Good Riddance to the Big Lie: Kevin Ryan's 'Demolition Access ...Lights the Shadows
Another 'EXCELLENT' source of information...Attacks On The WTC and Pentagon
Jim Fetzers (with T. Mark Hightower)...Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?
The Corbett Report: Where Were They On 9/11?
FOI Response: Release of WTC Blueprints Would “Endanger the Life or Safety of any Person”
Kevin Ryan's 9/11 Blogger: The Small World of 9/11 Players: LS2, Vidient and AMEC
“On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20050620-Wed1400.mp3 [Right click -- save as]
Guns and Butter - December 21, 2005
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20051221-Wed1500.mp3 [Right click -- save as]
Interview with Indira Singh -- "Ground Zero 911: Blueprint For Terror, Part One"
With 911 whistleblower, Indira Singh. Indira Singh describes her work as a volunteer Civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Originally broadcast April 27, 2005.
The Mystery of 9-11, Dr. Graham and Jamal Khan - September 21, 2006
The 9/11 Graham Report Manuscript [Right click -- save as]
Do you like a good 9/11 mystery? -- Transcript: BFP Interview with Paul Thompson-Part 1
A man named Stuart Buck blogs on his website The Buck Stops Here. It is apparently a credible site (Michael Barone, Instapundit, and Jonah Goldberg vouch for it).
Two years ago, he first wrote about the mysterious case of Dr. David Graham, a dentist in Shreveport, Louisiana. Graham said that he had met three of the 9/11 hijackers a year before the attacks at a home in Shreveport. He became suspicious of them (he thought they were planning attacks on nearby Barksdale AFB) and contacted the FBI.
The man who hosted the hijackers in Shreveport was a Pakistani named Jamal Khan. In 2004, Khan pled guilty to hiding cash transfers to Pakistan, and in an unusual plea deal the government stated that nothing in this deal would absolve Khan from any future prosecution regarding the attacks of September 11.
Dr. Graham apparently met Khan in conjunction with the 9/11 conspirators and was set to testify against him at a deportation hearing sometime in 2004, following Khan's conviction on the money transfer charge. He was also trying to publish a manuscript about meeting the three men and his contacts with the FBI.
Then, Dr. Graham fell seriously ill from what his family says was poison. Shortly thereafter, Jamal Khan disappeared.
The story fell silent for a couple years until Buck's site did some more digging.
Dr. David Graham is dead.
Jamal Khan has vanished.
And the FBI claims that Graham never contacted them until after 9/11 — except that one guy says that he knows personally that Graham talked to the FBI in 2000, and he can even tell you the specific name of the G-Man he spoke to (Agent Spoon of the Shreveport FBI office, if you must know).
So who killed Dr. David Graham? Was it Jamal Khan? Was Khan a co-conspirator of 9/11? And where is he now? How did the FBI let him get away (one comment suggests that they didn't)? Did the FBI really have prior warning of these three 9/11 conspirators? And if so, why do they deny it now...
An intriguing mystery indeed, so I did a little research.
Dr. Graham fell seriously ill two years ago and medical tests revealed possible poisoning that led to organ failure. His family is convinced that he was poisoned. At the time, Dr. Graham was attempting to publish his manuscript "The Graham Report: The true story of three 9-11 hijackers who were reported to the FBI 10 months before 9-11."
The Corbett Report - June 8, 2008 - Excellent Documentation on Ptech :)
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode045_ptech [Right click -- save as]
Episode 045 – PTech and the 9/11 Software
Indira Singh explains about Ptech, the company with numerous investors and managers with direct links to terrorist financing. Ptech’s clients included the CIA, FBI, the White House, the Department of Energy, the Air Force, the Navy, the FAA, IBM and Enron…Yet Singh learnt they were a CIA front company and their software could gain control of the most sensitive computer systems in the country
Guns and Butter - September 7, 2011
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110907-Wed1300.mp3 [Right click -- save as]
The Corbett Report - September 11, 2011
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode199_35_reasons.mp3 [Right click -- save as]
Episode 199 – 35 Reasons to Question 9/11
Those who believe that they have been told the truth about 9/11 often believe so because of their ignorance of of the official story. The establishment and the media love to portray the government’s version of 9/11 as a coherent, monolithic and universally accepted body of documented facts, but nothing could be further from the truth. The information that contradicts the official story is sometimes contradictory and often convoluted, but we will never arrive at the truth and achieve justice for the victims of 9/11 if we don’t begin the process of asking the tough questions about the official story…and demanding answers.
In this special documentary edition of The Corbett Report, we present 35 points of dispute with the “official” version of 9/11 for your consideration. If you find this information useful, please pass it on to others. Below is a list of documentation sourcing all of the clips in today’s episode. This is a starting point for investigation, not an ending point.
Boiling Frogs with Peter B. Collins and Sibel Edmonds on October 17, 2011
Money Matters & 9/11: Delving into Darker Truths on September 11, 2011
http://www.peterbcollins.com/podcast/PBC_20111017p303.mp3 [Right click -- save as]
Bill Bergman Follows the Money Around 9/11
Bill Bergman joins us to discuss compelling financial irregularities and cases involving pre-9/11 money transfers, suspicious activity reporting, and informed securities trading, all of which remain uninvestigated and unanswered to date. This is the latest instalment in the Boiling Frogs interview series, co-hosted with Sibel Edmonds.
Bergman provides us with his analyses of the extraordinary surge in currency shipments and significant increase in the number of suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions in the summer of 2001, the long history of currency shipments in U.S. covert operations, documented false statements and conclusions by the 9/11 Commission regarding the National Money Laundering Strategy Report from the Department of the Treasury in 2001, and the performance of the ‘market fear index’ in the weeks before 9/11. Bergman discusses obstacles and climate of fear faced by public servants, the city of Chicago as the major hub for money laundering, narcotics and corruption, and more!
The 9/11 Stand Down November 15, 2011 [Excellent Documentation Source]
"Do the orders still stand?" -- Military aide to Vice President Navy Capt. Douglas Cochrane
Was there a stand down on 9-11? In a sense yes, but there is no evidence that a stand down order was issued. There would be no reason for VP Cheney to issue a stand down order, since he issuing a shoot down order, would have the same effect. I will proceed to show this as a fact along with the disturbing fact that the President of the United States, and the Secretary of Defense, both deserted their posts in a time of war. These two individuals who are the only ones authorized to issue shoot down orders of civilian aircraft, created the stand down, by deserting their posts, and then further disgraced themselves, and their offices, by lying to the American people.....continued
KPFA Interview - "The Pentagon Attack In Context" with Tod Fletcher
Podcast Interview (Right click - Save as)
The 9/11 Consensus Panel; contextual approach to analyzing events at the Pentagon; origins of the hijacker story; telephone calls from the planes; analysis of eyewitness reports; physical debris; photographic evidence; video evidence; black boxes; FBI takes control of the investigation; means, motive and opportunity; Pentagon specific purposes; planes as a diversionary tactic; John Lear.
Sunday, January 23, 2011 - [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Operation - All In The B.U.S.H. Family ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive inks to nano-thermites, developing and judging nanothermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nanothermites directly. SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers.
In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that — “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well. SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.
Saturday, December 26, 2010 - Kevin Ryan Exposes Access for Demolition Crews to WTC
Sibel Edmonds Testimony I
Sibel Edmonds Testimony III
NSA/SAIC: The Trailblazer Cover-Up, 9/11, And Iraq War PLAN(S)
PBS: EXPOSE: American’s Investigative Reports:
CHAPTER I | CHAPTER II | CHAPTER III | Posting #145
Vanity Fair pulls back the curtain on SAIC, the largest government contractor you’ve never heard of. Science Applications International Corporation has a workforce of 44,000, annual revenues that reached $8 billion in 2006, and a list of current and former board members that reads like a who’s who of political and military heavyweights. How is it that even though “several of SAIC’s biggest projects have turned out to be colossal failures,” the company always manages to get paid?Moreover, the company always stays "under the radar" from public scrutiny.
For emphasis, let's not forget that the offices at SAIC located at Chantilly, VA right beside the Dulles International Airport for Science Applications International Corporation was empty on the morning of the 11th of September 2001.
THE COMPANY AS A WHOLE KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT THE ATTACKS WHERE COMING!
"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"
WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!
Love "Light" and Energy
References: TOPs Original Reports - 03.July.2007 - Library Archive
Obama Administration Claims Right To Censor ‘Unclassified’ Materials - LOL
Report: Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden - MO Anyone?
The Espionage Act: Why Tom Drake Was Indicted - PsyOps 101
New Documents Suggest DoD Watchdog Covered Up Intelligence Unit's Work Tracking 9/11 Terrorists
by Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold - Posting #167
Senior Pentagon officials scrubbed key details about a top-secret military intelligence unit's efforts in tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from official reports they prepared for a Congressional committee probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, new documents obtained by Truthout reveal.
Moreover, in what appears to be an attempt to cover up the military unit's intelligence work on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden prior to 9/11, a September 2008 Defense Department (DoD) Inspector General's (IG) report that probed complaints lodged by the former deputy chief of the military unit in question, the Asymmetrical Threats Division of Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC), also known as DO5, about the crucial information withheld from Congress, claimed "the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin did not fall within JFIC's mission."
But the IG's assertion is untrue, according to the documents obtained by Truthout, and the discrepancy undercuts the official narrative about who knew what and when in the months leading up to 9/11.
Much of JFIC's work on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden remains shrouded in secrecy and has not been cited in media reports revolving around pre-9/11 intelligence, which has focused heavily over the past decade on CIA and FBI "intelligence failures." Only a few details about the military intelligence unit have surfaced since then, notably in two previous reports published recently by Truthout.
JFIC was the intelligence component of United States Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). In 2005, it was renamed the Joint Intelligence Command for Intelligence. Last month, JFCOM was shuttered, reportedly the victim of Pentagon budget cuts, and as a subcommand, JFIC was believed to have been disbanded along with it.
Truthout had previously reported that the deputy chief of the Asymmetrical Threats Division, who is identified in government documents by the code name "Iron Man," alleged his unit was told to stop tracking Bin Laden as well as suspected al-Qaeda terrorists and members of the Taliban some months prior to 9/11.
Iron Man, whose unit developed original intelligence on al-Qaeda targets, which included the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, documents show, further claimed that the orders his unit received, as well as the work it conducted, was knowingly withheld from investigators working for the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, who were tasked with probing the circumstances behind the 9/11 attacks.
When the DoD prepared its report based on Iron Man's complaints, the IG concluded Iron Man's most explosive allegations were unfounded. But a close look at the report reveals numerous flaws.
Although the IG did confirm that Asymmetrical Threats Division analysts were told to stop tracking Bin Laden, suspected al-Qaeda terrorists and members of the Taliban, the watchdog determined that the Asymmetrical Threat Division had "not completed original intelligence reporting" and that "JFIC did not" specifically have a "mission to track Usama bin Ladin or predict imminent US targets." (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, the appendices in the IG's report shows significant changes were made to JFIC's original responses to Congressional investigators about its pre-9/11 intelligence work on al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Bin Laden. The information regarding the military unit's work turned over to Congress described a substantially attenuated picture of JFIC's operations.
The report also determined "operational information in response to the 9/11 Commission" about Asymmetrical Threats Division had not been withheld. Yet, Iron Man had charged the information was withheld from Congressional investigators probing the 9/11 attacks, not the independent 9/11 commission. The IG's report repeatedly confused the two investigative bodies.
A Pentagon spokesman and officials who helped prepare the report did not return calls for comment.
New Documents Challenge Watchdog's Conclusions
Iron Man, who requested anonymity in order to protect his family's privacy, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2006 seeking a copy of the complaint he filed with the IG and other documents pertaining to JFIC's duties. He received a copy of his complaint in April, just a few weeks prior to the death of Bin Laden. That document, as well as the IG's findings, formed the basis of Truthout's two previous reports on JFIC's activities. But over the past month, Iron Man provided Truthout with documents he received in March 2010 in response to his FOIA request that shed additional light into JFIC's work and called into question the veracity of the IG's investigation into the charges he leveled.
Indeed, one batch of documents Truthout obtained from Iron Man consists of a slide presentation for a briefing to be held for the head of counterintelligence and counterterrorism at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). The date of the meeting could not be confirmed, but appears to have taken place sometime in 2000 or earlier.
The slides, "NCIS Support to Joint Forces Intelligence Command and NCIS Field Office, Norfolk," describe the duties assigned to an NCIS transfer of one of its counterintelligence, counterterrorism (CT) agents, who was made deputy chief of JFIC's Asymmetric Threat Division. This slide appears to be a description of Iron Man's responsibilities.
Contradicting the IG's conclusion on JFIC's work, one of the slides explicitly states, "JFIC routinely supplements national agencies with original intelligence on UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.)
The slide presentation further notes that the Asymmetrical Threats Division has "primary division focus" on both counterterrorism and military "force protection." Moreover, the briefing slides state that JFIC's "Primary CT/force protection concerns" as "UBL [Usama Bin Ladin] and associated terrorist groups," adding that its goal was to determine when Bin Laden and other terrorists would strike, "How they will strike" and "Where they will strike."
According to the documents, Asymmetrical Threats Division personnel monitored open-source intelligence, national imagery data and sensitive compartmented intelligence, as well as worldwide counterterrorism and counterintelligence communications, including communications and electronic intelligence databases from the National Security Agency (NSA).
The information from the briefing backs up what Iron Man previously told Truthout: that Asymmetrical Threats Division "worked closely" with the counterterrorism office at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which collects, analyzes and distributes geospatial intelligence related to national security, or that, "upon request," it provided information on terrorist movements to the CIA.
According to the slide briefing, the Asymmetrical Threats Division had what is known as "gamma" security clearance, indicating analysts had access to extremely sensitive classified information, according to a description of the classification level by Matthew Aid in an unrelated New York Times report.
Another document Iron Man turned over to Truthout is a January 2001 confidential "Point Paper" that describes the Asymmetrical Threats Division as having "prepared numerous assessments of those cities most likely to be targeted by international and domestic terrorists," confirming Iron Man's claims that part of his unit's work did consist of producing intelligence on domestic targets by terrorists.
Definition of "Hijackers"
In attempting to refute Iron Man's claims about JFIC's work, the IG's report stated, "the 9/11 Commission questions were very specific and asked for information which involved the 'imminent attack' or 'hijackers involved.' Evidence indicated that the JFIC did not have knowledge regarding imminent domestic targets prior to 9/11 or specific 9/11 hijacker operations."
Truthout has learned that the definition of "hijackers," as perceived by the military intelligence unit, was overly restrictive. The definition of "hijackers" only referred to the hijackers in the planes and not the alleged planners, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or Bin Laden.
In his complaint to the IG, Iron Man wrote that the Asymmetrical Threats Division had produced "numerous original reports, with original imagery, measurements & signatures intelligence, or electronic intelligence, identifying probably [sic] and possible movements and locations of Usama bin Ladin and Mullah Omar." The intelligence included "bin Ladin's likely residence in Qandahar ... evidently the house in which Khalid Shaykh Muhammed planned the 9/11 attacks."
In summer 2000, the Asymmetrical Threats Division briefed "a DIA senior intelligence officer" on "The Search (for UBL Usama Bin Ladin]) - A CINC [Commander-in-chief] Level View." According to the complaint letter to the IG, "The briefing provided numerous examples and suggestions of how UBL was being hunted by JFIC and could be hunted by the IC [intelligence community]."
Iron Man would not provide the names of the individuals that the Asymmetrical Threats Division briefed because that information is classified. But the personnel included intelligence officials from CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, NCIS, NSA and high-level command officials at JFIC. The most senior official briefed appeared to be Vice Adm. Martin J. Meyer, the deputy commander-in-chief of Joint Forces Command.
Vice Admiral Meyer, as Truthout previously reported, told Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, the commander of the Continental United States North American Aerospace Defense Command Region (CONR) and other high-level CONR staffers two weeks before the 9/11 attacks that "their concern about Osama bin Laden as a possible threat to America was unfounded and that, to repeat, 'If everyone would just turn off CNN, there wouldn't be a threat from Osama bin Laden.'"
Since Meyer was specifically briefed on al-Qaeda's interest in attacking targets in the United States and in particular New York and the Pentagon, it is difficult to understand why he would call threats related to Bin Laden as "unfounded."
Significant Changes Made to JFIC's Official Response
Perhaps the most salient issue with the IG's report is that it completely conceals the information that was withheld from Congressional investigators.
According to the report, on March 11, 2002, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Thomas R. Wilson tasked JFCOM to provide it with information concerning its activities "in support of the 9/11 Commission." As the IG's report points out, the public law creating the 9/11 Commission was not effective until November 2002, so Vice Admiral Wilson can only be responding to a request from the Congressional joint inquiry and not the 9/11 Commission.
The IG's report indicates JFCOM sent a "tasker" to JFIC two days later, indicating it was an urgent matter and the 13 items "derived from the original DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] tasker" were due by March 22.
A "JFIC senior naval officer," the report states, gathered the information from the different departments within the military unit. The responses were then returned to JFCOM, where the Intelligence Director "reviewed the JFIC's input prior to release" to the DIA Congressional Affairs Office on March 25, 2002.
The original JFIC response was scanned and printed as Appendix B of the IG report. According to the IG, the "original questions and answers to 13 questions that USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command] forwarded" to the Defense Intelligence Agency were also scanned and are printed as the report's Appendix C. The scanned questions and answers that ultimately were sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office and presumably on to Congressional investigators, are preceded by ten pages of superfluous material relating to JFIC actions taken after 9/11.
But the original questions and answers JFIC officials produced prior to March 22 (Appendix B) are not the same as the edited version that was sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency and Congress (Appendix C). Four questions and answers from Appendix C were deleted and one subsection and some of the other responses were scrubbed.
The IG report failed to highlight the difference and, indeed, the report still maintains the JFCOM version has "13 questions," though four questions were omitted after another "review."
There is no indication the scanned documents were redacted, which would have helped explain the omission, since the original material that was deleted and/or rewritten shows up unredacted in Appendix B.
According to the executive summary of the IG's report, JFIC's replies "were accurate and substantiated by our extensive review of available documentation and our 14 personnel interviews at all levels of Joint Forces Intelligence Command. We concluded that the Joint Forces Intelligence Command provided a timely and accurate reply in response to the 9/11 Commission. The United States Joint Forces Command forwarded the response to the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office."
JFlC's original responses "were forwarded to the USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command]. The USJFCOM Intelligence Director reviewed the JFIC's input prior to release to the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency]."
The report, however, fails to note that the JFCOM review removed substantial portions of JFIC's replies to Congress.
What Was Missing
The missing portions largely relate to aspects of JFIC's mission that had to do with the breadth and depth of its anti-terrorism work. For instance, in item one, JFCOM deleted the original JFIC reply that it conducted "in depth discussions about potential terrorist attacks since Dec. 00."
The second item in the inquiry asked whether JFIC had information prior to 9/11 about "international terrorist cells operating in the United States." While JFIC answered this question in the negative, in their original response JFIC indicated they maintained "global situational awareness for areas such as CONUS [Continental United States] outside of the USJFCOM [United States Joint Forces Command] AOR [area of responsibility.]" They briefed pertinent information" at morning briefings, "but we did not track it." JFIC indicated the information "generally consisted of CIA and NSA reports."
In the altered version of the response sent to Congress, the words "such as CONUS" are deleted, as is the reference to CIA and NSA reports. The edited version completely eliminates the fact that JFIC was keeping track of NSA and CIA reports of terrorist activity as it related to the United States. Indeed, later in the report, the fact that JFIC also maintained a "24-hour watch floor," whose responsibility included monitoring of "worldwide events and terrorist issues," was also deleted.
According to the original JFIC response, after 9/11, it officially did take on responsibility for tracking "potential threats to CONUS." "As far as we know," the JFIC original responses state, "JFIC is one of the few DoD entities attempting to track potential terrorist activities within CONUS."
One of the missing items in the version of the JFIC answers sent to Congress concerned the names and positions of JFIC counterterror personnel. This was not redacted for classification purposes, as they appear in the IG report, Appendix B. Instead, back in 2002, the lack of any such names meant there was no one identifiable from JFIC to call as a witness.
At other points in the edited version of the JFIC responses, descriptions of the unit's analytic work, in particular aspects that seem pertinent to Asymmetrical Threats Division's work, are left out. It is noteworthy that even in the original JFIC response to the questionnaire, the mission Joint Forces Command was given was distorted.
According to the original inquiry response (and left out of the final version), "Prior to Sept. 11, JFIC did not have a robust counter-terrorism mission. We did do some analysis, but since it did not directly support Joint Forces Command's AOR [area of responsibility], the analysts were directed to stop. As a result of this and normal military rotation, we did not have a large counter-terrorism analysis base to build on" after 9/11. (Emphasis added.)
Yet, in another portion of the original JFIC response and also deleted in the final version of the response, JFIC discusses its "process." According to JFIC, while they do "not conduct unilateral collection" of intelligence in the United States, nor liaison with "foreign counterparts," they do receive reports from "other agencies." "JFIC's process is to fuse all of the information that we have visibility on into one all-source threat picture," the questionnaire stated, noting JFIC reviewed 2,275 messages daily from intelligence and military sources.
Subsequently, JFIC personnel decide what to do with this information, noting that sometimes they may "try to do further analysis (connect the dots, possibly produces a special analytic product), or ... follow-up with the reporting agency."
In a section erased from the JFIC response to Question 12 from Congressional investigators, JFIC describes their process as one of fusing "all of the information that we have visibility on into one all-source threat picture." This is similar to Iron Man's description of the Asymmetrical Threats Division in his complaint to the IG, when he described his former unit as "a forerunner of current all-source fusion centers.... able to develop and use all-source, original analysis in a manner probably then unprecedented within the intelligence community."
If the report's narrative sequence can be trusted, the JFCOM director either directly, or under his or her supervision, significantly altered the reply to Congressional Joint Inquiry investigators. Furthermore, due to the fact that items 7, 9, 11 and 13 are missing from the final document sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency it would have had to be apparent to the individual(s) reading that a chunk of information was missing.
While Congressional investigators were not provided with this intelligence on JFIC's work, there were still other opportunities to pass the information along. In Spring 2002, a colleague informed Iron Man that none of the documents that could verify Asymmetrical Threats Division's work was being sent to Congress.
The former deputy chief and later "Acting Chief" of Asymmetrical Threats Division contacted the Defense Intelligence Agency's Congressional Affairs Office himself and offered to personally send the documentation, including the slides and "point paper."
Those materials were instead sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Whether it made its way to Congress is unknown. The December 2002 unclassified Congressional Joint Inquiry report never mentions US Joint Forces Command, JFIC, or Asymmetrical Threats Division or their work, nor does the 9/11 Commission Report published several years later.
Current and former lawmakers who worked on the Congressional committees probing the 9/11 attacks, including former Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment about whether they received any briefings about the military intelligence unit's counterterrorism work pertaining to al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban.
Iron Man told Truthout, however, that he and his colleagues would "damn sure comment" on JFIC's work if given the opportunity to speak with lawmakers.
But, Iron Man said, "the only manner in which any former DO5 [another name for JFIC] personnel could probably comment would be if requested by Congress/Congressional staff and permitted by DoD."
"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"
WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!
Love "Light" and Energy
Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress'9/11 Probe
Dignitaries, brass to officially dissolve JFCOM today
Profile: Martin Mayer
Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden
Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots
By Jim Fetzer - Posting #163
One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US
9/11 appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another. In this case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the atrocities of 9/11. That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which were of much greater political utility. And in each case, qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were “the real deal”.
The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track #1”, as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone assassin”. Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done it. Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union. But these were superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.
Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and sensitive compartmented information (SCI). Since WWII, however, major covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.
This is related to Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”. When basic primal survival fears are activated in the “group mind” of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more protection from the boogeymen. This principal is the basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in “quiet desperation”, which is the actual intended result of those who plan and activate them.
Deep Black/False Flag Ops
The “shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them secret–even from those operatives who are involved as well as the government’s own agents who do the investigations. The “national security” cover can be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be invoked again at any time. Thus, alphabets who discover what really happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a “national security letter”.
One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as “multi-track, enmeshed”. This involves using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if they were actually “taken live”. These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more taken live.
This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done. Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.
As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable. Such deep black cover op designs can thereby provide sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.
Palestinians Did It
Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It! Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and employees. Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be indelible—that the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.
An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower! So during that brief interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under way. The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be cast
And that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”
They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their possession. Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a Mossad front. After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of 9/11.
Arab Hijackers Did It
Cover Story #2: 19 Arab Hijackers Did It. If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless. We know “the official account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.
But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq. Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government officials or the main stream media: If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we attacking Iraq?
Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard evidence” that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is deep. Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government had never produced evidence that the alleged “hijackers” were even aboard those four planes. Muslims. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.
Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.
Cover Story #3. The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t work any longer and was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. It certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were “pulling the strings”.
“Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?” Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions a number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.
Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up”.
Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including “that foreign operatives" who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who have been selling America’s nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with the United Stages government right up until 9/11.” While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to imply—that Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.
The US “Let it Happen”
Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen. The distinction between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps. As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.
The evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed, that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad. As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven. The first one was the creation and tracking—principally by the Mossad—of some “low tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US and other intelligence agencies.
“Able Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call “Track A”. The operation was designed to be discovered to create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis. Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
When the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real terrorist cell plot”, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth. But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be merely hugely incompetent. After all, how could government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert operation?
The US “Made it Happen”
Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on 9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of them live and substituting high-tech weapons and in order to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing investigators and researchers.
A perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth group’s insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition of the Twin Towers. This position, which has assumed a status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or, at best, a feeble explosive—and cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves. To a bona fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious deception. If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11 along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.
Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building. The evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.), perhaps the world’s leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it— and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this evidence out of the public domain:
“From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,” Stubblebine has explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the façade of the Pentagon. “If it had wings, it would have left wing marks. [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a wing. But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs.” Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, “Look at the buildings falling—they didn”t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God’s sake.”
Whistleblowing as Deception
The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth. When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she is telling the truth. Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended to support the theory of US incompetence.
Clarke, who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, “It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA’s failures to communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”
Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.
But Israel cannot have done this alone. The NORAD “stand down” and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”
The Fourth Reich
Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the Mideast may have created huge future trap for them in their role as “classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.
Attn: Jon Gold - [by Jpass on Mon, 2009-04-13: 'FOOTNOTE 44' - More Fake Truth?]
theepitbull@ August 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm [Censored Comment]
1. Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2009-04-15 19:38.: Breitweiser focuses on Footnote 44 of the Commission report, which "proved that the CIA deliberately withheld information from the FBI about two of the terrorists who would go on to become 9/11 hijackers." The footnote indicates a CIA desk officer instructed an FBI agent not to send a cable with information about Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi to his colleagues at FBI headquarters.
2. Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2009-04-15 19:46.: I'd like to give Ms. Breitweiser the benefit of the doubt, but she needs to make clear that what Footnote 44 is most likely concealing is the fact that the arabs in question were being "saved for later" when they would be falsely accused. NOT that they were being helped to carry out their "real mission" of "hijacking commercial aircraft on 9/11", which is simply put an unproven and highly suspect allegation.
3. Submitted by theepitbull@ August 13th, 2011 at 7:33 pm : For emphasis, this latest revelation thread spreads the "meme" that the FBI didn't know, puts in place a "false" paradigm of blame between the CIA and FBI and sensationalizes this latest revelation for other purposes than just truth.
Sorry, but, I ain't buying it!
In my humble opinion
It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of 9/11.
"Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation’s anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only we had done better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11".
We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as “potential domestic terrorists” by Homeland Security, which some—with ample justification—view as “The New American Gestapo.” If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.
So If you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate them—and even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what happened and, even among them, only a few probably knew the full dimensions of the plan. The objective throughout, accordingly, has always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these events is believable and nothing is knowable—which is the ultimate objective of disinformation.
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and covert operations by the US government.
"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"
WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!
Love "Light" and Energy
References: 9/11: The Clarke/Tenet Deception Gambit :o
Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 :o
There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11
Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners
Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged
Inside Job: Seven Questions About 9/11
New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11
Overview of New 9/11 Research
Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity
Pakistan's ISI Link to 9/11 Funding
FBI Translator Access to Wiretaps of Surveillance Targets with Whom She Has Links
FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Invited by Co-Worker to Become Member of Group that Is Under Federal Investigation
US State Dept Official Helped Pass Nuclear Secrets to Turkey, Pakistan, Israel
Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery :o
Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning
A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11 :o
Is “9/11 Truth” Based Upon a False Theory?
Major General Albert Stubblebine: Towers Fell Down Because of Explosives
White House Whistleblower Richard Clarke - PsyOps 101
More Evidence of Government Complicity in 9/11 Attacks :o
Clarke Airs Suspicions Over Sept. 11 Intel Failures - PsyOps 101