questions for either our witnesses or the commissioners. So let me turn me it over to Cynthia McKinney, the chair of today’s 9/11 Citizens Commission. Cynthia.

00:01:42:02 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you, Kyle. And, as soon as we can get out, cord unentangled we will allow Mr. McIlvaine to make his opening statement.

00:02:21:04 BOB McILVAINE: Hi, I’m Bob McIlvaine. I apologize for this short biography there. You know I’m, I’m at the end stage of work and I, I was a teacher. I’ve worked in a psychiatric unit, acute care facility. I was a teacher on the unit and I got laid off in 2003. And it’s amazing since then the journey I’ve been on, to find the truth. That’s, that’s the only thing I wanted out of life. I’m a parent – I’m sorry. It is a very difficult time of year.

00:02:55:27 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Don’t be sorry.

00:02:57:16 BOB McILVAINE: I, I, it’s – I’ve spoken over a hundred times in the last year and I just can, can never get through the beginning because it’s still without Bobby, my son. And a wonderful person, a graduate of Princeton, tremendous intellectual, unaffected human being yet he wanted to solve the world’s problems also. And the week before he died we had talked about the Taliban in Afghanistan because he had such a profound interest in what was happening there.

00:03:31:02 So he died on September 11th and I knew that the answers were so simple, that this was definitely wrong and we categorize it as a good against evil. But, I continued working. I never did find out how my son died. He was supposed to be on the 106th floor but I wasn’t able – we were able to find his body the following day and I just, for a year I spent trying to find out how, you know, the exact circumstance surrounding his death.

00:03:59:02 But anyway in February 2003 I got laid off and since then I’ve had the opportunity belonging to groups, going to the commission, reading all these wonderful people over here about what’s happened on September 11th and just trying to find the truth. That’s all I want. It’s not that I’m looking for punishment but I’ve been at the commissions and I, and I do want blame cause there’s a lot of people to blame. Nineteen who killed my son, they’re dead. But there’s so much that happened before then and the truth has to come out. And we were talking about early, this country will not survive if we don’t get the truth of this because it will never ever stop.

00:04:41:07 And we, the citizens in the United States and that’s my only quest. I’ll spend the rest of my life, as hard as this is – it’s opening up that wound every time I talk about it cause I have to talk about Bobby. And it’s difficult and that’s why not that many – it just wears at you, just wears you down. But the thing is it’s a powerful voice. So the only thing I want to do and that’s why I’m here is to maybe find more ways to get it out to the public. I think the rest of the world has heard the message but I don’t know, just – and more people in the United States are hearing the message. But hopefully everyone will know the truth of what’s happened on September 11th. Thanks.


00:05:26:26 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: A very powerful opening statement from Mr. McIlvaine, Commissioner McIlvaine who, sets the context for us as to why exactly we are here. And, the importance of the work that these good presenters, these panelists do. Every day that they wake up their work is about finding the truth. And the reason we are here is about truth.

00:05:58:17 So now I would just like to say that I’m finally happy to be on a commission where it’s okay to ask a lot of questions. Here we intend today to ask a lot of questions. Questions will be posed from the audience and questions will be posed from the, commissioners, Mr. McIlvaine and myself. Let me also mention the fact that Catherine Austin Fitts, my co-chair in these, in this hearing which we hope to expand to include more hearings, is not here, as has been explained by Kyle. But we also want to know that the work that she does and the important issues that she covers will not remain uncovered. That will just give us more opportunity and more need to do a follow up hearing.

00:07:03:20 Now let me also just say that Hurricane Frances stormed into Florida and in, to a lesser extent, into my home state of Georgia. And after she left we all have to clean up, we’re part of the clean up crew. Well, the Republicans stormed into New York City just a few days ago and you could consider the work that we’re about to do the clean up work, the most necessary clean up work. But in this space our minds are open, our facts are welcome, we have no political agenda other than the truth. The City of Atlanta where I come from, our symbol is resurgence, the Phoenix, because as you all know the City of Atlanta was burned by, General Sherman as he went through, um, through the south. And Atlanta rose again even sending President Jimmy Carter to the White House. We don’t take credit for Zell, however.

00:08:28:26 When Reconstruction took place in this country and George White, was the last African-American member of congress, he stood on the floor of the house as he was about the leave because of Jim Crow laws and he said, “This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes temporary farewell to the American Congress but let me say, Phoenix-like, he will rise again and come again some day.”

00:09:01:08 When I came to New York, in one of my previous visits, this was a – there’s a poster that was given to me – truth crushed to the ground shall rise again. And so now we are here to say that no organization, no administration, no forces, no powers that be are going to crush the truth of what happened on September 11th to the ground. [APPLAUSE] Because these panelists who are here, these researchers and those of you in the audience who spend all of your time trying to understand what happened so that we can put to rest some of the pain of my fellow commissioner Mr. McIlvaine. We will make sure that the truth will rise again. That’s why we’re here today. So thank you very much.


00:10:06:26 KYLE HENCE: Michael Kane from NY 9/11 Truth.org, very briefly.

00:10:14:24 MICHAEL KANE: Very briefly. Thank you, Kyle. I’m with 9/11 Truth. It’s a group that we had our founding here on September 11th, 2003 when we had an event at the Riverside Church where some of these distinguished panelists were there including Cynthia McKinney and Mike Ruppert, John Judge. It was a great event and off of that we decided this movement that was a researched-based movement that was widely on the internet, needed to get into the streets, needed to get to the people because widely the media was not doing the job that we thought it needed to do in order to get to what both commissioners so eloquently said we’re here for, the truth.

00:10:57:12 So ever since January 3rd, of 2004 of this year, we’ve been at the footprint of Ground Zero, handing out literature, holding up signs that say, “Support Victims Families, Stop the 9/11 Cover-Up,” other signs as well. And starting basically a dialogue with the people of New York as well as internationally because Ground Zero is affording people coming from all over the world to see it. That’s what we’ve been doing. I have to say the response has been overwhelmingly supportive. Some people disagree and debate but that’s great, that’s what it’s about.

00:11:30:12 It’s about freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and of and about citizens taking –

00:11:35:17 KYLE HENCE: It needs to be very brief.

00:11:36:08 MICHAEL KANE: Responsibility for what happens into this investigation of 9/11 because the 9/11 Commission has not done a sufficient job. So, on behalf of New York 9/11 Truth I thank everybody for coming here especially our panelists and the commissioners here. I just want to say there is one other commissioner that, he isn’t here right now, Dr. Faiz Khan. He was also at our September 11, 2003 event. He’s a great man and I’m very honored he’ll be here as well as a commissioner to hear this. So once again ’d like to thank everybody for coming on behalf of the New York 9/11 Truth.


00:12:12:04 KYLE HENCE: Thank, thank you, Michael. Now we’d like to move very quickly through the witnesses who are here. Obviously we’ll be hearing from each of these later. We want to get to your questions and we the public waiting outside. So, I’m going to turn if over first to Paul Thompson, then we have Barrie Zwicker, Michael Springmann, Michael Ruppert, John Judge, Jenna Orkin and Nicholas Levis. Paul Thompson, please.

00:12:36:04 PAUL THOMPSON: Hi, my name’s Paul. I’ve had something on the internet called the 9/11 Timeline for the past couple of years and I’m really glad to say that two days ago it was released as a book published by Harper Collins and I’m going to be speaking today on two topics. I’m going to be speaking on the foreign intelligence warnings warnings that came from foreign governments and generally aren’t that well known. And then the second thing is [the] potential role of Pakistan in the 9/11 attacks.

00:13:01:12 BARRIE ZWICKER: I’m Barrie Zwicker, a journalist and media critic, and I will touch on the intersection of history, 9/11 and the media in my remarks.

00:13:23:16 MIKE SPRINGMANN: I’m Mike Springmann. I’m a former foreign service officer. I’m currently an attorney in private practice in Washington, D.C. I’m going to be talking to you all today about the issuance of visas to terrorists by officials of the United States government.

00:13:39:09 MIKE RUPPERT: My name is Mike Ruppert. I am the publisher/editor from the “Wilderness Newsletter,” also the author of a new book which is going to print even as we speak today, called Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. I will be testifying today about, a couple of important things, one of which is a series of unmentioned, unexplored war game live highjack exercise drills and other exercise drills, inserting false radar blips into radar screens on 9/11. I will present to the Commission today, and I’ve written confirmation that the joints chief was running a live fly exercise on 9/11, a highjack drill which confused fighter response. I will also discuss elements of perjury and how the attacks were facilitated by the United States government and particularly Vice President Cheney.

00:14:21:02 JOHN JUDGE: My name is John Judge. I’m one of the co-founders of 9/11 Citizens Watch. We have served as a monitor and watchdog over the commission process since it began, the 9/11 Commission. And I’m here today in the role of trying to help an independent commission frame some of the questions and contradictions and omissions of the, of the official report and the flawed recommendations that have come from those conclusions.

00:14:59:09 JENNA ORKIN: Jenna Orkin, chairperson of the World Trade Center Environmental Organization. I’ll be talking about the environmental disaster of 9/11 which was largely the fault of the White House and the EPA. The White House told the EPA to change it’s press releases, reassure New Yorkers for the sake of reopening Wall Street and sacrifice the health of thousands.

00:15:32:00 NICK LEVIS: my name is Nick Levis, I’m with 9/11 Truth.org. I am an author and a researcher. I’m going to be dealing with an overview of the, many, many bodies of evidence that have been gathered by 9/11 researchers and shared in the net, within the network, over the last three years. I’ll be presenting a kind of summary of the different bodies of evidence, and, and an evaluation of the possibilities for a future investigation.

00:16:15:02 [KYLE HENCE]: Yeah, just, just to clarify. Nick Levis, John Judge and Carolyn Betts are giving essentially what would amount to a staff statement. If some of you followed the 9/11 Commission hearings, there were staff statements presented to the commission and to the public at those hearings so they’ll serve that purpose. Carolyn Betts is a, a lawyer and she will be, we’ll present her, introduce her later on. Unfortunately Sibel Edmonds could not be here. We had planned to have video testimony of her but due to scheduling problems, that did not happen.

00:16:49:13 So, if, without any further ado let’s turn it over to questions from members of the press and, if we can – probably we’ll try to do this within the next 10 to 15 minutes so that we can get the public in here. They’re waiting out, they’ve been waiting outside. So, members of the press if you please. Could you please stand up. If, if you don’t mind we would like – cause we are recording this for the wider audience that are not here – there are microphones, if you would be wiling to come up and get on the microphone over on the opposite side of the room where [UNINTEL] is pointing, there’s a standing mike. You see that? Thank you so much.

00:17:27:19 You can address your question to either commissioners or anyone there on the panel.

00:17:34:18 MERCEDES TALEGO: Hi, my name is Mercedes [TALEGO (?)], I work of the newspaper, El Correo, from Spain. It seems to me that most of you here already have achieved a conclusion about what was the motivation of these covert acts of September 11th. I’d like to, I know it’s going to be discussed all day, but I’d like to get like a briefing by somebody who will tell me what were the motivation and how high up, the government was, is the responsibility of ignoring, the signs of September 11th. I’ve seen somebody in the witness panel have mentioned Dick Cheney.

00:10:19:08 KYLE HENCE: Mike?

00:18:20:09 MIKE RUPPERT: Okay, I’ll, I’ll speak for myself on this. There is some degree of consensus beginning to appear on the world scene. Not everybody necessarily agrees with it but for me, I think the overriding, the imperative with regard to a motive for the attacks of 9/11 was the fact that very clearly the world is beginning to encounter diminishing supplies of hydrocarbon energy in a situation called peak oil. In fact where the planet, I believe, is, plus or minus one year away from the all time historical peak of production even as demand is still soaring and we are at a point now where global oil production will diminish irrevocably, and unalterably into the history, which will be probably one of the most epochal changes in human history.

00:11:03:20 There’s an abundant record, which I present in my book, Crossing the Rubicon showing that Vice President Cheney through his energy task force, an even before his entrance into in the White House was well aware of the situation called peak oil. The energy supplies were foremost of the Bush administration’s agent and that the pretext in the form of terror attack historically consistent with Operation Northwoods, which we’ll talk about today I’m sure, with the attacks on Pearl Harbor. We needed a pretext to secure by force the world’s hydrocarbon energy supplies and to pursue them around the world, wherever, they could be found. And I’ll be talking about that at some length in my testimony today and I hope I’ll, I’ll be asked about it.

00:11:45:05 Others may disagree about that but clearly what the evidence we’ve seen with the world economy today, and what has been happening to oil supplies since 9/11, as we predicted in my newsletter, that the world is clearly behaving as if that was the case.

00:20:00:25 KYLE HENCE: Okay, um – Bob.

00:20:04:21 BOB McILVAINE: Yeah, I do a lot of speaking and I like to go to high schools and, if I can, to colleges also – and, again, I’m not an authority on anything – but it’s very important to me that especially high school kids understand that this isn’t a one shot deal. We look at Bush and say that the horrors of the world [UNINTEL] revolve around Bush and I really try to trace the foreign policy of the United States, you know, for the last 50, 60 years after World War, or 50 years after World War I [sic] and in connection with oil and the idea, you know, that we’re out there for the good of democracy and human rights and equality and things of this sort but it’s more about natural resources. But just try to connect the dots and to explain to people my son’s murder isn’t just a one day affair and then it becomes good and evil. But it’s part of the big tapestry, the history that we’re such an immense part of.

00:21:00:17 KYLE HENCE: [UNINTEL] can we move onto another question, a member of the press?

00:21:04:22 ANTHONY LAPPÉ: Hi, Anthony Lappé from GNN.TV. How you guys doing today? It’s a question for, former Congresswoman McKinney. You may be back in office soon. Are you worried that participating in a panel like this is a, is a dangerous, another dangerous move. And are you going to be continuing to do some of this work if and when you get back into Congress.

00:21:33:11 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Anthony, I can, I, I’m not surprised that you would ask me that question. Is participating on a panel who’s purpose is to discover the truth about an American tragedy, is that, is such participation dangerous? It shouldn’t be. This is still America. And, will I continue to do the work that I was doing before I left Congress? I am – there’s not way I can stop pursuing the truth. And in fact, if anything the July 20th Democratic primary which put me in a position to return to Congress actually was a, I would say a referendum on pursuit of the truth.

00:22:33:09 And so it would be a betrayal to my constituents and to all of the supporters who have supported me during these two years that I have not been in Congress for me to all of a sudden become a different person. So I’m not going to become a different person. What you see, basically, is what you get. And, I think the voters understood that. All of the powers that be understand that and most importantly the activists can rest assured that, we will pursue inside the halls of Congress these questions now as they once were being pursued.

00:23:17:02 ANTHONY LAPPÉ: Thank you.


00:23:21:11 KYLE HENCE: Okay, we’re going to need to call this to an end for now because they’ve got, we’re behind schedule and if you can try to catch up with the various witnesses cause they don’t all go on at once. So if you’re a member of the press and have further questions, please try to catch them when you can. And, we’ll be posting their statement on the 9/11 Citizens Watch.org site. We’ll also be making a transcript available of the entire proceedings today, all six hours. And those of you who are going to leave, you – I believe WBAI will be covering the portion of the hearings that run from 3:00 to 5:00. So whoever’s on the schedule from 3:00 to 5:00. So, thank you very much for your attention. So we’ll take a break for about 10 minutes and then we will start the program. Thank you.


00:24:22:03 KYLE HENCE: Thank you Michael Kane. Well welcome. This is a truly historic day and this is a truly, we believe, historic process we’re beginning. I would like to apologize. I see some of you waving yourselves with paper or magazines. Apologize for the temperature and the uncomfortable humidity in the room. I was told that this morning the AC was working fine, I think we’re starting to get some air moving for you. And so as a result of the air conditioning stopping working it’s a little hot so please bear with us. Hopefully the, the technicians or the folks who are, the repairmen are here and, and work.

00:25:06:21 So I’m going to basically – again, my name is Kyle Hence, I’m a co-founder of 9/11 CitizensWatch, a Watch Dog Group based in D.C. and New York. And I’m going to read a brief introductory statement and the format is very much like a congressional hearing. We have commissioners here that I’ll be introducing. We have witnesses providing testimony, whistleblowers, experts, authors and so on. They will come forward, they’ll give a 15 minute presentation, 10, 15 minutes, sometimes with PowerPoint or video. And then the commissioners will pose questions to the witness that be sworn in. Some of you who maybe attended the earlier 9/11 Commission’s hearings noticed that they weren’t swearing in witnesses and that was, they only started because we made some noise about it and the press raised some questions to Chairman Kean.

00:26:01:18 So, let me begin my formal remarks. Ladies and Gentleman, New Yorkers, fellow Americans and concerned citizens from around the world. Welcome to the first hearings of the 9/11 Citizens Commission, who some have dubbed the Omission Hearings. Thank you for coming to join our commission in hearing, our commissioners in hearing testimony of witnesses we have assembled today. We are, we’re present here today to say that we the people will be heard and that neither courageous whistleblowers nor unflinching investigative journalists will be silenced or intimidated by the pomp and circumstance that of a deeply compromised 9/11 Commission, the one commissioned by our government after much, much pressure was put on by family members and other concerned citizens.

00:26:54:21 The Bush administration obstructed and did not want to even launch an investigation into the attacks. And when they did the Congress only allotted $3 million until, again, public pressure, family member pressure raised the budget and eventually they were granted $15 million. Which is still a pittance compared to what they investigated, invested in the, the Challenger shuttle disaster. I think they spent $50 million. Moving on.

00:27:21:21 We are here to exercise our god – in the broadest, most inclu-, most inclusive sense – given right of assembly, of free speech and ultimately to demand redress of grievances relative to the events of September 11th and the actions taken by the U.S. government in our names in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Three years ago the world was transfixed when in the course of an hour and twenty minutes four aircraft were employed as weapons to murder nearly 3,000 people from scores of countries around the world.

00:27:55:25 We must ask ourselves and our leaders how we can maintain that ours is a government of, by and for a free people when a panel commissioned to investigate 9/11 and funded with just $15 million does not answer a majority of the questions posed by victim family members and others. And I can confirm, for you that after speaking with one of the leaders of the victim family groups, that indeed as they’ve combed through their nearly 400 questions and looked at the report they have found thus far, and they haven’t gone through all their questions, but the majority of them have not been addressed.

00:28:33:27 How can we champion the great principles of our founders when nearly 400 questions were posed by the families over the course of two years and nowhere were they directly answered by a government appointed panel, distinguished panel. This, after fighting the administration who do not want to investigate and lobby hard on capital hill. This is an outrage and all the enacted recommendations, or hoped to be enacted, the hopeful, those who hope to enact the recommendations put forward by the commission in the world won’t change the reality that the government failed to provide a full accounting of all the facts and circumstances.

The commission was charged with a dual mandate: to provide recommendations to make us safe on one hand but to also provide us a full accounting of the facts and circumstances. We are here to raise questions and doubt about their accounting of the events and the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks. These are facts and circumstances that Bob McIlvaine, one our commissioners, wants to have answers to, wants to be further scrutinized for their wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, mothers and father, the victim family members, they perished on 9/11. New York’s Finest and Bravest and our fellow citizens, many of whom still to this day have not been granted proper burial.

We are here to right this wrong, this travesty of justice and begin to redress the bodies of evidence too long ignored, that will help us to begin to answer the questions and help place pressure on the government, the important places in government, to reopen the investigation, to answer the questions and the issues that the 9/11 Commission has either ignored or failed to address completely.

00:30:19:08 It is vitally important to note that note only hasn’t the alleged primary culprit not been brought to justice for, but neither has a single co-conspirator been successfully prosecuted in nearly three years since 9/11. Not one single co-conspirator has been successfully brought to justice through out court system and charged with complicity in 9/11. And yet in the wake of the attacks not a single government official in a position of responsibility at the time of 9/11 has been held accountable in any way. In fact, what you have instead is people in positions of responsibility getting promotions and rewards in the wake of the attacks.

00:31:03:03 We have an intense and full program of hearings planned today. In six hours we cannot possibly begin to address everything that has been brought forward by different researchers, investigative journalists, family member on it. But we can begin to touch upon that which has not been addressed by the Kean Commission. We can begin to frame the key questions and the body of evidence that suggests perhaps a wider circle of complicity.

00:31:28:16 A Zogby poll commissioned by 9/11 Citizens Watch and 9/11 Truth.org found that nearly 50 percent, nearly half of New Yorkers polled, believed that the administration, or some leaders with this particular wording, had specific knowledge of an attack imminent on or around September 11th and consciously failed – these were the words in the question – to take action. Sixty-six percent of those polled in New York City believed that the investigation should be reopened by Congress or by the Attorney General of New York State, Elliot Spitzer.

00:32:05:28 Today’s – there are many events upcoming on 9/11, this coming Saturday, here in New York City at the Hammerstein Ballroom, the Manhattan Center. From 8:00 to 10:30, they’ll [be] examining some of the questions we won’t be. There are events in Santa Barbara, Washington, D.C., sponsored by Pacifica, in San Francisco sponsored by 9/11 Truth.org and in other cities across the country and around the world. We’re scheduled to go to 7:00 p.m.; we hope to have time for your questions; we’ll be passing around four by six cards later. And this evening, as Michael mentioned, we have 9/11 Truth.org – it’s an umbrella organization that is trying to bring forward to the broader audience the key questions and to direct the public to bodies of evidence, documentaries, books, etc. that begin to open up a broader discussion about what happened on September 11th. They, with 9/11 Truth, New York 9/11 Truth.org, are sponsoring a world premiere of a documentary by Barrie Zwicker who is here as a witness and who will also be answering questions during Q&A session tonight. There are two showings, 8:00 p.m. and 9:30.

00:33:17:12 We’ll have a 20 minute break around 3:00 p.m. and what I’d like to do now before I introduce our commissioners briefly for their opening statements, I’d like to ask that we observe a moment of silence and that for those who perished on 9/11 and in the wars and violence since. So let us proceed with a moment of silence and prayer if you wish before we begin our first hearing. And I’d like to begin with these words: Not by power, not by money but by this, by thy spirit.


00:34:15:05 KYLE HENCE: Thank you. A couple of changes to our panel, Dr. Bob Bowman had his house damaged by the hurricane. He was to be one of our commissioners. And Catherine Austin Fitts, a former official with the first Bush administration, was to join Cynthia McKinney to co-chair today’s hearings. And we hope to have her back should we do follow on hearings from this event. She’s an extraordinary resource and can help shed light on the economic systems underlying much of the malaise that we see in our world today.

00:34:54:26 So let me move on and introduce the commissioners that we do have here. We have Dr. Faiz Khan at the far end of the table. He’s an American Muslim of Indian and Afghani descent or extraction. He is a doctor, an M.D., emergency physician and internist here in New York City. On 9/11 he was on duty and treated victims at a triage center and worked with rescue teams. He’s active in the peace movement. He’s a lecturer and writer on various issues related to Islam. He is an assistant imam at various New York and Long Island mosques and was a delegate on the Baghdad peace belt pilgrimage that went to Baghdad the week before the war began.

00:35:45:12 And then on, Bob McIlvaine, um, very briefly and he can say a little bit more if he’d like. With Bob, we’re honored to have Bob here on the panel. As some of you, most of you are probably aware there was not a family member on the 9/11 Commission. At one point it was discussed, but in the end, it was made up primarily of conflicted insiders from inside the Beltway. So Bob McIlvaine lost his son Bob, Bobby, who worked, he was working and presenting on a business day in the north tower.

00:36:20:09 And then we have our, our chair, today’s chair, future co-chair, of today’s hearings, Cynthia McKinney. And much of you, I’m sure most of you are familiar with, with her extraordinary record in Congress, standing up, a voice of the people. Someone who – [as] a five term Congresswoman – who recently won her primary and is working to regain her seat. [APPLAUSE] Yes, to regain her seat in Congress.

00:37:02:13 So let me turn if over to Cynthia and the commissioners and then after they’ve made brief introductory remarks we’re going to show a portion of, an edited portion, of testimony provided by Mindy Kleinberg of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, that she made before the 9/11 Commission – on the first day of hearings, March 31st of last year, down at the old, the Customs House, Manhattan. So, let me turn it over to Cynthia. Cynthia, please.

00:37:35:02 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you, Kyle. I would like to take this opportunity to thank 9/11 Truth and Citizens Watch for having this important hearing today. I’d like to also take the time to thank Commissioner Khan, as well as Commissioner McIlvaine for agreeing to serve with me on this very important commission. I would also like to mention another commissioner who couldn’t be with us today but whose commitment we all know and that is Catherine Austin Fitts.

00:38:07:08 Today is just the beginning. Your support can ensure that we follow up with more of these hearings to flesh out all the remaining questions the experts and family members know have not been fully addressed by the official 9/11 commission or the Bush administration. Of course, please forgive me, but I cannot be in the City of New York and not say thank you, New York City. [APPLAUSE] But this time not just for supporting me but for also not being bamboozled into submission by questionable insider, backroom characters who want to take away our freedoms, [APPLAUSE] send out children off to war and rip and shreds the social safety net for the American people.

00:39:00:16 And, of course, I can’t say thank you to New York City without also saying thank you to Georgia’s Fourth Congressional District Democratic voters and our supporters of truth all over our country, who put me in a position to return to Congress as Congress’ sojourner for truth. [APPLAUSE] A special thanks to the small coterie of friends who kept my questions relevant by their own deep understanding of the fundamental danger posed by today, day’s forces known and unknown, operating in our name at this time. Those thanks especially include the dedicated leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement whose work has spawned similar gatherings this week all over our country.

00:39:51:28 For me personally it means the thousands of people I’ve had the opportunity to meet, who are not just against everything, but who are in the deepest sense pro America. Activists like our hosts today, Kyle Hence, John Judge, Nicholas Levis, Michael Kane, the panelists, Ms. Singh, Mr. Ruppert, Mr. Springmann, Mr. Thompson, as well as my fellow commissioners. And finally a word of thanks to the $20 million man whose movie came out literally just days before my election. In the face of stinging criticism about the impact that his film might have had on my election, Michael Moore responded and I quote: “I’m glad Cynthia McKinney’s coming back to Congress and I’m glad if my movie helped make that happen. [APPLAUSE] Even all those thank yous don’t do justice to you, the activist community. But enough with that because now we’ve got work to do.

00:41:04:21 Finally I’m serving on a commission where it’s alright to ask questions. We have allotted time at the conclusion of the panelist presentations for audience questions. Now I know that I intend to ask a whole bunch of questions and I hope you do too. Because we’ve go the experts here who have studied this tragedy and now it’s details backward and forward. Hurricane Frances stormed into Florida and, to a lesser extent my state of Georgia, and left the cleanup to us. Well the Republican party stormed into New York City, their words dripping with the politicization of an American tragedy and they left the cleanup to us.

00:41:55:10 Now I don’t mind being part of cleanup crew. But here we operate under a different set of rules. First, our minds in this place are open, facts are welcome in this place; we have no political agenda other than the truth. My birth city of Atlanta has as it’s symbol, resurgence. The phoenix because out of General Sherman’s Civil War ashes, that jewel of the south rose again and even sent a plain spoken man like Jimmy Carter to the White House. We take no credit for Zell. [LAUGHTER]

00:42:36:09 When reconstruction was truly over and all the civil rights gain from the Civic War had been wiped out through Jim Crow legislation in the south, Representative George White, the last black man serving in the United States Congress on his way out because those Jim Crow laws had made it to North Carolina too, rose on the floor of the house in 1901 and said, “This Mr. Chairman is perhaps the negroes temporary farewell to the American congress. But let me say, phoenix like, he will rise up some day and come again.” And with the United States congress was all white for two, for one generation.

00:43:45:12 On one of my previous trips to New York City I was given a beautiful poster entitled, “Truth Crushed to the Ground Will Rise Again.” Today and into tonight we will explore the truth of 9/11, the truth about America’s tragedy belongs to all of us and can only crushed to the ground for so long. The work of this commissioner, our expert panelists and our audience will ensure that the truth of 911 will rise one day. I look forward to the intense learning bout to take place during these presentations of our esteemed panelists. And now we were hear from our Commissioner, Mr. McIlvaine, Commissioner McIlvaine and Commissioner Khan.


00:44:21:23 BOB McILVAINE: My name’s Bob McIlvaine, I’m the rural Pennsylvania. I lost my son – when I did this for the press I wasn’t able to get through it but maybe the second time around. I lost my son at Merrill Lynch – can’t do it. And it’s not just because it’s 9/11, you know, it’s – everywhere I speak it happens. But it brings a cold reality to the whole thing. There’s a lot of people dying in the world. We’re talking horrible deaths. The death of those people down there were horrible. To this day, I just had a discussion – I’m sorry I forget your name – but I’m still trying to find out what happened to him. I want to know to that last second what happened to him. Every parent wants to know that. I’ve run into a lot of parents, you know, my neighbor that have lost children and you just want to know that last second what horror that your child was going through.

00:45:27:22 And I think about it every day and it rips me apart. And to do this truly is a double edged sword because I really would – many days I want to go to an island and just sit there the rest of my life, ignore the rest of the world and as my son said yesterday, he said, “Why don’t you be happy, try to be happy.” Well it’s impossible to be happy. I have happy moments. The suffering isn’t as bad but the t-, pain is still very immense. It’s always there. And when you do something like that it brings you right back to day one. Day one I have every day of my life. I’ve made that choice, it’s been a wonderful journey.

00:46:11:03 And I do it for my son because he really believed that knowledge is power. And if anything you get out of this, it’s knowledge. And you have to take it out to the people, out to the American public. That’s the only way we can do this. The people of this country must realize what the truth is. And history is replete with so many lies and they continue day in and day out. And it’s just not this Bush administration, it’s every administration. [APPLAUSE]

00:46:44:17 And trust me, I’m not an, I’m not an authority up here. All these other people are great authorities. I’m – this is a learning process for me. I’ve made every commission meeting, I’ve been involved with the widows. I mean they’ve done tremendous work. What they’ve done, the fact that this is out in the public, it would have been an impossibility. Just don’t forget George Bush never wanted this commission. We would have had Kissinger as the head of the commission if it wasn’t for the widows. They went to him and said to him, “Didn’t you have some dealings with the bin Ladens in your past,” and with that he quit the commission. Yet we would have had him.

00:47:21:24 So it’s, it’s just so important that you take a lot out of this and take it out there onto the streets because I just deal with the people, deal with my relatives, deal with the people in my neighborhood, they still look at it and say well I still want to be safe. No one wants to lose their life and they look at the president and say well he’s out protector, our military is our protector.


00:47:47:19 Well, but the thing is this is the way it is. If you’re raised in a family and you have three kids, all you want to know is you’re protected. And I’m not saying that this is right, I’m just saying is it’s so difficult to get to people to explain to them. Where do I start? Do I start in Iran in ’53 or do I go into the Congo in ’60?

00:48:07:00 WOMAN: Right.

00:48:07:19 BOB McILVAINE: It’s a constant thing but it’s an education. And I don’t know, I think there’s a lot of people it’s a lost cause in this country. That’s why we have to get out to the students of the world and they have to understand where this all comes from. It’s connecting the dots. My son didn’t die just because George Bush wasn’t inattentive. It has a lot to do with Clinton, it has a lot to do with Bush, it goes all the way back to Eisenhower. Okay, so I just –


00:48:35:24 And this is the legacy of my son. If I would have died in those towers he’d be doing the same thing. He wants to know the truth, I want to know the truth. And I have found myself in the position – I get invited to this just because I’m a parent. It brings a lot of power to me. And I’ve had the opportunity to speak around the world. Although I won’t fly I do a lot of TV and, and radio but I haven’t flown yet. but it, it’s been a great experience for me because I have, I’m an educator. I was a teacher most of my life. And to me it’s all education and that’s what it has to be. We just constantly have to educate, educate, educate. Then maybe people will start participating and that to me is the solution. Okay, thank you very much.


00:49:42:03 FAIZ KHAN: Good afternoon.

00:49:43:17 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Good afternoon.

0:49:44:21 FAIZ KHAN: It’s a privilege and an honor for me again to share the platform with Cynthia McKinney. It’s been an honor for me to be asked to be a commissioner on this panel. The importance of 9/11 truth cannot be overemphasized. It is impossible to overemphasize the issue of 9/11 truth. Now the attacks themselves and the false explanations, both have been a springboard not only to further criminal agendas by those who wield military and political influence in their bid to maintain a one way flow of cash and natural resources and labor.

00:50:28:18 And notice I don’t make any mention of nation states when I comes to these deep political issues because a lot of the deep politics transcends the dialectic of nation states. We have to think beyond nation states sometimes. Our foreign policy to some extent may be executed through Washington but it often does not originate there. It’s very important for people to understand that when they probe these issues.

00:50:53:06 Now the false explanations that have been put forth by the mainstream media has in a very powerful way intellectually arrested many of, not only the American public opinion but also many peace activists. Their opinions have been arrested. And using 9/11 as a platform for peace activism, while not addressing, while not addressing 9/11 truth, is just purely on the realm of logic completely absurd. The whole Muslims gone bad plus overwhelmed or incompetent intelligence equals 9/11, that just doesn’t cut it anymore for anyone with the slightest amount of mental capacity to read the facts as you’re going to have them presented to you today.


00:51:44:13 But it’s not just presenting the facts. It’s not even digesting the facts. As the evidence grows we need to be psychologically strong enough to face the implications like Bob just mentioned about how deep this can go. As the evidence grows we have to be completely dissatisfied and for-, forgive me for using medical lingo, I can’t help it, but with incomplete diagnoses, with partial truths or with just treating or addressing symptoms without trying to root out root causes.

00:52:12:23 Now any activist working for peace, anyone who claims to be a truth seeker has to be honest. If you’re not going to be honest then you might as well just get out of the game. At some point everyone has to ask themselves well: Am I more committed to my role as a spokesperson or am I more in love with my soapbox than I am with seeking truth? Am I more satisfied with occupying a niche in the activist scene than I am with seeking the truth? And as a physician I often ask myself am I just satisfied treating symptoms and not trying to get at the cure?

00:52:47:09 I just want to draw an analogy for you to really just bring the point home. Say you were a patient of mine and you came to me with a cough, some malaise, not feeling well. I’d advise some rest, may be some steam inhalation, maybe take a check x-ray. On the chest x-ray I might happen to see a little nodule in your lung. But you continue to hack away, come back days later I hear some wheezing. Maybe it’s allergy season. I give you a little inhaler – how many asthmatics are out there, use their inhalers and, and some anti-allergy medicine.

00:53:17:26 Days later you come back, you’re still hacking, you’re still coughing . . . except this time you’re brining up phlegm. Well then I’ll give you a very strong cough suppressant, something that numbs the entire upper airways so you don’t really feel the need to cough. And after a while you’re better and you come back again, coughing, bring up more phlegm, this time with fevers and chills. Aha, pneumonia, I’ll diagnose as pneumonia, give you some antibiotics, give you some fluids and you’re better for a while and then again you come back.

00:53:47:19 This time you’re losing weight, you’re dehydrated, the fevers continue. Well no problem, I’ll hospitalize you, give you some IV fluids, I can correct the dehydration, give you some nutrition, we can even give nutrition through the IV if you’re not hungry. A week later your cough becomes bloody; first a little bit of blood tinged mucus the gobs and gobs of blood. Well that’s okay, I’ll transfuse you. I’ll just give you blood back through your IV, no problem. Then the nausea, the vomiting, the blurry vision, you can’t walk right, the lymph nodes in your neck are golf ball sized. What’s all of this, at this point you’re asking. Well it’s what called a peroneal plastic syndrome from cancer that spreads.

00:54:33:25 Now how absurd is it, it is to just treat symptoms and not diagnose root causes. How absurd it is to treat symptoms but not even mention the word cancer. Many activists don’t even want to go near the 9/11 truth issue. It’s completely diagnostically dishonest not to approach this issue. Making partial diagnoses, treating symptoms in the face of obvious signs that there’s something much deeper is harmful. It’s harmful and it allows the perpetrative agenda to be unnoticed. So I hope you open your ears and pay attention. I’m going to learn a lot today. I’ve been following this issue. I’ve been very supportive of 9/11 Truth and I hope we have great session. Thank you.


00:55:25:24 KYLE HENCE: Thank you commissioners for your opening statements. I’ve just been approached backstage by Barry Zellman. Barrie’s been on my e-mail list of CitizensWatch and Unanswered Questions.org for many months. And I’ve run into him on a couple of occasions during hearings and so on. And, he’s asked to make a brief statement. He hasn’t prepared anything, he lost his brother Kenneth in the north tower, and so I’d just like bring Barry Zellman out for a brief statement to address you. Barry.


00:56:05:01 BARRY ZELLMAN: Hi everybody. I kind of dropped by on a, on a short notice. I, this is kind of an impromptu kind of visit. I didn’t plan to come here so if I stumble and don’t make sense it’s because I really didn’t plan this. I really was never into politics ever in my life and it was a rude awakening on my brother’s, murder three years ago. He was my best friend, my only brother and, you know I’m, these kind of things help me a lot because people understand me. You’re a group of captive audience and it’s good, it helps me get through my, my grief process.

00:56:46:18 There’s never a resolution but it helps cause most of the time when I talk about the dynamics of politics, about 9/11, people look at me like I have three heads. Like, what, what you knew about it, what are you crazy? You know, so much for Republicans. And I never want to root, to label myself anything and I don’t label myself anything. I just, I’m just out there dealing with my brother’s murder. And I just wrote this e-mail, you know, people who do know me know me from the internet. I, I have a, I just write and write, and write and write. So I’ve become a good, pretty decent writer.

00:57:24:10 But I just responded to, Bush families for 9/11 and I’ll just read this aloud, it kind of makes sums up a lot of things. When a political party chooses to run on its performance, the handling of its response to 9/11, it had better hope that it can back it up. So many of the surviving 9/11 families know the transparencies in this message. But the Bush administration has always played to its biggest audience, those not directly affected by the mass murder of 2,749 people.

00:57:55:18 Still to sell this audience on the issue of 9/11, you’re walking the dangerous territory. The record speaks of an administration who is not interested in following any of the so many leads in the months proceeding 9/11. The August 6th PDB briefing that was public-, publicized was a snapshot of our intelligence. It depicted an al Qaeda terrorist group active with cells ready to strike. In fact your own CIA agency named it “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S.” That was the time to do something. The window of opportunity to intervene and maybe save those lives is gone. Now is not the time to exploit those lives for your own self-serving interest.

00:58:44:21 This was in response to the RNC coming to New York. Um, that’s really what it’s, what’s, what it’s pertaining to. But I, I just embrace people that, that understand that four airplanes, an hour and half between the first impact the second impact with zero military response in the United States, it, it didn’t happen that way, couldn’t have happened that way. You’re talking about the most intelligence, agencies that we have on the face of the earth, state of the art agencies and there was zero military response. Why wasn’t President Bush on the horn as soon as the second tower was impact-, impacted, saying deploy military to, to New York? Why? And, you know, I, I’m a fair person, I listen to both, all sides of the, of the argument and I, and I did research upon research, upon research and no one can give me the answer.

00:59:42:10 But it’s very transparent because our own president did not want to investigate this tragedy. And I understand it for you today for one reason, the only thing that I could give my brother is the truth, that’s it. I, I didn’t get paid a cent, you know, the, the money was out there to shut people up. This [UNINTEL] money because there’s two, there’s two sides to 9/11 families. There are ones that were paid and ones that weren’t. And I hate to bring money up but money is part of the equation. if they were married the spouses got lots of money, [UNINTEL] families got nothing. My father is 82 years old, my mother’s still alive, my, he was, my brother was married. The money doesn’t – anything, you know, once my brother’s wife and she doesn’t even speak to us any more.

01:00:33:18 That’s, that’s on a personal level but . . . but the money was there for, for one reason. It’s for peop-, keep people, pay off and keep it quiet and, um, I think people like you that are listening, thank you very much.

MINDY KLEINBERG testimony by video [A short video excerpt from 9/11 Family Steering Committee member, Mindy Kleinberg’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission on March 31, 2003 is shown. Her complete testimony is posted as a PDF at the ‘downloads’ section of 911citizenswatch.org: http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php ... ted_States]

JENNA ORKIN: I want to make sure to get two things in before I start. One is I am a plaintiff in a potential class-action lawsuit against the EPA and two is my website, World Trade Center Environmental Organization, wtceo.org. September 11th was a tragedy that has changed the course of history and the way we lived. It was also an environmental disaster of historic proportions.

The way the federal government has handled this aspect of 9/11 has been passive at best. At worst it rises to a level of reckless endangerment stemming from lies from the White House itself. From the beginning, independent scientists and other experts have uncovered data and testified to the dangers of the air downtown.

The response of the EPA, and by domino effect, by city and state agencies has been contradictory. On the one hand they protest, this was unprecedented, what do you expect us to do? On the other hand, they claim there is no problem. The fact remains that to this day there has been no adequate testing or clean-up and there are no plans in place for the comprehensive health care that will be necessary for the broad spectrum of illnesses not only respitory, but also neurological, endocrinological, etc. which will manifest itself in decades to come.

In short, in the environment aftermath of 9/11 Osama bin Laden could not have found a more felicitous collaborator than George W. Bush.

The World Trade Center was a city with its own zipcode. It contained approximately 50,000 computers, each made with between four and twelve pounds of lead. The first forty storeys of at least one of the towers was coated with hundreds of tons of asbestos which was pulverized to particles of unusually small size and dispersed around Lower Manhattan as well as possibly to Brooklyn and beyond. Tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs each contained enough mercury to contaminate a quarter of a city block. The smoke detectors contained radioactive americium 241. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") found levels of polychlorinated biphenyls at 75,000 times the previous record. ["Numerous PCB congeners including co-planer [dioxin-like] PCBs were detected at high concentrations. The Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) ... is 151 pg/L. In previous harbor work... the highest observed PCB TEQ was 0.002 pg/L." EPA report, September 20, 2001; quoted in FALLOUT, Juan Gonzalez, p. 73)] Dioxin also reached record levels.

The alkalinity of the air was equivalent to that of drain cleaner. A month after the disaster, scientists from the University of California at Davis found the highest levels of vanadium and very- and ultrafine particulates that they had ever recorded out of 7000 samples taken around the world including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields. (The EPA did not measure particles of this size.) In addition, there were benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and all the other contaminants one might expect to find when a modern city burns.

Dr. Marjorie Clarke of Hunter College has testified that the World Trade Center disaster was "equivalent to dozens of asbestos factories, incinerators and crematoria as well as a volcano." [March 30, 2004 New York City Council Hearing on Post-9/11 Remediation of WTC Contamination.]

Nevertheless, starting on September 13, the EPA issued reassuring statements about the air quality downtown. At hearings conducted in February and March of 2002, EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin and his Chief Investigator Hugh Kaufman accused EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman of lying in part to protect her husband's holdings in Citigroup, the owner of major insurers of Lower Manhattan. The accusation that the EPA had actively lied was recently corroborated by a memo uncovered by EPA scientist Dr. Cate Jenkins which revealed that at the time of Whitman's statements, EPA already had test results showing asbestos that exceeded the agency's regulation levels. [From "9/11 Memo Reveals Asbestos 'Cover-Up,'" by Sam Smith of the New York Post, July 16, 2004.]

A report by the EPA Inspector General in August, 2003, had said that Whitman's reassurances were premature but had stopped short of accusing her of lying. However it revealed that EPA's initial press releases, which cautioned the public about the levels of asbestos in the air and dust, had been revised by the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The cautionary statements had been deleted and reassurances added. Why did the CEQ interfere in this way? The report stated, "the desire to reopen Wall Street...played a role in EPA's air quality statements."

EPA was also able to report low readings for certain contaminants by using outdated equipment. An article by Andrew Schneider in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on January 14, 2002, quotes Dr. Jenkins to the effect that for every asbestos fiber EPA found, independent contractors found nine. The risk of cancer from asbestos could be as high as one person in ten.

EPA Region 8 which had been in charge of an asbestos cleanup in Libby, Montana, offered Region 2 in New York access to up-to-date equipment. According to Dr. Jenkins' memo of July 4, 2003, Region 2 replied, "We don't want you fucking cowboys here. The best thing they could do would be assign you to Alaska." [From comments on the EPA Office of Inspector General's 1/27/03 interim report titled: 'EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Towers Collapse;'" Dr. Cate Jenkins, July 4, 2003.]

With the green light from EPA, Lower Manhattan reopened for residents, offices and students. Ground Zero workers were often told that since the air was safe, they didn't need to wear respirators. Some, such as Lieutenant Manuel Gomez, were explicitly forbidden to wear a respirator on the grounds that it might frighten the public.

Residents returned to their homes some of which looked like Pompeii. But since EPA had declared the air to be safe, insurance companies often refused to pay for professional abatement. Businesses faced the same dilemma. And since EPA had handed jurisdiction over indoor air to city agencies, residents were obliged to turn to the New York City Department of Health which recommended that to clean up the dust in their apartments, they use a wet mop or wet rag. If the dust was really bad, said DOH, they should wear long pants. The Red Cross distributed buckets to assist in what was being portrayed as a piece of mundane, if heavy-duty housecleaning. DOH also cautioned residents to lower curtains slowly so as to dislodge as little dust as possible. But they said that children and pregnant women need take no extra precautions.

00:00:00:10 On October 9, Stuyvesant High School, where this writer's son was a student, opened to much fanfare about "showing the terrorists." Schools Chancellor Harold Levy set up a bivouac office at the school telling parents, "If I thought it wasn't safe, would I be here myself?" A freshwoman whom I'll call Anne told Levy she was worried and wanted to transfer out at least while the fires burned. Levy said if you leave now you can’t come back. Four days later Levy himself left later telling a TV interviewer parents should focus instead on whether their children are having safe sex or wearing seatbelts.

00:00:19:07 In the past three years Ann has had two spinal taps to relieve the buildup of fluid pressure in her brain, a condition known as pseudotumor cerebri. For the next eight months after October 9th Stuyvesant Borough of Manhattan Community College which is home to 17,000 students and Independence Plaza a housing complex of 5,000 got a double whammy of toxic waste. Not only did they have the World Trade Center side to the south, but also at Stuyvesant’s north doorstep and next to it’s ventilation intakes sat the waste transfer barge which transported the toxic debris to Staten Island.

00:00:59:25 Ordinarily this placement would have been a violation of state and federal laws but with the eight months of cleanup emergency conditions prevailed. The um...barge operation also prevented evacuation in the event of another disaster downtown. The kids would have to evacuate south towards it.

00:01:18:09 The barge station which operated 24/7 played host to a diesel [UNINTEL] (grain?) and idling diesel trucks which were only intermittently covered and wetted down as they bore their toxic cargo through the streets. Recently EPA itself has advocated stronger legislation curtailing diesel emissions particularly in stationary vehicles as diesel has been found to contain myriad carcinogens and toxic air contaminants.

00:01:46:09 In part as a result of the barge operation for half the days until February at the Stuyvesant monitoring station particulate matter 2.5, dust that is small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and not come out again was above EPA regulatory levels. Often it was higher at Stuyvesant than at Ground Zero.

00:02:08:17 Because it has a relatively large surface area to volume ratio and that’s because it’s so small PM2.5 also absorbed onto it’s surface whatever toxic chemicals were in the debris. On occasion isocyanate and tetrachloroethane. and asbestos also exceeded EPA limits and high levels of lead were found in the gym where the lead could be inhaled deeply. And in the cafeteria where it will settle on student’s food.

00:02:37:01 Little is known about the synergistic effect of these contaminants but Dr. Steven Levin of Mt. Sinai has pointed out that if someone is an asbestos worker and a smoker for instance, the effect is not simply twice as bad as being one or the other – it’s 80 or 90 times as bad.

00:02:57:15 A major shield against these pollutants Stuyvesant’s filtration system was approximately 10 percent effective until the end of January when at the insistence of the parents’ association it was upgraded to 40 percent effectiveness. In addition, after the school reopened parents and staff learned that in the course of the school’s supposed asbestos abatement ventilation system had not been cleaned.

00:03:25:06 At this point the chronology is going to become very simplified. Even after FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, allocated $20 million dollars to clean the Ground Zero schools the Board of Education refused to clean Stuyvesant’s ventilation system or do white tests on the grounds that there was no problem.

00:03:43:29 Finally parents using the pro bono services of Stuyvesant alumnus and attorney Richard Ben-Veniste of Watergate and now 9/11 Commission fame threatened to sue. The Board of Ed refused uh...performed the white tests which showed 30 times the level of lead one might expect to find on the floor. There are no standards for lead in ventilation systems.

00:04:05:26 After initially claiming that the lead would stay in the walls the Board of Ed finally agreed to clean the ventilation system over the summer. During that cleanup a group known as Concerned Stuyvesant Community had two segments of the auditorium carpet tested for asbestos using an unusually sensitive test called ultrasonication. The auditorium is the focus of particular concern as it had been used as a triage center during the weeks that followed 9/11.

00:04:34:06 One of the samples came back with a reading of 2.4 million structures per square centimeter. A level which according to the independent experts whom Concerned Stuyvesant consulted indisputably called for remediation. The carpet was replaced - the Board of Ed citing aesthetic reasons.

00:04:55:13 There have been many illnesses. [DROPS OFF MIC. SPEAKER BEGINS AGAIN ON MIC]

00:05:04:01 There have been many illnesses already as a consequence of this exposure. Um...new onset asthma among residents over 50 percent of the Ground Zero workers, a larger number of the firefighters, 13 rescue dogs have died. Um...let me talk about something else first.

00:05:24:26 In May of ’02 EPA instituted a cleanup program which was dangerously flawed. I won’t go into detail unless you want to during the Q&A except for two things. The normal goal during a cleanup of a superfund site is one in a million extra cancers per contaminant. In the case of lower Manhattan EPA decided that the best they could shoot for was one in 10,000 extra cancers per contaminant. That’s 100 times as many cancers as they usually aim for at Superfund sites.

00:05:59:19 The second anomaly in EPA’s treatment of lower Manhattan...they relied on air tests for asbestos whereas in their own building they relied on dust tests which many experts agree are preferable to determine that their building needed an asbestos abatement.

00:06:21:07 In conclusion the EPA’s handling of 9/11 is not only a catastrophe for New Yorkers it also bodes ill for the rest of the country since it serves as a precedent for their response to analogous disasters in the future. As a New Yorker I’d like to make this final comment, the way the Bush administration has responded to 9/11 strongly suggest that they are very pleased to use New York as a lightening rod to take more than it’s share of it’s and get far less than it’s share of homeland security funding. At the same time President Bush can use future attacks on New York to further his military and other aims. Thank you.


00:07:35:04 CHAIR CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: I have the distinct honor and pleasure to introduce the next panelist John Judge [UNINTEL]. John Judge and I worked together when I was in Congress. In fact I worked with a lot of these people when I was in Congress and that’s why we had troublemakers inside [UNINTEL] outside. But in pursuit of the truth and in pursuit of information that the powers that be would rather us not have John Judge’s particular expertise is the murder of John F. Kennedy. And as a result of that and my interest in the counter-intelligence program we came together and he gave me information, critical information in fact about the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. which is one of my rather intense interests.

00:08:38:01 So with that introduction...John Judge is a stickler for details and he finds himself now with the unanswered questions of September 11th. So welcome John.


00:08:58:00 JOHN JUDGE: My comments are meant to serve in the role of what would be a staff member to an investigative commission and that’s part of the role that if we could build a truth commission had other support for it that 9/11 CitizensWatch has had as it’s, as it’s long term outcome. So what I’ve tried to do is sort of frame for the commission some of the problems that pertain to this.

00:09:24:09 I’m sure you’ve seen this. It sold better than Harry Potter recently. And fortunately today I was glad to see that we have an antidote which won’t sell as well.


00:09:37:00 This is Paul Johnson’s excellent terror timeline and uh...it’s a much more objective and thorough account of the events of 9/11 than you’ll get from this official commission report. One of the questions I had about this is who is the author? The reason I ask that is it’s written in a very lucid almost novelist style. It’s not a conjunction of reports from other individuals. There’s one author here. And we were never told the author of the Warren Commission report either. I dug it out of the record. It was brought over from the Pentagon army historical division on a technical duty order to write the report. And when the report was handed back to those investigative teams they wrote extensive notes saying ‘what’s his basis for this? How does he reach this conclusion?’

00:10:23:06 All those were buried for many years. His name was Otto Minniger he was brought here by General MacArthur at the end of the war. He was one of 26 official historians for Hitler’s Reich.


00:10:36:23 And the author of the...Starr Report about the Clinton scandal with Monica had been a previous writer for Penthouse Magazine. I actually sent Tipper Gore a note asking her to put one of her obscene stickers on the report.


00:10:54:24 So, we don’t know who the real author is here but um...it is a best seller. It’s still seen as the definitive account. There’s very little public criticism of it. It came out of a flawed commission process that we addressed in a critique that we released the day that it was released and there’s some copies of that available here. In addition, sort of we couldn’t do the autopsy til the corpse hit the ground but it’s still ticking.

Two monographs have appeared...staff statements since this came out. And a chronology is promised and there is ongoing Congressional testimony as well. In the monographs there was an interesting disclaimer on each by Philip Zelikow the former executive director of the commission saying that the commission had access to these monographs in both draft and final form and in both classified and unclassified forms. That the commission had drawn in part on these for staff statements during the investigation that were read at the hearings and for some of the final report.

00:12:04:23 But, it says, the commission does not endorse these monographs as official record. That suggests to me that there was a lack of consensus and that we’re given this bipartisan consensus decision at the top between the investigative teams at least on some issues and the commission staff and that’s an area I think for fruitful…fruitful inquiry.

00:12:30:21 This also has no index ...there is an online index at the vivisimo.com web site, that’s very useful where you can pull up a term and get it by paragraph in the order it appears in the report but the hard back edition which just came out within the last week does have an index but that also is not thorough. I began on a Word file doing an index of the first two chapters and ran out of memory because we don’t need just a name index to this. It has to be topical and so there’s work yet to be done on that.

00:13:03:28 It in large part at the rear of the, of the body over 100 pages is a notes section. The problem with the note section is that for the most part it is self-referential. It refers to testimony taken by the commission in private, to documents not yet released and to material that no one can see. At least the Warren report was released with 26 volumes of evidence. It wasn’t all the evidence but it was some of it. And there had been a discussion between Hale Boggs...one of the commissioners and Alan Dulles another commissioner former head of the CIA where Boggs said ‘well, do you think we ought to just put out the report without none of the evidence, won’t it look a little fishy?’ and Mr. Dulles says ‘go ahead and print some of it. Nobody will read it anyway.’

00:13:50:04 I guess they’re so…they’ve learned now that some of us will read it and so we got a report with footnotes that go nowhere. There were over 2,000 interviews. There were 80 staff members that of course [UNINTEL] themselves. There were nine investigative teams. We don’t know the nature of this final record if we can get it loose because much of the testimony privately and some of the public was not taken under oath and also we were told that much of it was not transcribed. Much of it was not directly recorded and in many cases merely notes were taken.

00:14:29:01 That was officially told us to be the case with four hours of private testimony with Condoleezza Rice even though the 15 hours with Richard Clarke was fully transcribed and recorded. And it was certainly the case with the Cheney and Bush interviews which had notes that only one person was designated to be able to write and those notes had to be turned over to the White House for vetting before they’d be taken back to the commission that presumably sat and heard the hearing. And that kind of secrecy and lack of transparency and lack of sunshine approach to this has, has made it almost impossible to have an objective external review of the forensic and unclassified data which is still not released.

00:15:08:18 We wrote to the commission as 9/11 CitizensWatch and suggested that on release of documents that all unclassified forensics should be released immediately. And on the classified that they should use the new standards adopted under the JFK Assassination Record Review Board. That means only a living agent can be compromised, a current source or method of intelligence being compromised, a privacy agreement with an individual or a foreign government agreement. Those are the four categories under which something can be postponed for release. Nothing else.

00:15:37:21 Much more constricted than the Freedom of Information Act. And we asked for them to call for expedited release of the classified materials under that standard. We won a small victory I think in that the documents have now been sent to the National Archives for release in four and a half years rather than the standard anywhere between 20 and 50 years is possible for a Congressional investigation.

00:16:01:23 So it’s a shorter period. Interestingly enough it’s dated January 2nd 2009 when the current administration can’t remain in power. So I found that interesting. But as a function the Commission was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and because these records are generated by a legislative branch they are currently exempt.

00:16:25:07 Interestingly enough there’s a legal possibility to effect a mandatory review of a classified document put into the four and a half year delay, but there’s no way to review an unclassified document for release. Of course you’d have to know the classified document existed to get the review and what agency it came from, but maybe you’d find it in the notes.

00:16:43:17 And the other option is to get a Congressional reversal and release of this material. The other problem with this report is it is jointly written by the independent commission and the White House. Governor Kean said that they took pains to create before it’s release an unclassified…or a classified version of a report that would pass White House vetting and in order to do that they forwarded the draft chapters to the White House for pre-vetting. The standard procedure for an independent commission is that they release a report if it has intelligence issues involved, the White House would do the vetting along with the agencies and then they’d come out with a final report that might be redacted.

00:17:29:28 You think back to the joint inquiry report on the House and Senate intelligence committees it’s redacted. It has holes in it. Well those holes tell you something. You know they indicate areas at least that are left out for a reason or what sorts of things. This has no redaction because it’s pre-redacted. And so this is essentially not an independent document. It’s a document that was co-edited by the White House and the Commission and it suffers from that as well.

00:17:58:01 Now Senators Dodd and Lieberman and representative Shay asked and formally requested that the report include if not answer the questions compiled over time by the family groups. And it did neither. It answers a few and there’s many unanswered. It’s at least put the questions in as an addendum and they didn’t do that. But they can be found online at their 9/11 Independent Commission dot org site [SIC - 911independentcommission.org] and I know some family members are compiling lists of others.

00:18:28:28 This is based I believe because of the flawed Commission process on incorrect assumptions. Incomplete testimony and evidence, major omissions in the record and unsupported conclusions and the recommendations that come from all of that are similarly poorly informed and only the recommendations so far are getting any challenge. Interestingly enough I mention Thompson’s timeline as an antidote to this report. Another antidote is Commission record itself. A combination of testimony and staff statements. When you begin to go through those you will find contradictions in their own record with what they’ve decided in the report.

00:19:09:03 Unlike the Warren Commission, which was characterized as a rush to judgment, I would characterize this as a rush to exoneration.


00:19:21:28 It takes, it takes the attitude that this is all a systemic failure which means that there’s no way to have direct accountability. There were no reprimands or demotions that resulted from these failures. No courts of inquiry or court[s] martial in the military where you can be court marshaled for wrecking a jeep and with their own building attacked, no line of duty inquiry. In fact people were more often promoted than demoted in relation to the events of 9/11.

00:19:50:26 A lack of appropriate preparational response to the warnings and opportunities and the events of 9/11 is unchallenged and naming these names is not in my view a witch hunt, but a probative approach that begins to put people on the carpet in terms of their own accountability and then shows you which part is systemic and which part is individual so that you can trace it down in a normal investigation.

00:20:15:00 But their attitude led them at the beginning to take much of the testimony not even under oath. And when challenged on that by the families and 9/11 Commission they told us, [Chairman] Governor Kean and [Vice-Chair] Hamilton told us that they felt people would be more forthcoming if they weren’t under oath and we said that’s a little counterintuitive to the way most investigations operate.


00:20:36:12 So we did eventually sort of shame them into having people raise their hand and we did an ad campaign saying that Bush, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Clinton and Gore should all be called into public and testify under oath and to do anything less was to dishonor the dead. And so they can get everybody in there but it did cause them to at least start acting like they were investigating something.

00:20:57:17 And the failures of the command structure level have also not been addressed by the Commission even though they are pointed at. The law required that the Commission be available for 60 days for Congressional oversight hearings and if there were special sessions this summer and one’s going on even today I think focusing on their recommendations but not their process or their conclusions. And they have now sort of transformed themselves into a new thing called the 9/11 Public Disclosure which is a non-profit organization that will take pairs of commissioners and send them around the country to have public discussions. This may be a way to at least begin to have the public ask questions directly about some of these contradictions.

00:21:41:24 I’ve had trouble getting any schedule of appearances out of them but I’m working on it but there will be additional access of public input. And an objective assessment is going to be difficult given the lack of the record of the concealment or destruction of the forensic evidence. Pretty much what we have is standing court suits, our own investigations and the ongoing investigation on the building collapses by the National Standards group [NIST].

00:22:12:16 So, but there are some ongoing investigations and could be others initiated on specific aspects. This is called a consensus, a bipartisan consensus. But the consensus of history is not just bipartisan at the upper levels of power. It has to be agreed to in a non-partisan base…basis of the lowest levels of power in a society. And the facts of 9/11 belong to the American people as a whole. Because until we really know the truth we can’t act on the truth.

00:22:44:13 Martin Shotz in one of the Kennedy assassination books makes a very telling statement. He says that the political paralysis in America stems from the fact that we are allowed to believe anything but to know nothing. And when we cannot know we cannot act. Rumors and theories then replace the knowledge to act responsibly and that’s the exact opposite of a democratic process.

00:23:10:22 Thomas Jefferson said he knew of no safe repository for the powers of the society beyond the people themselves. And he said that if you feel that they are unable to exercise their discretion in a wholesome fashion, 17th Century for you to think them too stupid, the solution is not to take the power from them but to inform their discretion. So that’s why Jefferson realized that given the choice between a government without a newspaper or a newspaper without a government he would always take the latter because the flow of information, accessed information is more critical to the democratic process than the government that’s put in power to enact it.

00:23:57:21 We don’t have that here unfortunately. We have less and less of it. The task ahead is to investigate the work on the report and these monographs as they, as they continue to monitor the process of these legislative branch hearings, to establish the groundwork for a rationale for a people’s truth commission because if this commission has done it’s work why should we have an additional one? Anyone who’s here I’m sure know why we want one but the general public would have to be convinced that this is flawed.

00:24:27:15 To challenge the assumptions of the Commission and Congress and the hearings and decision they’re making and then to begin, and I hope the Commission does this not only address the facts of 9/11 but as the 9/11 Commission did address the recommendations. And get into the real questions that lie behind American foreign policy in the last 50 years. What constitutes real security in this country?


00:24:51:23 What is the balance between civil liberties and security? What is the role of militarism and intelligence in this society? What does it mean that we’re going to go into an ongoing war for 60 years or the rest of our lives? Is that the proper response? And also what a basic question I’d ask is what is the role of covert operations in the past and now in the future that I believe led into the situation we now live in…


…and they’re not a solution to it.


00:25:24:22 Instead we’re getting silent assent on many of these questions and no structural critique from this 9/11 Commission. So it’s left to investigative journalists and researchers, the international press sources and whistleblowers. They have to both educate the public to these contradictions and the credibility of this report to justify further inquiry and also push for release of the full record so that we can do ongoing research.

00:25:53:24 The commission itself is limited in time and budget. They spent way more money on the nine deaths in the Challenger crash than they did on the 3,000 deaths. No family members were appointed. It was obstructed actively from it’s beginning by the executive branch. It had limited access to the record and the documents. Even the joint inquiry hearings which two of the Commission members sat in on, the record of those hearings were denied to them. At first it was exempt from the Federal Advisory Act so no families or citizens could serve in a formal advisory position. And it was rife with conflicts of interest. We detailed those in our preliminary report, but one of the major ones was the executive director Philip Zelikow, a person who’s challenged by the librarian for the JFK Library on a book that he wrote based on tapes made available from the library of the, of the, of the Cuban missile crisis.

00:26:50:20 And this librarian said that Zelikow’s work couldn’t be trusted by any scholar or student. That his transcription of these tapes was so faulty that you couldn’t rely on it and what they did was undermined the truth of the tapes which she had listened to which showed that Kennedy almost alone in many cases stood against the Joint Chiefs and the rest of his Cabinet in not wanting to go to nuclear war.

00:27:14:17 But this person Zelikow is part of the milicenter which is respect for the president and is creating the new version of the White House press conferences. People are pre-selected. He was also very tight with Condoleezza Rice and co-authored books with her.

00:27:30:24 He was appointed, the families didn’t know this until much later, as part of the transitional team for the Bush Administration and the National Security Advisory Group. He sat in on the meetings with Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke where the advance warnings were given.

00:27:48:03 Now when the families found this out they said he should step down. The response of Kean and the Commissioners was well he has had to recuse himself at certain points in this investigation. In fact both he and Jamie Gorelick one of the commissioners were called as witnesses to their own commission. And the conflicts were so rife that Kean in exonerating him said we will all have to recuse ourselves at some point in this investigation. That’s the chair…

00:28:17:01 MAN: You can take 30 seconds to, to wrap up. We’ve got to get to Joanne.

00:28:21:01 JOHN JUDGE: …there’s more to it but it was a flawed process that led to flawed conclusions. And I did present a report to you covering some of these along with an exhaustive comparative timeline on the flights and a bibliography. There is more work to do. But I think the key areas that will bear fruit in terms of a Commission investigation are to challenge this idea that this was an intelligence failure and put it into it’s proper historical framework of a state level sophisticated covert operation.


00:28:58:09 And, and this….[UNINTEL. SPEAKING OVER APPLAUSE] the last five administrations starting with Carter and Brezinski and the operations of the [UNINTEL] and also the Contra-gate scandal and many of the Contra-gaters are back in power. These were financed jointly by U.S. and Saudi intelligence, Pakistani ISI, drug money and uh...Otto Wright and Poindexter and Powell himself. All of these and others in the current administration were part of these covert operations [UNINTEL] led into the current situation we’re in.
00:29:32:01 So, taking a look at that, taking a basic look at the suspects and the plot I would argue we do not yet know the true identity of the 19 people on the planes.


00:29:45:09 And I don’t believe that they didn’t get on the plane but I believe that when you don’t know their true identity to have a report like this track them back through time encourages what’s called an intelligence parlance a legend. It’s like the false Oswalds. They go someplace, they use a particular identity. They establish a trail that you are meant to follow. But it’s a trail that gives you false sponsorship of the event. And in covert operations you spend more time on that false sponsorship than you do on the event itself.

00:30:14:23 Were we unprepared? I approached Richard Shelby when the joint inquiry report came out and I asked him did you find instances where planes had been used as weapons or used as weapons by the, these terrorist groups. He smiled because I had quoted Condoleezza Rice saying it was so outside the box no one could possibly imagine. She backed of on that in her testimony saying well they knew but I didn’t know which questions her competence to be National Security Advisor I would think.


00:30:43:16 But, he said oh yes we found numerous instances of that. And then I said well, did your, did your inquiry find instances of preparations made in relation to these things? He literally blanched. His face turned, he stepped back and he said “can’t get into that”. Walked away from the podium. Graham took the next question and he came back to the podium Shelby and before asking the next question pointed at me and said “and on advice of counsel by answer to your question is ‘no’”.

MAN: John? John I hate to cut you off. But in the interests of time I just want to…

00:31:16:02 JOHN JUDGE: That’s alright.

MAN: I can hear him all day of course as all of you can I’m sure.


00:31:20:18 JOHN JUDGE: Alright well I just the undefended skies of 9/11 will bear fruit FAA, and NORAD and these timelines are wrong. And the Minetta testimony at 9:25 of Cheney discussing with a young lieutenant an order unidentified he said “sir, the plane is 50 miles out, it’s 30 miles out, it’s 10 miles out does the order still stand at each juncture?” Cheney snaps at 10 miles out and says “of course the order still stands”. This is before the Pentagon is hit. This is in reference to flight 77. If this is a shoot down order and all the testimony says no shoot l down order until after the Pentagon is hit. If this is shoot down order what’s delaying it? And if it’s not what is the order that’s concerning the young Lieutenant as the plane approaches the Pentagon?


00:32:22:08 WOMAN: Of course as you can see Mr. Judge is a stickler for details and the wealth of details is what this Citizens Commission is all about. We will go to a question and answer period now for the Commissioners and perhaps I know Dr. Khan is very interested in posing some of these medical questions to Ms. Orkin.

00:32:57:26 …but first I want to go to Commissioner McIlvaine.

00:33:05:03 MR. MCILVAINE: First question to Jenna [Orkin]. Who do you think put the pressure about getting everything open? Was it Wall Street or the government or the government on Wall Street? Can we put a blame somewhere? Did it come from a group of people?

00:33:21:19 JENNA ORKIN [Witness]: Well, I’m not any more informed. Probably less than many other people about how Wall Street works with government. But do you think there’s a conflict between them?



00:33:35:07 JENNA ORKIN: I think that they were in agreement. Let’s get Wall Street up and running and that’s you know, their primary objective. Their first priority.

00:33:44:27 MR. MCILVAINE: Jenna, can you just also you mentioned the insurance companies. What interest did they have in sort of down claiming the role of [MIC FEEDBACK].

00:33:55:13 JENNA ORKIN: That they wouldn’t have to pay for the cleanups.

MR. MCILVAINE: That’s a huge incentive. [MIC FEEDBACK] And one more question just for the audience. Where can we get information about the facts, morbidity rates and the incidence of asthma and [UNINTEL] airways diseases and other things? Are those being tabulated by a private medical agency? A city agency? You? Where can you get those?

00:34:19:00 JENNA ORKIN: Well, there are a lot of studies being done. There was one um...done by Dr. Anthony Zema of Stonybrook and the Charles B. Wang Community Health Center in Manhattan. Department of epidemiology University of Pittsburgh School of Health. It showed an increase in asthma rates and severity among pediatric patients living with in a radius of five miles of ground zero after 9/11. There’s a study at Mt. Sinai being done. There was an article by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times called Smoke and Dust at World Trade Center is Linked to Smaller Babies. So that the advice initially given that pregnant women need take no extra precautions turns out to have been false.

00:35:03:13 A lot of people, Dr. Joan [UNINTEL] (Gryman?) is studying it and many others.

MR. MCILVAINE: Thank you. Do you have anything?

00:35:15:18 WOMAN: Yes I do actually.


00:35:28:04 CHAIRWOMAN MCKINNEY: Well then let me go ahead and ask Ms. Orkin when my mother used to be a nurse, a retired nurse and when these images of Ground Zero were broadcast to all of us she picked up the phone to me and said Cynthia, those workers are going to have health effects.

00:35:53:10 Now this is you know, my mom who is like so far away recognizing that there’s going to be a problem here. Tell me in your legal case who are your defendants?

00:36:10:12 JENNA ORKIN: I’m so hesitant to talk about the legal case. EPA, Christie Todd Whitman, Mary Ann Gorinko who was under Whitman, um...it’s essentially focused on EPA in general and specific individuals within Environmental Protection Agency

00:36:26:11 CHAIRWOMAN MCKINNEY: And so then what about the role of the City of New York and it’s responsibilities for protecting it’s citizens?

00:36:35:28 JENNA ORKIN: You’re not talking about residents. You’re not talking about Ground Zero workers um...essentially everybody took their cues from EPA and once EPA declared the air to be safe that was the signal that you behave accordingly. And um...and so business as usual is what happened.

00:36:56:22 WOMAN: Well, couldn’t people um...who were charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives of people here uh...question EPA?

00:37:07:12 JENNA ORKIN: In general the government didn’t question. Citizens, the activists did question to a large extent and did protest and you know Juan Gonzalez came out with an article on October 26th which was the first I think major article that there really were problems. But there was such a kind of sense of um...we’ve got to show the terrorists, get back on the horse you know uh...that people were drowned out if they raised any such questions.

00:37:35:04 I know the kids at Stuyvesant felt it was unpatriotic to raise those sorts of questions and most did not. And I think that was the general sense at the time.

MAN: Just in fairness to the workers, I mean I happen to have been there the morning of the 12th or 13th. I forget which one. 24 hours after the event and I can tell you all the workers there, there was such a frenzy to get there and do something that oftentimes we were actually reprimanded by senior officials for not wearing respirators, not wearing protective gear. But for them it was just a question of getting in there and doing what we can.

00:38:11:09 Um...so it wasn’t uh...no one was thinking of those terms then. But at this point in terms of chronic exposure to things we really get in trouble with health. With chronic exposure, days and days and weeks and weeks and weeks – that’s where these issues are probably most important. So I think they’ve been neglected.

00:38:28:12 As far as the EPA is concerned that holds as much esteem in my eyes as the FDA. So both these agencies have been compromised multiple times through this [UNINTEL].

McKINNEY: I’ve concluded my questions.

KHAN: Any questions from the audience.

McKINNEY: Yes there should be.

00:38:50:17 MAN: [UNINTEL]. We’re gonna do audience at the end or…? Our plan is to take a short bathroom break now. WBAI is going to cover this next round of witness testimony and questions for two hours beginning at three sharp so we need your cooperation. We want you in your seats ready for Barrie Zwicker who will be coming next as the next witness at 3:00 o’clock sharp. That’s when we understand and were told that WBAI will go live. So Q&A at the end of the next round.


00:39:30:09 NICHOLAS LEVIS: [OFF MIC] I believe we are at this moment we are live with WBAI and maybe another couple of minutes we’ll have to start right away our panel. There have been some revisions.


00:40:49:26 NICHOLAS LEVIS: [MIC COMES UP] …book The Terror Timeline.


00:40:53:00 NICHOLAS LEVIS: Ah, hello everybody! Welcome once again to the [UNINTEL] hearings. Now we’re really going to get started. We’ve had a great panel so far with John Judge and Jenna Orkin and now we’re going to get started with Barrie Zwicker in just a moment. We’re going to turn this over back to the [UNINTEL] [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Bob McIlvaine and Dr. Khan


00:41:27:20 NICHOLAS LEVIS: And this is sponsored by 911truth.org, 9/11 Citizens Watch and New York 9/11 Truth which is the local arm of 911truth.org


NICHOLAS LEVIS: And after Barrie Zwicker, Michael Springmann, Paul Thompson, Michael Ruppert we will have a panel with all four speakers and I believe some chance for the audience as well to pose questions. Then we will take a break at 5:00 o’clock and at 5:20 Indira Singh will be testifying. But first she will be reading the FBI whistleblower and translator Sibel Edmonds before she testifies herself. Then we will have another break and the final panel with myself and attorney Carolyn Betts which we will present…

CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Come back or stay here all day, I am going to do [UNINTEL]. Please make sure you come back for the film, the brilliant film [UNINTEL]. Now there have been a lot of people who have done, you know, a little bit around this issue researching. And then there’s a few people who have done a tremendous amount of work. And these are the people, some of the people that we have with us here today as panelists. One of those persons is –


00:00:34:26 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: . . . great work is Barrie Zwicker. And, of course, he would be from Canada. [LAUGHTER] And people are able to view this work there to some [UNINTEL] it’s not such a big thing. It’s a big thing for us here to have –


00:01:03:16 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Because I sat there enthralled with each and every story [OVERLAPPING VOICES]. So here to let us know what he has discovered, the ins and outs of how it was put together, the great deception and the information [UNINTEL] that produces that great documentary is Barrie Zwicker himself. Thank you.


00:01:32:11 BARRIE ZWICKER: Well thank you very, very much Cynthia. May I use your first name?

00:01:38:08 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: You better.

00:01:40:17 BARRIE ZWICKER: I would not describe myself as a researcher actually. I don’t want to, I don’t want to correct your introduction, we were getting along so well, but truly I think that I am, I, I see myself as a popularizer. I have done research, I was an investigative journalist for Canada’s national newspaper for a time and all journalism should be investigative. But it turns out I think I’m a, I’m a popularizer. And the voice I will use in my prepared remarks today is different from the voice I would use in the DVD that will premiere tonight, The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.

00:02:23:24 Somebody’s trying to get my attention.

00:02:25:18 WOMAN: Get sworn in.

00:02:26:27 BARRIE ZWICKER: Get sworn in?

00:02:27:23 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Oh yes that’s right. Thank you very much.


00:02:34:21 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Do we swear in popularizers?

00:02:37:24 AUDIENCE: Yes.

00:02:39:21 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Do you swear to tell the truth to us all here today?

00:02:45:04 BARRIE ZWICKER: I do swear to tell the truth to the best of my ability here today and every day.


00:02:55:24 BARRIE ZWICKER: That was an interesting diversion. Thank you audience person. Now in the interest of not taking other peoples’ time I will stick pretty closely to my prepared remarks here which begin this way.

00:03:10:29 “History is bunk” said Henry Ford. Interestingly he was a supporter of Hitler sending the Fuhrer a birthday gift each year. Another quote: “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it” wrote Santayana whose reputation for thoughtfulness was a little better than Ford’s. Now my responsibility here today is actually not so much to tell background behind the making of Great Conspiracy although I’ll digress for a moment with a little tad. Moments from now boxes are supposed to arrive at the back there that contain the first issues of and I was talked into this, Barrie Zwicker’s “9/11 Resource Guide,” 52 pages.

00:04:00:02 And in it there’s a story about how The Great Conspiracy was made but mainly it’s a transcript of the DVD. It’s probably the best list of 9/11 websites assembled anywhere. It includes John McCurdy’s 9/11 literature survey divided into nine sections, very [NOISE OBSCURES] sound and other resource materials like that. It will go on sale in, in moments.

00:04:27:00 But my responsibility is not to discuss the making of the that, I hope, popular, another popular DVD because The Great Deception did prove itself in the market if you will. My responsibility is to address 9/11 and history. And to be truly responsible I must add the media. And to say there’s an intersection between history and the media, however, comes close to being a misstatement unless we mean relatively insignificant and/or officially approved history. Now an example of officially unapproved and significant history would be Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States.

00:05:10:06 The media and significant history barely intersect. And I say that as a person who has earned his living as a media critic for 33 years. Just as the media and 9/11 barely intersect, especially in respect to the claiming anomalies in the official story, some of which have been so compellingly defined here today by Janna and by John sitting in this very seat. I hope some of his erudition might rub off on me one way or another and the official story is the history of 9/11 as presented by the media to date. The New York Times ran a front page story in which the Times endorsed the Report of the 9/11 Commission as the final version of the history of 9/11.

00:06:03:24 And in the Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper in the book review section about two weeks ago, a gentleman named Wesley [LAST NAME (?)] who’s an intelligence specialist, he wrote a review of the 9/11 Commission Report and another equally thick and equally unrevealing and distorted volume called the 9/11 Investigations, I think. And he praised these to the skies saying that this is history the way it’s supposed to be. And somehow, even though he mentioned there was no index – now he seemed to overlook that, do not trust a book without an index. Someone doesn’t want to check [UNINTEL]. And indexes are extremely revealing.

00:06:47:19 So someone coined the phrase, supposedly admiring journalism, that it is history on the run. And I say journalism is more like history on the lam. [LAUGHTER] The media to be more academic, to use more academic language, the media are ahistorical. If you’re depending on USA Today or ABC for your historical perspective, you are on a blind date with history. It’s not an accident that some of those that some of us respect the most for their questioning of the provenance of 9/11 are historians. I mentioned Howard Zinn. There’s also the marvelously well informed and capable Webster G. Tarpley of Washington, D.C. [APPLAUSE]

00:07:34:08 Now allow me a few – yeah. [APPLAUSE] Allow me a few observations about trends in the media, especially in regard to the media’s relationship to power and history. This is the time to do so and to become more specific in that regard and to look at both the deadly pivot point in history and to critique the media’s role in cradling that pivot point. Now there are many examples of rulers – by what I mean by pivot point – many examples of rulers surreptitiously ordering self inflicted attacks to mobilize public opinion behind their usually war agenda.

00:08:21:05 You can go back as far as Sparta. But more recently, for instance, in 1605 there was the so-called gunpowder plot against the British parliament buildings. Now, now I’ll allow myself a digression here because it shows just how conned we can be. It so happens that my birthday is November the 5th. So I grew up knowing about Guy Fawkes Day, which is November 5th. And I always knew the little rhyme “Remember, remember the fifth of November/ Gunpowder, treason and plot.” And I always assumed that there was a guy names Guy Fawkes who took barrels of gunpowder under the bridge of parliament buildings in 1605 and, um, tried to light them to blow up the parliament buildings against, to, to the detriment of the king.

00:09:12:09 And it turns out, I just learned a few months ago, that that was a deception by King James. It was cooked up and Guy Fawkes was framed and his co-conspirators, alleged co-conspirators, were frame and they were hanged. And it was to aid the king in his wish for war with Spain and to generally, buttress his reign. And I’ve gone literally my whole life not knowing about a deception pulled off by a ruler of old . . . and I just didn’t know. And my son – last night I phoned him and his did some checking on the internet – and the official story about Guy Fawkes Day is still the one most people believe.

00:10:02:10 So if we are able to uncover the truth of 9/11 is will be in a snap of time in terms of historical development. And I hope we can. So you go back to Sparta as I say, you go back to 1605, you go back to 1989, the Spanish-American War. Why did the battleship Maine blow up in Havana Harbor? Why did somebody store all the armaments inside the boiler room? This is not a complete list. You have 1941, Pearl Harbor, in 1950 the Korean War, in 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident, in Operations Northwoods Plan, the non-existent incubator babies of 1991, who paved the way for Dever-, Desert Storm. And, of course, the greatest [UNINTEL] of the deceivers of all, 9/11.

00:10:53:14 Now in my DVD premiering tonight I do include sections on the Reichstag Fire of 1933, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin and Desert Storm. And so let’s play a brief clip on the Gulf of Tonkin incident and then I’ll tell you why I chose this clip, this example from such an embarrassment of tawdry riches.

00:11:28:17 Now fast forward just two years from Operations Northwoods to August 2nd, 1964. In the Gulf of Tonkin, North Vietnamese torpedo [LAUNCHERED (?)] war triggering deception, is partly because of one comment made to me personally two weeks ago today in Toronto by John Gibson of Fox News. Fox flew a crew from this city to my city to interview me, and I put interview in quotes, and I am losing my ability to read.


00:12:10:23 So, whoever’s in charge of the lights.

[a short video is played]

00:12:12:05 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: [OVERLAPPING] Lights please.

00:12:13:26 BARRIE ZWICKER: Oh, thank you. Just like a record [UNINTEL]. So on September 11th, Fox News is to air a one hour documentary on anti-Americanism around the world. Um, I hope someone will tape it. And on that program unless there is a miracle or a mistake I will appear playing the role of mincemeat. [LAUGHTER] Fox learned of my miserable existence through Professor Nancy Snow of the University of Southern California – I think it’s where she is. She’s a friend and colleague. She has co-edited a book to be published shortly titled War, Media and Terrorism: A Global Perspective.

00:12:58:02 And I contributed an academically sound chapter titled “America: The Fourth Reich,” which Fox is almost certain to publicize in its own way. In any event during my be [CLEARS THROAT] – excuse me – during my being grilled by John Gibson, he readily agreed to, to my surprise, that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a sham. Now I can only presume that this was because LBJ, a Democrat, was in the White House at the time and the only things Fox hates more than terrorist harboring Canadians is Democrats. [LAUGHTER]

00:13:38:16 At the time of the Tonkin Gulf deception no media questioned the events. And I will digress just one other little time here and I hope this is not going to sound self serving. It really isn’t intended to be. I remember seeing that headline in the Globe and Mail [UNINTEL] – Q&A, alright. I remember seeing the headline that was shown in the Globe and Mail and, which I was working for at the time, and I remember myself thinking this is fishy. Now I don’t say that to be self aggrandizing. I say it because there’s a huge history. What is it that makes us in this room, so you have to explain, what is it that makes us question things? I haven’t found the answer to that. I mean it isn’t sexual orientation, it isn’t culture, it isn’t race, it isn’t religion. I don’t know what it is. What is it?

00:14:30:16 Well anyway we’ve go to Q&A. I would say that the media swallowed the Gulf of Tonkin trick hook, line and sinker. I have said generalizations about the media which could be heard any time, any day. [LAUGHTER] And I’ll move rapidly through to my conclusion. History remains hidden. It is stillborn and it remains that only the people, we the people, it seems, can force history out into the open bit by bit. And this is what we’re engaged in here today. We, the ruled, must do everything we can that is non-violent to reveal the tool of grand deceptions, wielded by the rulers, for the blight on humankind that it is.

00:15:27:17 The day is long passed that this murderous ploy should have been removed from the bag of dirty tricks that rulers use to keep populations in line and to line the pockets of the few. Thank you.


00:15:52:10 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Okay, now we have a brief opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Zwicker. And we’ll start again with Commissioner McIlvaine.

00:16:02:06 BOB McILVAINE: I just wanted to ask a couple of things. There’s one that I can’t get [UNINTEL] with. do you think if Bush loses, or when he loses, the media will attack him? It seems like the, the fear factor is so great in the media that they’re just . . . But I, I’m hoping that once he, once he loses that the gloves come off and we really might get the truth a lot quicker than like the Warren Commission or something that sorted was [UNINTEL].

00:16:30:19 BARRIE ZWICKER: Well that, Bob, that is really, really a, a deep and excellent question because it’s true that the media, – look at Martha Stewart – the media will attack like a bunch of piranhas when somebody’s down and out. So normally they serve power, they reflect and promote – they reflect power and thereby promote it and serve it through servitude rather than questioning power and thereby serving it to loyal opposition. So [UNINTEL] questioning Bush n-, needles to say, and he, it’s, if he goes down yes they might attack him.

00:17:08:25 There’s such a thing as fad in journalism. The, or pack journalism and they may do that. But I don’t know. You’re looking at a dynasty there and I will leave it at that. I mean I could – all sorts of ideas pop into my mind, or whether it would be maybe better if Bush was re-elected and make things even worse being which might in historical times speed up the clean up that we need. I mean I know that sounds heretical but –


00:17:39:22 BARRIE ZWICKER: And, and, and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that Kerry is much, is much the same.

00:17:46:22 MAN: Right.

00:17:47:04 BARRIE ZWICKER: You know you [APPLAUSE OBSCURES] between their foreign policies. And mostly Kerry has just said he won’t let Toronto ship its garbage to Detroit. [LAUGHS] Shame on him. Joking. [LAUGHTER]

00:18:03:08 BOB McILVAINE: I just wanted to make a statement. You know, I, I had the quotes in my notes from being down at the commission hearings. But then Denise once said – we were in the commission hearings or hearing the news, whatever – he says, “Don’t forget this is an exposition, it is not an investigation.” So I think that was a real clue of what the nine, 9/11 Commission was all about.

00:18:24:01 BOB McILVAINE: And my last question is, why is it the real of the world seem to be getting this idea of what’s happening in the world and it, it’s all going in the wrong direction, and yet the people in the United States – I mean it’s that basic question. You asked why. What is it in the American public that they don’t want to answer, ask these questions. Are the Europeans, Canadians or are they, they say I won’t try. So . . .

00:18:46:02 BARRIE ZWICKER: Well there are distinct differences in [UNINTEL]. Thirty percent of Germans, these are, these are –

00:18:52:13 MAN: Academics.

00:18:53:08 BARRIE ZWICKER: These are [UNINTEL] polls. Thirty percent of Germans, young Germans anyway believe that the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11, was complicit in it.

00:19:01:02 WOMAN: Yes.


00:19:01:16 BARRIE ZWICKER: [OVERLAPPING] A poll that we commissioned in Canada in May found that 16 percent of Canadians believed that. Sixty three percent of Canadians believed that – I believe this is almost a quote from our poll question – that persons within the U.S. government up to and including the White House has foreknowledge of the events, we don’t use the word facts, of the events of 9/11 and, and deliberately failed to prevent them. Sixty three percent of Canadians believe that.


00:19:34:02 BARRIE ZWICKER: [OVERLAPPING] We, we, I think – see I used to in [UNINTEL] in the United States and I love it. I love it when people call me anti-America. I love it because it just gives me an opening and I demolish them. But because I have so many friends here and, and I have so much respect for all sorts of American traditions. But at the same time you live in a cocoon here and it’s all got mirrors inside it. And it’s all kind of USA is the greatest. And it, and it, and it, it harms the, the judgment.

00:20:17:05 And so outsiders can see that. And then somebody once said that the 49th parallel, that’s the border between USA and Canada, is the longest undefended one way mirror in the world. [LAUGHTER] And so we see every twitch of the American elephant and that American elephant rolls over and the Canadian mouse is squashed. So people have to pay attention to the United States because of the huge power that it [UNINTEL] here, economic, military, informational power especially. Although it’s on a very shaky foundation.

00:20:51:12 So there, I think that is one large generalized answer to why Canadians, Germans, Brits, Spaniards and so on have a different view of this. We have different information sources in addition to CNN and also, they are, they tend to be more diverse. And so in my DVD, which will premier tonight at 8:00, I quote a Canadian columnist, Mark [MARTIN (?)], who, who writes things that you don’t see here very often. Paul Krugman of The New York Times is very good, Bob Herbert and others. But there are more of, of that ilk, questioners, in Canadian journalism than in U.S. journalism by, by a small margin. We’re far, far, far from perfect with the journalism in Canada. After all we’re the land that spawned Conrad Black.

00:21:48:15 WOMAN: Yes.

00:21:49:08 BARRIE ZWICKER: As Black would say, “[OWEN (?)].”


00:21:56:27 MAN: . . . questions from the audience.


00:21:58:29 MAN: Hello.


00:22:00:29 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: At the end of session of the four panelists so that they can be broadcast over WBAI.

00:22:08:17 MAN: The audience has [UNINTEL].

00:22:14:04 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Yes.

00:22:14:08 MAN: [UNINTEL]

00:22:16:03 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: The, the audience will ask [OVERLAPPING] questions at the end of the presentations of the four panelists which is coming up and your questions will be broadcast on WBAI.

00:22:28:28 MAN: That’s, that’s correct. Um, we’re actually working on WBAI right now [UNINTEL] they gave us their word or said they were going to air the program live and it’s [NOT/NOW (?)] happening.

00:22:37:25 MAN: [UNINTEL]. But the plan is originally to have questions at the very end of the program. Um, and, but, we’re going to do it both at the end and at the end of this particular sequence of four presenters. So let’s not waste any more time. Again, this is not a town hall forum, this is a commission hearing, but we are opening it up to, to questions. Cards will be, if they haven’t already been passed out, for you to submit this questions. There is a town hall forum and more questions and, you know, will be allowed from the, from the public, on the 11th. I understand that the Manhattan [UNINTEL] is also free. So we need to move on and I’ll just turn it back over to our Chairwoman.

00:23:18:29 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I thought the chair had some discretion in this. But obviously we don’t. Um, do you have your cards?

00:23:26:01 MAN: Yup.

Last edited by Elvis on Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:19 am

[p.35 of dump]

9/11 Citizens’ Commission – September 9, 2004
Symphony Space, New York, NY
Developed by 9/11 CitizensWatch & 911truth.org


Mike Springman, Paul Thompson, Michael Ruppert:

00:23:26:21 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Okay very good. As the presenters make their statements it would be good for you to write them down. And I make a promise to you that at the end of the presentation of the four panelists, so now the commissioners will not ask questions until after each of the four panelists has made his presentation. Okay. With that we will hear from – cause I got a bunch of questions for you – but I will refrain from asking until we have heard from Mr. Springmann who is next, come on out. Attorney Michael Springmann. And then after Springmann, Thompson, Ruppert and then we’ll have questions.

00:24:14:08 MAN: [UNINTEL]

00:24:16:18 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: yes, thank you very much. Attorney Springmann – oh, yes, you know, he’s [UNINTEL] tell us what to do. [LAUGHTER] But your right hand isn’t raised. And, yes, your bible is the truth. Do you swear to tell this commission the truth?

00:24:36:07 MAN: [UNINTEL]

00:24:40:24 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Oh, my goodness, gracious, thank you very much. [APPLAUSE] Have a seat. Barrie don’t you go anywhere. We’re building to the climax. Okay. Mr. Springmann.

00:24:57:29 MIKE SPRINGMANN: I’m Mike Springmann. In the past I have been a foreign service officer, diplomat with the Department of State. I am currently an attorney in private practice in Washington, D.C. And I’m quite happy to be here, surprised to be here, because last year the Justice Department seized my e-mail accounts and put a client of mine on the no fly list. So I wasn’t quite sure what I would find at Dulles Airport today. But I got on the airplane at the airport with no problem all.

00:25:30:24 But I’m here to talk to you about visas, visas issued to terrorists and the CIA’s consulate in Jeddah in the western part of Saudi Arabia. Recently, three years ago, we had 15 of the 19 hijackers get visas from the CIA’s consulate in Jeddah. They didn’t get them from London or Frankfurt or Cairo. They got them from Jeddah. They didn’t get them from Dharhan in the eastern province, they didn’t get them from Riyadh, the capital of the country. They got them from the American Consulate General in Jeddah. And I thought that was very peculiar and I had thought that all the hell that I had raised almost 15 years ago, and in the intervening period, might have done some good. I was wrong.

00:26:30:05 When I went out to Jeddah in 1987 I started to hear about problems that they had there, they had issues with servants and issues with politically important people. Nobody would explain to me exactly what the problem was. I heard from the Ambassador, I heard from a couple of people in the administrative offices for that section of the State Department. Well when I got there I started making pressure to issue visas to people who really had no ties to either to Saudi Arabia or their own country. As an example, a Sudanese refugee, he couldn’t go back to Sudan, he was unemployed in Saudi Arabia, yet the political officer wanted him to get a visa to go to Washington, D.C.

00:27:28:02 And I checked it, I checked it strenuously. And the Chief of the Consular Section issued him a visa and when I asked why he said, “Well, for national security reasons.” As time went on it got worse. I was being pressured by the Consul General, J. Phillip Frers, by a consular officer, I’m sorry not a consular officer a commercial officer and various other people throughout the consulate. We need a visa for this guy. It wasn’t a visa for my friend, it wasn’t a visa for a prospective business contact. It was for somebody like two Pakistanis who were going to a trade show in the United States. They couldn’t name the trade show, they couldn’t name the city in which is was being held. But a CIA case officer, concealed in the commercial section, demanded a visa for these people within the hour of my refusing them.

00:28:28:05 And I said no. Tell me where they’re going. You can’t tell me why they’re going. The law is very clear. These are intended immigrants and unless and until they can prove otherwise and they haven’t done it. Do you have some information that is not available to me when they applied? He said, “No.” I said, “They’re not going.” He went to Justice Stevens, the Chief of the Consular Section and got a visa for these guys. This went on all the time I was there. it was the consul general, it was these other people and it finally got to the point where J. Frers would tell me, “If you want a career in the foreign service you’ll issue this visa.”

00:29:04:10 And my staff said, “don’t be stupid Mike, give them the visa and then write down on the application form who ordered that the visa be given.” I kept a file on this. And when I left Saudi Arabia the file was shredded. Nobody knows who did it, nobody knows who gave the order, nobody knows why. But I complained to Justice Stevens, I complained to Stephanie Smith, the Consulor for Consular Affairs in Riyadh. And they said, well, you know, we have these problems and, and you really ought to do this. Stephanie suggested that when I went back to Washington I should talk to Bureau of Consular Affairs.

00:29:45:02 Well . . . Shortly before I left the State Department had something called an inspection team come out; I try not to talk jargon and government-speak to you. It’s basically a management practice to examine how a foreign service post is functioning. Does it do things according to the law, does it do things according to regulation, is there any more efficient way of doing this particular action? So I was told by a contact inside the consulate don’t talk about this, don’t talk the visas. And if you do, you’re going to lose your job. I didn’t think so but I decided it would be smart not to talk too much about it.

00:30:32:20 Well, when Joseph P. O’Neill came through he pressured me for an hour to talk about this and I said, ‘no’. He said, “but I know this.” He simply ran through exactly everything I knew about the situation plus a little but more besides. . . and on and on and on and finally wore me down. Oh, we’re just going to help the efficiency of the foreign service, etc. So I told him this, then things went from bad to worse. The Consul General was livid…who wrote a remarkably negative efficiency report and said I shouldn’t be in the foreign service at all. And . . . I had been told that this was a visa scam; and it certainly seemed that way to me. I was told look he who needs the money and the price supposedly for these visas was $2,500.

00:31:24:24 [UNINTEL] …the king’s barber servant to get a visa…Frers was seen filling out a visa application for people at the consulate, it was just absolutely incomprehensible to me. And people I had talked to who had been there really didn’t want to say much more about it. And it wasn’t until I was out of the Foreign Service, when my appointment had been terminated for unspecified reasons that I learned from three good sources – Joe Trento, the journalist, a fellow attached to a university in Washington, D.C. and a guy who with expert knowledge on the middle east who had worked for a government agency. They said, “it’s very simple,

00:32:10:23 “the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden were recruiting terrorists for the Afghan war, they were sending them to the United States for training, for rewards, for whatever purpose, and then sending them on to Afghanistan.” And most likely problems they had with the liquor in the consulate large amounts disappearing and being sold with very high markups and so forth, was being used to fund this. Well, that explained the whole thing and that explained why nobody wants to talk to me about this, it’s explained why the file the file was shredded and it explained why they were so mad at me because I apparently had disrupted their way of passing the [UNINTEL], collecting $200 or more.

00:33:00:05 Well . . . when I learned this I went to the FBI and to Congress, House Sub-Committee on International Affairs where I was told, “What’s the matter, don’t you like the CIA?” I went to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the section charged with corruption in government and crooked officials. Didn’t want to talk to me. I managed to write a few articles and get them published in UNCLASSIFIED [UNINTEL] the Association for National Security Alumni.

00:33:40:00 Once September 11th happened Covert Action Quarterly published an account of this that I had written, not my best work, but it basically put down what I’m telling you folks right now. And then there was media interest, not American media interest but media interest from the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, RAI, Radio Televisione Italiana, the Italian Radio and Television Service, Canal Plus, a French channel. Of course you know journalists, even though you sent through journalists. But The Washington Post, which I approached, The New York Times, which I approached, The Los Angeles Times, which I approached, couldn’t be bothered to print anything about it. They didn’t ask me any questions –I did get a lunch from the Los Angeles Times, to look at some of the material that I had, that was as far as it went.

00:34:41:00 The Associated Press did a short article when people in government began getting embarrassed about reading about themselves comparison. But the wire service article disappeared. Nobody ever said they had seen it anywhere in the country. I’d been interviewed by a number of smaller, non mainstream radio stations. About a year or two ago I was on a good news show, “Democracy Now” with Greg Palast. Like it’s beginning to come out in the open. Greg Palast devoted a few paragraphs in his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud has a couple of paragraphs devoted to me and the situation. And Joe Trento is publishing a book next month [ININTEL], called Prelude to Terror, which goes into detail on the situation and the CIA’s Consulate in Jeddah and how terrorists got their visas.

00:35:41:12 But I think also this business of Visa Express that Joel Malbray and others are playing up is something of a red herring and little bit of misdirection. Saudis, people with Saudi passports, didn’t have to appear in front of a consular office. Their personal appearances were waived. It’s a good way to get people past the visa officer who asks awkward questions like I did, because you put them in a pile and you sent them to a reputable travel agent to the consulate. They did this in Central America according to [SALVINO?] CASTILLO, a drug enforcement agency officer. He said this is one of the agency’s favorite tricks in slipping people into the country.

00:36:27:01 But, the difficulty is nobody wants to hear about this.

00:36:32:02 MAN: Mike, I’m going to [UNINTEL] one more minute, okay.

00:36:34:08 MIKE SPRINGMANN: [UNINTEL] Alright, so, basically I think that the way to reform things and put an end to this is to stop the secrecy, my freedom of information request and its lawsuit was sealed as a threat to the national security. It was resealed within the last two weeks by Royce Lamberth, U.S. District Court from the District of Columbia. He’s on the panel of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges. So what we’ve really got to do is abolish the CIA’s director of operations, the people who overthrow governments and assassinate politicians the U.S. doesn’t like and we’ve got to cut their budget of all the intelligence services by 25 percent.


00:37:23:07 So if you folks have any questions I’d be happy to entertain them.

00:37:26:04 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We will pose our questions at the end along with the members of the audience. And now we will, um, hear from Paul Thompson, the famous author of the 911 Timeline we all have used as a reference. Paul. If, if, yeah, Paul’s not on time. [LAUGHTER] Is Mike Ruppert ready? Okay. Thank you.


00:38:25:19 PAUL THOMPSON: We were going to do a, uh . . . What was that?


00:38:30:11 MAN: Oh, sorry.

00:38:31:25 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: do you swear – yeah, raise your right hand, do, the standard’s been set now. Do you swear to tell us the truth here today?

00:38:40:11 PAUL THOMPSON: Of course.

00:38:40:27 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you David. We need the truth.

00:38:49:05 PAUL THOMPSON: Alright, should I move this up?

00:38:50:28 MAN: Yeah.


00:39:04:20 PAUL THOMPSON: So I want to talk about two things today. So I’ll just go straight into it since I don’t have a lot of time here. The first thing I want to talk about is, the foreign intelligence warnings about 9/11. Some of you may have seen out back I have this, this book that has just gone a couple of days ago called The Terror Timeline. And this is based on my website. And the material I’m going to talk about today is, is based on what I’ve done on the website and now is in the book. And everything in there is, from mainstream source material, CBS News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, that kind of material.

00:39:44:26 So I want to preface that everything I’m saying here, everything I’m going to be saying is coming from those kinds of sources. Um, and the first thing I want to start with is a quote from President Bush, just a few months ago he said, “Had I any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes in the buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country.”

00:40:10:01 PAUL THOMPSON: So he didn’t have any inkling whatsoever. and now I’m going to tell you something I think was probably the most significant thing that came out of the 9/11 Commission. It, and it really got ignored and, just briefly mentioned in one of their staff statements. It said that, in the beginning of the summer of 2001 Osama bin Laden actually started publicly talking about the 9/11 plot. He would go to mosques and he would speak in front of large crowds in Afghanistan, talking to his followers, talking to local, you know, local people were coming to the mosque. And according to the 9/11 Commission, he actually would say things in his speeches like, in one speech he said that people should pray for the success of an upcoming attack involving 20 murders.

00:41:07:16 Or another person said that bin Laden told them that U.S. would hit by a terrorist attack and thousands would die. So there’s this really kind of, you know, very, almost open secret about the 9/11 attacks. So, another example would be, John Walker Lindh, you might have heard of him, he’s kind of the, they call him the Marin County Taliban guy. He went over there, joined el Qaeda; in a matter of days he learned all about the, the 9/11 attacks. He learned that there were going to be all these different airplanes involved. So, in other words, it was just a, a very, very widely talked about thing, um, in Afghanistan.

00:41:51:22 So then what we see is that all these foreign governments picked up on this and started warning the U.S. It also says in the 9/11 Commission Report that this, this knowledge, this foreknowledge was so extensive that it spread throughout the radical fundamentalist network throughout the world. So people all over the world, including in the United States now, were getting details of the plot months in the advance. Um, and this is why, I think this is main reason why we see now all these governments start warning the U.S.

00:42:27:14 So I’m just going to run really quickly and just tell you some of the warnings that came out. Remember that all of these are mentioned, in very mainstream sources – New York Times, Washington Post, those of stuff – and, none of these, none of the things I’m going to talk about today, except for what I just said but all these foreign intelligence warnings, none of these are talked about in the 9/11 Commission. They’ve just completely ignored all of them. It’s like, it’s like, you know, it, these reports never happened. So, also all of these things I’m going to talk about, all are from three months before 9/11 – June, July, August – all these warnings start coming up.

00:43:11:07 So the British, they warned the U.S. They say, el Qaeda is in quote the final stages of a very serious attack on western country. And then they also warned, that, that an al Qaeda attack will involved multiple hijackings. So it’ll be a single attack, multiple airplanes hijacked. and Egypt, they warned – and this is, this to me is the most astonishing warning, also in the way it was just completely ignored. It was on “60 Minutes” on CBS, just mentioned briefly. And I’ll quote it for you. It says, “In late July Egyptian intelligence says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 el Qaeda members had slipped into the U.S.; four of them had received flight training on light aircraft.”

00:44:09:17 To the Egyptians pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming but they passed on the message to the CIA fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never came. So if that’s not, you know, we know there were 19 hijackers instead of 20, there were four training on light aircraft. Um, and again, it’s not surprising given what, you know, bin Laden was saying to people and, you know, that Egypt had a, had a mole in Afghanistan and gave other good, good information so. Really remarkable that nothing was done.

00:44:46:14 Then later, a few weeks later the Egyptians warned that, that this operation that was going forward were in the advanced stages. And this is according to the Egyptian President Hos-, Hosni Mu-, Murbarak himself. Then Germany, Germany warned, that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons to attack quote American and Israeli symbols which stick out. Then Jordan warned that a major attack using aircraft is planned inside the United States. And by the way they even said the name of the, the code name of the attack, which is the big wedding, which turned out to be the code name of the 9/11 attack.

00:45:39:05 Russia, Russia warned that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets. And then head of Russian intelligence later stated that we clearly warned the U.S. on several occasions but they did not pay the necessary attention. And then the Taliban, actually one of the, the foreign minister of the Taliban himself was a, kind of a, upset with the other leaders, didn’t want the attack to go forward so he warned that al Qaeda was going to plan an imminent huge attack quote, unquote, inside the U.S. that’ll kill thousands of people. And funnily enough the excuse, in the news reports about why this wasn’t taken seriously was it says because U.S. intelligence agencies were suffering from warning fatigue.


00:46:32:27 There’d been so many warnings that they just couldn’t handle any more. Um, you know that Argentina gave a warning, because – not a lot of people know this but there’s a little sort of a pocket of al Qaeda in the Argentina area. France gave a warning that’s an echo of a, of a, of a Israeli warning. And I’ll tell you the Israeli warning, they warned – well they had two separate warnings. First one they said 50 to 200 al Qaeda terrorists are inside the U.S. planning an imminent quote major assault unquote aimed at quote large scale target unquote.

00:47:18:09 And then, this is, and actually this is probably the most remarkable warning is that according to Der Spiegel and some other newspapers in Europe a few months, a few weeks before the attack, before 9/11, Israel actually gave the U.S. a list of 19 terrorists. Now we don’t know if that’s the exact same 19, however, the report specified that four of the names were the same including Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and the two hijackers in San Diego al-Midhar and Alhazmi. So these are the leaders of the 9/11 plot and according to Der Spiegel all these names were given to the U.S. government.

00:48:03:23 Morocco gave a warning saying that al Qaeda’s planning large scale operations in New York City in the fall of 2001, possibly targeting the World Trade Center. Um, so I could go on. These are just some selected warnings that I’ve given, but as you can see there are so many warnings, that in fact in the middle of August, Cofer Black who’s the head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, he was speaking at a convention of counterterrorist officials in a public venue and he said quote, we are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die and it could be in the U.S. And later on he said that the top leaders were unwilling to act unless they were told that the attack was coming within the exact day and here is what they are going to hit.

00:49:04:01 So in other words he’s saying that basically the leaders didn’t care to stop the attack, made no moves to defend the United States unless they were told exactly the day and the location of what the attack would be. And in fact, we can see that the Bush administration did absolutely nothing despite all these warnings. There was one thing I found interesting in the 9/11 Commission hearings is that Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta, who is still the Transportation Secretary, was asked, “So can you point to one thing that the Bush administration did before 9/11 that sa-, helped safeguard the U.S.?” And he said, “No.” There wasn’t a single thing.

00:49:51:03 So that’s, that’s the first part of my talk. The second part I want to talk about the issue of Pakistan. I could also talk about Saudi Arabia but I don’t have time for that. But between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia these are the two countries that you think would have given the U.S. warnings. I mean here we’re getting Argentina, all these countries, Morocco, are warning the U.S. But, you know, the two countries, Pakistan is extremely closely tied to the Taliban. They basically, you know, created the Taliban and it was, the Taliban was their puppet, as even the 9/11 Commission has stated.

00:50:31:24 and then Saudi Arabia where all the hijackers are from, Osama bin Laden’s from. We don’t get any warnings from those two countries. I think there’s significant evidence that, that the Pakistani intelligence agency actually had a very direct role in the plot. It’s a very unusual intelligence agency. It’s called ISI and it got very rich off of drug money. So rich from all the opium and heroin coming from Afghanistan and moving through Pakistan that it’s self funding. So it’s basically politically autonomous and people call it a state within a state. It can basically do whatever it wants. Some people say that the ISI is more powerful than the actual Pakistani government.

00:51:17:15 And as The Wall Street Journal has said, quote, despite their clean chins and pressed uniforms the ISI men are as deeply fundamentalist as any bearded fanatic. The ISI created the Taliban as their own instrument and still supports it. So there’s essentially you cannot see a difference between the ISI and the Taliban and, in my opinion, al Qaeda. They all are essentially the same group of people. And in fact there was a, some of U.S. reporters went to Afghanistan just right before 9/11 and they said everything here that we’ve seen, everything – the Taliban has the water, the oil, the food – everything’s coming from the ISI. They’re just a [COUGH OBSCURES] puppets of the ISI.

00:52:08:18 So I’m going to run through just a couple of things really quickly. Here are some key characters to kind of keep in mind. Randy Glass was involved in a U.S. sting operation. He was a, a criminal himself involved this sting operation with the FBI and the, uh – what’s it? – Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. And in 1999 there was a ISI agent and they were recording the conversation as part of their sting operation. And this ISI agent was within sight of the World Trade Center. He pointed to the World Trade Center and he said, “Those towers are coming down.” And he repeated that statement on several occasions. And this is, you know, [UNINTEL] this evidence has been recorded on tape.

00:52:56:19 So we can see this is interesting because some people say that people didn’t know that, that the towers would be completely destroyed. Here we are even in 1999 stating with assurance that the towers are going to be completely destroyed. And I could go into a lot more about Randy Glass but there’s a big sordid history there of ISI’s involvements in even trying to buy nuclear weapons to give to al Qaeda.

00:53:26:18 Now another characters to keep in mind is Saaid Sheikh. He’s a very, very important character and I think he’s really the key to understanding a lot about 9/11. He’s famous for being the killer of the reporter Daniel Pearl. You may remember in 2002 he got very brutally kidnapped and, and publicly executed basically. And, but it appears that Saaid Sheikh actually was one of the key funders for the 9/11 attacks. And so I’ll read a quote from the London Times about him. It says, Sayed Sheikh is no ordinary terrorist but a man who has connections that reach high into Pakistan’s military and intelligence elite and into the innermost circles of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda organization.

00:54:18:01 He, in fact, was so tied in that bin Laden called him his favorite son and he was even talking of, of replacing bin Laden some day. And yet he was also an ISI agent. I can’t go into all the details but there’s a lot of evidence showing that he actually trained some of the hijackers in terrorism techniques and he directly funded the attacks. Now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called 9/11 mastermind, he was also Saiid Sheikh’s boss. They, they knew each other, they, for instance, they both participated in the Daniel Pearl killing.

00:54:56:22 Now Robert Fisk, who as you may well know is a very famous journalist, he said, like Saaid Sheikh, Mohammed was an ISI asset. [UNINTEL] handed over by the ISI these days is almost certainly a former employee of ISI whose control of the Taliban amazed even the Pakistani government. And then there’s General Mahmoud Ahmad and he’s the head of the ISI. The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reported in the month after 9/11 that General Mah-, Mahmoud Ahmad, head of the ISI, ordered $100,000, to go from Saiid Sheikh to Mohamed Atta, the head hijacker. So we see a direct link from the head of the ISI to the head of the hijackers.

00:55:45:28 And this remarkable evidence has really been ignored. And this, and this last fact makes for all kinds of interesting, connections to the U.S. because it so happens that General Ahmad on the morning of 9/11 was actually meeting with Senator Bob Graham, Democratic senator, Porter Goss House of Representatives, guy who’s now up, up for being the, the new head of the CIA and John Kyle, another senator. And and in the weeks before this these same three U.S. politicians were in Pakistan talking to General Ahmad. We don’t know what they were talking about. I certainly would like to know.

00:56:35:03 So I’m running out of time but another interesting figure that I think also points to very interesting directions is a guys called General Ham-, Hamid Gul is a former head of the ISI. And a recent report from UPI suggested that he actually, this Hamid Gul, was actually the master planner for Osama bin Laden. And one reason this is very interesting is because Richard Clarke has stated, you know, the counterterrorism czar for, for Bush and Clinton, stated that in 1999, they intercepted a message between Hamid Gul and some of the leaders of the Taliban where he said, you know, that, that time Clinton tried to hit you with a missile, late ’98, don’t worry, Clinton is not planning on doing it again and even if he does I’ll warn you again like I, I gave you advance warning on the last time.

00:57:36:24 So this to me suggests that there is some sort of collaboration between people within the U.S. government and people in the ISI and this General Hamid Gul is being fingered as one of the masterminds of the 9/11 plot. The 9/11 Commission has, has covered up this information. There’s actually an article in the LA Times that said that some people on the commission said that, that the Pakistanis were quote up to their eyeballs, unquote, in involvement with the Taliban and al, al Qaeda, and that the commission findings that are actually released were quote on the tip of the iceberg, unquote, on these connections.

00:58:16:20 Again, I’ll say this one more thing. Daniel Ellsberg of the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, he said that, quote, it seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in 9/11. To say Pakistan to me is to say the CIA because it’s hard to say that the ISI would know something that the CIA had no knowledge of. So, I hope that we can figure out these, these connections and bring these people to justice.
00:00:00:18 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: And we will collect the cards in about five minutes. So go ahead and uh...write. There were some folks over there that needed supplies. Did you get your cards? As all of these presenters have become my friends, but uh...Mike Ruppert was there for me when the corporate media that uh...Paul has chronicled their [UNINTEL] but when they were doing their thing on me it was Mike Ruppert whose shoulder was there for me and his brain too for advice on and counsel.

00:00:41:01 So uh...I am very pleased to bring Mike Ruppert on and uh...he will probably uh...knock your socks off.


00:01:08:26 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Mike? I’m gonna have to swear you in.

MIKE RUPPERT: Please do.


00:01:15:01 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: You know as an L.A., as a former LAPD officer you uh...

MIKE RUPPERT: I’ve done this before.

00:01:22:00 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Yeah, okay well get to it.

00:01:24:21 MIKE RUPPERT: I do!


00:01:27:03 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: I will!

00:01:28:08 MIKE RUPPERT: I am, I is and yes, we shall.

WOMAN: Okay very good.

00:01:34:18 MIKE RUPPERT: It’s great to be here. Hot enough here for everyone? Congresswoman McKenney, Dr. Khan, Mr. McIlvaine, fellow citizens it is an honor to be here today to discuss some of the most serious issues ever to present themselves before free people.

00:01:51:00 There are many things I do not need to say here today. Others we’ll say them for all of us. Almost all of us are deeply aware of and disturbed by the glaring inconsistencies, the evidence tampering, the obstruction of justice, the non-pheasance, the malpheasance and the other crimes represented by the final report of the Kean Commission investigating the attacks of September the 11th.


00:02:17:27 I will not digress to discuss them here but for the record I would like it noted that the entire membership of the Kean Commission is horribly and blatantly compromised by often egregious conflicts of interests that would have made them ineligible for participation in the tribunal charge….


00:02:38:26 The conduct in the discharge of their duties was shameful and criminal affirmation of those vested interests. Since the day of the attacks my newsletter From The Wilderness reinforced why an incredible staff of writers and editors that has worked virtually non-stop to investigate those attacks and to produce reasonable answers based up on evidence that will help fill the enormous void left by mainstream news organizations, the Congress and the Kean Commission.

00:03:07:29 As most of you know my long awaited book, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil has just recently been completed and even as we speak today the printing is starting in Canada. So we’re very happy to see that. I am especially.

00:03:25:15 We have been accepting advanced orders for a week and the first shipment should go out by September 14. So or those of you have been waiting for that book which is 700 pages long with 1,000 footnotes, plenty for all of you to digest, challenge and do whatever you want to do with. It will be available for you shortly and we certainly hope before November 2nd. I don’t know why I’d say something like that.


00:03:48:00 ...you can find information about the book at the website fromthewilderness.com.

00:03:52:27 I believe that Crossing the Rubicon provides amply documented evidence with which to initiated and sustain a number of indictments of top level government officials for their roles in facilitating the attacks of 9/11. Most notably as my chief suspect I name Vice President Richard Cheney as both a planner and executor of those attacks.


00:04:18:08 In order to complete my book I chose to focus on a clear and unmistakable evidentiary record based upon written records, statements of key officials, evidence presented under oath and first person interviews and investigations conducted by me directly in pursuit of information that discloses the truth about September the 11th.

00:04:37:14 I chose to avoid discussion of physical evidence issues for two primary reasons; first, physical evidence arguments based upon photographic and other analyses are not directly court admissible without overcoming several hurdles. First, a clear and irrefutable chain of custody backed up by affidavits or sworn testimony is required to even get such evidence admitted at trial.

00:04:59:24 Secondly such evidence is by definition only presentable in court at a time presentable or identifiable in court or discussable in court by means of expert witness testimony which is often subject to intense courtroom debate and judged only by the amount of money which can be brought to bear to produce experts to either validate or refute it.

00:05:22:08 In writing Crossing the Rubicon I decided the primary audience that I wanted to reach was the American people as a whole. I thought it best to present them with a book that I could say was legally admissible in court on it’s face since no interpretation was required and no chain of custody issues presented themselves with regards to footnotes or verifiable records.

00:05:43:10 The possibility of evidence tampering has been removed since all footnotes lead either to verifiable public record sources or are the work product of interviews conducted and recorded by me that I recount in the book as I would sworn testimony of a detective under oath. Since I have only 15 minutes to deliver my prepared remarks before going to questions let me begin by briefly summarizing my findings, briefly, and disclosing information which has never been made public until today.

00:06:11:09 Crossing the Rubicon is a detective story. It gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America created by specific named individuals in preparation for peak oil. An economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen. It looks at the crime from the viewpoint of a homicide investigator who must in order to establish guilt, examine and identify the motive, means and opportunity for the commission of the crime.

00:06:39:16 The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were the pretext for the American and to a lesser extent the British and the Israeli empires to begin seizing by force those energy supplies needed to sustain their power and hegemony whether regional or global and their teetering economies. Both governments were involved well before the attacks occurred.

00:07:00:10 The attacks of 9/11 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Former National Security Advisor and Counter-Terror Advisor Richard Clarke has postulated that such a conspiracy could never be kept secret. Too many people would have been involved he insisted in his recent book Against all Ends. On this point I disagree with Clarke completely and point to the fact that the Manhattan Project which developed the atom bomb and the stealth fighter project were both successfully kept secret. The numbers of people involved in both of those projects far exceeded the numbers of people within the United States government required to execute 9/11.

00:07:37:15 However I must express a deep debt of gratitude to Richard Clarke for in his book he left a very compelling trail of breadcrumbs, contradictions to the sworn testimony and written records submitted often under oath of our highest leaders and the hard evidence which provided me with the leads I needed to break open and answer the “who done it” part of 9/11.

00:08:00:26 For me the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in and management of the attacks was found at a number of undisputed yet virtually unaddressed war games that I have shown were being conducted, coordinated and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September the 11th. The names of those war games are known to include Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance and Tripod II.

00:08:30:26 There is a possibility that Northern Guardian is a duplicate name but the remaining exercises are indisputably separate events with different objectives. All have been reported by major press organization relying on undisputed quotes from participating military and FAA personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All, except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II, had to do with hijacked airliners inside the united…the Continental United States specifically within the northeast air defense sector, NEADS, where all four 9/11 hijackings occurred.

00:09:08:04 According to a clear record some of these exercises involved commercial airline hijackings. In some cases false blips or injects were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during at least the first attacks.

00:09:26:22 This effectively paralyzed fighter response because with only eight fighters available in the region there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance, had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast U.S. just before 9/11 into Northern Canada and Alaska.

00:09:47:29 In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were live fly exercise where actual aircraft likely flown by remote control were simulating the behavior of hijacked airlines in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. The fact that these exercises have never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press or publicly by Congress or at least publicly in any detail whatsoever by the so-called independent 9/11 Commission made me think that they might be the Holy Grail of 9/11 – and that’s exactly what they turned out to be.

00:10:30:09 Only one war game exercise, Vigilant Guardian, was mentioned in a footnote to the Kean Commission report and then it was deliberately mislabeled as an exercise intended to intercept Russian bombers instead of a hijack exercise in the northeast sector. Even then a deliberate lie was told to the American people as NORAD Commander General Ralph Eberhart testified to the Commission that the exercise actually expedited U.S. Air Force response during the attacks.

00:10:58:11 Before the Commission’s final hearing I undertook a direct investigation in an attempt to learn more details about each of the exercises and specifically who was controlling them or had planned them to take place on September 11th where it’s abundantly clear based upon the record of statements made by the U.S. Air Force and FAA personnel that the games had effectively paralyzed fighter response during the attacks.

00:11:22:26 While most of my queries including the submission of direct written questions and telephone calls to NORAD, the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff resulted in stonewalling. That’s a kind word. And did little to help clarify this key issue. One military officer revealed information that was to say the least startling. It confirmed my findings. After several phone calls and a lengthy email…a length of emails laying out what I had uncovered I received a written response from First Air Force Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias. In that response he confirmed that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been conducting a live fly hijack drill on the day of September the 11th. The name of that exercise, Vigilant Warrior, had been revealed by Richard Clarke on page nine of his book as he quoted a statement made to him by then acting Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers.

00:12:17:02 To excerpt from Major Arias’ May 14th, 2004 email addressed to me;

“Mr. Ruppert, the book is in the mail.” It’s an Air Force book which describes a completely different set of attacks than the one the Kean Commission investigated. “The Norad white exercise we were in on 9/11 was indeed Vigilant Guardian. I also learned something that may help you with your research. The terms used for NORAD exercises have specific names. Per NORAD instruction 33-7 nicknames ‘a combination of two separate unclassified words which is assigned an unclassified meaning and is employed for unclassified administration, morale or public information. The first word must begin with the combination of letters of the alphabet allocated to the using agency [UNINTEL]. A nickname is used exclusively to designate a drill or exercise. Exercise terms are used to prevent confusion between exercise directives with actual operations’.”

00:13:18:10 That’s the key sentence because they have to separate the exercises from real life. At least they’re supposed to.

“‘Vigilant or Amalgam means that it is an HQ and a headquarters NORAD sponsored exercise. Guardian means that it is a multi-command CPX or command post exercise, meaning there’s no live fly’. So on 9/11 NORAD was conducting NORAD-wide multi-command command post exercises with no live flies. This covers the radar injects that were present on the FAA radar screens throughout New England and the northeast sector on that day. Other exercise terms include Warrior. JCS, Joint Chiefs of Staff headquarter NORAD sponsored field training exercise or FDX or live fly. Because first Air Force CONAR is an intermediate level of command I may have, have to refer your questions to HQ NORAD, but I’ll do what I can.”

00:14:13:11 What he said was we have General Richard Myers saying Vigilant Warrior, we’re in the middle of it. Richard Clark wrote it in the book, a NORAD officer here confirms that that was a live flight hijack drill in progress during the attacks.

00:14:25:16 Have you ever heard of that before? Any of you? The full text of this and other correspondence of my direct questioning of DOD and military personnel is included in Crossing the Rubicon. Major Arias says it’s got to be mentioned again very quickly here.

00:14:41:20 What we have in this instance is direct written confirmation of a live fly exercise that involved the actual piloting of aircraft either by remote control or with real pilots in the northeast air defense sector. There are multiple confirmations of this which are in the book. Other exercises used the inserts confusing both FAA and NORAD radar screens. And this would account for well documented confusion over what might have been 22 different possible hijackings. It was impossible for the FAA or the Air Force personnel to tell which was which. With only eight fighter aircraft available the inexplicable delays in fighter response are now easy to comprehend.

00:15:21:08 When New York writer Michael Kane, who I believe is here today - wherever you are Mike, God bless you - approached General Eberhart on an FTW assignment for my newsletter at the conclusion of the Commission’s last public hearing and asked for information on all the other exercises including Vigilant Warrior Eberhart’s only response was “no comment”.

00:15:42:07 Other government agencies have fallen back on the simple excuse the exercises are classified and failed to provide any clarification at all. Same with the Kean Commission several members of which were also questioned by Mike Kane. Nobody would talk.

00:15:54:20 There was also an additional non-military bio-warfare exercise called Tripod II being set up in Manhattan on September 11th and it was under the direct coordination of FEMA and by White House directive the immediate control of the Vice President Richard Cheney. The set up for that exercise conveniently placed a fully staffed FEMA New York City Department of Justice Command Post on Manhattan’s Pier 29 just in time for it to be conveniently used as the Command Post after the Twin Towers had collapsed.

00:16:23:26 In reconstructing actual communications and chains of command I was extremely disturbed to find out that many officials in a position to take action that might have prevented the loss of life in the South Tower did not do so before Flight 175 became the second impact. This in spite of the fact that it was known and had been clearly communicated that Flight 175 had been off course, hijacked and headed toward Manhattan for some 20 minutes.

00:16:48:23 Included here are Vice President Richard Cheney, various NORAD officers and commanders, the FAA, then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. In examining transcripts of Giuliani’s testimony before the Kean Commission I find clear evidence suggesting that Major Giuliani committed perjury when he appeared before the Kean Commission this spring.


00:17:15:04 It’s interesting to note that of all 9/11 witnesses whose testimony I analyzed his re. his remarks, testimony remain to this day the only testimony which has not been transcribed and presented to the public. Instead I was forced to rely on transcripts prepared from video and audio recordings by 9/11 activists and researchers. I will now quote from Crossing the Rubicon as to what my analysis of Giuliani’s testimony revealed. It may explain why the Kean Commission has deliberately withheld it from public view. I want to thank first Kyle Hence and Joe Friendly who provided me with a written transcript of Giuliani’s remarks which I might add was independently verified through other recordings.

00:17:55:01 We begin in according to Giuliani sometime after Flight 77 struck the Pentagon.

“I’d already been informed by my Chief of Staff that he had reached the White House and by the police commissioner who I think had reached the Defense Department. I’m not sure exactly. But both of them had assured me that we had gotten air support because that’s why I wanted to reach the White House. I wanted to make sure that we had air defense for the city.

00:18:16:08 “And my Chief of Staff told me that he was informed by the White House that there were seven planes that were unaccounted for. At this point I knew of two and I had heard reports that the Pentagon had been attacked, that the Sears Tower had been attacked and several other things.”

00:18:29:28 Now who had told, I’m speaking now, who had told Giuliani about the two missing planes before this? Such information must have originated with NORAD, NEADS or the FAA. Those communications channels were obviously functioning at that time but then why no warning? The only likely explanation here is that lower command levels knowing that the national command authority, the White House and the Pentagon, had taken command assumed that the warnings would come from higher up and thus be more quickly heeded. Now we go back to Giuliani.

00:18:57:22 “So I got through to the White House. Chris Hennick was on the phone who was the, who was the Deputy Political Director to President Bush. And I said to him ‘Chris, was the Pentagon attacked?’ and he said ‘confirmed’”

Note; the Pentagon was struck at 9:41.

00:19:10:29 “And then I asked him if we had air support. I said ‘have you, do we have air support? Do you have jets out because I think we’re going to get hit again?’ he said ‘the jets were dispatched 12 minutes ago and they should be there very shortly and they should be [CELL PHONE BEGINS RINGING – JINGLE BELLS] able to defend you against further attack’.”

It’s Christmas. Jingle bells. Okay.

00:19:29:29 “’uh...against further attack’ and then he said ‘we’re evacuating the White House and the Vice President will call you back very shortly’.”

Now a number of mainstream press accounts, this is me, fixed the White House evacuation order between 9:41 and 9:45. I think it was a lot earlier. Thus there are two events fixing Giuliani’s conversation with Hennick between 9:41 and 9:45. Are we to assume that no one in the White House had Giuliani’s telephone number? He was a major player in the Republican Party, a strong supporter of George W. Bush. Why was he talking to a political director and not the Pentagon or the Situation Room at the White House?


00:20:08:26 Clark was there. Price was there. The Situation Room was hooked up to NORAD. The Pentagon, the FAA, the FBI, everybody – he or somebody on his staff had the numbers. The problem with the Giuliani-Hennick call is that it’s timing is bounded by three parameters that don’t fit. The call starts some time after the Pentagon was hit at 9:41. Hennick tells Giuliani that fighters were dispatched 12 minutes ago to protect you, i.e., New York City and we know that the only fighters sent to New York were sent from Otis Air Force Base at 8:46. 12 minutes after that would be 8:58. South Tower was struck at 9:03.

00:20:48:26 The end of the Giuliani-Hennick call was followed immediately by the start of the Cheney-Giuliani call, see below, and the immediate collapse of the world…WTC Tower at nine…South Tower at 9:59.

00:21:01:17 For the sake of argument let’s say that this conversation occurred five minutes after the Pentagon was struck. That would mean that the White House told Giuliani that fighter aircraft had been scrambled and sent to New York seven minutes after 9:37 or 9:41 depending on which timeline is used or between 9:44 and 9:48. The final Kean Commission report released on July 22nd makes no mention of any fighters being sent to New York at this time. The only scramble order even close to Giuliani’s account is the scrambling of fighters from Langley Air Force Base to protect Washington at 9:23 roughly matches the timing of Giuliani’s conversation with Hennick.

00:21:41:00 The former mayor’s testimony appears to be referring to the Otis fighters that had been directed to establish a combat air patrol over New York. But that poses another problem – a big one. If this is the case that Giuliani’s testimony places the Otis scramble order almost an hour later than the official NORAD and NEADS accounts northeast air defense sector. Were these some other fighter aircraft? If so they have not been mentioned. And why did Hennick not mention the Otis fighters that were according to NORAD and eyewitness accounts already in a very visible low altitude combat air patrol over Manhattan? Anybody here that day didn’t hear or see the fighters?

00:22:20:16 Giuliani should have been able to see and hear. Every other New York saw them. Are we to believe that Giuliani somehow remained oblivious to the fighter’s presence? Are we to believe that no police or fire official took…a fire official told him that the fighters were there? That he couldn’t hear them? The only available benchmarks suggest that the call from Cheney took place much earlier than Giuliani claims. If we reference it to when the scramble order was issued at Otis Air Force Base the source of New York’s fighter cover, 8:46 a.m., then Giuliani spoke to Hennick sometime around 8:58 or about five minutes before Flight 175 struck at 9:03.

00:23:00:10 If Hennick knew about other missing planes he was obviously getting information, at least indirectly from NORAD and NEADS, from whom? A political guy getting this information. The Secret Service seems the most likely candidates since there are numerous records of their active involvement by this time. At that time it was also known that Flight 175 had been en route to lower Manhattan for 16 minutes. There is no mention of Hennick issuing any warning to the New York major that a second plane was about to attack. How could the White House staffer have been certain about 12 minutes unless there had been a log? He was precise. Where is that log?

00:23:37:06 Why was a political staffer in possession of better data than the mayor of New York? What does this suggest then about the timing of the call that Giuliani then received from Dick Cheney immediately after talking to Hennick according to Giuliani?

00:23:51:00 “And I put down the phone and within seconds got a call in another room from the Vice President. I walked over to that room, picked up the phone. The White House operator was on the phone and said ‘Mr. Mayor, the Vice President will be on in a moment’ at that point I heard a click. The desk started to shake and I heard next, and I heard Chief Esposito who was the uniformed head of the police department, I’m sure it was his voice. I heard him say ‘the South Tower is down, the Tower has come down’.”

00:24:17:05 The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 and was recorded live by a multitude of cameras. This is confirmation that Cheney was making command decisions n all communications loops at least by this time. But if the White House call took place at 8:58 then more likely in conformity with what we have already established, Dick Cheney was actually hands on much, much sooner. As we have seen Cheney was already in that role between 8:45 according to the FAA, and no later than about 9:15.

00:24:45:19 The Secret Service which had snatched Cheney out of his office after Flight 175 hit at 9:03 was fully informed of all the developments and they never left Cheney’s side. Quoting Giuliani:

00:24:56:19 “So the police commissioner and I and the deputy police commissioner we jointly decided we had to try to get everyone out of the building. So we went downstairs into the basement. We tried two or three exits, could not get out. I don’t know if they were locked or blocked but we couldn’t get out.”

00:25:10:08 Here is more agonizing confirmation that no evacuation warnings had been issues for either Tower prior to 9:02. Yet full knowledge of the danger was available to the national command authority that Flight 175 had turned toward New York at 8:42. 20 silent minutes passed when many of those who have died could have been saved.

00:25:28:07 The failure to warn the occupants of the South Tower in spite of what is now an irrefutable record is not only a grave insult to the people of New York but the implications are compounded by the fact that Major Don Arias, the same NORAD officer who provided me with written confirmation of a live flight exercise had a brother working inside the World Trade Center during the attacks. While the entire national command system failed to issue any warning to the people in the World Trade Center, Major Arias was compelled to leave his post long enough to place a phone call over a standard phone line to call his brother to warn him to get out of the building. Nobody else would do it.

00:26:07:20 All of this is abundantly documented in Crossing the Rubicon . There are many, many other instances of criminal conduct on the part of our government on September 11th and since. I could talk about the still unresolved issue of massive insider trading on the world’s financial markets. I could talk about a multitude of specific warnings that were received by ignored by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the entire administration. I could talk about how retired FBI Special Agent John O’Neil was kept up drinking until 2:30 in the morning on the night before the attacks in a pattern very reminiscent of what happened with several Secret Service Agents assigned to protect President John Kennedy on November 22nd 1963.

00:26:49:29 One of the most insulting omissions of the Kean Commission is it’s failure to even discuss a $100,000 dollar wire transfer to Mohammad Atta just a few days before the attack at the order of the then head of Pakistani’s Intelligence Services, the ISI. Or that as Paul mentioned, General Ahmad was having breakfast with Porter Goss, the man who is now being put forth to head out Central Intelligence Agency.

00:27:14:24 One thing I am certain of and I believe I have proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt in Crossing the Rubicon, I am certain, I am absolutely certain that Richard Cheney was not only a planner in the attacks but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command and control and communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the National Military Command Center, that’s the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room. To accomplish that end he relied on a redundant and superior communication system maintained by the United States Secret Service in or near the Presidential Emergency Operations Center – the bunker to which he and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice were reportedly rushed sometime after Flight 175 struck the South Tower.

00:28:00:18 I will demonstrate that the Secret Service possessed radar screens which gave them and the Vice President whose side they never left real time information as good or better than anything available to the Pentagon, the FAA or anybody else and that it was on the basis of that information that Cheney overrode and took complete operational control on September the 11th. I have shown that in what are called national special security events. I encourage you to all Google that on your computers. The U.S. Secret Service is the supreme U.S. agency for operational control with complete authority over the military and all civilian agencies.

00:28:35:25 I have established conclusively that in May 2001 by Presidential Order Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all war game and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills. I will also demonstrate that the TRIPOD exercise being set up on September 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney’s role in number three above. By sheer dedication and sacrifice through endless hours of labor and uncounted sleepless night a great many true Americans have kept 9/11 on the table. There are a few of them right here, there.

00:29:16:09 9/11 on the table for review and examination by the people of the world and especially the people of America. It remains a clear and irrefutable challenge for all of us to persevere, the remain steadfast, to demand accountability and to take whatever personal risks are necessary to see justice done and to unravel the confusing, perilous and often frightening world which has presented itself to us in the years since. I welcome your questions.


00:30:12:16 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: We’re making DVDs of this program today and so please sign up after we take our break so that you can receive information in the future about the DVDs or any other aspect of this program about which you may have some further questions. I am sifting through the questions and we’re going to try and get to as many of these questions as we possibly can. I’m trying to weed out the ones that are repetitive.

00:30:50:27 So I will ask Commissioner Khan to go first with the series of questions that he has now while I continue to go through these questions from you the audience.
00:31:06:20 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Okay, I’m going to ahead and ask the audience questions. I, it’s really tempting to expand and pontificate but just for the sake of time we want to keep the answers short and terse. There’s a lot of detail that we can look up on our own. But just short, quick answers will be great. I guess this one I can ask Mike and then have Paul also comment. Any proof yet that bin Laden was responsible for September 11th?

00:31:32:07 MIKE RUPPERT: From a criminal standpoint in terms of the way you would approach it in a court of law which is how I approach everything the answer is no. The case has not been made. I believe Osama bin Laden has been and remains a CIA asset…


COMMISSIONER KHAN: Hold applause for a minute. Paul any comments?

00:31:53:14 PAUL THOMPSON: As you may guess from my earlier talk I see a lot of evidence of knowledge of the attacks in Afghanistan in the months before 9/11 um...however Osama bin Laden appears to be more of a kind of a spiritual figure,a symbolic leader. We can see a lot of other people who you could call masterminds who would be way ahead of the list in my opinion over him.

COMMISSIONER KHAN: Thank you. Cynthia do you have a question?


00:32:25:06 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Okay. This I guess would be best handled by Barrie [Zwicker]. Barrie, what can we, I mean you’ve all pretty much ripped apart the credibility of the Commissions’ we’ve explored the illegitimacy of being dogmatic about anything you hear [UNINTEL] with mainstream media. What can we do to expose or put pressure on the corporate media cover the 9/11 truth issue? Concrete steps.

00:32:53:01 BARRIE ZWICKER: Boy I wish I knew. They’re a huge problem and I’ve been struggling with them for three decades. You just work. You do what you can. There are, there are people within the media who are legitimate, they’re authentic. There are fugitive paragraphs. There are excellent particular columnists and so on. And I think that people should recognize them, praise them, help them, link up with them. Write letters to the editor. Simple as it seems, a powerful thing. Letters to the editor column of a newspaper or magazine is usually the second best thing, second best read item in the section in that paper.

00:33:33:11 So those are some of the things you can do and don’t give up.

COMMISSIONER KHAN: Thank you. I can’t read this one. The writing is too sloppy.

00:33:48:20 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Oh, I could read it. That’s why I gave it to you. Let me see.

COMMISSIONER KHAN: I’m a doctor let’s see. Some kind of doctor. Prognostic sign of somebody’s penmanship.

00:33:57:03 CYNTHIA: Why has David Ray Graham’s finding …


00:34:01:19 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Griffin’s, that’s right, findings attacking the official version and the attack on WTC and the Pentagon not received [LAUGHS] not received more attention in the U.S. media?

00:34:23:12 COMMISSIONER KHAN: In other words why isn’t uh...Griffin’s report receiving the press and the media attention it should receive?

MAN: Who…is that directed at anyone?

00:34:31:07 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Uh...how about Barrie?

00:34:33:08 BARRIE ZWICKER: Again it’s de facto censorship that occurs. I personally contacted twice the letters editor of the Toronto Stars the largest paper in Canada drawing to his attention, his name’s Dan Smith, drawing to his attention the publication of David Ray Griffin’s book that it was selling very well on Amazon. That it was extremely timely because it came out around the time of the 9/11 Commission. I said I thought it was worth reviewing. I have yet to see a review.

00:35:02:15 Way back when Charles Higham wrote a tremendous book called Trading with the Enemy that shows that Ford and General Motors and ITT and Sterling Drugs and others worked actively with the Nazis before and during the second World War. He wrote a book that the libel company, the, the libel insurance company charged one of the lowest premiums it had ever charged because it was so well documented. It’s classic to this day. Hardly reviewed anywhere to this day. That book’s over 20 years old. And I believe that Michael to my left here has made a comment a while back about it not being an accident that there are so many books that no one’s heard about or that are out of print.

COMMISSIONER KHAN: Great, uh...Paul?

00:35:47:01 PAUL THOMPSON: Yeah, I’d also like to add that in Britain actually his book has gotten a lot more coverage. He’s been on national television. He’s been uh...mentioned in the…reviewed in the Daily Mail which is one of the biggest papers there. The book has done very well over there. This is something I’ve seen in my research is that often for events in the United States we have to turn to the European media to get some decent coverage.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: What’s the title?

00:36:12:24 PAUL THOMPSON: It’s called The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin.

MIKE RUPPERT: May I attempt some observation here?

00:36:18:07 PAUL THOMPSON: Sure, sure Mike. Please.

00:36:20:00 MIKE RUPPERT: I describe this in detail in Crossing the Rubicon because you have to establish the ecosystem in which all of this takes place and it is a financial ecosystem in which all of the corporate media in this country trades their stock on Wall Street government by price to earnings ratio, governed by cheap energy, governed by drug cash being laundered through the banking system, governed by…in other words when a flock of birds changes direction is it a conspiracy or was it just because all the birds know that it’s their common interest? To do or not do something. And so there is that herd mentality.

00:36:50:10 The way you overcome that is you make more people go listen to independent media than are listening to the mainstream media and makes the mainstream media jealous.


00:37:07:14 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Alright, this is a question that needs some addressing in terms of paradigm shift and I want to, Mike, I want to ask you your opinion on this and I guess all of you. The terrorists and bin Laden have obviously declared war on the U.S.

MIKE RUPPERT: Is that it?

00:37:24:23 COMMISSIONER KHAN: No. What do they want, number one. Wars are usually started to gain something. What do they hope to gain?

00:37:33:25 MIKE RUPPERT: Well first of all I do not accept the construct that 19 MusliM hijackers perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 out…


00:37:47:01 MIKE RUPPERT: What we are faced with though is what some people, and I don’t agree with this completely, a concept called blowback in which many of these Muslim fundamentalist organizations were deliberately created by the United States government for covert policy in the late ‘70s, early ‘80s throughout the Afghani-Soviet insurgency where people like Zbigniew Brzezinski were boasting about it. I mean that’s where we see radical hate books that are used in some [UNINTEL] schools having been credited to University of Nebraska under the same contact that was printing oil drilling manuals for Unocal which is true.

00:38:23:21 By the same token I was a policeman in South Central Los Angeles and I will say that if you stand on anybody’s neck long enough they’re going to get upset and they’re going to try and fight back. That is a legitimate human right of self defense. What anybody I think wants, and I you know, I’m not advocating terrorism in any form or violence in any form but what I am saying is that some people fight back. And certainly there were terrorists who wanted to attack the United States before 9/11. There are probably five times that many since 9/11 based solely on the conduct of the United States government in foreign affairs since.


00:38:59:08 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I just have a comment to Mike’s. You know, extremists and fundamentalist ideology has been around since the earliest centuries of the Islamic religion, of Christianity, of Judaism of Buddhism, of Hinduism. The question I think that needs to be asked that Mike is investigating is who funds these guys, who empowers them, who gives them logistical information and who owns their ideology? And Mike in your opinion is there a marriage between Wall Street, [CELL PHONE RINGS] CIA and [UNINTEL] Islamic networks?

00:39:28:29 MIKE RUPPERT: Well first of all the CIA is Wall Street, and Wall Street is the CIA.


00:39:32:21 MIKE RUPPERT: There is no difference. I have a whole chapter on that and it’s a real eye opener. But I think I look at this historically that [UNINTEL] served on the House International Relations Committee and I know that you had pretty good terms with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California. And I document the long, where Dana Rohrabacher absolutely incensed about how the U.S. was deliberately supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeada with arms and cutting of the arms to anyone who opposed Al Qaeada was literally almost slamming his shoe like Nikita Khrushchev did on the table while chewing out a state department official. He was after a guy named Carl Underfirth who was in my book. Saying it’s Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan. Meaning that the United States government and the CIA with it’s relationship with the ISI was deliberately acting as a nurse if you will suckling and protecting the Taliban and making sure they grew.

00:40:29:05 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Mike do you have any comments to add about the Osama bin Laden, the militant Islamic networks and their commitment to declare war on the United States.

00:40:37:11 MIKE RUPPERT: I think the world is beginning to see a little bit that there are more viewpoints in the world than the American viewpoint. And the Islamic world and the Arab world is pretty much fed up with the blind support of the United States for Israel against their interests….


00:41:04:07 MIKE RUPPERT: And it was pretty clear during my time in Saudi Arabia that there was one way of looking at things and there was the real world’s way of looking at things. And since then it’s only gotten worse. John Kerry is remarkably anti-Arab and I say anti-Semitic diatribe in the August 26th edition of Forward in which he castigates all of the Arab world and says Israel is our only true friend, is the only democratic state in the Middle East and we therefore should support Israel. And as you have statements like this Zelikow [Executive Director of 9/11 Commission] whose…everybody was trying to get off the 9/11 Commission saying that the United States is in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect Israel’s interest.

00:41:48:19 The Arab world and Muslim worlds sees this and says these people are crazy. It’s time to hit back. We don’t have atomic bombs. We don’t have a 600 ship navy and we don’t have mach 3 jet fighters. We’ll use car bombs. We’ll use sticks of dynamite and we’ll use airplanes an we’ll try and even the score and get these people’s attention. You know, it’s kind of like the farmer who bought the world’s remaining super jackass. And the thing wouldn’t sit. It wouldn’t walk. It wouldn’t pull. It wasn’t housebroken and it was a very nasty piece of work. And he hired a trainer. And the trainer comes up and he looks at this thing and looks at it and walks around says ‘walk’ and the thing sits and he says ‘sit’ and thing walks. So he walks over to his bag of tools and pulls out a Louisville slugger and slams the thing in it’s head with all his might. And then he goes back to the world’s remaining super jackass ‘do I have your attention?’.


00:42:59:14 And I think this is what the Americans have. They have not learned the lesson of the super jackass. They have been slammed repeatedly and still insist on looking at the world through their own particular viewpoint and refusing to believe that there are other interests in the world other than their own.


00:43:20:00 COMMISSIONER KHAN: One quick question for Mike. The hypothesis that some posit is the blowback hypothesis. That is shame on the U.S. government for arming these guys in the ‘80s and ‘90s. But God, we didn’t know that they were going to turn on us and fly these planes into the Center. Is that a valid hypothesis in your opinion?

00:43:37:20 MIKE RUPPERT: I’ll try to be as brief in my answer as you are in your question. That’s B.S.


MIKE RUPPERT: Utter nonsense.

00:43:46:11 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Okay. Last…last question. If Bush wins the election is there in place a means to proceed immediately with the impeachment of the entire administration?


00:44:00:27 MIKE RUPPERT: Actually From the Wilderness for those of you who are subscribers you’ll know that we have been writing about that scenario for probably two years now. The foundation for the impeachment has been impeccably and legally laid by Congressman Henry Waxman of California who with House Government Reform Committee or is it Governmental Affairs? Government Reform Committee. Has been documenting all of the lies regarding the forged documents purportedly showing that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium from Niger which tied directly into the Valerie Plame case, the former CIA officer was just speculate Dick Cheney had [UNINTEL] both which are all impeachable and criminal offensive…offenses including perjury and that record’s already in place.

00:44:45:25 I should add that there’s a major historical precedent for this. In 1972 before the ’72 election the Republican National Committee or the White House plumbers unit burglarized the Watergate Hotel. Richard Nixon one the 1972 election in a landslide. But the legal work necessary to impeach Richard Nixon was already in place and had been well underway for several years before Nixon eventually resigned in 1974. That is the scenario that may be shaping up here.

00:45:16:08 We may not, there’s a lot of problems with the election. Vote counting and everything else. We’ll ask Cynthia about that. But the issue is this is a knock down drag out fight and I view the democrats and the republicans virtually as the Genovese of the Gambino crime family with little difference. I think that scenario is in place.


00:45:34:02 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Just for the audience that’s interested in this issue uh...Carolyn Betts is going to be speaking here is going to talk about options for redressing the quote unquote criminal negligence or complicity of the Bush regime and what steps can be taken. Cynthia do you want to add anything to that?

00:45:47:11 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Well yes I do. There’s food after we take our break or during the break. There’s food available if you go through the exit sign over on that side of the room. And I would like to have Barrie say a few words about his film and the time that people will have the opportunity to see the premier of his film this evening or tonight.

00:46:20:21 BARRIE ZWICKER: Well, thank you for the opportunity. I, when you’re close to a production like this it’s hard for you to assess it and I, I was having trouble assessing it. I’m acutely aware of certain lapse in this DVD. Some of them, well they’re all my responsibility all the shortcomings are my responsibility but some of them I didn’t do directly such as tape that didn’t show up and so forth.

00:46:51:09 But what has made me think that it’s worth your coming to see it, there are two things. One is that since it was, since the master tape was completed and up to and including this day I keep hearing references and statements that gain applause and questions are raised that people recognize as important and I keep saying yeah, I got that in and I got that in and I got that one in and that one in and, and it’s quite a line up of, I don’t know, what you want to call it? Not gratitude or pride but fulfillment that I have hit a lot of nails on the head.

00:47:31:27 And in but in a popularized way. The second thing is that the reviews are coming in and they’re really, really good. [UNINTEL] brilliant. You can’t see it once, you’ve got to see it five times and so forth. So uh...but I, I’m a very, very biased informant of this, of this information. This runs 70 minutes and 18 seconds and and it, it does intertwine media criticism throughout because I feel that is so important and you’ve seen that here again this afternoon. And I gather that most people in this room share their anger and their frustration with the de facto censorship and the twisting of everything. I believe that if the media were really doing their job, I mean if even one publication would do what the Washington Post did with Watergate we would live in a different world. It could be broken open. The dam would break.


00:48:33:10 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Now we’re going to entertain a couple of questions because we’re running out of time and I’m going to try and steal an additional five minutes which means we’ll have 10 minutes for your questions and I said that I was going to have a bunch of questions and I haven’t asked a single one of my questions yet. So anyway but in deference to you because you are making this happen go ahead Commissioner McIlvaine.

00:48:59:14 COMMISSIONER MCILVAINE: Micheal [UNINTEL] is it possible [UNINTEL] that visas were given fraudulently, that identities were laundered or falsified using the U.S. Embassy?

00:49:10:06 MICHAEL SPRINGMANN: You’re saying that were visas issued fraudulently?


MICHAEL SPRINGMANN: And identities were falsified?

COMMISSIONER MCILVAINE: It says here laundered. Falsified using the U.S. Embassy.

00:49:25:12 MICHAEL SPRINGMANN: Well the, I was in charge of the section. I had controls over the visa machines. I had the keys to the machines. Uh...the local staff were not alone with the machines. So any fraud would have had to have come in from outside the consulate. For example, if somebody presented me with a clean passport and the guy’s name was Joe Dotes and the passport was the name of Rathjit Singh or something I would have no way of knowing this. We would check the identifies of the visa applicants uh...both approved and refused, with the State Department’s computer in Washington. And we would uh...type in the name of the person and the date of birth and the place of birth and so forth, the nationality, uh...if we got a hit back we had further questions. But we had no way of knowing if we had a false identity presented for a visa.

00:50:35:15 My staff is very good at routing this out. One fellow, an Indian, brought me a passport [UNINTEL] Mike look at this. And [COUGHING] what am I looking at? He says ‘you see the last page of the passport?’ I said ‘yeah’. ‘Take off your glasses and look real close’ and somebody with a marvelous sense of touch had taken a razor blade and cut out the last page where the visa had been stamped ‘refused’. But you couldn’t see it unless you looked at it almost under a magnifying glass.

00:51:04:20 So you know my staff was good at that. We checked with the State Department. The State Department ran the guy’s name in the file. And as far as the visas that were given out, I resisted this. I had plenty of controls. I looked at the Immigration Act and the State Department regulations and I did not under any circumstances simply say oh yeah, let’s give this guy a visa. Let’s keep America beautiful. So, no. The only problems with the visa process in Jetta was the fact that I was being ordered by government officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants that later turned out to be terrorists.

00:51:51:20 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Paul Thompson, what can you tell us about the oil pipeline negotiations? The oil pipeline negotiations a few weeks before 9/11 with the Taliban, Russia.

00:52:04:01 PAUL THOMPSON: Sure, in my book uh...I have a chapter there called “Pipeline Politics” because this oil is a great big issue and as many of you may be aware there was over negotiations going on for several years regarding Unocal pipeline. There was a gas pipeline. There was an oil pipeline also to go through Afghanistan. Interestingly and Michael Ruppert helped me out on this is that we find that the, the, the estimates of how much oil was in the Caspian Basin that would have gone out through this pipeline was extremely high in the early ‘90s and right around the time of 9/11, by 2002 those numbers had changed dramatically.

00:52:51:19 They found out that so much of that oil actually wasn’t there. That the estimates were wildly off. So I think that early on that was important and as they realized that the oil, you know, that the estimates were shrinking every time they would do a new test you can see that there’s a shift of focus from intense interest in the Caspian region to intense interest in Iraq where they knew that there was a lot of oil. So this you can see the shift especially in 2002.

00:53:25:15 So certainly you know, before 9/11 I think that, that there was some going easy on the Taliban by people in the State Department and other people because they were looking at the oil angle.

00:53:41:05 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Alright, one more with Michael Ruppert?

MAN: Uh...what is the mechanism by which the military inserted blips onto the civilian radar screens?

00:53:51:18 MICHAEL RUPPERT: Specifically in terms of the technology it’s difficult to say. What we do know is that there are several press stories quoting Air Force personnel specifically from the North East Air Defense sector and I believe one was the [UNINTEL]. Most of these came from the Toronto Star. Papers that didn’t publish in the U.S.

00:54:11:06 But what it said was it was quoting interviews with Lieutenant Colonel Dawn Deskins and Colonel Robert Marr of the North East Air Defense sector about how they were wondering if the hijackings were part of the exercise of the drill. And then it says instantly injects are purged from the radar screen. And then it refers later on so what we have is a confirmation that there were actual injects placed on the FAA radar screens that day. Now it’s very interesting parenthetically and I know we’re pressed for time but it’s very important to note that right after I made some presentations about the war games and broke some information about this it was revealed that a supervisor at the FAA headquarters in Rome, New York a North East Air Defense sector had all six air traffic controllers involved on 9/11 sit down and talk about their recollections into a tape recorder that day while it was still fresh. And right after I broke my stories the New York Times reported that that tape was taken by that same supervisor, broken, crushed, the tape was cut into little pieces and scattered through various trashcans.

00:55:19:09 But what I was able to do I think was make a pretty compelling case that it was an absolute torment for all of the air traffic controllers on 9/11 who were literally looking at their screens going my God, which are the hijackings, which is the drill? Where do we send the fighters?

00:55:37:12 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Okay, thank you very much. Let’s show our appreciation to the panelists for a wonderful…


00:56:06:19 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: And I’m sure that the 9/11 truth or and or CitizensWatch is going to make resources available on the internet, on the website.

MAN: There’s lots of it already there.

00:56:18:20 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Beautiful.

00:56:19:02 KYLE HENCE: Okay, please don’t disperse quite yet. I just have a brief announcement. Please stay with us. We have more presenters. This program was originally scheduled to go to 7:00. We may go to 7:30 because we got a late start if you want to stay on. The film that we’ll be showing at 8:00 and at 9:30 is still on. Encourage your friends to come down if you’ve got access to a cell phone.

But we’re going to have refreshments available. The Symphony Space, our host has a stand back there through the doors where you see the exit sign and 911truth.org again is sponsoring the evening showing. So again, after the break which is going to be about 15 minutes we’re going to INDIRA SINGH who blew the whistle on Ptech and she’s going to be exploring terrorist financing and software that was installed in an alphabet soup of government agencies by this company who was financed by a known terrorist financier. So Indira Singh has a PowerPoint presentation that’s going to be presented to us when we come back from break. She will also read from Sidel Edmonds open letter to the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission which she’s essentially violating a gag order that’s been put on her by Attorney General Ashcroft in writing this letter and revealing the details that she does.

00:57:41:09 So please come back for that and then finally we have staff statements from Nick Levis of 911truth.org about the 9/11 Omission Dossier which is available at 911truth.org and finally and this is perhaps the most important folks, what are our options for redress? Where do we go from here? We’ve touched on some of it.


00:58:03:23 What are our options for redress? No seriously. When we really have to focus energy in order to go inside the political system, inside of Congress. Maybe the New York Attorney General. Our options will be put on the…out for you to consider by Carolyn Betts who’s an extraordinary lawyer who has experience across a wide spectrum. So Carolyn Betts will be the last presenter before we go back to your questions. Thank you very much.

Last edited by Elvis on Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:26 am

[p.36 of dump]

9/11 Citizens’ Commission – September 9, 2004
Symphony Space, New York, NY
Developed by 9/11 CitizensWatch & 911truth.org


Indira Singh and more:

00:00:20:21 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We are about to have a presentation from Indira Singh. Is that correct? And TIME, first of the year, years ago, we celebrated [UNINTEL] whistleblowers. And our next presenter falls in that same category. A very courageous woman who saw something wrong, spoke up and tried to right it. So with that we will hear from Indira Singh [OVERLAPPING VOICES].


00:01:12:27 INDIRA SINGH: Thank you.

00:01:12:29 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Indira –

00:01:13:17 WOMAN: Swear her in.

00:01:14:08 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I have to swear you in. [UNINTEL] are so good. Do you swear, Indira, or do you, do you swear – cause I don’t swear, I’m a good southern girl –

00:01:26:12 INDIRA SINGH: I don’t swear [UNINTEL].

00:01:31:00 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: to tell the truth.

00:01:32:10 INDIRA SINGH: To tell the truth [UNINTEL PHRASE].


00:01:42:16 INDIRA SINGH: My name is Indira Singh. I worked at ground zero. I am a volunteer EMT or I was prior to 9/11. And I will tell you my story, the story of Ptech, after I fulfill my duties to Sibel Edmonds and read her statement. So first I would like to take this opportunity to read from Sibel Edmond’s letter to Thomas Kean. I am going to read excerpts from this letter, which is going around the internet, and Sibel is asking everyone if they receive it to forward it on to him with your name and comments. These, these are excerpts from her wonderful letter.

00:02:34:12 Dear Chairman Kean: 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. It has almost, been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11th. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations.

00:03:10:23 After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 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 dependent on FBI headquarters 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.

00:03:56:16 This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue and has foregone any accountability whatsoever and your recommendations have refrained from addressing the rest of this issue which which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences.. Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11th 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.

00:04:39:08 Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI’s targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson 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 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.

00:05:17:07 With the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, she took hun-, 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 9/11 detainees. All of these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management. This case was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

00:05:48:00 Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation then 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 FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has forgone any accountability whatsoever and your recommendations have refrained from addressing these various information security breach, highly likely espionage issue.

00:06:26:10 Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11th terrorist attack, 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 the terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This FBI 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, one, Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities. Number two, the attack was going to involve airplanes. Three, some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States. Four, the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

00:07:22:07 The agent who received this information reported it to their supervisor, a special agent in charge of counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office. 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 of the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General.

00:07:55:09 After almost three years since September 11th, many officials still refuse to admit having specific information regarding the terrorist plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo received months prior to the 9/11 attacks specifically warned FBI headquarters of pilot training and a possible link to terror activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attack the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the use of airplanes, major U.S. cities and Osama bin Laden issuing the order. Coleen Rowley likewise reported that same specific information had been provided to FBI headquarters.

00:08:36:28 Only one month after the catastrophic, catastrophic events of September 11th, while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and to investigate those responsible for the attack, 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 transmission unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information and jeopardizing ongoing terrorist investigations.

00:09:05:16 The supervisor involved with this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important mid-eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office and he had a record of previous misconducts. After the 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 the language unit receiving those chitchats that our color coded threat system is based upon.

00:09:47:18 Yet, your report contained 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 ad-, advancement and security.

00:10:13:26 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 we have 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 describe a cure through hasty and costly measures.

00:10:53:03 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 the infected tooth. Sincerely, Sibel Edmonds


00:11:18:27 INDIRA SINGH: I have spoke with Sibel because what I have uncovered in Ptech connects with some of the things that she has discovered. Sibel is not allowed to disclose content but she can ask me questions. I know some of the things that she mentioned there connect directly to what I discovered. And so it was my pleasure to read Sibel’s letter. Are there any questions? If not I’ll go into my presentation.

00:11:57:09 Now as I said before I’m a New Yorker, I am from ground zero, I lived and worked down there for two years. And around 9/11 I was doing work on Wall Street for a large bank [JP Morgan Chase] and in DC for a DARPA lab which is in a sense advanced research, project agency for project affairs. Therefore, I have connections deep within the government and at high levels in the banking community.

00:12:33:18 I this “The FBI and Ptech: A Case to Answer.” I believe Mike Ruppert has mentioned a couple of things regarding technology capabilities that he believes and has had confirmed were going on during 9/11. I believe that if you listened to his presentation carefully you will begin to connect a lot more dots.

00:13:05:16 For me 9/11 will always be about the 3,000 that we lost there and the shocking truths that we have begun to discover in the troubled years since. Picture here, since it is in our back yard, is one of the final pictures of the south tower right before it came down taken by a neighbor of mine, Ted, who promised he was going to be here today. It’s – ground zero was my back yard. It hit the residents down there very differently than I think it hit people in other, in other cities. My journey of the FBI and Ptech is one that started after 9/11, way after 9/11 but it took me to the White House, two senators’ offices, the Secret Service, the FBI, three connections to organized crime. But first I want to take you to where it did begin for me.

00:14:12:01 On the morning of Sep-, September the 11th I was supposed to be on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center at a risk [technology] conference that a company by the name of Risk Waters was putting on. I was late that morning and in many ways I think that my life was spared and I get to do this today on their behalf. It is my privilege to think that.


00:14:43:04 I, prior to 9/11, was a civilian EMT and when the planes hit I called my job and I said I had just turned into an EMT, changed my clothes and went down to the site. As night fell on September 11th, 2001 I was on triage duty on the edge of the pile. That’s a picture of me at – I think I had been injured at that point, I was not a happy camper, none of us were because we, a lot of us were wondering what our own health was, those of us who were right on the pile were in dire straits.

00:15:20:08 In any case rescue workers transported, were transporting body parts as fast as they could, wherever they could, mainly to the triage sites and they were placing what they found anywhere including on the floor next to me. It was clear to me – sorry I have to make this graphic but the truth – 9/11 has been so sanitized. I think it, it needs to be understood that most had died horrific deaths and we had received evidence of what some had been through on the flights. I made a promise to something I saw there that if anything fell into my lap I would not look the other way. I would do whatever I could to prevent such horror from happening again.

00:16:03:14 After a week I returned fairly injured to what was left of my contaminated neighborhood and my life. I had a good life. I did ‘risk’ at JP Morgan Chase. Just to take a break from all the heavy stuff, what I do is devise a way to monitor everything going on in a very large company to stop big problems from happening. There is that little cloud there and my very bizarre picture of how I think about this problem, I am a person who was merging two disciplines, risk management and something called enterprise architecture, which is fairly esoteric. But at the end of the day we seek to prevent large problems from happening anywhere in a large global enterprise.

00:16:50:17 At JP Morgan I was working on the next generation risk blueprint which is all about how to prevent these things from happening, bad business practice such a money laundering, rogue trading and massive computer failures, anything you could imagine would go wrong. I had a lot of leeway consulting as a senior risk architect, to think out of the box and actually get my ideas implemented. I was funded out of a strategic fund, I reported to the Directors and I was pretty happy. JP Morgan thought very highly of me and they were thinking of funding, in conjunction with my project in D.C., the next generation of risk software.

00:17:29:09 What I needed to do, what I did . . . was a really smart piece of software, really, really smart. Its job would be to think about all the information. And this is where the, this is where you may connect the dots. The job of this software was to think about all the information that represented what was going in the enterprise at any given time as bank business was being transacted worldwide. For example, it would, it would be a surveillance software that would look at trading patterns that indicated someone was up to no good and then do something about it, send a message somewhere, send a transaction information somewhere, perhaps shut their system down, perhaps shut another system down, perhaps start something up elsewhere.

00:18:22:00 This kind of capability is very, very essential in today’s world. However, this kind of software is not found in Microsoft or not even in IBM. A small group of very esoteric software companies make this kind of enterprise software and it is very pricey. So you can’t afford to pick wrong and I asked all my colleagues who were industry gurus what would they recommend for this. My buddies recommended Ptech. And my buddies in JP Morgan were also evaluating Ptech. And why not Ptech? What you see on the screen is a list, is a very prestigious list of Ptech’s clients.

00:19:06:10 Ptech is a very small software company located in Quincy, Massachusetts.
They put out this kind of software product that I was talking about and it has an artificial intelligence core. Ptech assured me that they had something called clearances so I figured there’d be no problem getting them cleared to come into JP Morgan Chase, to evaluate our very confidential risk plans for the future, how we would stop money laundering, for instance.IBM told me that they were planning on making Ptech a special global partner. With IBM standing next to the small vendor Ptech I was pretty excited that I was on the right track.

00:19:45:06 There was no problem getting Ptech cleared through security to come visit and talk serious business. They were with me for 20 minutes before I suspected something was not right. So I called my colleagues. They told me to talk to ex-Ptech and Ptech employees right away. But they told me something even more ominous. They said, “Do not let them out of your sight and don’t let them take anything from the bank.” So, with Ptech people standing still feet away from me they told me hair raising story of Ptech’s myriad connections to terrorism.

00:20:24:00 First, the person you see in this picture, who was placed on the U.S. terror list in October 2001, his name is Yassin Al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman. That’s the one arrow was pointing towards. I thought these people were kidding or they were setting up a play for Ptech’s business with JP Morgan. I insisted on proof and documentation. I went to two states to collect it including this and other pictures. I also spoke with the Boston FBI where they said they had reported this nine months earlier, just weeks after the attack. This was the end of May 2002.

00:21:02:25 At the very same time I am discovering this about Ptech, because their meeting with me and JP Morgan Chase was at the end of May, at the very same time, on May 30th, 2002, Agent Robert Wright of the Chicago FBI at a congressional hearing appeared on the steps of the Capital and burst into tears apologizing to the 9/11 families stating his investigation into terrorism financing had been repeatedly shut down and he had been censured for pushing it. Actually his investigation was exactly into Yassin Al-Qadi who he called bin Laden’s banker. Wright’s investigation was shut down in the late 90s. He stated that if he had been able to continue and shut down the funding to al Qaeda, 9/11 may not have happened. His original quote was it would not have happened.

00:21:52:04 When you show up to work in line of sight of ground zero and shake hands with some group the FBI agent said had financed it, what exactly is the playbook? For me something big has fallen into my lap. I had to make some decisions. Agent Wright said his investigation into the founders and financiers of Ptech and their financing shell, something called BMI, was also shut down. BMI stands for – sorry, go back here –

00:22:56:14 INDIRA SINGH: Well BMI, which is in the first column, stands for “Bait ul Mal,” which later turned out to be a front for Hamas and al Qaeda. Little interesting point here. Governor Kean did a $24 million land deal with a sub [SIC – Subsidiary] of BMI, three percent of which the commission went back to BMI. And around the same time some of his New Jersey citizens were being blown up in Israel. I do not say that allegedly because this has been reported in the Department of Treasury report which has fallen into my hands.

00:23:37:26 The people who started BMI are exactly the same who started Ptech and, in fact, the chief scientist is the one I shook hands with when they came down to JP Morgan Chase. In fact he was the one who made me suspicious based on some behavior that he was exhibiting at JP Morgan. In addition there were references to a recent raid in Herndon, Virginia, a key target of which was Yaqub Mirza and his many organizations that were accused of being terror charity fronts to al Qaeda. Jaqub Mirza was on the board of Ptech. I demanded proof of that and got it. So far we are up to three names. But wait, there’s more.

00:24:20:27 I went down to meet a group of the Ptech and ex-Ptech employees in Virginia. I wanted to see them face to face and have them tell me this horrific story to my face and have them write down in their own hands what they were telling me and to provide documentation. And they did. I asked the Boston FBI to send me something that was proof this company had the terrorism connections they claimed it did and the person there did. The Ptech employees kept going on. They kept drawing diagrams for three or four days until I was convinced this was something out of a Tom Clancy novel.

00:25:07:22 If what indeed they were saying was true, this company needed to be stopped now before they did damage elsewhere. By the time they were finishing all their diagrams there were 17 names linked to terror. The glaring question was why wasn’t Ptech shut down? Was there an ongoing investigation? Did the FBI just not get it? Was someone being protected? What do you do when the Boston FBI tells you, “Indira you are in a better position than I am to get real documentation on the situation with Ptech, so please keep doing what you’re doing.” Who do you call?

00:25:47:10 I brought everything back, sat down and thought about what it could mean. And I drew this diagram. I did know that Ptech had been in the FAA and that was the most serious place the most serious accusation of all. I called my friends in intelligence and law enforcement. I spoke to the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and the New York Police Department Counterterrorism Unit from JP Morgan Chase’s buildings. I laid out what I had to them and I asked them if I was going insane or was there any truth to this. I asked them what I should do.

00:26:25:03 The Ptech people said they were being followed and that they thought I was. One of them in particular told me that I was in danger, that they were in danger and they were going to leave the country with their kids. I asked the JTTF if they could arrange protection for us. They said yes but later backed off. I went to the CIA with the chief information officer of JP Morgan Chase to turn my story over to the top three people who run the bank. Then he said the general auditor and his staff wanted to have a word with me. As a consolation prize as I left his office he told me the FBI at the highest level had validated the entire story as I laid it out.

00:27:05:01 So what happened next is I went to the principal’s office? The general auditor and his group of security people, the ones with the uniforms, grilled me as though I was the terrorist and did their intimidation routine. It was not as severe as Sibel [Edmonds] went through but it was pretty bad to the point where I left and contacted an investigative reporting team in Boston that the Boston FBI had used when they were looking for some terrorists right after 9/11. Just in case I should go missing I wanted to have someone in the media to have note of that.

00:27:43:10 The name of the person there is Joe Bergantino and he knows that I am speaking to you about this today. He is from the mainstream media and I’m here to tell you that he went through hell and almost lost his career pushing this--there are some very good people in mainstream media.

00:28:02:14 In any case, back up to the general auditor who threatened me in no uncertain terms. I looked out the window to ground zero and back at him and I asked him if this is about Saudi money flowing through the bank. He turned his eyes away and said, “We’ve made a lot of mistakes.” However, he told me that if I mentioned Ptech again there would be no place for me in the bank. I had gone from being a person who could do no wrong, who was politically protected there, to someone who was about to get thrown out. My colleague in the business commiserated but said, “Indira, everybody knew what Ptech was about.” Well I didn’t, and sure has heck 3,000 didn’t.

00:28:47:26 Ptech was eventually raided on December 6th, 2002. Here’s the story of how that happened. When I was thrown out of JP Morgan Chase at the end of June no one would have anything to do with me. But I was sure if we kept the investigation going the good boys in the FBI would finally raid Ptech and all would be well because what had happened is that the I-Team had commissioned an investigation in Washington, D.C. to verify the story I laid out to them. Not only had it been verified, they called me in July and said everything I had put on the table was correct and it was worse than I had laid out.

00:29:27:16 They were going to air the Ptech story nationwide and the lead story in the first year anniversary of 9/11 with me in the story. There were many other networks that had gotten wind of it and all the networks were going to run the Ptech story on the first year anniversary. However, the White House got wind of the investigation – I have proof of that – and shut the story down in late August. Around the anniversary, the first year anniversary, ‘persons of interest’ were seen leaving Ptech and the country. No raids. By November I wrote a report and threatened to send it to 10 defense agencies or wait until something was done.

00:30:05:16 Finally Ptech was raided on a Friday in December. But when Ari Fleischer said there was nothing wrong with Ptech I became persona non grata, blacklisted everywhere. We went to Senator Grassley’s office who created an FBI/Ptech file. I was debriefed at a national threat assessment center at the Secret Service, who by the way was a client of Ptech. And they asked me whether Ptech was the same as PROMIS. I knew better than to answer that and I told them, “You have copy of this software, you tell me.”

00:30:41:26 References to clandestines also in operation at Ptech have been made by a credible intelligence agency. Any time we attempt to write the truth behind this, we get, the people who are writing truth are getting sued. The Kean Commission does not mention Ptech at all.


00:31:03:00 INDIRA SINGH: I did a number of things in my research and when I ran into the drugs I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me. That is a current threat that I’m under and therefore I will speak out about the drugs at another forum.

00:31:21:14 I did not expect the Kean Commission to go anywhere near the FBI and Ptech. But I hope all Americans will demand answers regarding the FBI and Ptech. I would like to leave you with this one question. Not only why is Ptech still operating but why did Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff state that they cannot differentiate between terrorism, organized crime and drug dealing and is that the reason the Kean Commission will not make terrorism financing a priority in the future? Thank you.


00:32:17:01 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Thank you, Indira. Kyle can we have you come up here with the updated program because I just want to know if there’s Q&A right now or if we can wait for, for the last speaker? Okay.

00:32:36:16 COMMISSIONER BOB McILVAINE: Could you just explain to me before 9/11 – I sort of missed it – the FBI agent, when did he know what Ptech was involved in, you said that he could have stopped 9/11 and I’m [UNINTEL].

00:32:52:11 INDIRA SINGH: Yes. Agent Robert Wright had been following, Yasin Al-Qadi actually since 1992 and ’94 and for [UNINTEL] shut down. They knew of his terrorism financing. His investigation in 1998 was shut down in 1999 and he was threatened with the office of professional responsibility or review.

00:33:17:13 BOB McILVAINE: Another thing, the, the PROMIS [software]. Everyone, you were talking about that earlier about the put options. Now CIA has an automatic safeguard for PROMIS where they check any unusual trading so it automatically gets into a CIA file. So that Ptech is, could possibly have been involved with the PROMIS and that’s what made it [UNINTEL] for that or . . .?

00:33:40:03 INDIRA SINGH: Ptech was with Mitre [Corporation] in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA, that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything it would have been Ptech along with Mitre. And that ties right back to Michael Ruppert’s information.

00:34:12:09 CHAIRWOMAN CYNTHIA McKINNEY: That’s where I’d like to perhaps take you. Now first of all, in the beginning of your presentation you mentioned DARPA. Could you, just go back and refresh for me what your relationship is or was with DARPA.

00:34:26:11 INDIRA SINGH: I’m a senior consultant. There was a small company called the Interoperability Clearing House, the abbreviation is ICH. They are a DARPA funded company. DARPA is a Defense Advanced Research Project Agency think tank and they fund interesting technologies out there. The particular project that I was working on had to do with interoperability of software and information. It was artificial intelligence based. Incutel, the CIA’s IT seeking arm was holding funding hearings, actually the funding hearing was being held on 9/12. That’s what I was doing there. I wanted to use that software for risk. So after 9/12 they decided not to fund it which is why I was back looking for things like Ptech.

00:35:15:09 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Now tell me what the exact relationship is between your information on Ptech and Ruppert’s, Mike Ruppert’s ability to trace actions directly to the Secrect Service and the Vice-President’s office.

00:35:42:09 INDIRA SINGH: The [OVERLAPPING VOICES]. The functionality that Michael is claiming that Dick Cheney utilized is the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize Ptech for in the bank. I was looking to set up a shadow surveillance system on everything going on, every transaction and the ability to backdoor, [to] look at information unobtrusively and to backdoor intelligent agents out there to do things that other people would not be aware of. To stop… in risk the whole shift is from bad things going on and finding it after the fact to preventing it from happening. So we were looking for patterns and have the intervention in there. So we were looking for interventive software, something that would stop. What Mike Ruppert is referring to is exactly the same kind of functionality…surveillance and intervention.

00:36:44:24 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: You gave us photographs of the founders of Ptech and you also showed us their clients, which included if – and my eyes are not the best without my glasses – but it looked like I saw the seal of the House of Representatives, the seal of the United States Senate. Um . . .


00:37:17:07 INDIRA SINGH: The Executive Office of the President.

00:37:19:11 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well is it a client, the Secret Service?

00:37:21:09 INDIRA SINGH: The Department of Navy, the Air Force, NATO, ENRON, Mitre the FBI and, and it goes on. That’s just partial.

00:37:29:28 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Right. So now my question is who’s founder and who’s client?

00:37:34:03 INDIRA SINGH: When I was in Senator Grassley’s office, um – you ask a very good question – I said to them, “Am I citizen of the United States or United Saudi States of America?”


00:37:54:15 INDIRA SINGH: And if you don’t like the way I’m going to speaking then leave. Two people got up and left. I said that my trip, my Ptech journey was a journey from the Whitey Bulger ‘tent’ in Boston to the White ‘tent’ in D.C. Somebody else left. But I believe that unless you throw this right in their face and speak very honestly . . . they will not get it that you know what’s going on.

00:38:29:10 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I hear your answer or your response but I don’t know if that is question or maybe my question doesn’t –

00:38:36:14 INDIRA SINGH: I, I apologize.

00:38:39:09 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I think I will hand the microphone over to my co-commissioner for a few questions.

00:38:52:03 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Sure. Two things I made a comment in the beginning that when you come to deep political relationships, the idea of nation state sort of gets fuzzy and loses meaning. Would you agree with that?

00:39:08:29 INDIRA SINGH: Now I understand Cynthia’s questions. Who, who’s really behind PTECH is the questions. I asked that of many intelligence people who came to my aid as I was being blacklisted and I was told, “Indira, it is a CIA clandestine op on the level of Iran-Contra.” And I have reason to believe this because Care International that was mentioned in one of the slides is a renamed version of Alkhifah which was the funding arm for WTC ’93. Prior to Alkhifah it was called Maktab Al-Khidamat, which is the funding arm for the Afghani Mujahideen. It was how the monies got to Osama bin Laden through the Pakistani ISI.

00:39:57:17 I asked the FBI in Boston how come Mak [Maktab Al-Khidamat] was being run out of Ptech and 9/11 and that gibed with a lot of what intel was telling me that is the CIA front; just shut up and go away. At that level I said, well why doesn’t the FBI take advantage of their celebrated differences with the CIA and I was told because at that level they work together.


00:40:34:00 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Indira, you seemed really eager to go into some angle with drugs and I had to cut you off to save time. Can you do so in about 60 seconds. Just your thesis about what drugs have to do with what you are talking about.

00:40:46:07 INDIRA SINGH: It’s more than a thesis. Joe Bergantino when Ptech fell into his lap, they paid for private investigators to follow a couple of the Ptech people and it did go to a mob run warehouse area. And the reports came back that, that basically it was a drop shipment place for drugs. That was turned over to the Boston FBI. Two weeks ago Joe told, you know, what do you do in this country when all this information’s source data documents going to a big black hole in the FBI.

00:41:20:23 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’ve got a really scary question to ask about when I go back to congress but I [UNINTEL]. [LAUGHTER] It’s really scary. I want to bring Mike Ruppert in who wants to add a few points to what you’re saying.


00:41:58:28 MIKE RUPPERT: A great question to ask and it’s in crossing the room can I have one whole chapter on PROMIS. PROMIS which stands for Prosecutor’s Management Information System, P R O M I S, which was its original name in the early 1980s, appears in about – I have 32 chapters in the book – and PROMIS appears in probably 11 of them. Now what Cynthia was asking and what you were talking about – and to illustrate the case there’s another company that you are astutely familiar with called DynCorp.


00:42:31:16 Which has been very closely connected – I wrote a major expose on PROMIS in October 2000 after the National Security staff of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police came to ask me questions about how their PROMIS software got compromised. The story’s on the From the Wilderness website. But DynCorp aside from being everywhere doing everything possibly dirty, DynCorp also operates the telephone systems for the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. The billing records are maintained by an Israeli company called AMDOCS, which monitors every phone call placed, every bill, every time, the duration of every call, who made the call, etc., etc., etc.

00:43:12:26 We know that DynCorp has profits – and this is where I truly wish our dear friend in common, Catherine Austin Fitts, were here today because I would speak this on her behalf because she was my teacher on this. What we see is that all these government agencies as a result of PROMIS and PROMIS progeny, PROMIS enhanced versions with artificial intelligence being in the hand of private corporations, has turned the entirety of the United States government into a franchised feeding trough for the benefit of private corporations. The government belongs to private corporations when you consider –


00:43:55:01 …that another company known to have PROMIS, aside from DynCorp, is Lockheed Martin, on whose board of directors sat Lynne Cheney, the Vice President’s wife. She was also in the PEOC, Presidential Emergency Operations Center, with her husband on the morning of 9/11. How did she get in? She didn’t hold a government office. But if you consider the two companies, Lockheed Martin and DynCorp control all the financial auditing of the Department of Defense, the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and about 10 other departments in the U.S. government and the fact that the Pentagon has lost, quote, unquote, $3.3 trillion of your money to the accounting system that they refuse to account for. The money just disappeared. That also is PROMIS software in action.

00:44:42:17 All of these agencies are not only compromised. It was a great terminology, you, you called it surveillance and –


00:44:51:01 MIKE RUPPERT: Intervention. That’s a great word for going in the back door, stealing the money, moving the money around. You know, and I do mean everything they can do. This software allows the compromise – no wonder you can’t trust the government. I’m sure that I’ve spoken noth-, I know other members of congress, I actually do. I’ve spoken to many other members of congress, and this member here who will be back –


00:45:20:22 Was not the only one to have told me, “We don’t know how secure our data is. We don’t know who’s listening to our phone calls. I can’t trust anything, I can’t talk in my office.” Now that’s the government you’re dealing with and you, you and I may really cause some serious trouble if we talk for five minutes. But this woman is amazing.


00:45:51:00 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: . . . this very petite woman who is, has just, I mean, she’s just exploded this information onto us and so, there are a couple of questions about security that you guys [the audience] passed on and definitely anything those of us who have been treated in similar vein need to stick together.

00:46:15:15 INDIRA SINGH: That’s very important. Silence is betrayal.


00:46:29:27 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: It’s frightening.

00:46:36:28 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Yes, questions. Questions. People from the audience who have questions.

00:46:46:10 WOMAN: What did Grassley say?

00:46:48:06 INDIRA SINGH: Senator Grassley assigned me a Secret Service agent and, um –

00:46:54:05 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Assigned you?

00:46:55:02 INDIRA SINGH: Yes. Assigned me a Secret Service agent to investigate the FBI’s bungling into Ptech and what was really going on. Charlie [Bopp] hung out with me for, until the anniversary last year when I told him I had stumbled onto the drugs and that they were giving a free pass to all those affiliated with terror financing for 9/11. And, that my promise to him to go away until they could clean up the mess was no longer on the table. We had a very, very in depth exchange where he basically broke down and admitted a lot of things to me which I probably need to tell Cynthia in private.

00:47:42:28 But it, he corroborated, he said it’s all corrupt, it’s all corrupt, yes. When I challenged on the 20 redacted pages and [OVERLAPPING VOICES] he said, “You’re right, you’ve got it right.” So . . .

00:47:57:20 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Is there someone who has collected the questions. Oh, you’ve got a microphone now.

00:48:05:27 MAN: I’m Nico Haupt aka Ewing2001, I’m with INN World Report. We’re also doing a great event on September 11th. Please check out the Village Voice to find information. I would like to go back to your conclusion on Ptech. I also investigated them from 2002 but only from 50% of what you found out I think that is clearly an indication it’s a CIA front, especially if you look into the board of directors of Booz & Hamiltoon where you see James Woolsey, ex-CIA but also Mitre which operates basicly as an unofficial front for years. So I would like to hear a kind of final statement if you see it either as a cover front for terror organizations – cause I think it’s a cover to just come to the conclusion they could provide information for terrorists than you provide somehow the official [UNINTEL] that were leaking out to terror organizations when in reality the U.S. government founding or implementing them.

00:49:06:11 INDIRA SINGH: I think it’s evidence, I think you’re right. I think that the terror economy is being used by the political economy in place and the [UNINTEL]. And yours and my, our currency is the U.S. dollar, their currency is drugs. I stumbled into the drugs for weapons deals. This is no different than Iran-Contra. In fact the same names that were around there are affiliated with Ptech. The same illegal clandestines are affiliated behind the scenes with Ptech.

00:49:42:23 HAUPT (follow-up): Now you also investigated Yassin Al-Qadi cause he’s also more a government [UNINTEL] than just for the Golden Chain; he’s both Bin Laden and government there is a big cover-up of his business.

00:49:55:01 INDIRA SINGH: Yes.

00:49:55:19 MAN: He has a big cover for this business. So . . .

00:49:58:05 INDIRA SINGH: Yasin Al-Qadi’s on the same level as Raaji and Khalid Bin Mahfouz. He is on the same level of importance in Saudi Arabia.

00:50:06:28 MAN: [UNINTEL] we’ve got two minutes. So, next question.

00:50:09:24 MAN: Is there a connection between this software and the old INSLAW software?

00:50:15:10 INDIRA SINGH: The old INSLAW is PROMIS. Ptech is actually a more sophisticated version. It’s a place in – Ptech at its heart is, is software that builds other software with such capability so it’s a more agile, adaptable version of it.

00:50:31:06 MAN: Thank you. Next question.

00:50:32:07 MAN: To shift a little, I’d like to ask Representative McKinney what teeth will this particular commission have in the end on righting things with corruption in the governement as it is today. [UNINTEL PHRASE].

00:50:48:29 MAN: Can we save that for – there’ll be a next one to manage of [UNINTEL]


00:50:53:02 MAN: And then, then I promised Ron [NAME (?)] will address that.

00:50:55:22 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’ll just say –


00:50:58:04 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Carol, Carolyn Betts is going to give a presentation after we finish with Ms. Singh. And that will exactly be her subject matter.

00:51:07:06 MAN: Indira, Michael Kane I had the pleasure of coincidentally running into you down at ground zero on one of our truth vigils. Um, so having, I’ve been looking at your work and mainstream coverage of it. My question is that to my understanding I believe some of your information, well documented litigation quality information, made its way into some law suits. I’m not sure if that’s true or not. I just wanted to know if that’s true. And I also was under the impression that some of that was tied up so there’s things you can’t talk about. Plus the law suits actually tie that information up and you’re not allowed to go forward.

00:51:41:26 And I just want to follow up to that. Are you going to be releasing a book or can you release a book? Or is this information tied up [UNINTEL]?

00:51:48:23 INDIRA SINGH: Um, I am going to do my best to make sure that the information on Ptech doesn’t get tied up in litigation. The litigation referred to the fact that my apartment at ground zero is contaminated and my lungs are damaged and all of that stuff. But I have been looking for a whistleblower attorney to sue JP Morgan for what they’ve done.


00:52:19:22 MAN: We’ve got to pause for a break.

00:52:21:24 WOMAN: I find this presentation very explosive and I would like, like I cannot contain much of what I’m hearing now. This hearing [OVERLAPPING VOICES] I can, I can read something, you know. And look, tell me all you know I won’t tell. [LAUGHTER]

00:52:38:16 INDIRA SINGH: You can go to the 911CitizenWatch.org website and it will have my presentation, a separate press release that goes into far more detail than this. And, in terms of a book, Penguin said they could not publish my book because they could not guarantee the safety. So I’m going to keep on knocking on doors.

00:53:02:16 WOMAN: Okay, so go to CitizensWatch for the time being. [UNINTEL].

00:53:04:26 INDIRA SINGH: Yes.

00:53:08:18 WOMAN: First of all I’d like to thank everybody for this commission today. Second of all I would like to ask is there any links in your investigation of Ptech, the investigations of Ellen Mariani, Bank of Credit and Commerce, which has also been under investigation for 10 years I believe for drug operations?

00:53:28:21 INDIRA SINGH: Oh the good ‘ole BCCI, Bank of Crooks and Criminals Incorporated, absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up. That was something I omitted. Yes, it was a CIA clandestine operation and, yes, it’s . . .

00:53:43:02 WOMAN: Is there a linkage with Carlyle?

00:53:45:24 INDIRA SINGH: Oh.


00:53:48:20 INDIRA SINGH: Yes, absolutely. And to think the saddest thing about Carlyle is watch their, their offshore Cayman Island shells that they’re setting up now with other middle eastern countries. In other words, folks, the same thing is still going on. The terror economy is alive and well, being exploited against us.

00:54:08:06 WOMAN: And tax free.

00:54:13:14 MAN: Tom?

00:54:14:29 KYLE HENCE: How’s everybody feeling on – we were going to take a break but we’re –


00:54:20:02 KYLE HENCE: We’re going to keep going –


00:54:28:00 MAN: Okay, we’re going to [UNINTEL] right now. Thanks very, very much. Indira Singh –


00:55:00:25 MAN: . . . to tell this story for, for months and she’s been dealing with health issues because she worked for weeks at ground zero as a volunteer for the emergency medical technicians and she’s just – this heroic effort that she’s undertaken there. And that every clap, every – this amount of applause was very, very deserved. Okay, we’d like to bring out our next witness. Actually in this case a staff statement from Nick Levis. Nick is a co-founder of New York 9/11 Truth and he’s on the staff of 9/11 Truth.org [UNINTEL] he’s run a national campaign organization, that he launched, a few months ago.

00:55:36:28 So Nick’s going to give us his overview of, the omissions, the discrepancies. he’s been working and compiling the 9/11 Commission dot dossier and which is going to be posted, part of it’s already posted on 9/11 Truth.org. So I’ll let Nick tell you the rest. So give a round of applause for Nick Levis.


00:56:19:12 NICK LEVIS: Like a lot of things that’s not quite finished. Thank you very much. Actually I am going to talk about this omissions dossier and, a little bit about the [UNINTEL].


00:56:35:24 NICK LEVIS: I’m sorry.

00:56:36:05 MAN: . . . sworn in.

00:56:37:18 NICK LEVIS: Oh.

00:56:38:09 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’ve been totally be doing these, um, getting relaxed my duty, I [UNINTEL] my job. Um, but he’s a part of the staff of the commission.


00:56:52:27 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Oh, so he’s the Phil Zelikow of [LAUGHTER OBSCURES]. Okay. Do you swear to tell us the whole truth.

00:57:03:10 NICK LEVIS: As I know it.



00:57:10:04 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We’ll take that as a yes.

00:57:16:25 NICK LEVIS: I’m going to begin with a bit of full disclosure because I don’t want to be like Phil Zelikow. I don’t know – does anyone know who Phil Zelikow is [UNINTEL].


00:57:26:27 NICK LEVIS: Okay. And I guess you know Condoleezza Rice and they co-authored a book together. So the man who was running the investigation and deciding what evidence was going to be seen, was also best buddies with the woman who played the star witness. And so, just imagine that situation in a trial. Judge and the star witness are best friends. That’s, that’s not even news, it’s not even covered. Tonight I’m going to speak on behalf of 9/11 Truth.org which is the co-sponsor of these 9/11 Omissions Hearings along with 9/11 CitizensWatch.

00:00:04:05 NICK LEVIS: …We are not giving up on the truth. We’ve been at Ground Zero since the beginning of the year holding a vigil every week on Saturdays to show all the countless thousands who pass by this hallowed ground that we are not giving up and you know what we’ve found in front of the PATH Station. We are not alone. NY wants the truth. We all know it’s a question of justice for the fallen. And I have to say more than this it’s a question whether Democracy can prevail and whether there will be justice or war on this planet. Our feeling is, was, all along, that more and more people in this city, some of us thought most in this city and many people in the country are not accepting the official story of 9/11, that was always strong and we got a big confirmation of that two weeks ago with the publication of the representative poll of New York State residents and City residents by Zogby. Half of the people in New York City itself believe that high officials knew that the September 11th attacks were coming and consciously failed to take action. Consciously failed. One half of New York City. But this was also 41 percent of the people upstate which may tell us something about what people think in, in this country as a whole. And 66 percent of the city are calling for a new criminal investigation by the New York State Attorney’s Office. What is making…


00:00:30:06 What was making you all think that? And why haven’t you heard about what you think and apparently what half of the people in this city think on the news? You’re left to talk with your neighbors aren’t you? I hope you will and I hope you will be joining this effort. ny9/11truth is holding meetings every week. Every Thursday and on this next Thursday we’re going to hold a roundtable on what we can do to get out the information that you’ve been hearing here today and to break the 9/11 cover-up.

00:00:57:25 Again, you can find out the details of this at the program site which is summeroftruth.org. That’s where the New York events go up. And it’s still summer folks. And I think we should just keep it summer for the rest of this year until November 2nd and beyond.

00:01:13:08 I hope you excuse me for having begun with all this information about groups and coming events because as I said I’m going to give you full disclosure. I am involved in this issue and I hope you will get involved, actively. 9/11 Truth is not only about 9/11. It is about truth. It is about who gets to define reality. It is about whether we will be the perpetual victims in a world governed by lies.

00:01:39:24 911truth.org, as the name says, is a website. It’s just one effort among many by literally hundreds of researchers, writers, activists, truth seekers to unite and to make a coherent and strong case for reopening a criminal investigation into the events of September 11th. This is task that has unfortunately fallen on the citizens of this nation because our government has, not for the first time, failed us entirely. I believe in conscientious research. But I don’t believe in mincing words.

00:02:11:02 The 9/11 Commission was a farce. The investigation…


00:02:17:26 Now you all know that the investigation that, that the Executive Director was you know a high official in both Bush administrations. But beyond that you know, I assume you all have heard about Max Cleland as well who was Commissioner until last December. Who here knows, who here remembers how he resigned and what he said before he resigned? He said ‘Bush is scamming America’. He said ‘every day we find out this government knew more about these terrorists in advance than it has ever admitted’. He said these things to the New York Times, to the Washington Post and to Salon.com and there they stayed. They were not picked up by the other mass media.

00:03:06:16 He said all this in October or November of 2003 and then he didn’t show up for the next hearings. Soon after this Bush, who is scamming America according to Max Cleland, appointed him to head the export/import bank. And he took that appointment and since then he hasn’t been talking about this anymore. So I think that is a big red flag. How is it possible that this isn’t a news story?

00:03:41:19 For three years hundreds of researchers have been gathering evidence that contradicts the official story. They have been networking. They have created great resources like the complete 9/11 timeline and cooperative research network. I think Paul Thompson who spoke here before has done a great job of bringing that together. But he’ll be the first to tell you it’s thanks to volunteer energy and information sharing. And that goes for the movement. It runs on volunteer energy and information sharing.

00:04:05:20 Right now all the people around 911truth.org are in the process of sorting enormous amounts of information into a form that can serve as the basis for complaints to reopen the case of September 11th. For something that we can take to people like the State Attorney’s office. We are creating an online resource called the 9/11 Omissions Dossier and we want to organize the best bodies of evidence pointing to the complicity in the attacks by our own government.

00:04:30:13 So the time here today I was trying to go in to even summarize this encyclopedic subject. The best I can give you is a set of starter questions and I can encourage you to go study and judge for yourself and to get out there, speak with your neighbors about these points.

00:04:45:23 Even this list might be overwhelming that I’m going to give you in the next two minutes. My advice is don’t let that stop you. It’s up to you to make it clear to the people around you what’s really going on. What motive can people in a government possibly have to allow or even be involve in an attack like September 11th on their own people? If I had to summarize it in one word that word would be ‘trillions’. Trillions of dollars have changed their course because of September 11th. Who benefited? Who had the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq both in full preparation before September 11th? Would the American people have supported either? Isn’t that evidence of advance preparation for a turnaround in the national mood that had not yet arrived?

00:05:28:23 Bush had complete war plans for Afghanistan on his desk on September 9th and the source for that is Condoleeza Rice in May 2002. Where was the [UNINTEL] where was the cause for war? That’s just a bit of the big picture. If you start looking at the details you see that the top four men in the U.S. Military chain of command; Bush, Rumsfeld, General Myers and General Winfield, all went missing during the actual period of the attacks. You all know by now about Bush staying in the Florida school for no reason. He thought it was more important to hear the story of a pet goat than to act in any way on his authority as the Commander in Chief. But what people don’t realize often was that Rumsfeld had a disappearing attack until after the attacks were over as did Myers, as did General Winfield of the National Military Command Center.

00:06:16:29 If it happens with one of them it might be a failure of nerve. When does it become a pattern? The nation’s air defense system failed to follow standard operating procedure for intercepting planes. Since then conflicting timelines and accounts have been presented by NORAD which is the North American Airspace Defense Command and the FAA and finally by the Kean Commission.

00:06:39:20 The official story keeps changing and we can document that in excruciating detail. These are points that you can take home with you and use with you know, people around you who are doubting. Because you can show them exactly the document, the documentation of this. Isn’t anyone going to be held accountable for issuing false accounts? Is it possible that the government and officials can just change the story every year and never need to be worried? They never need to worry that it will be noticed. How long are we going to take this. I think I have very little else to say at this point.

00:07:16:16 You know I can go on with a long list of unanswered questions about September 11th and you’ve heard plenty of it. I think at this point it’s up to you. I keep saying this. It’s up to you to go out there and learn everything you can about this issue and find ways to speak to the people around you about it because that’s the medium that we have that’s in our own hands. Thank you.


00:07:45:24 Sorry. I hope we’re all staying tonight for the film. Although that won’t be a pay event but this is going to be a fantastic film by Barrie Zwicker, “The Great Conspiracy” 8:00 o’clock. And you know if you’ve got one of these you can still bring friends over. So take it out and use it. Thank you very much.


00:08:14:05 KYLE HENCE: Okay, the chair has informed me that she would like to have…

00:08:19:08 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Oh, so now it’s the chair doing the informing. [UNINTEL].



00:08:31:15 KYLE HENCE: There’s always extenuating circumstances. So we’re going to invite John Judge who presented earlier on the 9/11 Omission Report that he’s working on that we’re going to release as a book. We even have our ISDN line…I’m sorry ISBN ready. So John Judge please come back out. Then we’re going to invite Carolyn Betts for a staff statement.


00:08:53:04 Carolyn’s going to address our, our options for redress and how would we…where do we go from here and what options do we have in the courts, Congress and so on? So, let’s see….Would you begin just by giving a little bit of background about yourself and [UNINTEL].

00:09:19:02 CAROLYN BETTS: Instead of starting the shark story .... [I’m an attorney.] I just want to say something about the unsung heroes in this story. And my son is one of the heroes. He was three years old when I started getting involved in a whistleblower action and he’s 10 years old now. And coming after Indira is really quite moving. I wonder if some of you think, “what can ordinary citizens like us do?” And here’s what I want to tell you.

00:09:56:15 The most isolating thing you can imagine is being out front and having your friends and your family be afraid to be near you. And [they] say “don’t call me because men in black cars come near me [when you do].” And to see what you say on the telephone appear in court documents two days later. I have to tell you, Dyncorp is a subcontractor to the Alexandria, Virginia Department of Children and and Families. I got a Child Protective Services complaint anonymously filed involving my son who was pulled out of school and he’s told not to talk to strangers. He was pulled out of school without anyone telling him who the strange woman was who took him into a room and started asking him about his mother, who is his only parent.

00:10:47:24 And soon thereafter I left Washington and I just want to say what you can do is support the people who are willing to stand up and risk everything that they have.


00:11:08:07 Understand that when you ask for an attorney to help you, that the attorney might never work again. Just understand that this is a dangerous business and that people who stand up have consequences in their lives. And some of these people decide not to have children for that reason. For some reason I guess I wasn’t bright enough to do that. I didn’t get into the business until after I already had one. But anyway…

00:11:39:04 MAN: Carolyn? Can I read the bio that Catherine helped you prepare? Just to establish your bona fides. Carolyn Betts is an attorney who over the past eight years has developed a specialty in the legal aspects of economic and spiritual warfare involving the U.S. government and major government contractors in the U.S. Black Budget. Her practice initially concentrated on securities and real estate law and she became a partner in the corporate finance department in a Washington D.C. based law firm in 1993.

00:12:11:06 When an age discrimination case brought by a family member against the Ohio PERS resulted in an adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling, she lobbied and testified before both Houses of Congress in connection with the ultimate adoption of the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act, which codified regulations struck down by the Supreme Court. In 1995 she became a senior banker at the Hamilton Securities Group, Incorporated when that firm served as a lead financial advisor to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That’s the connection with Catherine Austin Fitts.

00:12:42:29 She continued on as general counsel of Hamilton after its government contract was terminated. Its offices were seized by the FBI, and the company became the target of a subpoena enforcement action and a secret sealed “reverse whistleblower” lawsuit brought by a government-backed informant as an apparent attempt to cover up improper and illegal activities in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

00:13:06:07 Currently she provides legal and consulting services to a start-up investment advisory company founded by Catherine Austin Fitts. Catherine is CEO of Hamilton and continues to be involved in Hamilton’s ongoing litigation. Carolyn Betts, back to you.


00:13:25:25 CAROLYN BETTS: I want you to know I am not a criminal attorney and I cannot site chapter and verse what the criminal laws are.

00:13:27:23 COMMISSIONER McKINNEY: But you can say, “I will, I do swear to tell the truth to this commission.”

00:13:34:27 CAROLYN BETTS: I swear to tell the whole truth to this commission.

00:13:37:16 COMMISSIONER McKINNEY: Beautiful, thank you.

00:13:39:22 CAROLYN BETTS: My background is as you heard is as a corporate finance attorney and I did very large transactions many involving government as my client. And Carlyle was involved in some of the transactions and some of the likes of J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs and GE Capital. Lots of companies like that. I also represented Resolution Trust Corporation in connection with the cleanup of the savings and loan crisis. So I came across lots of documents involving fraudulent transactions that had taken place during the 1980s.

00:14:14:20 And so when I had become involved in the 9/11 Truth … in [reviewing] the 9/11 Truth evidence, the question arose in my mind, “what do we do with this?” The way I see it, it harks back to my experience in Washington as someone who worked for a government contractor who represented the government and has been involved in doing the paperwork and follow up work involved in getting things done in government and also my experience lobbying for the passage of a bill.

00:14:49:05 So my reaction when I saw this information is “oh, what we need is a taxonomy.” And I went to the, for your benefit, I went to Merriam-Webster online and looked up the word “taxonomy.” It says “orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships.” That’s the fill-in stuff that you learned in science. The application of the concept for this purpose is it created a methodology of organization of information about 9/11 according to distinct categories and within those categories within one or more lists of criteria that have relevance from some, from some systems or social group’s standpoint.

00:15:36:23 What I’m saying is you need to put this in context. And within categories that are understandable and relevant to the people that you want to appeal to to pay attention to you and to do something. So I created, and it will be on the website, a number of what I call “taxonomies.” [http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownloaddetails&lid=18&ttitle=PRELIMINARY_GUIDELINES_FOR_DEVELOPING_A_TAXONOMIC_ANALYSIS_OF_9-11] And [each taxonomy] is basically a list of things to ask about this evidence.

00:16:05:20 The first [taxonomy] was “New York damages to residents and property owners.” What I ask myself is what defines all of these things. What is the direct property damage involved?

The loss of property value to New Yorkers.
The loss of life directly in the tragedy.
Loss of future earnings.
Mental distress.
Loss of use of limbs and mental capacity.
Loss of health and decreased life expectancy.
Environmental damage.
Liability for increased health care expenses. Now this is a governmental cost. Medicaid, New York City and state pension plans, Medicare, Social Security Disability -- these are all things that have to be paid for at some point and somebody cares about having to come up with the money to pay it. Think tobacco settlement.


Direct monetary damages.
The cost to repair, rescue, etcetera. That again is a New York City expense.
Loss of profits and business to owners as a result of the tragedy.
Loss of tax revenue to New York.
Increased mandatory expenses for security and homeland defense.
Loss of privacy and individual rights as the result of the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted as an excuse. It was an excuse to enact it.
Loss of life of military people in Iraq and Afghanistan.


00:17:40:02 These are the types of things we need to ask and quantify and be very clear on, because these are legal concepts that are measured. They are things that you have to prove in court and this [quantification of damages] will always be what affects somebody who is looking at this from a governmental or judicial standpoint. The next taxonomy category I have is “Possible Crimes and Other Bases for Liability.” On the site I will have certain selected -- about half of -- the statutory provisions in the penal law of the State of New York [http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownloaddetails&lid=19&ttitle=SELECTED_NEW_YORK_PENAL_CODE_PROVISIONS] [for your consideration]. I’m just going to read a few of them.


[Reading from the list]…

Criminal solicitation
Criminal facilitation
Criminal mischief
Offenses involving computers
Accessorial conduct -- That’s aiding and abetting.
Offenses involving false written statements
Insurance fraud
Official misconduct
Bribery involving public servants
Perjury and related offenses
Enterprise corruption
Money laundering

Those all are provisions in the New York [criminal] statutes. Each one of those provisions also has a level of culpability that has to be proven in order to hold someone liable. So when you’re looking at what people did in this, in this whole morass of huge amounts of information, you’ve got to find out for a particular crime do you have to show:

That they intentionally did something?
They knew what was going to happen?
That they were grossly negligent?
That their behavior was beyond the pale and they should have known?
That they were merely negligent?
Or was it something that they are libel for no matter whether they knew?

[The answer to these questions] makes a difference when you’re presenting evidence to someone in an official capacity who wants to know whether they’ve got something to prosecute. It will be helpful for that person to know what [evidence] you have gathered in these particular terms.

00:19:48:13 [I also have included] a more generic list of possible crimes to consider: murder, manslaughter, assault, conspiracy, criminal facilitation, bank, insurance, securities and other fraud, trespass and damage to property both personal and real, obstruction of justice, lying under oath, breach of contract. Remember that there are a lot of government contractors here. Breach of contract is how you’re going to get to a government contractor probably. Military crimes. There are also military people involved here. Acts or omissions based on duties that arise under government job description. Liability of a principal for an agent’s conduct. Failure to supervise. Contract, I already did contract liability. Faulty building materials or methods, that sort of thing. Building code violations. Immigration law violations. Clean Air Act and other pollution violations. Those are just examples of what we’re dealing with.

00:20:50:12 Now, another thing to look at is the strength of the hard evidence. We’ve been hearing a lot of theories and a lot of facts and we tend to mix them all up and build a story, which is really good for figuring out between you and me what we think happened. But in a court of law and in order to justify investigatory action you need to know, you need to have proof, at various levels. And just consider how strong the proof is of each particular thing that you’re bringing to the table. So, a taxonomy in this respect would perhaps bring in key evidence [classified] according to which is your strongest case. Where could you show something [in court]?

00:21:33:04 [Reading from the taxonomic list of possible levels of reliability of evidence…]

Now this is my opinion, but I think filmed and recorded accounts are probably about as strong as you’re going to get and it all goes down from there.
Physical evidence like air tests results.
Official records like flight plans, FAA flight plans. New York Stock Exchange trading records. NORAD records. FBI directives. Things like that.


Unofficial records. Flight school records for example.
Legal realities in terms of what the statutory duty is for someone who’s in a particular job. That’s evidence [for a court], you know. This person holds this job. The statute says the person who holds this job is responsible for X, Y and Z. If you’re going to go after Donald Rumsfeld, you need to know what the Secretary of Defense has a statutory obligation to do.


Congressional Kean Committee testimony is the next level down in my list.
Private testimony.
Eyewitness accounts, formal.
Eyewitness account informal.
Accounts from...that are in books. The reason I put that this low down on the list is because it’s what is called “secondary” or “tertiary” evidence. [That is] one step removed from the original source.
And press accounts and other secondary sources.

Then the other, another taxonomical list that I made was “Identity of Potential Complainants and Damaged Parties.” Here I have [reading from the list]:

Residents and workers in the area of the World Trade Center
Rescue workers
Property owners. Now remember property owners include the Port Authority, the Transit Authority, Battery Park City, New York City school system, New York City Fire Department and Police Department and other government agencies and private parties.


These people are all involved in coming up with the money that’s involved here [to address the damage from 9/11] and losing money. That’s what turns people on in government. If you want somebody in government to do something for you’ve got to show them how they will bring in money or how they’ll lose money if they don’t do [what you are asking them to do]. Because money is power.

[Resuming the list of damaged parties]

Insurance carriers and other indemnifying parties
Stock and bond holders. Ask yourself if there are New York City bonds that were affected by [9/11]. Certainly there was insider trading.
Whoever’s paying for the Victim’s Compensation Fund.
The victims who are still alive.
The survivors of the victims who are not.
Whistleblowers who had access to incriminating information, particularly those who’ve been harassed, because they’ve suffered more damages than the rest of us.

00:24:15:11 Then another thing to ask yourself is “Where is the Public Sentiment and Support?” for an investigation. No one in government is going to do anything if they don’t think their backside is covered. If they take a risk on your behalf, [they need to know] that there will be people standing behind them, supporting them in doing that. So ask yourself which things the public thinks are the most egregious in this list. I have included a list of possible answers to this question.

[Reading from the list]:

Putting military and rescue workers in harm’s way.
Disregard of airline safety.
Disregard of safety procedures in evacuating buildings.
Failure to warn.
Failure to heed warnings.
Failure to investigate.
Benefiting from tragedy.
Using tragedy as an excuse to deny civil rights.
Allowing potential conspirators to leave the country. I imagine you know whom I’m talking about there.


Allowing illegally obtained or tainted funds to leave the country or become available to fund preparation, execution and cover-up of the 9/11 tragedy.
Using the tragedy to get government contracts. I also figure you know a few of those.
Using tragedy to hide failings and legal infractions that have committed.
Using the tragedy to get appropriations.
Using the tragedy for political purposes.
Using the tragedy as an excuse for war.
Misuse of taxpayer funds.
Instilling of terror in the hearts of New Yorkers and Washingtonians.

Here I just want to make a plug for Washingtonians. I was in Alexandria, Virginia when the uh...when the, well, when whatever happened at the Pentagon happened.


00:25:57:05 We were afraid they were coming after our friends [who worked] at the White House.

And then my final category was “Identification of Potentially Culpable or Liable Parties.” We’ve heard some names here. I made my own list but I’m sure you have a longer one. ‘his is in no particular order. It’s just as an example of something you might come up with.

[Reading from list]

Cheney, [APPLAUSE]
Rice from the National Security Council
CIA/ George Tenet
FBI/ Robert Mueller, Louis Freeh
I also want to put in a plug for what happened in Washington, the anthrax poisoning…the people in charge at Fort Dietrich


So, these are just examples of ways to look at what [evidence] you have in front of you to determine what you’re going to do with it and what your strategy is going to be [in drumming up interest and support for an investigation]. Because if you don’t have a strategy and you don’t have a clear goal, you will have a wonderful time exchanging anecdotes about who thinks what really happened but ...will you get anything done about it?


00:27:06:00 I also wanted to just mention about what are the possible forums. Where could you go? Consider the location of the damages, public support and political considerations to decide on a choice of forum. There are different levels of government. We’ve got federal, state, and local. New York is the obvious [choice of jurisdiction] and then of course [this group is] in New York. So it’s the state of jurisdiction where both the location of the majority of the damages and the residence of many of the victims. [It’s] the connection with many of the potential law violations. It’s also the site of the New York Stock Exchange. This is where many of the money center banks are located. They presumably were involved in transfer of money that you might be interested in. And there also are usually foreign branches or global branches in New York City of foreign banks that might have been involved in uh...spiriting money that could have been used to pay for the 9/11 activities.

00:28:20:06 So New York is the obvious [choice] and at the New York [state level] you have Attorney General’s Office. Elliot Spitzer is the Attorney General of New York as I’m sure you knew. [NOTE ADDED LATER: This office has expertise and a past record of dealing with sophisticated financial and organized crime-related investigations] You [New Yorkers] also have Robert Morganthau, who is the District Attorney for the Borough of Manhattan. He’s the one who went after BCCI. So don’t forget, local people sometimes have the wherewithal [to conduct a successful investigation]. But understand that when there’s an investigation that’s going to be as expensive as this, somebody has to pay for it. And somebody [else] can either have funds denied or have an influence in denying funds. So you have to look at what or who the supporters are for whatever it is you want to do. We can also look at possible legislative action but I tell you that it takes a long time and the horse is probably out of the barn door.

00:29:15:05 Court action. [This is another possible forum for rederess.] I’ve been involved in a court case that has gone on since 1996 and we’re now going into our first set of appeals. So that’s sort of what you can expect.

My prepared statement and the exhibits have a lot more detail if you want to go on the website and look at it for some more specific content. But I hope this has inspired you to think a little bit more deeply about putting everything into context and thinking like a lawyer in deciding what you want to put forward in order to put your best foot forward and thank you very much.


00:30:00:18 JOHN JUDGE: John Judge of the 9/11 Citizens Watch and….

00:30:05:01 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: He was sworn in before.

00:30:07:03 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Mr. Judge I want to remind you you’re still under oath.

00:30:09:09 JOHN JUDGE: I think I’ve already said that I’ll tell the truth and nothing but the truth. If I tell you the whole truth we won’t need anymore witnesses.


00:30:16:27 JOHN JUDGE: We don’t know the whole truth yet. Um...but I do try to be honest and I also try to get out the truth which is a fairly slippery animal. I come some of the role is as someone on the staff of a commission and I tried to outlay earlier, I didn’t go into great detail about some of the omissions in the report and areas that the report either doesn’t clarify or misleads. And, and some of those that I think bear less fruit for a commission to look into in regard to 9/11 I mentioned before is whether or not this was an intelligence failure. And I think it’s been framed as an intelligence failure from the time of the joint committee forward.

00:30:57:29 The joint inquiry by the Senate and the House. But I think framing it that way has put us in the position of then killing that failure by further funding, giving more powers to fortifying and failing to criticize in any fundamental way that same intelligence establishment that we’re saying failed us on 9/11. I think the real analysis should be that there was a breakdown in every standard procedure of the intelligence agencies that had functioned prior to 9/11 and it should be looked at that way rather than the system was dysfunctional. Because had it been dysfunctional all those years up to 9/11 someone would have done something to fix it.

00:31:40:26 And there wasn’t any move or criticism of it until you get to 9/11 then everything that you see happen in the past suddenly doesn’t happen in terms of the 9/11 events. So, taking that intelligence failure route also means that we don’t criticize the historical framework of deep politics in covert operations. Criminal cartels and paramilitary operations, illegal drug distribution networks and undemocratic forces from vying from their inception with the U.S. intelligence agencies to create both domestic and foreign covert operations first to serve the interests of the cold war and in a continuing way now to serve the interests of an emerging global corporate expansion. And the history of that is for the most part hidden from us. Because history in 1948 under the National Security Act became not something that belonged to the people of the United States but rather a commodity that was put under control of a national security state.

00:32:42:22 This is the military industrial intelligence, and those are the original words in the draft of the speech, the military industrial intelligence complex that Eisenhower warned about in the outer office in 1960. That he saw it emerging and said it shouldn’t have undo influence but the only person that seemed to stand up to it effectively, John F. Kennedy, was removed from office in a rather abrupt way. And not much of anybody has challenged it since.

00:33:10:11 This commission will leave it in place and strengthen it and consolidate it. For a quicker view for those of you who don’t know that history from 1954 of all the things that were done in our name and that I would contend have got us into the situation we are now as well as all the rest of the people of the world who we don’t know why they’re angry at us. I would suggest William Blum’s two books Killing Hope and Rogue State. I would suggest Peter Dale Scott’s Drugs, Oil, and War and also his earlier book Deep Politics and The Murder of John F. Kennedy [SIC - actual title: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK] to have a deep political understanding which goes even beyond parapolitical in terms of how these things happened. And it’s not so much a conspiracy in a board room as it is historical forces that combine.

00:33:57:27 And also you can find hundreds of books about the CIA. I challenge you to find more than five on the real intelligence establishment, the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. And it’s branches the Office of Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Marine Corps. ONI is the oldest and largest intelligence agency in the United States. And the CIA is a think tank when it comes to covert operations they go with a liaison at the Pentagon and the DIA takes over in terms of carrying out the operation.

00:34:29:13 We’re seeing a clash right now between some of these old hands and how they want to restructure these intelligence agencies and whether someone besides the DIA [UNINTEL]. There are also over the national reconnaissance organization whose initials used to be classified. That’s in spy satellites. National security agency, all the electronic listening. The black budget of the DIA is 10 times what the CIA. They have 100 times more employees and 10 times more budget than CIA and FBI combined. And the only person that writes a little bit about them in the popular press is James Bamford - Puzzle Palace and his more recent books...Body of Evidence [SIC – actual title Body of Secrets] and A Pretext for War.

00:35:11:12 So for the novice I think those are starting points. I have hundreds of other books, but I think that’s a way to get into the topic and to understand how we got to where we are. Now the two major covert operations that I think would bear fruit looking at that lead us into the period of 9/11 were run initially out of Carter’s administration suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski his security advisor to go into Afghanistan and back a reactionary Muslim fundamentalist response to a socialist government that was in power there. There was an attempted coup and there was a counter coup and then the U.S. came in to back the people that wanted to take them out of power and they also did it in a way that they felt would force the hand of the Soviet Union into a military intervention. And Zbigniew Brzezinski said it would give them their Vietnam and in a recent interview he said he had no regrets about doing that even though it potentially led into a situation like 9/11 because his words “what are a few stirred up Muslims compared to the fall of the Soviet Union?”.

00:36:13:18 But we under that operation...we along with the Saudis and it was the largest financial – it was three billion dollars, the U.S. part and matched by the Saudis through drug profits, the Bank for Credit and Commerce International and the U.S. funding it through Pakistani intelligence service. And it was huge covert operation that armed and built the capability that we now like to call al Qaeada, which is a very loose term. The media make you think that it’s some sort of a corporation with a CEO. It would be equivalent to saying the movement in the United States did something. I mean that’s how basic that term is. It means the base or an operation, but it doesn’t, it doesn’t have the sense of a cohesive organization. There’s many factions and a wide range of differences and it’s certainly not run out of any one place or through one particular operation. It was, it was the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia who, who financed by the CIA built the operation, caves we’re led to believe are the source of our current problems.

00:37:25:09 So it’s, it’s a direct route to understanding. And then when did that actually cut off? Because there was funding even after the uh...the fall of the Soviets. I mean their withdrawal and the rise of the Taliban there was U.S. intelligence funding of the Taliban. There was a $43 million dollar transfer even in 2001 to the Taliban to stop growing opium. And they stopped growing opium there in [UNINTEL] in the northern [UNINTEL] right now with the new government that the U.S. has helped to bring in they’re back up to 85 percent of the world opium production there in Afghanistan.

00:37:58:25 And there appears to be also ongoing U.S. covert funding of other fundamentalist Muslim movements in other countries besides Afghanistan in the period post-9/11 and certainly up to that period. So I think that would bear fruit. And I think the people who have studied the history also know that the Taliban warned the United States about the 9/11 attack. The Taliban offered three times to turn bin Laden over to an international court that was called we don’t, we don’t negotiate with terrorists. And uh...when the Taliban was taken out of power in a plan that [MIC INTERFERENCE – SOUNDS AS THOUGH THE MIC WAS KNOCKED OVER] 9/11. It goes all the way back at least to the summer. Colin Powell telling the surrounding countries that we were going in mid-October to take them out and staging the British and U.S. troops in the area to be ready for it before 9/11. And the Iraq invasion was similarly planned well before that.

00:38:50:09 We were told in the press that 11 days of the invasion Bush got word of it. That told me that he was among the last to know.

00:38:56:23 MAN: John, can you just remember the actual quote that the Taliban were given? I think it was in Turkey or Germany.

00:39:04:06 JOHN JUDGE: Yes, they, they said uh...they would either uh... [UNINTEL] or bombs I think was the…[UNINTEL] and these were U.S. intelligence people. But, the BBC also reported that Colin Powell had forewarned the surrounding countries of the invasion. That operation fed into the same funding circles, same drug money into the next major operation that became known as contra-gate. Sending missiles to Iran we were arming both Iran and Iraq during that war period. And went through the Bush, Sr. and Reagan years into the Clinton years these covert operations and funding went on But contra-gate existed then and many of the people who ran it including some that were brought up on legal charges and convicted were brought in then as the new advisors to the Bush administration and the Bush administration team. Among them Colin Powell who actually signed off with Poindexter on the shipment of missiles unbeknownst I believe to Reagan and on Bush’s authority because Bush was president the day that they signed it because Reagan was in prostate surgery.

00:40:15:23 MAN: John? Two minutes.

00:40:17:02 JOHN JUDGE: Okay. Poindexter, Wright, Abrams. Right being promoted now to head ambassadorship to Iraq. Richard Armitage in the state department also met with Mahmoud Ahmad in Pakistani ISI intelligence in the period right after 9/11. This black budget that we’re talking about put Saddam Hussein into power and then took him out. It armed the Kosovo liberation army through drugs and it was responsible over those years for assassinations, coup d’états, changes in regime in many societies. And the most glaring failure of the intelligence system in my view is this history of it’s covert operations and it’s support of and backing up of repressive regimes and getting in the way of democracy around the world.


00:41:09:17 When those forces no longer serve the [UNINTEL] interest they’re taken out and [UNINTEL] democracy but women used to go to school in Afghanistan before we backed the rise of the reactionary Mullahs there. The commission says the problem is lack of oversight by the Congress and it’s recommendation is to consolidate control over the budget into the hands of the director of national intelligence under the executive. The only leverage Congress had over the intelligence agencies at all was control of that budget and so they recommend that they be taken out at the same time they chide Congress who was responsible in Congress is lack of oversight – Porter Goss and Bob Graham, the heads of the two respective intelligence committees. Two people who were meeting with General Ahmad the morning of the, of the attack, the head of Pakistani intelligence and uh...two people who wrote the joint inquiry report setting the stage to call it an intelligence failure.

00:42:07:04 And Porter Goss whose history goes back to the Bay of Pigs, the [UNINTEL] invasion on Cuba and other covert operations in Europe and around uh...around the world and is now being promoted in the position of a new DCI, Director of Central Intelligence, who powers will be strengthened by a recent executive order by Bush. So it’s as if this commission created conditions for it’s own jobs after it got done.

00:42:34:18 I wanted to talk also a little bit just uh...about there were not only indivi…individuals named uh...in relation to this plot but the 28 pages missing from the joint inquiry talked about foreign countries and this commission absolves any countries. Saudi Arabia was specifically mentioned, others weren’t. But, but this says this was the 19 people with a little bit of outside money and help and that was it. But those 19 people uh...if we look into their backgrounds don’t, don’t seem to have either the motivation or the capability to have carried out the plot by themselves.

00:43:10:04 MAN: John, I’m going to ask you to conclude.

00:43:12:14 JOHN JUDGE: I think another major area that I didn’t mention is the anthrax attacks and they are [UNINTEL] commission. They were never touched. The anthrax chemically and biologically analyzed goes back to something called Project Jefferson run by the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] to create the next generation of anthrax with orders from Rumsfeld. They said on September the 9th 2001 that they had succeeded and then in October of 2001 the most weaponized and lethal anthrax ever seen shows up in the offices of the two major opponents of the Patriot Act, Senator Daschle and [UNINTEL] office.

00:43:53:01 And then also it shows up in Florida at the office of the tabloid, it kills the tabloid photographic editor in the headquarters down there who post…push…published the first picture of Bush’s daughters being arrested on DWI. He’s the only one in the place that dies. And the other go to Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, no friends of mine, but since we’re so far to the right those are the liberals [UNINTEL].

00:44:17:20 MAN: Thank you John. Thank you very much.


JOHN JUDGE: Weren’t we going to audience questions now?

Last edited by Elvis on Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 Info Dump

Postby Elvis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:28 am

[p.37 of dump]

9/11 Citizens’ Commission – September 9, 2004
Symphony Space, New York, NY
Developed by 9/11 CitizensWatch & 911truth.org


Audience questions:

00:44:30:05 CHAIRWOMAN McKINNEY: Now, were the…okay. Yes, we’ll read from the [UNINTEL] questions from before. If you have a question you might want to get up to line up at the microphones. So we’ll start with the microphone.

00:44:50:09 MAN: I have to just warn everybody of a terrible thing that we’re going to have to do in exactly 30 minutes at 7:45. Just so you know in advance we are going to have to clear the hall because the film at 8:00 is a pay event. So I hope you’ll come right back in, I certainly do and I hope many other people show up. But just be warned now.

00:45:14:09 MAN 2: That gives us 25 minutes for the QA. Kyle did you want to have closing…closing remarks? Okay.

00:45:25:03 CYNTHIA: Yes sir.


00:45:28:20 MAN 3: We’ve all become quite aware of the consequences of 9/11 for the Arab and Islamic world. Iraq’s been reduced to smithereens. Afghanistan has been reduced to smithereens. Like a bee hive that’s been swatted with a bat the Islamic world is now very, very agitated at what the U.S. and Israel is up to. It’s a terrible situation. The clash of civilizations that was predicted by Samuel P. Huntington back in 1993 has become a reality. I, I’m wondering what was in the mind of Osama bin Laden assuming that he did play some role in orchestrating and facilitating via the ISI Pakistan these hijackings. If he in any way had any loyalty to the Islamic religion to back these various Fattwahs and various decrees against the United States what…I’ve never been able to understand what was going through….

00:46:32:29 MAN: [INTERRUPTING] What’s the question?

00:46:34:09 MAN 3: This is the question. What must have been going through Osama bin Laden’s head to conduct these attacks knowing that the Islamic world for the next generation or two, maybe longer would endure the most incredible assault by the United States? I can’t understand what his thinking must have been.

00:46:55:04 MAN: Okay, uh...Nick?

00:46:56:24 NICK LEVIS: I have to ask the question back at you which is which Osama are we talking about? Are you talking about the one at the interviews with the Pakistani press? Are you talking about the [UNINTEL] video. He always looks different. You know, there’s a big fat one who confessed directly to 9/11 although the translation turned out to be false. Um...then you have all these audio statements that were supposedly released by him since September 11th. Which one is real and which one is not? If you take a look at the actual record of what’s there it’s all in conflict especially since September 11th.

00:47:33:14 MAN: Just to add [UNINTEL] the whole militant Islamic network and their ideology has been disavowed by almost every single Islamic [UNINTEL]. That’s the first thing. That never makes it to the New York Times not to the Post. The closest it got was I think page six on September 13th when the world’s Islamic legal scholars condemned including the Taliban as [UNINTEL] condemned the attack on the World Trade Center. So he is seen as a rogue figure in the Islamic world and I as a Muslim don’t even know who he is and I don’t know who he’s working for. I don’t know there’s one [UNINTEL]. And there’s precedent for me to think that way based on the covert operations and falsified…excuse me, false flag operations.

00:48:23:09 So the question is unanswerable because you’re assuming that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim and I have no valid lengths to suggest that he is. You know beard and robe and chanting [UNINTEL] does not make you a Muslim.


00:48:41:29 MAN 4: I have, my name’s Christopher Bollyn and I’m with the American Free Press. I have two questions about legality. I think that the criminal destruction of evidence when a company named AMEC, a British company Assets Management and Engineering Consultancy, was responsible for the renovation of the Pentagon and the clean up of the Pentagon. The same company was responsible for the cleanup of the World Trade Center sites and with three other companies, two of them both [UNINTEL] (oren?). AMEC was responsible for the largest criminal destruction evidence of, of…destruction of evidence from a crime site in history.

00:49:21:29 Now the World Trade Centers were a site of, of a horrendous mass murder and the steel from the building should have been preserved and, and tested. For example, for explosions. Now wouldn’t, destruction of evidence and AMEC’s role in the destruction of that evidence wouldn’t that be a venue for litigation? And another question….

00:49:44:28 CAROLYN BETTS: Let me answer. That’s part of the conspiracy…of a conspiracy. Conspiracy is a very, very broad concept and anybody who you know, is involved in, in knowingly promoting the larger conspiracy which means that what happened in Washington, Pennsylvania also and into the jurisdiction of New Yorkers.

00:50:06:16 MAN 4: And the other thing is about the way that 800 people or so were trapped in the upper parts of the Tower and the um...the doors to the attic were locked. Back in the days of for example the Iroquois theater fire when escape doors are locked um...I think there could easily have been…

00:50:22:08 CAROLYN BETTS: There was no negligence.

00:50:23:12 MAN 4: …helicopters could have assisted. A helicopter could have landed and taken, ferried hundreds of people away from there before they died or had to jump.

00:50:30:07 MAN: Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, everyone try to articulate a question and to the speakers on the panel.

00:50:37:27 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: As quickly as possible so….

00:50:42:21 MAN 5: Wouldn’t the release of the Reagan transcripts shed a lot of light on these issues and for that matter also the release of the Giuliani’s transcripts that he stole out of office and put in storage?

00:50:57:18 MAN: I guess the answer is yes.

00:51:00:10 MAN 5: It just seems to me that that’s been a lost issue and it might be another avenue of attack in terms of what you’re…

00:51:08:20 MAN: When you’re saying Reagan…

00:51:11:10 MAN 5: The Reagan administration transcripts that were supposed to be released in 2000 after um...the 12 year period.

00:51:19:06 MAN: Yes, that was referring to the White House records which Bush has been in violation of. The Bush administration, excuse me, has been in violation of the law since coming to office because these transcripts – not the transcripts but the White House documents under the Presidential Records Act have to be released after 12 years. Okay, and that was the year 2000 already so I guess that [COUGHING] Clinton administration was [UNINTEL] and then the Bush administration took over and three years later, four years almost they still have not released the White House records from, form the Reagan era and that’s a violation of the law.

00:51:55:01 JOHN JUDGE: Well there’s a tremendous push by the Bush administration to go backwards in terms of openness. They have teams in the national archives reclassifying formerly declassified documents. The Justice Department has said that if anyone brings a suit for a Freedom of Information Act file that the full weight of the Justice Department will be brought to bear on behalf of the agency being sued. An executive order that Bush put into power gave him control over the previous two administration’s records and in general they have been reluctant to release anything legal or not from the past or Carter administrations. But certainly any of these documents are created by people that we’re electing and paying to be in power and are supposed to be representing us and the democratic government belong to us not to them.

00:52:45:18 MAN: Thank you.

00:52:47:11 FEMALE: Yes, I’m concerned with the Dick Cheney and Lynn Cheney and the secret bunker on 9/11 perhaps running things. And how 9/11 was most definitely a pretext for Iraq in gaining public support. I think we all agree with that. I’m concerned now with the Lynn Cheney connection with AIPAC, Israel, Lara Franklin, the Iran situation right now and us potentially going into Iran and what might be the possible pretext for our invading Iran and is that right on the horizon and should we be talking a little bit about that too since it might be happening imminently.

00:53:23:17 MAN: Your question is about the political relationship between the Cheneys and…

00:53:27:03 FEMALE: AIPAC and…



00:53:30:16 MAN: Uh... John?

00:53:32:17 JOHN JUDGE: Well I think in one respect the geopolitics hasn’t been looked at. A lot of people say this comes from oil. But I think even deeper than the oil is how the oil is financed and based. And I think it’s important to know that first Iran and then Iraq and then Venezuela where we’ve been trying to effect a coup recently switched over on their oil production from and sales from the American dollar to the Euro. And I think that’s part of what’s precipitated them as targets because it does threaten the entire economic system here with oil and they were urging OPEC countries in general to go the Euro.

00:54:11:21 There’s a lot of agendas driving things. I mean you know and many times U.S. hegemony and global relations are in relation to some of the more corrupt or more backward regimes abroad and there are certainly times when the U.S. and Israel…Israeli government agendas uh...push together for uh...you know saying I’m not of the opinion that Israel is the tail wagging the American dog. But I do believe that a lot of people in the current Bush administration have close ties to and loyalties to the Israeli agenda and part of the U.S. global agenda that has to do with that region. Most of the command structure was AWOL on 9/11 which by de facto left Cheney calling the shots. Rumsfeld sat in his office he says until the Pentagon was hit. Dick Myers is not interrupted in a meeting with [UNINTEL] until after the planes there the head of the, normal head of the White House rep…office of Preparedness in it’s emergency bunker is down in Florida with Bush. Bush appears to me to be essentially out of the loop. Even to the point that he reported that his secure line communication line which also means his command line to, to the defense of the country went dead for a period of two hours on Air Force One and he was forced to [UNINTEL] payphones. That hasn’t been investigated yet. I don’t think that goes down without somebody knowing why it’s happening.


CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I believe commissioner McIlvaine would also like to make a comment.

00:55:42:06 COMMISSIONER McILVAINE: In connecting the dots and the AIPAC, Pearl, Wolfowitz and one thing that hasn’t been mentioned today is the defense paper uh...Rebuilding the American Defenses in 2000. All the same people are connected with these and of course when the paper came out in 2000 by [UNINTEL] they mentioned the acts [UNINTEL] so Iran was in that bit so it’s been…Iran’s been part of the big picture probably for the last since the early ‘90s but specifically with Rebuilding the American Defenses and the same people are involved with APEC also. So it’s just all these dots are connected to that one direction.

00:56:21:01 WOMAN 2: Hello, um...I’d like to thank the 9/11 Citizens Commission for standing with us by us and for us.


00:56:29:24 WOMAN 2: …truth and the CitizensWatch. Thank you all for your um...your strength that you give us.

MAN: The answer to your question that you asked me is two months by the way.

00:56:39:13 WOMAN 2: Oh thank you. Two months was when the fire went out. I was wondering what the date was the fire went out at Ground Zero.


00:56:51:22 MAN: I asked Elizabeth [UNINTEL] and she said two months.


00:56:55:24 MAN: Okay, okay months.

00:56:58:02 WOMAN 2: I wanted the date. But I want to thank also um...uh…Truth for a Change which is a show that Joe Friendly produces because it was through him that I even discovered 9/11 Truth. Believe it or not I never heard anything about it on Democracy Now which I am devoted to. But um...I just want to say…


00:57:17:24 WOMAN 2: Joe Friendly is over there. Thank you so much for you, for your for your [APPLAUSE] in the phase two. The 9/11 Truth. I am…my question is I am very concerned looking forward and Carolyn being here I got thinking in the future. I’m concerned does it matter who wins the election? And I have to say that if Kerry wins it might only just diffuse the frustration and anxiety that we’re feeling. But on the other hand it could, it could help him and aid and abet him to continue the agenda for the next four years unattended.

00:57:53:13 So it’s all very curious and, and dubious. And thank you very much for being there Cynthia. [APPLAUSE] My question is can we, can we as an action, a national action not pay more taxes.

MAN: Yes.

CROWD: Yeah!


00:58:10:25 WOMAN 2: Take our money back and [APPLAUSE] be a way of expressing and standing and say we are not going to pay taxes this year.

00:58:19:08 CAROLYN BETTS: Well, can I answer that? I will tell you Catherine Austin Fitts has been looking into that for quite a while trying to figure a way…what the model is there. But I can tell you that my opinion is that you can do more by taking your money out of big money center banks. Put your money in local credit unions, community banks where you know what they’re doing with your money and it’s going into your neighborhoods. Stop subscribing and paying money to the media who do not give you the truth. Support media by donations, buying books, getting subscriptions to the people who tell you the truth. Vote with your time and your intentions, your prayers and your money.


00:59:04:12 CAROLYN BETTS: And I think personally that would make a bigger difference than who you vote for as President of the United States.


00:59:11:15 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Let me just add that there is one congressional rights in Georgia where the votes and the financial support do matter.


00:59:24:20 MAN: The quick response is that I think we’ve been told since 2000 that they don’t allow elections here in the United States to come down to a vote for humanity.


00:59:33:22 MAN: I think the other thing that might be more effective than trying to get a segment [UNINTEL] stop paying taxes and take the risk of that that we instead demand that we finally have taxation and representation by having the last page of our tax form be a direct application of the tax we spend.

00:59:53:12 WOMAN 3: Thank you. I’d like to know if the panel has any thoughts about Al-Jazeera. I recently saw the movie Control Room and how Al-Jazeera is in the same bank of the main presses, NBC and CNN and all this and these Osama bin Laden mysterious warnings and tapes against the United States all appear on Al-Jazeera and we’re all sort of oooh cause it’s been revealed to us. Do you have any thoughts on that?

01:00:23:06 MICHAEL RUPPERT: My personal belief is that Al-Jazeera has been compromised since September 12, 2001.

01:00:29:15 WOMAN 3: Do you think Al-Jazeera is financed by the United States?

01:00:33:24 MICHAEL RUPPERT: My educated opinion, yes. Can I offer you concrete proof? No. But do they have to appear like they are pro, you know, anti-U.S. and they give the ear to the Islamic fundamentalist cause and they shed light on all the U.S. foreign policy [UNINTEL] they have to do that to maintain their legitimacy somehow. But I think in the end they won’t ask tough questions.

01:00:54:00 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Okay, um...I’m going to go ahead and be a tough taskmaster because we only have five minutes.

01:01:04:14 MAN: I think it’s more like 13. But that’s really the end so with [UNINTEL].

01:01:08:09 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Right, so we’ve got…right, right so we have five minutes and so we encourage people to ask one question and if there’s a response….

00:00:02:28 MAN: In a fairly small transaction that the Kean Commission was able to dismiss in a fairly quick way in a footnote even though uh...the story stinks. But uwhat people seem to have simply forgotten is that in the days right after September 11th you had the investigators financial centers all around the world come out and say very clearly we’ve seen extremely suspicious trading and this happened in Frankfurt, in Japan, in London where it was traced to a small airline that has nary yet been identified. The United States was the San Francisco as well as the Chicago exchanges. It happened at the Tokyo exchange, there are stories from Singapore.

00:00:41:24 This seems to have happened all around the world. All the investigators said at once there’s something extremely suspicious here that we’re going to pursue all the way back to it’s source and we’re probably going to find somebody connected to the attacks. Whoever came out with that tip. And then suddenly about a week later they all decided to shut up. And so, and the most interesting fact I think in the United States is that put options were placed through the Brown Bank which in turn was previously run by the


00:01:15:03 MAN: …military man and the CIA and the CEO of Brown Bank resigned on September 12th very suddenly.

00:01:24:18 Thank you Mr. McKinley.

00:01:27:13 WOMAN 4: Is there any solid evidence, I guess this is [UNINTEL]. Is there any solid evidence that the supposed hijackers were trained at U.S. run or related schools? The two references which I struggle with were a [UNINTEL] probably two year [UNINTEL] about 10 days after 9/11 WBAI [UNINTEL].

00:01:53:02 MAN: Thank you. Short answer and the reference to the…the [UNINTEL] reference.

00:01:57:03 JOHN JUDGE: Just I can say that my solid proof that press reports suggest some were trained here at U.S. military facilities and other ties that they have to U.S. military [UNINTEL] suspects certainly [UNINTEL].


00:02:21:04 JOHN JUDGE: No. You mean…Tom [UNINTEL] (Sicker?) mentions it in his book and you can find it in places. I don’t have the sites.

MAN: Thank you.

00:02:31:13 MAN 5: In April of this year the U.S. attorney, the head of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the head of the CIA all said that a [UNINTEL] of staff [UNINTEL] . Um...a year ago my family filed a federal lawsuit and we charged the FBI, New York City and New York State with conducting a politically motivated and [UNINTEL] motivated investigations and I believe that dovetails into what is effecting what took place on September 11th. When they were using their staff conducting illegal investigations they should have been investigating [UNINTEL] terrorists.

00:03:17:09 I have a copy of my complaint. I was hoping it was possible for you to review that and to look at what parts of that complaint dovetails with the 9/11 attacks. My name is Hanson James.

00:03:31:13 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: And you will deliver that to…

00:03:33:05 MAN 5: A copy of my complaint and a few other documents. Needless to say there are a tremendous number of documents that are involved.

00:03:39:08 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, you can see me afterwards. Okay?

00:03:44:23 WOMAN 4: I also have documents I’d like to place in the hands of representative McKinley [McKinney]]. Specifically related to one of the key figures that’s been identified in the Hope Charities Network issue, Mr. [UNINTEL]. I’ve followed the arrest, it goes way back and the Justice Department in handing down it’s indictment has chosen to totally ignore the evidence that I will deliver to you from a Custom’s Service and evidence delivered to them in testimony to the Judiciary Committee and it proves that he’s an Al Qaeada and Hamas leader. He’s been in this country for 20 years and high up in government and directly related to [UNINTEL] and I think that this is an issue that if the press got it, even if we can’t get you know, the Justice Department to move on this, will have to be deported before they act, before he can speak or anyone can speak and then we’ll never hear anything.

00:04:42:18 But I think that this issues if it could be brought out into the press would blow Bush’s cover…

00:04:49:12 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Directly related to Grover Norquest investigation?

00:04:51:01 WOMAN 4: Yes. Yes ma’am. I will give you what I’ve done. And I would like to have…my idea was to extend this to several congresspeople and also to have perhaps some of the 9/11 families join in on this petition to the government saying what’s going on here? Why is he…why does he have micro charges instead of we have a big fish here and he’s been officially sponsored by various governments and it’s all connected to Muslim brotherhood stuff.

MAN: Thank you.

00:05:24:17 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Yes. We’re trying to accommodate everybody so please don’t anybody else get in line.

00:05:29:00 WOMAN 5: [UNINTEL.]

MAN: [UNINTEL] I’m sorry. Can you speak up?

00:05:47:16 WOMAN 5: Kean as well as Bush and Cheney.

00:05:52:06 CAROLYN BETTS: The Kean Commission is, is uh...I believe congressionally appointed but it’s not, not the type of body where you impeach. They just uh... [UNINTEL].

00:06:04:23 WOMAN 5: [UNINTEL].

00:06:05:26 CAROLYN BETTS: I’m not aware that there’s any way uh...unless there were a conscious accessory after the fact kind of thing. If you could show that somebody was actively trying to uh...hide information. But who were they hiding it from? There’s no, there’s no uh...government investigation. If they were hiding it from an attorney general or from a district attorney who had then subpoenaed them that would be a crime. But hiding it generally from the American people I’m not sure that that’s [UNINTEL].

00:06:35:22 CYNTHIA: I’m sorry, we can’t do anymore follow-ups.

00:06:40:13 WOMAN 6: Hi, I’m Rubina [UNINTEL] and I have a concern and a question. Knowing the U.S. government’s um...you know history and being notorious with supporting [UNINTEL] around the world and then pulling the rug from under their feet is this Pakistan one [UNINTEL] that’s what I’m concerned about as a Pakistani [UNINTEL]. As I listened to everybody speak today and I’m connecting the dots I’m struck me with one thing, if the Saudis are involved in this master plan and Pakistanis and [UNINTEL] how does the dehumanization of Islam and the attack on Muslims um...make sense? And how does it fit into this master plan?

00:07:30:04 MAN: There’s two very important things and I’m going to make this short. There’s a huge difference between the citizens of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi regime. There’s a huge difference between Musharraf’s regime and the ISI and the average Pakistani on the street and there’s a huge difference between authentic piety and political aggression in the guise of religiosity.

00:07:53:11 So dehumanizing Islam just sort of uh...victimizes those people that I can’t tell the difference between Saudi regime and the average Saudi on the street. So uh...to create mass hysteria it makes all the sense to dehumanize Islam. To create a, a, a culture of fear and insecurity and yes we want you to protect our, our, our borders and our skies. So here’s all the money and siphon it off to security.

00:08:17:07 MAN: And yes.

00:08:23:12 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Thank you. Next.

00:08:25:04 MAN 7: Quick question about expert confirmation on a couple of theories on Flight 77 [MIC VOLUME LOWERS HERE] And secondly is that [UNINTEL].


00:08:50:00 MAN: Yeah, two questions you have. One is the Pentagon…

00:08:53:11 MAN 7: Is there a structural [UNINTEL] structural engineers at the [UNINTEL] seems to make sense [UNINTEL] confirm the theory that [UNINTEL]. [UNINTEL] speculation, in speculating do we know that somebody who was familiar with how to [UNINTEL] on that flight to [UNINTEL]. Where would I find this?

00:09:18:01 MAN: Um...I’m afraid with that we’re getting into a topic that would literally take probably another hour.


00:09:25:02 MAN: Physical evidence is being covered at the other event on Saturday so we weren’t meant that uh... [UNINTEL]. This is a big conflict point too among the researchers so I would recommend uh...

00:09:39:02 JOHN JUDGE: So you’re saying there’s no consensus what happened at the Pentagon.

00:09:42:04 MAN: Not absolutely.

00:09:46:27 MAN 7: Is there any consensus about self…the ability to cell…

MAN: Well I wouldn’t say among researchers that there’s a consensus on the cell phone calls although there are very strong opinions on both sides.

00:09:55:13 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Next.

00:09:56:27 WOMAN 7: My name is Lori, I’m from Boston and I work for Delta Airlines. A variety of things that I was looking into I just have to add that in 1998 AT&T bought the Delta Network System called the HOT Network. I was looking for someone there named John Smart came up. It’s a bogus name. It’s a fictitious name but oddly enough there’s a paper link to something called SCHEMA D.C. registered to double [UNINTEL] (double incur.org?) dot org dated July 2nd 1999. Double [UNINTEL] dot org is owned by a man named George Buzash - BUZASH. Um...in finding all the fiction and fictitious names and fictitious business entities um... George Connelly on Bush Boulevard or George Bush on [UNINTEL] Road down in Florida or a variety of things. Um...our technology has taken over and there was definitely a scheme [UNINTEL] in the year 2000 and I don’t know if it will happen again in 2004.

00:11:08:22 Another thing that I found in terms of uh...

00:11:11:26 CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Sorry. We need a question please.

00:11:14:25 WOMAN 7: Well, I was just offering information to the people to know. In terms of chat rooms there was a geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/9669 with a variety of other information that I have regarding child pornography and operations snowball, landslide and a variety of things. Aside from drug money and international money laundering child pornography is definitely millions of dollars that are funding this administration.

MAN: Thank you.


00:11:55:20 MAN 8: Yes, I have recently heard on WBAI that there was Russian woman reporter who wanted to report the truth about what happened recently in Chechnya with the hostage crisis. And she went on an airplane. She was given some tea to drink and she dropped dead. She was poisoned. Now um...it seems to be like this is the third time that all these terrorist attacks seem to happen whenever Bush or republicans go somewhere and there’s going to be a large protest and they want protestors to shut up. It seems when, when, when Bush went to England and there was going to be a, a, a, a large protest it was the day after in which there were some terrorist attacks in Turkey. It was as though to say maybe the CIA or somebody sets these terrorist attacks up just to make the protestors shut up.

00:12:52:00 And then on March 11th again Bush was gonna go and, and I believe he was going to come here over to New York and um...you know, pay his respects to the 9/11 um...uh…victims and there were various protestors including myself [UNINTEL] the Bush regime and [UNINTEL] 9/11 and the day uh...and on that day you had a terrorist attack in Spain. And then recently the Republican National Congress comes here to New York and then the day after um...you have all these terrorist attacks. Could these terrorist attacks if uh...the timing of all of these terrorist attacks have people think about what’s going on or is it possible that the CIA or Mossad and Pakistani intelligence continue to construct and organize these terrorist attacks just to make uh...just to silence any voices of dissent and [UNINTEL] state of fear and [UNINTEL] their empire?


00:13:53:21 MAN: The question [UNINTEL] is that you think there’s a concert…that these guys can be [UNINTEL] their timing and are these really one criminal operation uh...and agenda.

00:14:04:21 JOHN JUDGE: I think it has to be looked at. I don’t think that we have more than a you know, general suspicions of it. But I, I was tracking from the 1970s on uh...a shift at the Defense Department in their planning and Rand Corporation studies that related to terrorism and counter-terrorism as sort of the new rubric under which the intelligence agencies operate once the Soviet Union went away. And there is body of evidence in Europe. It’s called Strategy of Tension which is, which are plots created by the intelligence structures to have terrorist actions happen and then to blame them on, falsely on certain elements of society so that they can go against them and also increase the level of aggression. So I think, I think it’s a legitimate query. But I think we haven’t found a body of evidence quite yet. And I did a talk in 1996 about it called [UNINTEL]

00:15:04:19 LES JAMIESON: I’m really very sorry. But we are not 47 minutes past our originally scheduled time at this free event. We’re going to have to close up. This discussion must continue. You’ve got to get involved. You’ve got to go out and hold these discussions with people who aren’t converted. We see a two-pronged approach here and we’ve got to gather the best evidence and we’ve got to raise the political pressure and you need to be a part of that. You need to join up.


00:15:38:16 KYLE HENCE: I first would like to extend our thanks to everyone who has participated today to all of you for being here. Thank you everyone.


00:15:48:29 KYLE HENCE: All of our witnesses who have come a long way to be here. No one has been paid. That goes for our commissioners [UNINTEL]


KYLE HENCE: Kathy Bell, Ted Silverman who did the A/V with us. Mary Titus, Iyesha and Jan Rayman, Eric, Peter Taylor. A lot of you came late and just filled in and I don’t have your names here. Forgive me. Thank you. And also thanks to [UNINTEL] who came from San Francisco and Steve Cassilly and Joe Friendly who did a three camera shoot and keep in mind we are going to do a DVD of this, all six hours. More typically it will be compressed and put online. We have a professional transcription service that’s going to transcribe every word that’s been said and that is also going online by next week.


Thank you all. We have to move quickly out as soon as we’re done. If you want to come back for the movie you’ve got to buy tickets outside at the box office and please donate on your way out. We’ve got a basket. This event was expensive to pull off so we appreciate any donations. And Les just wants to say a word about the [UNINTEL] organizing because [UNINTEL].

00:17:35:03 LES JAMIESON: What can be done? What can you personally do to contribute to the effort? And it’s got to come from us folks. It can’t come from the government appointed commission. Truth, change and progress is only going to come from people who have the most important office, political office in the country and that’s you and us. Okay? So next Thursday Brecht Forum which is 122 West 27th Street, 9th Floor. This is on the Summeroftruth.org so you can get the details there. It’s going to be the opportunity to kick off the next phase of uh...activism and pursuing the truth of 9/11. Our website ny911truth.org. Okay we have email, you can have a newsletter. Sign up and please come be part of the action. Thank you.


00:18:28:20 KYLE HENCE: One more last announcement. I would like to ask the commissioners themselves been a lot of information that was taken in today, a lot of evidence [UNINTEL] testimony. I’d like to ask the commissioners if they would as follow on to, to contemplate this, on this material and give us their assessments on [UNINTEL] we can post to the website. And again, if we’re going to do this and follow it on which we hope Catherine Austin Fitts will hopefully return to [UNINTEL] today. We need your support. We need benefactors. We need more organizers and we can do this again because there’s a lot that we did not touch today. It’s a complicated subject. There’s many facets to it.

00:19:12:29 CYNTHIA: The answer of course is an emphatic yes. We definitely want to do more like this. I didn’t, I deferred my passions. I’ve got those operation more [UNINTEL] documents than I can talk about. Maybe things that the panel needs to discuss all in one place so we do need to ferret out the truth and call names and then [UNINTEL] (concur?) what we as a [UNINTEL] can do to take our government back. And so yes, we want to do this but we’ve got to have your support. And I, you just call me and I’ll be there.

"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6708
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest