tOfficial WTC Conspiracy Thread

[gHost Spartan]

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington



02 April 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

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

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

[OldWiseOne]

[jasley1]

What should the US have done differently? And please have a real plan, not "dont let them take the plane" bs.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by jasley1

What should the US have done differently? And please have a real plan, not "dont let them take the plane" bs.

Simple. The Bush administration should have:

#1 - Made the possibility of a terrorist attack THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY instead of a POOR THIRD behind Missile Defense and drawing up plans to invade Iraq. It was not like the U.S. was under an imminent threat that some nation would start lobbing ICBM's at us. The missile defense priority was all about PORK for defense firms. And iif you think it was not a poor third, like Clarke said, then you have your head DEEP in the sand.

#2 - Actually reveiwed in in earnest, the Clinton information which they TRIED to give to the Bush administration which stressed the threat of Al-Qaeda and which the BUSH administration ASH-CANNED.

Would this have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But we would have had a much better chance.

[Emma Shue]

Originally Posted by jasley1

What should the US have done differently? And please have a real plan, not "dont let them take the plane" bs.

For one thing, people known to the CIA to have al Qaeda connections were on the passenger manifests of the planes that crashed. That's how the US government knew so quickly that it was an al Qaeda attack. A little bit of information sharing (the CIA never told the FBI of the names) and basic checking would have set off security alarms. At that point federal marshals could have stepped up security for the flights or had marshals on the planes. It would have been a lot simpler procedure than constructing a missle defense system.

[Venice Spartan]

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

signed

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett

[WixomSpartan]

[quote=gHostSpartan]
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says...
QUOTE]


And now we read it on the internet....

[Spartacus]

We've all seen Richard Clarke's testimony, excerpts of his book, and how his background is a 100% different. Clarke served up fiction in at least in one of these accounts, probably both. I suspect this so called whisle blower is everybit as self-serving and dishonest as Clarke.

[greenjoker]

Originally Posted by jasley1

What should the US have done differently? And please have a real plan, not "dont let them take the plane" bs.

I would say that the U.S. should of tried to retrofit Airplane cockpit doors, perform more thorough passenger searches, divert planes around larger cities, treat all hijacking as a threat rather than the previous policy of just giving in, etc.

It couldn't of been any worse than what happened.

[jasley1]

Originally Posted by greenjoker

I would say that the U.S. should of tried to retrofit Airplane cockpit doors,

Even if they did these things, no redflags would have shown up. The hijackers did not break down the doors, which elimates the first point as helpful.

perform more thorough passenger searches, ,

They used knives that might have been caught, but were generally not considered a threat.

divert planes around larger cities,

The diversion of planes around big cities only helps prevent accidents. Even if the planes were diverted, i doubt that would have stopped Al-Queda from flying them into the city. This just would have let someone know something is wrong about 5 minutes early. As there is no anti-aircraft sites in any major city, little could have been done.

treat all hijacking as a threat rather than the previous policy of just giving in, etc.

The terrorists made no demands, and noone was made aware of the hijackings until after the second plane crashed. Dont see how any of you assertions would help.

[Notorious P.A.T.]

Originally Posted by jasley1

What should the US have done differently?

What should Bill Clinton have done differently?

[DeputyMSU]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

Simple. The Bush administration should have:

#1 - Made the possibility of a terrorist attack THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY instead of a POOR THIRD behind Missile Defense and drawing up plans to invade Iraq. It was not like the U.S. was under an imminent threat that some nation would start lobbing ICBM's at us. The missile defense priority was all about PORK for defense firms. And iif you think it was not a poor third, like Clarke said, then you have your head DEEP in the sand.

#2 - Actually reveiwed in in earnest, the Clinton information which they TRIED to give to the Bush administration which stressed the threat of Al-Qaeda and which the BUSH administration ASH-CANNED.

Would this have prevented 9/11. Who knows? But we would have had a much better chance.

Missle Defense is all about Pork? Then why was it one of the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman commision on homeland security? Do Hart and Rudman have financial interests in the defense field?
Also, please let us know what information Clinton gave Bush that would have changed the Bush policy on terrorism. Bush continued the Clinton policy regarding Al Queda and terrorism until it had formulated it's own plan (which looked remarkably similar to suggestions that Clinton gave Bush). So what did Bush ash-can that could have been used to prevent 9/11?

[greenjoker]

There is a guy running in the Dem. primary against Patrick Leahy for the Democratic Senator Seat in Vermont just stated that he has info. that Bush, Cheney and others staged the 9/11 attacks. His name is Hill. He brings up the fact that action wasn't taken before the attacks and other inept actions, etc. Interesting.

[sloth]

Originally Posted by greenjoker

There is a guy running in the Dem. primary against Patrick Leahy for the Democratic Senator Seat in Vermont just stated that he has info. that Bush, Cheney and others staged the 9/11 attacks. His name is Hill. He brings up the fact that action wasn't taken before the attacks and other inept actions, etc. Interesting.

you should be ashamed of yerself. seriously, you should be embarrassed.

I will not respond to this thread again, so flame away.

[OldWiseOne]

So the conspiracy was in not doing something to stop themselves? What a pile, though someone needs to knock that Leahy nut out of the race.

[Al Czervik]

Say what you want, but this book comes out in a few weeks, which is in full support what joker is saying (this does not mean that I believe or endorse what this author is writing about..I am just making the point that that this guy Mike Ruppert is crazy enough to put out a book on the subject of this thread):



Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oilby Michael C. Ruppert

This is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen.

The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies the key suspects and persons of interest - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks occurred and produced the desired result.

ISBN #0-86571-540-8
(approx 600 pages with illustrations)
New Society Publishers, Vancouver, Canada)
$22.95 (US)

After two and a half years of research and writing, Ruppert said:

"In my new book I will be making several key points:

1. I will name Vice President Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room;

2. I will establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations -- taking place on that day.

3. I will also demonstrate that the TRIPOD II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in the above.

4. I will also prove conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action.

5. I will also show that the Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks."

"There is more reason to be afraid of not facing the evidence in this book than of facing what is in it."

[pulling69]

[MasonDelhiGuy]

Originally Posted by Bushwick Billups

Say what you want, but this book comes out in a few weeks, which is in full support what joker is saying:"There is more reason to be afraid of not facing the evidence in this book than of facing what is in it."

Some things you just don't want to get associated with, but bushwick, you are too late to avoid this one. Sorry dude...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Bushwick/Joker: I've found the product for you.


ALUMINUM FOIL DEFLECTOR BEANIE Practical Mind Control Protection for Paranoids by Lyle Zapato Are you a victim of MIND CONTROL? Many people are unaware that their actions and thoughts are being directed to suit the agendas of shadowy agencies. Do you; Trust the government and social institutions? Feel a lack of control over your life? Experience déjà vu? Want to purchase unneeded products? Have trouble sleeping or sleep too easily? Experience déjà vu? Doubt this book? If you have experienced any of these symptoms, then your mind is being controlled! Fortunately, you hold in your hands a ticket to board the bus to mental freedom with an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie! The Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie is the most effective, inexpensive and stylish way to combat psychotronic mind control. By following the step-by-step directions in this book you can make your own deflector beanie – and beanies for your loved ones, your pets, your plants, even your car – before it’s TOO LATE! 8 1/2 x 5 1/2, softcover, illus., 192 pp. ISBN 1-58160-376-2Price: $12.95 AFDB


http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=28

[Tim*Mello]

The sad facts are that a lot of this stuff is plausible.

We have a lot of predictions of world wide oil supply problems and it's not just some PhD from UC Berkley who says so, it's oil industry folks like friends of Dumbya's family. And there was a study by one of Bush senior's cabinet that said the key to the future disaster was IRAQ. This was all spelled out well in advance of 9/11.

Did you know Cheney even went to the UN to get sanctions removed right before 9/11? I guess Saddam wasn't such a bad guy then, was he?

We have oil industry folks running our gov't. Bush and Cheney are puppets for oil companies (see Halliburton, Carlisle, etc).

It was in their best interests that the 9/11 attacks occur, then they had an excuse to claim Iraq, the big oil prize, with little resistance from the American people.

Laugh all you want, frankly I wouldn't doubt that Dumbya sat there for 7 minutes because he was waiting for something to play out. Who knows?

[Spartan256]

OK even I have to disagree on this. To believe that Bush or Cheney or anyone would do this is just plain idiotic .They maybe republicans but no one can stoop to that

[Tim*Mello]

I wouldn't say that they actually initiated the attacks, but if they had knowledge of the attacks they may have sat on the info....letting the attacks unfold in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq. That I wouldn't dismiss so quickly.

[OldWiseOne]

Originally Posted by Tim*Mello

The sad facts are that a lot of this stuff is plausible.

We have a lot of predictions of world wide oil supply problems and it's not just some PhD from UC Berkley who says so, it's oil industry folks

Not plausible or even possible, and certainly without a connection to 9-11.