Knowledge of attack with planes in 4 or 5 cities in April 2001?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 10:47:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Knowledge of attack with planes in 4 or 5 cities in April 2001?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Knowledge of attack with planes in 4 or 5 cities in April 2001?  (Read 1909 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,904


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 09, 2004, 12:31:41 AM »

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/1701274.php

Whistleblower explodes 9-11 Commission Report
by Ritt Goldstein Saturday August 07, 2004 at 12:27 PM


The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's own September 11 whistleblower has done it again, this time taking aim at the 9-11 Commission itself.

Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator who has in effect been silenced by the bureau and the US Justice Department, said in an open letter to commission chairman Thomas Kean that the FBI had suffered from a litany of errors and cover-ups of those errors, which had been reported to the 9-11 Commission by Edmonds and others, yet the commission report "contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks".

"In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security," wrote Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American whose services as a translator were terminated by the FBI after she claimed vast wrongdoing within the bureau's translation unit.

Edmonds' open letter, while skirting around certain issues that she is prohibited by gag orders from revealing, is chilling in its revelations that, contrary to public claims by the administration of President George W Bush, the FBI was in possession months before September 2001 of intelligence that Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization was planning a major attack on the United States, using airplanes as a weapon.

These revelations are not new, though the open letter is remarkable in its specificity and naming of names. Previously, while being careful not to violate the legal silencing measures imposed on her by the FBI, the courts and the Justice Department, she has leveled damning criticisms in the media of her former employers and what she has termed the Bush administration's "anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes".

"But that aside," she told radio interviewer Jim Hogue in April, "we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system? They should be counteracting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen."

That interview took place before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon which the United States issued its final report on the September 11 attacks. Despite hours of testimony to the commission about what she knew of FBI failures leading up to the attacks, nearly nothing of this was mentioned in the report.

"While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up," Edmonds wrote in her letter. "I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this.

"Today, almost three years after [September 11], and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue ..."

Specific charges made by Edmonds included the case of a Turkish translator, whom she named, and who "for months ... blocked all-important information related to ... semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with ... [The translator] and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic-language units of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations."

Edmonds also spoke of a translator put in charge of sensitive operations who not only could not speak English well enough to pass FBI proficiency tests, but he also could not speak the languages he was in charge of translating. Despite the fact that his case was made public on CBS television's 60 Minutes, and "after admitting that [he] was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads," Edmonds revealed.

But while Edmonds' letter delivered a cascade of specific allegations, perhaps the most explosive charge she makes concerns information the bureau was said to have received four months prior to September 2001, information warning of the September 11 plan. While both President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly denied that there was any indication that airplanes would be used as a terror weapon, Edmonds revealed that in April 2001 the bureau had information that bin Laden was "planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four to five major cities"; "the attack was going to involve airplanes"; some of those involved were already "in the United States"; and the attack would be "in a few months". Edmonds states that the information came from "a long-term FBI informant/asset" and that it was sent to the "special agent in charge of counter-terrorism" in Washington. She also charges that after September 11 "the agents and translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue".

Further to that, she writes, "The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the [September 11] attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the 'use of airplanes', 'major US cities as targets', and 'Osama bin Laden issuing the order' ...

"All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and [translator] Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even [FBI] director [Robert] Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ... ?"

Given the sweeping nature of Edmonds' knowledge of intelligence failures in the lead-up to September 11, it is probably not surprising that the US government has used its legal clout to try to shut her up. In what the July 29 New York Times termed "an unusually broad veil of secrecy", the Justice Department ordered the details surrounding Edmonds' allegations a matter of "state secrets". On May 13, Attorney General John Ashcroft had signed an order forbidding her to testify in a case brought by the families of September 11 victims, invoking rarely used "state secrets" authority. Edmonds was also broadly prohibited from discussing the facts surrounding her assertions.

It is unclear what personal consequences this latest whistleblowing may have for Edmonds. But notably, none of her prior revelations have been determined erroneous; rather, they have increasingly been found accurate....
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2004, 12:51:04 AM »

Believe me. The Democrats do NOT want to open this can of worms against Bush. This story will be buried.
Logged
TexArcana
Rookie
**
Posts: 76


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2004, 12:53:40 AM »

Woah!

I think this has the potential to "grow legs" as they say.

It doesn't show that Bush knew, only that the FBI knew, but these things have a way of coming out.  Especially in an election year.

I would be looking for the typical october surprise from the Kerry campaign.

BTW, I suspect that the Bush campaign will have it's own october surprise lined up.  what it will be is anyone's guess...
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2004, 12:54:48 AM »

Woah!

I think this has the potential to "grow legs" as they say.

It doesn't show that Bush knew, only that the FBI knew, but these things have a way of coming out.  Especially in an election year.

I would be looking for the typical october surprise from the Kerry campaign.

BTW, I suspect that the Bush campaign will have it's own october surprise lined up.  what it will be is anyone's guess...


Believe me. The Democrats do NOT[/i] want to play this card against Bush. Or we will see other suprises.
Logged
TexArcana
Rookie
**
Posts: 76


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2004, 01:06:10 AM »


Believe me. The Democrats do NOT[/i] want to play this card against Bush. Or we will see other suprises.

Why not?  This looks like it has "planes flew - Bush knew" written all over it.  A lot of people (and even some republicans) would be very upset to find out that bush in advance and decided that it would be a cover for his war in Iraq.

Kinda like what FDR did in WWII

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/revismith_100.htm

How could this possibly blow up in the Dems face?  Are you suggesting that Kerry knew also, and said nothing?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2004, 01:07:11 AM »
« Edited: August 09, 2004, 01:12:12 AM by Senator StatesRights »


Believe me. The Democrats do NOT[/i] want to play this card against Bush. Or we will see other suprises.

Why not?  This looks like it has "planes flew - Bush knew" written all over it.  A lot of people (and even some republicans) would be very upset to find out that bush in advance and decided that it would be a cover for his war in Iraq.

Kinda like what FDR did in WWII

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/revismith_100.htm

How could this possibly blow up in the Dems face?  Are you suggesting that Kerry knew also, and said nothing?

I can't really say but believe me the Republicans have so much dirt on the Democrats it would be far more devastating then this nonsense.
Logged
TexArcana
Rookie
**
Posts: 76


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2004, 01:13:46 AM »


Believe me. The Democrats do NOT[/i] want to play this card against Bush. Or we will see other suprises.

Why not?  This looks like it has "planes flew - Bush knew" written all over it.  A lot of people (and even some republicans) would be very upset to find out that bush in advance and decided that it would be a cover for his war in Iraq.

Kinda like what FDR did in WWII

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/revismith_100.htm

How could this possibly blow up in the Dems face?  Are you suggesting that Kerry knew also, and said nothing?

I can't really say but believe me the Democrats have so much dirt on them it would be far more devastating then this nonsense.

Can't say because you don't know something, or won't say because you do know something?

If there is dirt on democrats, won't it come out anyway?  Are you suggesting that Bush and Kerry hold dirt on each other, and that there is a line that they are not going to cross?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2004, 01:24:28 AM »

First, "wistle blowers" are usually disgruntled employees and are not always relieable.

Second, States is correct.  I think that the Dems will bury this.  Let's just say that there is far more going on here than meets the eye.  Bush has repented, through his actions, for any mistakes he might have made.

The Dems have gone back to their old bag of tricks.
Logged
MarkDel
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,149


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2004, 01:35:25 AM »


Believe me. The Democrats do NOT[/i] want to play this card against Bush. Or we will see other suprises.

Why not?  This looks like it has "planes flew - Bush knew" written all over it.  A lot of people (and even some republicans) would be very upset to find out that bush in advance and decided that it would be a cover for his war in Iraq.

Kinda like what FDR did in WWII

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/revismith_100.htm

How could this possibly blow up in the Dems face?  Are you suggesting that Kerry knew also, and said nothing?

I can't really say but believe me the Democrats have so much dirt on them it would be far more devastating then this nonsense.

Can't say because you don't know something, or won't say because you do know something?

If there is dirt on democrats, won't it come out anyway?  Are you suggesting that Bush and Kerry hold dirt on each other, and that there is a line that they are not going to cross?

He can't say because he knows something he shouldn't...my fault...LOL
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2004, 03:20:26 AM »

I have NO loyalty to the Democrats here.

I have been following Sibel Edmunds story for months.  She MUST be allowed to speak.  The gag order that Ashcroft had placed on her and retroactively had placed on information that had previously been allowed to be given to congressmen must be lifted.

She has information on the attacks that is not being allowed to be known.  She was fired from her FBI job for speaking out.  A Justice Department investigation recently said that this was done illegally.  She lost her job for being a whistleblower.  

Daniel Ellsberg held a press conference with her and said that those who are illegally supressing her information should get out of the way or they may soon share the old cell that Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, held for his role in Watergate and in supressing the Pentagon Papers regarding lies about Vietnam.

Sibel Edmunds is key to getting to the bottom of the 9/11 story.  I didn't want to post about all that I have read about this subject, because it is going to come out regardless.  Sibel Edmunds is a hero.  She is brave for speaking the truth while those in power use every trick they have to supress her information and keep it from surfacing.

In summary, from what I have gathered reading between the lines of the gag order that she tip-toes around, the information leads to money laundering, drug trafficking, arms sales, organized crime and very, very wealthy business interests both foreign and domestic.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are involved.  Read her interview with Christopher Deliso; it is absolutely fascinating to me.  If you don't want to know, I understand, because the implications are staggering.

There is lots, lots more that is provable, documented, un-spinnable and factual that points to a confluence of forces that conspired to allow the 9/11 attacks to go forward.  It would be comforting to me to think that it was just incompetence that allowed the PENTAGON, one of the most protected buldings in the world to be attacked almost two hours after it was known that multiple planes had been hijacked.  It is simply not credible if you look at the facts.

Interceptions are routinely done.  An interception is not the same as a shoot down.  Within an average of 10 minutes fighter jets intercept any commercial flight that has flown off course more than 15 degrees, or whose transponder has gone off.  They then fly in front and slightly to the left and above the plane and "waggle" their wings to let them know "you have been intercepted".  This happens as standard operating procedure every time, without fail.  The procedures have been in place and practiced for decades.  If four planes get hijacked...well, it in not credible that none of them are intercepted.  Planes were intercepted 69 times by military jets in the year before 9/11.  It is a routine occurance.

I would like to know what really happened.  I am reasearching my fanny off.  There is a lot of smoke here.  And I think there is a fire, too.  Bush, or part of his administration is complicit to one degree or another.  I don't care who it hurts.  I really don't.  I want the truth known.  I'm voting for Sibel Edmunds for President.  This is a brave, brave woman who deserves support for her actions.  She is trying to tell the truth like few have the strength and courage to do.  

freedomburns

links:

http://www.codepinkalert.org/National_Actions_Badge_of_Courage.shtml

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=60089&Disp=4

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55939
alt link for Christopher Deliso interview-
http://antiwar.com/news/interview.html
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.227 seconds with 12 queries.