Showing posts with label 9/11 Foreknowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11 Foreknowledge. Show all posts

November 13, 2007

Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Whistle Blower: Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her



Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Whistle Blower: Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her

Who is Sibel Edmonds?

9/11 family member Patty Casazza talks about the 9/11 commission and reveals that Sibel Edmonds had incriminating insider information about the 9/11 attacks:

"Sibel came to, actually, the four widows, and asked us if she could get a hearing with the Commission because nobody of the Commission was responding to her requests to testify... Um, Sibel brought us many whistle-blowers, and I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, “these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.” And, he promised me… to my face that “every whistle-blower would be… indeed heard.” And, most were not heard. Sibel was only heard because we dragged her in and surprised the Commission on one of the days we were meeting with them… that we had her with us. Um, we met other whistle-blowers on the side of the road in Maryland, ya know, to hear what they could tell us. None of them revealed state secrets to us by the way (laughs)… um, but, they had information… and basically,

the Government knew… ya know, other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come... And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.

And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, “What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.” And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabrication.

What does Sibel Edmonds know? From Let Sibel Edmonds Speak:

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds wants to tell us what she knows about various criminal and treasonous activities that she became aware of that involve high level US officials, the embassies of Israel and Turkey, and lobbying groups associated with those two countries - primarily AIPAC and the American Turkish Council.

Of course, it's difficult to understand all of the different reasons that everyone wants Sibel to just [be quiet]. Some want her to shut up because they are complicit, others want her to shut up for [cover your ass] reasons. The important thing is that the collective silence is dangerous for all of us. As just one example, when Sibel reported that there were spies in the FBI and Pentagon who had tried to recruit her, the claims were investigated and found to be valid. The FBI responded that they wouldn't do anything about the existence of foreign spies in the FBI because:

"Who knows how many more (spies) would fall out if they were to come and shake up the Dept?"

For more information see the Complete 911 Timeline: Sibel Edmonds and Related Scandals

A major announcement has been made by Sibel Edmonds. From The Brad Blog:

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her

Attention CBS 60 Minutes: we've got a huge scoop for you. If you want it.

Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

But if you'll sit down and talk with her for an unedited interview, she has now told The BRAD BLOG during an exclusive interview, she will now tell you everything she knows.

Everything she hasn't been allowed to tell since 2002, about the criminal penetration of the FBI where she worked, and at the Departments of State and Defense; everything she heard concerning the corruption and illegal activities of several well-known members of Congress; everything she's aware of concerning information omitted and/or covered up in relation to 9/11. All of the information gleaned from her time listening to and translating wire-taps made prior to 9/11 at the FBI.

Here's a handy bullet-point list, as we ran it in March of 2006, for reference, of what she's now willing to tell you about.

"People say, 'why doesn't she just come forward and spill the beans?' I have gone all the way to the Supreme Court and was shut down, I went to Congress and now consider that shut down," she told The BRAD BLOG last week when we spoke with her for comments in relation to our story on former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's original attempt to move a resolution through the U.S. House in 2000 declaring the 1915 massacre of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in Turkey as "genocide."

"Here's my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks --- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX --- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us.

"I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since."

"She's Very Credible"

She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."

On the morning that the SCOTUS refused to hear her case, the facade cracked on the front of the building. In a ridiculously ironic metaphor which would have been rejected by any credible screen-writer, a chunk of marble --- just above an allegorical statue representing "Order" and just below the words "Equal Justice" --- came crashing to the ground.

She has met with, and told her story to, U.S. senators including Republican Charles Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy, both of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both who found her extremely credible. 60 Minutes producers may remember when Grassley told them, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

In fact, the FBI itself has done so. Their Inspector General found her allegations, as described in the unclassified version of his report, to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

As far back as 2002, Grassley and Leahy co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made.

"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."

She's briefed many legislative offices --- as well as the 9/11 Commission --- in regard to her claims, and now, she says, she's even prepared to tell the media "the names of every single Congressional office who has received the names of the witnesses" to the crimes she's detailed.

When we spoke last week, Edmonds seemed to reserve most of her frustration for Congressman Henry Waxman's office. Waxman is the Democratic Chairman of the U.S. House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

After briefing members of his security-cleared staff "inside the SCIF" --- a high-security room in the U.S. Capitol, specially created for discussion of highly sensitive information --- Edmonds says she was told on several occasions, prior to the 2006 Election, that her case would be one of the first heard in his committee, once he became Chairman.

"I even gave names of former and current FBI agents who were willing to go to Waxman's office and give more information on all of this," she said.

"Before the elections, I had a promise from Congressman Waxman's office." She claims they told her, before the election, "the only reason they couldn't hold hearings, was because the Republicans were blocking it."

"They said 'your case will be one of the first ones we will hold investigations on,'" she told us. Now, however, since the Democrats have become the majority in the House, Waxman's office is "going mum." They won't even respond to her calls.

The congressman's office did not respond to several requests for comment on this story.

Two Other "Well-Known" Congressmen

Aside from the allegations she's already made concerning Hastert, as we reported in some detail in early 2006, following up on a Vanity Fair exposé in 2005, Edmonds says there are at least "two other well-known" members of Congress that she's prepared to name as well.

"There are other Congressional people, whose names have not come out," she explained. "As [Waxman's office knows] I'll be able to give them file numbers and investigations, including investigations by the IRS. I will be giving details one by one, not just allegations."

"But," she added, "unfortunately nobody wants to have an investigation like that."

For the record, she told The BRAD BLOG, the other two "well-known members" are from the House, both Republican, and "one of them is recently no longer there."

So far, she says, "those names have not been public."

"Kafka-esque"

Since leaving the FBI, and in the wake of her years-long ordeal, which she frequently describes as "Kafka-esque," Edmonds has founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

In addition to the support she has received, at various times, from members of Congress, she's received a great deal of support from members of the national security whistleblower community and government watchdog organizations.

As we reported last Spring, Veteran FBI counterintelligence agent John Cole has said he's "talked to people who had read her file, who had read the investigative report, and they were telling me a totally different story" than that given publicly by FBI officials. "They were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was 100 percent accurate," he said, "management knew that she was correct."

Famed "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg has described Edmonds as "extremely credible." In a 2005 interview on KPFA, Ellsberg said, "FBI agents we've talked to have, in every respect that was raised, have confirmed her story - that she's a very credible witness."

More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case."

That petition was sent almost precisely one year after The BRAD BLOG originally reported on a public petition to Congress, demanding they hold public hearings. More than 30,000 people, Edmonds says, have now signed that petition since it was first announced.

"Exhausted Every Channel"

In a speech given over the Summer in D.C. at the American Library Association (ALA, video here), Edmonds detailed the "Kafka-esque" nature of her unprecedented gag-order. Among the information still-regarded as "classified" under the States Secret Privelege: the fact that she was a translator for the FBI, where she was born, what languages she speaks, the date of her birth, the universities she attended, and the degrees she earned.

In fact, the interview that CBS's 60 Minutes aired with her in 2004, was later retroactively classified by the Department of Justice under the same "privilege"!

But enough is enough. She's now ready to tell all. To the public. But not (yet) to us. She will speak, however, to any broadcast network that would like to have her.

"I have exhausted every channel. If they want to, they can bring criminal charges against someone who divulges criminal activity, and see how far they're going to get."

But will any of the corporate mainstream networks take her up on the offer? It'd certainly be an explosive exclusive.

"I don't think any of the mainstream media are going to have the guts to do it," she dared them.

So whaddaya say 60 Minutes? We've given you scoops before that you ended up turning down --- and likely later regretted. Will you be smart enough to take this one?

"You put me on air live, or unedited. If I'm given the time, I will give the American people the exact reason of what I've been gagged from saying because of the States Secrets Privilege, and why it is that I'm the most gagged person in the history of the United States."

"My feeling is that none of them have the guts to do that," she dared them, before charging, "they are all manipulated."

"I keep using the word Kafkaesque..." she paused, during her speech at ALA, clearly showing her exasperation, "because...," she continued slowly, "...I really can't come up with a better word."

Later, Brad Blog revealed:

Well, this is interesting. It seems our Monday Exclusive on "gagged" FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has disappeared from Google News. Sort of.

A simple news search for "Sibel Edmonds" at Google no longer offers the rather blockbuster story, in which it's announced that she is now challenging American mainstream media television outlets to allow her to tell her story, uncensored and in violation of the ridiculous years-long "State Secrets Privilege" that the DoJ has been using to keep her quiet.

The story can be found via Google News, but it requires a search for both "Sibel Edmonds" and "Brad Blog," or drilling by date, etc. We've got no idea why the story fails to show up otherwise.

That's particularly odd since it's been incredibly popular since we first blogged it, having made it's way to #3 at Digg.com and #4 at Reddit.com, as well as becoming the #1 "recommended" diary at DailyKos.com for most of the day it first ran.

More coverage:

http://www.justacitizen.com/

http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/

Where are the 9/11 Truth bloggers? Where are the Zeitgeist viewers?

The Sibel Edmonds blockbuster exclusive: the news story that wasn’t

site:bradblog dot com search Sibel+Edmonds+bradblog: g*ogle- 10th most relevant result; can you say buried?

Luke Ryland- Sibel Edmonds Case: the untellable story of AIPAC

August 26, 2007

Iraq, 9/11 and Oil



Iraq, 9/11, and Oil

By Arabesque

What exactly do Iraq, 9/11, and oil have to do with each other?

While many object to the Iraq war for its conduct:

Suppose that a President invaded another country, and adopted the unusual tactic of sending our troops in unarmed and unprotected, one platoon at a time, holding signs that said: We want to take over your country! Please surrender! And suppose that, unsurprisingly, the result of this was that those troops were all killed, one after the other. Suppose that the President was urged to adopt a different strategy, but refused, on the grounds that admitting mistakes would give comfort to our enemies; and that when some people began to mutter: not as much comfort as making those mistakes in the first place, he accused them of being defeatists. Finally, suppose that after several thousand troops had been killed in this way, the American people stopped supporting this President and his war. It would be beyond galling for the President to lecture them on their lack of will, or their insufficient concern for the people of the invaded country, when the reason for their lack of support was that his own idiocy had made any good outcome impossible. -- Obsidian Wings

Others object to its premise:

Repeating the lies for starting a war does not make them true.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." George Bush, May 24, 2005

George Bush truly is a master of this disinformation technique. Take for example, the claim that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. Here is what Bush has to say about the subject:

We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.” September 3, 2003

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" June 18, 2004

What did Iraq have to do with… [9/11]? Nothing!” August 21, 2006

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th. July 12, 2007

Now, to some, it is a serious matter to lie about reasons to start a war. Some would say it's a basis for impeachment:

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause.John W. Dean, June 6, 2003

What have others said about the relationship of Iraq to 9/11?

Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.” Associated Press, April 6, 2007

There is ‘no credible evidence’ that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the [9/11] commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Washington Post, June 16, 2004

The Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even Bush admitted it once. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the repetition of lies after hearing:

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” New York Times, October 17, 2004
The embarrassing problem with creating your own reality is that you can’t always remember your lies.

Question: When did the US administration decide it wanted to go to war with Iraq? Was it after 9/11, or before 9/11?

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Why would they want to do this?

Before 9/11, Dick Cheney arranged secret Energy Task Force meetings. Judicial Watch sued for the release of documents from these meetings:

"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.

Project Censored remarked:

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry.”

In fact, there were also plans to go to war with Afghanistan before 9/11 happened.

So then, why are Bush and the mainstream media continuously lying about Iraq's connection to 9/11?

Because they needed a justification—like "a new Pearl Harbor" to go to war. It's an old trick.

9/11 supplied what they needed.

July 5, 2007

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter: Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses



Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter:

Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses

(06/17/07 to 06/17/07):

James Bennett [of “screw loose change”]:

I was reading your paper published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I was wondering why you misrepresented the Angus-Reid poll on page 16:

“An Angus-Reid poll comparing responses from 2002 and 2006 found similar results, and that in 2006, only 16% of Americans believed that the government is telling the truth about the events of 9/11[16].”

If you go to the poll, which you footnote, you find that that question does not even ask people whether they believe "the government is lying about the events of 9/11":

“81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?”

On the contrary, it very specifically asks people whether they believe that government was lying about warnings of terrorist attacks, not the attacks themselves. This becomes even more obvious when you read the previous two poll questions, which ask whether they believe the Clinton and Bush administrations paid enough attention to terrorism. So I have to ask, why did you entirely change the premise of the question for your paper, and are you going to issue a correction?

Laurie Manwell:

I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I did state in my paper that it was regarding the "events of 9/11" which, in fact, includes prior knowledge of the attacks. I would also argue that this fact itself, foreknowledge of the attacks, is the single most important fact, because if properly dealt with, all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented.

Moreover, it speaks to the fact that the majority of people believe that George W. Bush is lying about many things and consider such behavior to be above the law. Below are some of the other questions that I also considered in making my statement. Misrepresentation of the events of 9/11 – both before, during and after – have been well documented and many people are becoming more and more aware that the official account of the events of 9/11 is full of lies.

Considering that I cite the actual poll for people to review for themselves, I stand behind what I said and do not intend to print a retraction. I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. If not, and you are genuinely interested in discussing the paper, I would invite you to continue correspondence. I do appreciate that you took the time to read the entire paper and consider the main overarching message before rushing to judgment based on one poll. Part II should be out in July which may also help answer any questions you may have.

James Bennett:

Thanks for the response, but I think you are being somewhat disingenuous. No honest person is going to think that "what they knew prior to 9/11" and the "events of 9/11" are synonymous. In fact even you indicate that you think they are two different issues when you state that with prior knowledge of the attacks "all of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented." If you actually regarded these as interchangeable, that statement would be illogical.

Incidentally that logic is also based on the assumption that the attacks were carried out by a third party, not by the US government, as one does not receives "warnings" from oneself, which seems to contradict your main thesis.

Laurie Manwell:

It seems that you have an agenda here rather than open discussion of the topic of my paper. Nowhere do I say that the US government "did it" and nor is my main thesis that. All research is subject to interpretation and I include all of my sources for verification. If you strongly disagree I would encourage you to write a letter or article for submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where we can debate this issue within an academic - rather than personal - domain, as I am not sure what your point is other than to attack me personally by calling me disingenuous.

If you wish to discuss the research professionally that is fine but I am not interested in responding to questions regarding my character, especially since we do not even know each other.

James Bennett:

Actually I would argue that you have a personal agenda, otherwise you would not have changed the wording from "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001," to "the events of 9/11". There is no reason to do that except to advance an agenda.

I have already had letters posted on the Journal. I have no interest in having any articles posted to what is essentially a crackpot echo chamber without academic or intellectual standards. Why don't you submit your paper to an actual established psychology journal, I know there are plenty out there?

Laurie Manwell:

Again, I must respectfully disagree.

In the second paragraph I explicitly state the purposes of my article and repeat them in the final paragraph. I state that "we need to find ways to encourage awareness of all of the events related to 9/11, along with open discussion and debate."

Having an "agenda" usually refers to motives which one tries to hide. I state right from the beginning what mine are and provide documentation for independent verification and objective analysis for anyone who either disagrees or is interested in further evaluation. This is the true spirit of scientific debate.

I am honestly quite interested in your view point and would be more than willing to listen to your perspective if you would be so kind as to share it with me. I did read your letter to Steven Jones and have visited your website. I'm not sure I understand your views but would be open to hearing them.

As for your suggestion about submitting the article to a mainstream psychology journal that is the intention once Part II is completed. Unfortunately, time is always a moderating factor as I do have 2 papers currently submitted for peer review and publication. As soon as they are accepted and this one is finished I will be following suit with it as well.

James Bennett:

Then I have to ask once again, why did you change the wording of the poll question from "what they knew prior to 9/11" to the "events of 9/11", if it were not to insert your viewpoint?

Laurie Manwell:

I was discussing evidence pertaining to the fact that many people believe the government is lying - period.

According to the American constitution that's wrong, no? It is only one poll used as a source out of over 100 other sources I also cited, not including the hundreds of other sources I have also investigated.

What about the rest of the paper? What about finding and prosecuting the perpetrators? Is that something we can agree upon?

From your website [http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/] I get the impression, which you can correct me if I'm wrong, that 9/11 was a horrible event and that you feel strongly about people who would exploit it for publicity or personal gain. Yes, that upsets me very much also. And yes, there are people who would do so.

But does that include everyone who would ask questions that have as of yet been largely unanswered?

What if we could all put personal bias aside and work together to bring the criminals to justice, in a court of law, and for a jury to decide.

What are your thoughts James? Could that be a possibility at least?

James Bennett:

You are ducking the question. You were not referring to your general impression of people's opinions of 9/11, you were referring specifically to that poll (84%). That poll did not ask people about their impression on 9/11 events in general, it was very specific.

Tell me this, if I am writing a paper on how people distrust politicians, and I come across a poll that states that "80% of US voters distrust Hillary Clinton", is it honest for me to then footnote that poll and say that "polls show that 80% of US voters distrust politicians"?

Laurie Manwell:

I have forwarded your concerns and my responses to Prof. Jones.

As such, I would ask you to kindly direct any further questions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as I do believe that I have tried to answer your question and it does not appear that you are satisfied.

ADDENDUM:

At this point, I would like to make a request to all psychologists who have read my paper and find it credible to contact me in regards to further peer-review and letters of support for submission for publication in a mainstream psychology journal.

Thank you, Laurie Manwell.

May 29, 2007

Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse



9/11 truthers are making headlines again today after confronting Rudy Giuliani in New York on his foreknowledge of the collapse of the twin towers. Amazingly, just weeks after saying the opposite, Giuliani now claims he had no idea the towers were going to fall.



Rudy Giuliani "My understanding was that after a long period of time--the way other buildings collapsed--the towers could collapse; meaning over [a] 7, 8, 9, 10 hour period. No one that I knew of had any idea that they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

Ironically, Giuliani used the word "implode" which is a term often used in place of controlled demolition.

Here is his claim on live television that Giuliani was told that the World Trade Center was about to Collapse (or more accurately "implode").



read more | digg story