|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 159)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
Why are you two so dense to think that two politicians would somehow make the bs you guys have been shoveling legitimate?
Tell me, what qualifies these individuals to make the statements that they have? being a politician? Christ, the MP from my home riding's previous job experience was a burger flipper at wendy's. So i guess i should go consult him on everything now since he got voted into parliment.
you post these videos and excerpts from websites like your delivering a return smash into the rational side of the court, for match point. when really, you have thrown the ball over your right shoulder into the crowd while playing air guitar with your tennis raquet and proclaimed "look at me, im a half wit!". |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
Why are you two so dense to think that two politicians would somehow make the bs you guys have been shoveling legitimate?
Tell me, what qualifies these individuals to make the statements that they have? being a politician? Christ, the MP from my home riding's previous job experience was a burger flipper at wendy's. So i guess i should go consult him on everything now since he got voted into parliment.
you post these videos and excerpts from websites like your delivering a return smash into the rational side of the court, for match point. when really, you have thrown the ball over your right shoulder into the crowd while playing air guitar with your tennis raquet and proclaimed "look at me, im a half wit!". |
It think it basically goes to show that people who fall outside of our Western sphere of (thoroughly propagandized) influence tend to look at the big picture a little bit more rationally.
For one thing, they haven't been thoroughly inundated by our media's talking heads with their accompanying catchphrases, slogans and soundbytes like we all have.
Anyway, are you suggesting that the Japanese intelligence networks are inoperative or something? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
It think it basically goes to show that people who fall outside of our Western sphere of (thoroughly propagandized) influence tend to look at the big picture a little bit more rationally.
For one thing, they haven't been thoroughly inundated by our media's talking heads with their accompanying catchphrases, slogans and soundbytes like we all have.
Anyway, are you suggesting that the Japanese intelligence networks are inoperative or something? |
at no point in this transcript does he present any new "evidence" that has not already been cited in pocket change or any other CT site on the web..... congratulations, you posted a transcribed version of "japanese loose yen". It features no new evidence, no information that could be discerened as being from the Japanese intelligence service....
so unless the japanese intelligence service is as resourceful as you and culrout at internets sleuthing...... ill have to hazard a guess that this guy did not received an intelligence brief on the topic..... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
at no point in this transcript does he present any new "evidence" that has not already been cited in pocket change or any other CT site on the web..... congratulations, you posted a transcribed version of "japanese loose yen". It features no new evidence, no information that could be discerened as being from the Japanese intelligence service....
so unless the japanese intelligence service is as resourceful as you and culrout at internets sleuthing...... ill have to hazard a guess that this guy did not received an intelligence brief on the topic..... |
You apparently want to discount the fact that it was a publically televised session.
They even raised the possibility of arresting Bush if he ever came to Japan and you think that all they did was watch Loose Change? :haha:
The Former Italian President has even come out and publically admitted that it was common knowledge amongst the the world's intelligence agencies that the attacks of 9/11 were run by the CIA. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You apparently want to discount the fact that it was a publically televised session.
They even raised the possibility of arresting Bush if he ever came to Japan and you think that all they did was watch Loose Change? :haha: |
show me something in his discourse that would suggest otherwise.... I read it and didnt see anything that wasnt mentioned in that movie..... even down to the high tech "photo evidence"
| quote: | | The Former Italian President has even come out and publically admitted that it was common knowledge amongst the the world's intelligence agencies that the attacks of 9/11 were run by the CIA. |
how are his claims founded? by what he deems as common knowledge without a paper trail to back it up. surely he would have the intelligence brief that would have detailed this claim.... He presents a wonderful and colourful story.... but its severly lacking this thing called EVIDENCE..... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
The Former Italian President has even come out and publically admitted that it was common knowledge amongst the the world's intelligence agencies that the attacks of 9/11 were run by the CIA. |
wrong. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
wrong. |
on a humourus note....
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/po....hecklers.cspan
ya its CNN, but even bill clinton makes fun of the Troofers..... and he got caught having his dick sucked by a less than attractive intern....... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Open Letter To Thomas Kean – Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission - From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
August 1, 2004
Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
Dear Chairman Kean:
It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate “facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001” and to “provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism”, and has now issued its “9/11 Commission Report”. You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:
After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI’s largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of ‘extensive backlog of untranslated documents’, and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up ( please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy’s letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI’s Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, “ Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish Translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau’s investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI’s targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI’s targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as ‘ Not Pertinent.’ Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI’s investigations and our fight against terrorism. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain 9/11 detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret clearance. Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the Bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen’s case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( Please refer to Senator Leahy and Grassley’s letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley’s statement on CBS-60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (Please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to Director Mueller, the Inspector General criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments’ security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI’s Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important ‘chit-chats’ and ‘chatters’ are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, “Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing ( Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information ( Please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours testimony by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists’ plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the ‘ use of airplanes’, ‘major US cities as targets’, and ‘Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.’ Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet, your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned; despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ( Please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a ‘time limit’ excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, “ Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
Over two years ago, and after two ‘unclassified’ sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary level English. He had failed English proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet, Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist related information, and he was sent to Guantanamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic language detainees (Turkish, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc.). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet, the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen’s case ( Please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). CBS-60 Minutes showed Kevin’s picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantanamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI ( Please refer to CBS-60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice Inspector General had a detailed account of these problems ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen’s case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS-60 Minutes broadcasted Taskesen’s case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI’s hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions. Yet, your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI’s hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, “ Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent’s hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI’s largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor’s several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI’s higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General’s Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI’s Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, “ Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?
The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘ direct pressure by the State Department,’ and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations’ is cited. The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).
After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ‘ protecting certain foreign business relations.’ The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘ safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.’ Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, “ Intelligence Czar”, in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?
I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.
I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI’s translation unit during the most crucial times after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the Bureau’s language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by NO means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a Senior Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, and a Senior Democrat Senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on my allegations, ‘ none of my allegations were disproved.’ As you are fully aware, even FBI officials ‘ confirmed all my allegations and denied none’ during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission’s hearings, nor your commission’s five hundred sixty seven-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report’s coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote #25). Yet, your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.
In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission’s investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing ‘visible’, because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing ‘visible’ because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.
Respectfully,
Sibel D. Edmonds
CC: Senate Judiciary Committee
CC: Senate Intelligence Committee
CC: House Government Reform Committee
CC: Family Steering Committee
CC: Press
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00012.htm |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
By Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”
January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. [1]
Daniel Ellsberg, PhD
Dr. Ellsberg is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11. [2] Best known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times in 1971, Dr. Ellsberg is a former U.S. State Department envoy to Viet Nam and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Col. Ann Wright
Another State Department critic of the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ann Wright, who said in a 2007 interview with Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network, “It's incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report -- that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that.” [3]
Col. Wright is one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served for 16 years as a U.S. Diplomat, including assignments as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001. She also served for 13 years on active duty and 16 additional years on reserve duty with the U.S. Army.
She continued in her interview with Greene: “How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree, I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just -- I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen?”
Fred Burks
Fred Burks, former Presidential interpreter, is another State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and who signed the petition to reinvestigate. “How is it possible that our military's highly touted missile detection systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?,” he asked in an essay. [4]
During his 18-year State Department career, Mr. Burks served as interpreter for Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright and many others.
Mr. Burks continued, “An even bigger question is why isn't our media asking these questions? Why isn't our military spending many millions of dollars to find out why military defense systems failed on 9/11? Why is it that the 9/11 commission budget was far less than the budget allotted to the Challenger Disaster or even the Monika Lewinsky affair? Why aren't we, the public, asking these questions and demanding answers?”
Melvin Goodman, PhD
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former State Department employee who signed the petition to reinvestigate 9/11. He served as a Senior Analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Dr. Goodman also later served as Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and as Professor of International Security at the National War College, 1986 - 2004.
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report, Dr. Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it.” [5]
Dr. Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Michael Springmann
Another former career Foreign Service Officer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Michael Springmann. He is also one of many signers of the petition to reinvestigate 9/11.
In a speech at the National Press Club, Mr. Springmann said, “I used to be in charge of the visa section at the CIA's Consulate in Jeddah. ... There for a year and a half I issued visas to terrorists recruited by the CIA and its asset Osama Bin Laden. ... Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah.” [6]
During his more than 20 years of U.S. government service, Mr. Springmann worked at both the State Department and the Foreign Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Among his many assignments, Mr. Springman served as Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he supervised the issuance of visas.
In a later interview with the BBC, Mr. Springmann said, “In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence. ... What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.” [7]
George Kenney
Another State Department veteran publicly questioning the official account of 9/11 is former career Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney, who served as Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. He resigned his commission in 1991 over U.S. policy towards the Yugoslav conflict. He then served as consultant in residence at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Currently he’s a consultant and commentator on foreign affairs and current events.
In a commentary after a 2007 interview of David Ray Griffin, PhD, Mr. Kenney said, “We should strive to clearly separate what we know from things we don't. Thus, we have a reasonably high level of confidence that the Establishment conspiracy narrative is absurd. The World Trade Center structures came down through controlled demolition. Flight 93 was shot down over rural Pennsylvania. And whatever it was that hit the Pentagon could not have been Flight 77. Further, whatever his peripheral involvement, the planning and implementation of 9/11 did not originate with Osama bin Laden.” [8]
Michael Mennard, PhD, is another U.S. State Department veteran who questions the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation. Among his assignments as a career Foreign Service Officer, Dr. Mennard served as Regional Public Affairs Officer in India.
In a statement to this author, Dr. Mennard wrote, “I am concerned about the numerous inconsistencies in the official account of 9/11. I support a new investigation regarding the tragic events of that day, the events leading up to it, and subsequent efforts to ignore the whole matter.”
Edward Peck
Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition [9] urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to six former CIA officials, [10] the signers included Daniel Ellsberg, Melvin Goodman, Fred Burks, Michael Springman (all mentioned above), and Edward Peck.
Edward Peck served as Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. He later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, also served as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq (1977 - 1980).
The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:- Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
- Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
- Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
- Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
- Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”
These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these eight U.S. State Department veterans show, the need for a new thorough and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
Additional information about prominent skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author's other articles on this subject, listed below.
Dec. 13, 2007 - Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation - Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Fatally Flawed” featured statements by:- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
- David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
- Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
- Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
- James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
- Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
- Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities
Dec. 4, 2007 - Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False” featured statements by- Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
- Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush
- Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush
- Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
- Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton
- Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst
- Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
- Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Sept. 23, 2007 - Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report - Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up” featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.
Sept. 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot.
Sept. 4, 2007 - Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.
Aug. 27, 2007 - National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statement of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.
Aug. 21, 2007 - Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world's leading fire science researchers.
July 16, 2007 - Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement featured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.
Endnotes- Interview of Daniel Ellsberg by Jack Blood on the Deadline Live radio show July 14, 2006 http://www.infowars.com/articles/te...ybe_did_911.htm
- Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041026093059633
- Interview of Col. Ann Wright and Laurie Van Auken by Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network Sept. 11, 2007 http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/aacl091107.mp3
- 9/11 and Star Wars: Billions on Missile Defense Can't Stop Four Airliners on 9/11 by Fred Burks http://www.wanttoknow.info/911starwars
- The 911 Commission Report – One Year Later, a Congressional Briefing July 22, 2005 http://www.vt911.org/McKinneyReport...2transcript.pdf
- Video of Speech by J. Michael Springmann at the National Press Club June 10, 2002 http://youtube.com/watch?v=zgYFo79q...related&search=
- Interview of J. Michael Springmann by the BBC News Nov. 6, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
- Audio interview of David Ray Griffin, PhD, by George Kenney on Electric Politics May 11, 2007
http://www.electricpolitics.com/pod.../911_truth.html
- Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041026093059633
- Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report by Alan Miller, Sept. 23, 2007 on OpEdNews http://www.opednews.com/articles/ge..._veterans_c.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ge...__state_dep.htm |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| Ctrl + C ----> Ctrl + v The new measure of intelligence... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
Ctrl + C ----> Ctrl + v The new measure of intelligence... |
Was that comment supposed to be rebutting something?
Your inability to objectively engage in researching topics which you have a strong emotional bias shows us that you've either been tasked with spreading disinformation here or that your own intelligence seems to be rather lacking. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Was that comment supposed to be rebutting something?
Your inability to objectively engage in researching topics which you have a strong emotional bias shows us that you've either been tasked with spreading disinformation here or that your own intelligence seems to be rather lacking. |
for one who has the words "I am capable of independent thought" in their avatar, you would think they would be capable of presenting original thought and ideas as opposed to copy and pasting the same drivel over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
