Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 [Archive] - Page 2

Myriad

6th August 2009, 02:34 PM

If the supposed "gag order" is actually an NDA, then that puts a different light on things.

And NDA is a form of contract (the "A" = "agreement" = "contract"). One of the fundamental principles of contract law in the U.S. is that a contract is not enforceable (that is to say, is meaningless) unless the things the parties agree to do are legal.

Thus, if Don Julio puts out a "contract" on Sammy the Snitch, and Tony the Torpedo agrees to whack Sammy the Snitch for 100 grand, and Don Julio pays the money but Tony doesn't whack Sammy the Snitch, Don Julio cannot take legal action against Tony for breach of contract. Nor can Tony sue Don Julio if he whacks Sammy and Don Julio doesn't pay. This is not only because it would be silly for either one to admit in court to having made the contract in the firstplace. There's a more fundamental legal principle involved, that still applies even if Tony or the Don or both were willing to go to jail to get the terms of the contract enforced. Since neither whacking a snitch, nor paying a guy to whack the snitch, are legal, the contract has no legal standing.

An NDA is simply an agreement to protect certain privileged information (which includes not revealing the information, but is not limited to that; it can also include exercising due diligence to protect the physical security of documents in one's possession, for instance). Like any contract, it ceases to be an enforceable contract if and when holding to its terms becomes an illegal act, such as when doing so would constitute conspiracy, obstruction of justice, or spoliation of evidence.

So, any statement to the effect of "I have documents that someone has done/is doing something illegal, but I can't reveal them due to being gagged by an NDA" is not credible.

When it's not an issue of documentary evidence but of simple first-hand knowledge, things aren't quite so simple, because in most circumstances withholding knowledge from investigators (as opposed to lying to them), by exercising one's right to remain silent or taking the Fifth when subpoenaed, is not illegal. However, a civil contract (e.g. an NDA) seems to be a flimsy pretext for refusing to reveal material evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It's basically saying, I won't reveal the wrongdoing because I'd prefer to honor my civil contract with the criminal. Not at all a morally commendable stance, though it may be personally expedient.

Respectfully,
Myriad

T.A.M.

6th August 2009, 02:39 PM

Wait... guys, why are we just accepting that there's any gag order on Edmonds? Last time this claim came up, nobody provided any proof of one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3109815#post3109815). Did I miss something since then? Can someone provide some evidence that there is in fact a court ordered suppression on her?

ok, let me restate...

If it turns out there was a gag order placed on her, then I hope they lift it, so we can all (the world at large) hear her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:D

Senenmut

6th August 2009, 03:32 PM

BigAl

6th August 2009, 03:37 PM

interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding

It's unsourced and doesn't state that ObL knew where his aid come from. Pakistan insisted that all aid to Afghanistan go through it's ISI.

It's also thin because one thing ObL was known for was getting construction equipment and his own funding into Afghanistan/Pakistan and building stuff.

It's possible some of our aid went to ObL.

So What?

Senenmut

6th August 2009, 03:38 PM

Not good. At least part of ISI is supportive of extremists.

really? this was right before 911....

"Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001] Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban. [Center for Public Integrity, 9/13/2001] "

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=cia+%2B+isi&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

beachnut

6th August 2009, 03:39 PM

interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding
UBL worked on his own. But you can spread lies and false information it is self critiquing. Wait, your article says UBL used the facility which the US helped to build. Wowzer, where is the Pulitzer Prize for this?

And your point? UBL is the son of a major person in Saudi Arabia, gee even I had a car for use from a Saudi Prince; SO WHAT?!~

Oops, I have links to the Saudi Royal Family. Got to love those gas coupons...

BigAl

6th August 2009, 03:59 PM

really? this was right before 911....

"Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.”

Yup. All US aid to the Muj was supposed to go went through the ISI. Most of it did. The ISI decided which of the warlords to give it to.

He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001]

He can claim anything he wants to.

Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban. [Center for Public Integrity, 9/13/2001] "

"A roll" is really vague. I'm sure you know what "blowback" means. It might not be direct or planned in advance. I've read lots of Rashid. The link to that citation is broken. I wander what Rashid really said.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=cia+%2B+isi&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

Childlike Empress

6th August 2009, 04:18 PM

What does "working for the US" mean these days anyway? All privatized. The Balkan years of Bin Laden are very telling in this regard and seemingly underreported in english media. From an interview (http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/036.shtml) with german controversial but professional journalist and Balkan expert Jürgen Elsässer:

[...] You unequivocally state that Osama bin Laden received a passport from Bosnian government. Media seems to discount that. Who’s correct?

That Osama Bin Laden got a passport was documented in 1999 by DANI, a Muslim weekly from Sarajevo. Later in 2001, Zurich "Wochenzeitung" got “more and more evidence" from Interpol that bin Laden had a Bosnian passport, in spite of Sarajevo denying it.

You state “Bin Laden himself discussed the details with the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic”. What’s the evidence of this personal friendship?

Not friendship, but alliance of interest. Renate Flottau, Spiegel-correspondent for the Balkans, saw Bin Laden 1993/94 at least two times WITH HER OWN EYES in Izetbegovic's palace and even spoke with him. She confirmed it to me personally. She said Izetbegovic didn't like Bin Laden, but needed him.

We see Turkey being used to deliver arms, Iran for buying them, al-Qaeda for providing fighters and Saudis for funding this via its “charitable” organizations. What got these Muslim countries, professing at times antagonism for one another, to come together on Bosnia?

It was not formal alliance, more improvisation. Sudan did most of the smuggling 1992, 1994 Iran took over. Turkey helped with infrastructure, airports in Cyprus and in Anatolia were important as basis for the smuggling. Yossef Bodansky, an Anti-Terrorist-expert at the US Senate, found evidence that Sudanese leader Al Turabi, ObL's host, built close ties between Teheran’s secret service and Bin Laden, despite his religious differences between them.

After Dayton in 1995, we see Chechnya war start, then Kosovo, then Macedonia then 9/11. What’s common to all 5 of these events is Islamic militants and al-Qaeda. Is there a global coordination of these events and if so what’s the goal?

The spider in the net is MPRI, a subcontractor of the Pentagon. They took over the Arab/Iranian weapons-smuggling in 1995, helped the Mujahadeen to "liberate" Sarajevo in September 1995, took the best Mujahadeen fighters after Dayton on their own payroll, trained them with the help of Turkish army and sent them to Kosovo and later to Macedonia. I could not find a link between Chechnya and MPRI, but Aukai Collins, an American Mujahadeen, who fought in Chechnya and had contacts with some of the 9/11 bombers, was at least on the payroll of FBI and CIA. Not Al Qaeda is in the center of all these events, but American secret services, which used Al Qaeda.

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were veteran jihadists in Bosnia. What did they do in Bosnia that made them so exceptionally qualified to kill Americans?

Not two, but five: Al Hazmi and Al Midhar (Plane Nr.3/Pentagon), Mohammed Atta (Plane Nr. 1/WTC) and the "Masterminds" Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. Al Hazmi and Al Midhar were from Jan. 2000 until 9/11 under surveillance of US-Secret Services as was Atta's flat in Hamburg-Harburg. Binalshibh and Sheikh Mohamed are in US-custody since their arrest in 2002/2003 and are the main witnesses for the Pentagon-Version of 9/11, voluntarily or involuntarily they also work for US-interests. These people killed 3000 people, mostly Americans, but it is likely that they also worked for US secret services.

Is there an al-Qaeda link with the Kosovo Albanian KLA army and if so what is the evidence?

MPRI sent 80 – 120 Mujahadeen into Kosovo to help KLA. This is proven. ObL's own attempts to smuggle men into Kosovo failed. Originally, KLA had a rather weak Muslim influence. KLA are bunch of criminals with a great Albanian nationalist agenda. There's one exception: Hodza (Samedin Xhezairi), who praised himself (in German TV!) as coordinator for the pogroms around Prizren in March 2004. NATO sees him as confident of Bin Laden, but he himself says he has worked for CIA and BND. Another guy with double loyalty is the KLA-successor, so called ANA that is now split into several factions. One branch works with Al Qaeda, and the other is against this alliance.

[...]

Your book details how Pentagon contractor MPRI trained Bosnian and Kosovo Albanian KLA army. Dyn Corp who recently got their bid to buy Belgrade airport approved owns MPRI. Some see conspiracy here. Is there one?

Private companies form a Corporate Military Monster ("Mother Jones"), who does the dirty jobs for US foreign policy all over the world. Is this conspiracy? Some call it simply outsourcing.

Justin39640

6th August 2009, 05:06 PM

interesting article i just found....wow.....

"One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/13/worlddispatch.lukeharding

aside from big als points
DID YOU EVEN READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE???
Twelve years later, the Americans bombed the same camp after holding bin Laden responsible for the devastating US embassy bombings in east Africa.

Some 34 people were killed in the Khost attack. Bin Laden left the camp an hour earlier.

By this stage, American policy had come full circle. The cold war over, a new generation of Mujaheddin leaders had sprung up - the Taliban.

so this article you linked does nothing to prove that bin laden worked for the US right up until 911
it debunks it

thank you lol

newton3376

6th August 2009, 05:24 PM

What does "working for the US" mean these days anyway? All privatized.

What would you know about the intelligence community anyway?

Nothing.

All privatized?

Wrong.

jacque

6th August 2009, 05:43 PM

what a story! do you still have his documents?

Hmmm They might kill me if I answer that question.

But I can answer some questions--never knew which of the papers he had were bogus or real. Mostly real I think. The one about Bush Sr. (CIA at that time) being in Cuba during the Kennedy assassination I thought was important-then I saw it posted all over the Internet. But then there was a folder for JFK and one for MLK assassinations, they were obviously propaganda statements written to quote if asked. This was before we all had the Internet so IMHO the doc in question looked real. The least edited one is the one I saw, I hadn't seen the edited copes before. I'll go back and see if I recognize the handwriting in the margins.

jacque

6th August 2009, 06:07 PM

have any debunkers figured out where this came from yet? i know there is alot of controversy surrounding this "tim osman" thing. Michael Riconosciuto's name pops out at me in this letter considering the whole PROMIS software scandel. and ive glaced at the book gideons spies that talks about mossad having promis: http://books.google.com/books?id=1IeO8xtD86YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gideon%27s+spies#v=onepage&q=promis&f=false

i doubt any "twoofer" would go through the trouble and create something like this....
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/285444a7378dce5c60.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17093)

It was MR's document. No doubt real from all I saw.
That's his writing in the body of the paper. The notes on the side are Stew Webb's. gunderson posted this on his now defunked website. Why gunderson would post that is a mystery to me. he is a great attention seeker at other's expense.

Klimax

7th August 2009, 12:16 AM

really? this was right before 911....

"Selig Harrison, a long-time regional expert working at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, says, “the CIA still has close links with the ISI.” Harrison is said to have “extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia.” He also claims that the US worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. [Times of India, 3/7/2001] Similarly, in 2000, Ahmed Rashid, longtime regional correspondent for the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, called the US “Pakistan’s closest ally, with deep links to [Pakistan’s] military and the ISI.” Rashid agrees with Harrison that the US had a role in the creation of the Taliban. [Center for Public Integrity, 9/13/2001] "

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=cia+%2B+isi&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

Working with doesn't mean that they are supporting/cooperaitng with section which supports extremists.

As for "Taliban claim",it is so far not backed up and there is no support for it.(at least credible/verifiable)
I have read your link,but there are not many sources only,which can be accessed,so it is bit less clear. But one thing should be noted,Bush administration or Bush senior admin. had nothing to do with this and the only thing is that it APPEARS that in the beginning Taliban could be supported and talks about pipeline started,but that was all.

So far no good sources found on this. And you have missed fact,that after initial period any remaining support from CIA ceased.(But nothing more has been done about them.)

ETA:And don't forget that History commons are wiki-like project,so one should be very carefull!

JoeyDonuts

7th August 2009, 04:49 AM

how close was the relationship between the isi and cia?

There are at least some operational links between the two.

In the manhunts following 9/11, a key AQ courier was bagged in a CIA-planned raid with ISI assistance. They raided fourteen safe houses in Pakistan simultaneously, something the limited CIA assets in-country couldn't pull off on their own. Their target wound up getting shot jumping from one building to another, but they took him alive anyway. Can't remember his name for the life of me.

The problem here is that you assume everybody in the ISI is on the same page. It's obvious that rampant corruption exists in Pakistan, otherwise Benazir Bhutto's assassin wouldn't have been able to get so close to her. I'm sure there are elements that would support the CIA and work with them and there are elements that resent that.

Look at Hezbollah. Only a small part of the organization is a true Iranian proxy. Even Nasrallah doesn't know what they're doing half the time.

SteveAustin

7th August 2009, 09:38 AM

So, what sort of gag order allows her to be off rambling on at any given publicly aired opportunity?

But she hasn't spilled the beans at any of these publicly aired opportunities has she?

Oh My! Oh My! Common sense people, come on!

dtugg

7th August 2009, 09:39 AM

You're a twoofer. You don't know what common sense is.

SteveAustin

7th August 2009, 09:41 AM

ok, let me restate...

If it turns out there was a gag order placed on her, then I hope they lift it, so we can all (the world at large) hear her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:D

Yes because you need to place a gag order on people who have idiotic ideas!!

Boy that makes a lot of sense

In the real world TAM you place gag orders on people who have real information.

BigAl

7th August 2009, 09:42 AM

Yes because you need to place a gag order on people who have idiotic ideas!!

Boy that makes a lot of sense

In the real world TAM you place gag orders on people who have real information.

But about what? We all want to hear what she has to day.

A W Smith

7th August 2009, 09:42 AM

FineWine

7th August 2009, 09:44 AM

Hmmm They might kill me if I answer that question.

But I can answer some questions--never knew which of the papers he had were bogus or real. Mostly real I think. The one about Bush Sr. (CIA at that time) being in Cuba during the Kennedy assassination I thought was important-then I saw it posted all over the Internet. But then there was a folder for JFK and one for MLK assassinations, they were obviously propaganda statements written to quote if asked. This was before we all had the Internet so IMHO the doc in question looked real. The least edited one is the one I saw, I hadn't seen the edited copes before. I'll go back and see if I recognize the handwriting in the margins.

Bush senior was not in Cuba at the time of JFK's assassination, nor was he in the CIA. He was one of several businessmen who agreed to cooperate with the CIA. He was not an agent.

Senenmut

7th August 2009, 12:23 PM

here's a report that states:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WMR has obtained a confidential "France Only" report of the French intelligence service, Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE), that states that the CIA and Britain's MI-6 maintained effective control of an important Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan as late as 1995, fully two years after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center......"

and you might be thinking "clasified" wayne if full of it. well, it looks as though it was leaked.

September 11, 2001: The French Knew Much About It

By Guillaume Dasquié
Le Monde

Monday 16 April 2007

It's an impressive mass of documents. From a distance, one would imagine a doctoral thesis. On closer inspection: nothing of the kind. Red stamps "Confidential-Defense" and "Strictly National Usage" on every page. At the top on the left, a royal blue logo: that of the DGSE, Direction générale des services extérieurs [General Directorate for Foreign Services], the French secret services. In total, 328 classified pages.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7967

Senenmut

7th August 2009, 12:24 PM

Bush senior was not in Cuba at the time of JFK's assassination, nor was he in the CIA. He was one of several businessmen who agreed to cooperate with the CIA. He was not an agent.
totally off topic but i always wondered if this is a pic of bush sr.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444a7c7f7925b45.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17156)

Cl1mh4224rd

7th August 2009, 12:33 PM

totally off topic [...]

Then why even post it here? Start a new thread.

JoeyDonuts

7th August 2009, 12:41 PM

totally off topic but i always wondered if this is a pic of bush sr.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444a7c7f7925b45.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17156)

Impossible to say for certain. It could be any blurry square-jawed white guy.

I suggest you go down to Texas, drink yourself half blind, and start looking.

JoeyDonuts

7th August 2009, 12:42 PM

tsig

7th August 2009, 01:10 PM

But she hasn't spilled the beans at any of these publicly aired opportunities has she?

Oh My! Oh My! Common sense people, come on!

What are these beans she hasn't spilled? Just what secrets did she learn in her four months with the FBI that she hasn't told to the world?

Cl1mh4224rd

7th August 2009, 01:15 PM

What are these beans she hasn't spilled? Just what secrets did she learn in her four months with the FBI that she hasn't told to the world?

That's the beauty of this idiocy. She's under an alleged gag order, and since she's such a government-fearing individual, she must be complying. That means all the nonsense she's spewed forth previously isn't "the beans". *gasp*

It must be some truly horrible secret. If only she wasn't gagged or wasn't so afraid of the government, she could let the world know this earth-shattering secret.

Childlike Empress

7th August 2009, 01:34 PM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?

MPRI[Military Professional Resources] is a private military contractor that provides a wide range of services to both public and private customers, most notably the United States Department of Defense. MPRI specializes in various professions such as law enforcement, security, military training, logistics, etc. By its own account MPRI operates in over 40 countries. The firm is based in Alexandria, Virginia.

A member of International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), MPRI was founded in 1987 by eight ex-officers of the United States Army. It was sold to L-3 Communications in June 2000 for $40 million.

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LLL) is a company that supplies command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) systems and products, avionics and ocean products, training devices and services, instrumentation, space and navigation products. Its customers include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Government intelligence agencies, aerospace contractors and commercial telecommunications and wireless customers.

L-3 is headquartered in New York City.

L-3 (named for Frank Lanza, Robert LaPenta, and Lehman Brothers) was formed in 1997 from the purchase of ten former business units of Lockheed Corporation when Lockheed merged in 1996 with Martin Marietta[2]; the ten units were those which the new Lockheed Martin was uninterested in owning.

L-3 has continued to grow since then through numerous acquisitions to become one of the top 10 US government contractors

Lehman Brothers [...]

On September 11, 2001, Lehman occupied three floors of One World Trade Center where one employee was killed. Its global headquarters in Three World Financial Center were severely damaged and rendered unusable by falling debris, displacing over 6,500 employees. The bank recovered quickly and rebuilt its presence. Trading operations moved across the Hudson River to its Jersey City, New Jersey, facilities, where an impromptu trading floor was built and brought online less than forty-eight hours after the attacks. When stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, Lehman's sales and trading capabilities were restored.

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 01:45 PM

Fairly unremarquable coincidence.

Be careful with connecting links, you'll eventually find yourself in the middle of the conspiracy, six degrees of separation and all...

Childlike Empress

7th August 2009, 02:05 PM

The pseudoskeptics mantra, isolated by Robert Anton Wilson in the early eighties:

It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! It's only a coincidence! ...

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 02:06 PM

Well, coincidences do happen.

That the Lehman Brothers had offices in the WTC complex doesn't mean anything.

T.A.M.

7th August 2009, 02:06 PM

Yes because you need to place a gag order on people who have idiotic ideas!!

Boy that makes a lot of sense

In the real world TAM you place gag orders on people who have real information.

Well if that is the case, I can safely accept that there is NO gag order in effect for miss Edmonds.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

7th August 2009, 02:07 PM

Well, coincidences do happen.

That the Lehman Brothers had offices in the WTC complex doesn't mean anything.

Not to you and I, but to the truthers...that is a different story. To them, there are no coincidences.

TAM:)

Childlike Empress

7th August 2009, 02:19 PM

Fairly unremarquable coincidence.

Be careful with connecting links, you'll eventually find yourself in the middle of the conspiracy, six degrees of separation and all...

btw, Pardalis, finding yourself is a good idea and nothing to be afraid of. try it.

</derail>

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 02:28 PM

Follow the links:

about Frank Lanza, and L-3

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/Lanza_061206.html

Its space businesses and product lines are vast and include satellite navigation equipment, gyroscopes, momentum wheels and satellite ground terminals. Its hardware can be found on the Hubble Space Telescope, the international space station, Delta rockets and the Ikonos imaging satellites, to name just a few.Does that mean that the WTC was vaporised by space beam weapons?

You can make connections with just about everything, and develop a conspiracy theory out of any link.

twinstead

7th August 2009, 02:33 PM

Connect the dots, man. Just connect the dots.....

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 02:38 PM

L-3 has contracts with NASA, Ryan Mackey works for NASA, and Mackey is a prominent 9/11 debunker...

OMG! :boxedin:

Cl1mh4224rd

7th August 2009, 02:50 PM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?

I'm not sure playing a game of Six Degrees with corporations can be considered research.

Besides, what's the significance of this "research"?

Childlike Empress

7th August 2009, 03:04 PM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL. See thread title, but of course it isn't that simple.

MikeW

7th August 2009, 03:08 PM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?
Here's some "research" of mine.

After the attacks four Irish "construction workers" showed up in hospital. They had been working at the WTC under false names and were rushed out of the country.

Weeks before 9/11 several IRA members were held in Columbia, believed to have been working with FARC.

It's been claimed that FARC terrorists received training from al Qaeda.

On 9-11, Richard Haass, a US Special Envoy from Bush was in Dublin.

Haas would surely have met US Ambassador to Dublin at the time, Richard Egan.

Richard Egan was the founder of EMC, who Fortune Magazine said did very well out of 9/11.

( All points sourced at http://911myths.com/html/the_irish_did_it___or_did_they.html )

So: Irishmen at the scene, with false names, not imprisoned or questioned: far more suspicious than the "dancing Israelis". Irish connections to al Qaeda. A distinct shortage of Irish citizens who died on 9/11 (just 1, I believe?) A Bush envoy just "happened" to be in Dublin on 9/11, meeting a man who just "happened" to found a company that profited from the attacks? Come on. How stupid do they think we are? Etc etc.

Or, alternatively, we can look at what actually happened. I purposely set out to construct a "the Irish did it" theory. I looked only for stories that would support that claim, and I ignored contrary evidence. And for 30 minutes work, I don't think I did a bad job. It's a practical demonstration that you can, with very little effort, assemble a number of coincidences to point to just about anything you want, but it's not proof. It's not even evidence. If links are all you have, then you've got nothing at all.

Childlike Empress

7th August 2009, 03:12 PM

I'm honestly surprised to see a post like this by you, MikeW. If this information is new to you, look into it.

BigAl

7th August 2009, 03:12 PM

Here's some "research" of mine.

After the attacks four Irish "construction workers" showed up in hospital. They had been working at the WTC under false names and were rushed out of the country.

In NYC 10 years ago you couldn't avoid finding illegal Irish, especially in construction.

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 03:16 PM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL. See thread title, but of course it isn't that simple.

No, the "research" doesn't say that at all. They may have had a common enemy in Bosnia, but your links don't say that OBL was on a payroll by the US.

And your link to the Lehman Brothers is just ridiculous.

BigAl

7th August 2009, 03:18 PM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL. See thread title, but of course it isn't that simple.

Source for that claim? ObL was in charge of AQ; Here are some of my sources.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09
http://911links.webs.com/binLaden.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem

johnny karate

7th August 2009, 03:19 PM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL.

Could you elaborate on this please? Because I see no mention of OBL or al-Qaeda in the information you've provided, nor do I see how one could come to the conclusion you did based on the fact that a particular corporation which owned a private military contractor happened to have offices at the WTC complex.

Pardalis

7th August 2009, 03:29 PM

Could you elaborate on this please? Because I see no mention of OBL or al-Qaeda in the information you've provided, nor do I see how one could come to the conclusion you did based on the fact that a particular corporation which owned a private military contractor happened to have offices at the WTC complex.

Mujahadeen went fighting in Bosnia, this is well known. And OBL funnelled them from his base in Sudan. Their enemy were the Serbs, which the UN was also fighting. Alot of those Mujahadeen are part of Al Qaeda, but this doesn't mean the UN or the US were helping or training Al Qaeda. They were just fighting agaisnt the same enemy.

Cl1mh4224rd

7th August 2009, 03:39 PM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL.

How so?

MikeW

7th August 2009, 04:09 PM

I'm honestly surprised to see a post like this by you, MikeW. If this information is new to you, look into it.
I'm sufficiently familiar with Elsässer to know that when he reaches for 9/11 he falls into very recognisable trutherspeak, like "the neoconservatives, grouped around Pearl, had written a document one year before September 11, according to which America had need of a catalyzing event similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor" (http://www.voltairenet.org/article143050.html).

From the same interview: "at the time of Kennedy’s murder, it is clear that the CIA was implicated". And re: our 7/7: "It is not clear that it was really the young Moslems from the suburbs of London that committed the attacks, as the police claim. There are other indications according to which the bombs were fixed under the trains."

In other words, he's the German Nafeez Ahmed. The appearance is all very scholarly. His books have lots of footnotes, I'm sure. Those who put him forward think he's a heavyweight, and he may have points to make about al Qaeda in the 1990's. But when it comes to 9/11, if you look closely then the cracks began to appear, and he's not convincing at all.

R.Mackey

7th August 2009, 06:30 PM

L-3 has contracts with NASA, Ryan Mackey works for NASA, and Mackey is a prominent 9/11 debunker...

OMG! :boxedin:

Keep watching the skies!

:alien009:

metamars

7th August 2009, 07:26 PM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?

The Really Bad Dogs of War (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2007/10/10/the-really-bad-dogs-of-war/)
by Srdja Trifkovic

The firm has claimed “more generals per square foot than in the Pentagon,” including Gen. Carl E. Vuono, the former Army chief of staff; Gen. Crosbie E. Saint, the former commander of the US Army in Europe; and Gen. Ron Griffith, the former Army vice chief of staff. There are also dozens of retired top-ranked generals and thousands of former military personnel, including elite special forces, on the firm’s books.

metamars

7th August 2009, 07:33 PM

Her attorney is saying "nuh-huh". This should be interesting.....

Link (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7345)

beachnut

7th August 2009, 07:43 PM

The Really Bad Dogs of War (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2007/10/10/the-really-bad-dogs-of-war/)
by Srdja Trifkovic An article from when? October 10th, 2007?
You could have written the story yourself much earlier if you paid attention and could do rational research with a biased political flair. But you post an old story of an old story too late and off-topic derailing your own thread. Is that a standard tactic when you make an OP with false information do you derail later to a political piece on a firm that has nothing to do with 911 and your UBL worked for the US failure thread. You should stick with your OP hearsay piece that failed before embarking on a smokescreen to save the thread.

Yes you have posted a two year old article which refers to actions and deeds done before 2002. Good job with the author who took over 5 years to write his tripe and the last conflict killed dozens, albeit much more than I would like but gee whiz if you and the author took up fighting deaths on US roads you have 50,000 to try to save. Even lightning storms kill more than the last conflict mentioned in the article to save us all from something.

The insurgency in Macedonia (January (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2001) – November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2001) 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001)) was an armed conflict which began when the ethnic Albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia) National Liberation Army (NLA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_(Macedonia)) militant group attacked the security forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia) of the Republic of Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia) at the beginning of January 2001. The conflict lasted throughout most of the year, although overall casualties remained limited to several dozen for either side, according to the sources from both of the sides in the conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Macedonian_War

Star Trek had an episode like this article describes. Now comes the JAQ section of my dirt dumb analysis! What does this have to do with the failed OP of UBL working for the US??? What did the pay the spoiled brat UBL?

UNLoVedRebel

7th August 2009, 07:51 PM

What does this have to do with the failed OP of UBL working for the US??? What did the pay the spoiled brat UBL?

That's the best part of having a religious zealot like UBL work for you; you don't have to pay him anything, just promise him more virgins and he'll do whatever you want. Allah guarantees 72, the good ole US of A will tag on a couple like part of a 401k. The U.S. even promised a few girls who knew what they were doing. According to U.S. records, he's up to 87 virgins and 3 MILFs.

jacque

7th August 2009, 11:58 PM

Bush senior was not in Cuba at the time of JFK's assassination, nor was he in the CIA. He was one of several businessmen who agreed to cooperate with the CIA. He was not an agent.

I was only going by this.

do=displayimg&imgid=17161]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/148584a7d21be67aa7.jpg[/url]

jacque

7th August 2009, 11:59 PM

Ooops - how do I make that bigger?
it is on Tom Flocco's site but came from gunderson's files

MikeW

8th August 2009, 12:05 AM

You linked to a thumbnail, maybe? Anyway, the original is at http://tomflocco.com/Docs/Jfk/HooverFbiMemo.htm

metamars

8th August 2009, 04:51 AM

Her attorney is saying "nuh-huh". This should be interesting.....

Link (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7345)

A completely predictable update, from bradblog (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7346).

In short, the DoJ has informed the OEC that Edmonds has "not complied with the procedures for obtaining authorization from the FBI, her former employer, prior to making any disclosure relating to information that she acquired in the course of her work for the FBI. Therefore, she is not authorized to testify at the deposition."

Considering that Holder works for certified liar (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/864) and Bush-imitator Obama, and, in spite of the fact that, about half a year on the job, shows little appetite* for prosecuting any of the Bush administration as war criminals (or referring them to the Hague for such purpose - I really don't know what the procedure is), it's a fair bet that Holder will continue keeping whatever Sibel knows out of the public view.

I think it's also a fair bet that Sibel has forwarded details - as much as she can reasonably remember - to other activists (that's the sense I got from an Daniel Ellsberg quote). You know, in case she has an "accident". Consequently, unless she's willing to go to jail**, I have a feeling this will just drag on. She's fairly young-ish, and seems in good health, so it's not like we're about to hear post-humous revelations, other than via the "accident" scenario.

* He's shown a little appetite for justice, unlike Obama, who despite some noises about lawbreakers all being held to the same standard, wants to "look forward" and is happy to let all the Bushies go free and make $150,000 speeches.

** Even if she is, can the FBI arrest her as soon as she is sworn in at a trial, but before she can actually say anything? I would expect that that's the case.

T.A.M.

8th August 2009, 05:40 AM

I love it. Obama turns out to not be the great 9/11 truth savior, so now he is a "Bush Imitator".

Alex Jones for President 2012!!!

TAM:)

TexasJack

8th August 2009, 06:10 AM

I love it. Obama turns out to not be the great 9/11 truth savior, so now he is a "Bush Imitator".

Alex Jones for President 2012!!!

TAM:)

Yes, comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing hawks with doves. It just demonstrates the lack of objectivity and the extremist views of truthers.

gumboot

8th August 2009, 06:17 AM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?

So this Lehman Brothers company (which is apparently actually OBL's super-sekrit band of international ninja-jihadis) attacked itself on 9/11?

:confused:

You've flown way, way, way off the deep end this time.

gumboot

8th August 2009, 06:23 AM

It adds to the many hints that "al-Qaeda" issn't controlled by ObL. See thread title, but of course it isn't that simple.

Um... if anything, all your "research" suggests is that the MPRI had nothing to do with 9/11, since their own people were essentially victims of the attack.

Given that you've failed to make a single connection between Al Qaeda and the MPRI, L-3 Communication, or the Lehman Brothers, your "research" isn't even a case of "connect the dots" but more "connect some dots and then claim they're connected to the toothbrush in my bathroom".

metamars

8th August 2009, 06:35 AM

I love it. Obama turns out to not be the great 9/11 truth savior, so now he is a "Bush Imitator".

Alex Jones for President 2012!!!

TAM:)

Anybody who thought Obama would be a "great 9/11 truth savior" is an idiot. There's basically almost 0 support for a serious re-investigation in Congress, and it's been that way, for years. In this regard, it's obvious that the 911 Truth movement has been as big a failure as the peace movement. Hopefully members of both movements will wake up to the fact that we simply have to elect better people into office, and relying on pleading, once sellouts and liars have taken office, is a hopeless task. Because of gerrymandering and private campaign financing, incumbents have about an 85% chance of getting re-elected. That emboldens them to shaft the public on a regular basis. I've been chatting with a Ph.D. political scientist, lately, who told me that gerrymandering is virtually a taboo subject in poly sci departments in US universities. I was not shocked that our corrupt media would not print articles on such studies (or, God forbid, do serious investigative reporting). But I was shocked to hear that such studies are effectively suppressed, to a great extent.

(This is getting off the main topic, but anybody who wants some insights into how politics really works in our corrupted system, in terms of current events, can read the article "Rahm Goes Apesh*t On Liberals in the Veal Pen" at firedoglake.com and this (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-pharma4-2009aug04,0,4078424,full.story).)

Even given the possibility of such a ridiculous assumption (Obama as "great 9/11 Truth savior) in somebody sufficiently idiotic, what kind of an uber idiot would equate that, alone, with Obama turning out to be a Bush imitator? Did you bother reading the "certified liar (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/864)" link I provided?

Your post is idiotic, twice over.

TexasJack

8th August 2009, 07:15 AM

BigAl

8th August 2009, 07:18 AM

gerrymandering is virtually a taboo subject in poly sci departments in US universities.

BS.

Idiot.

metamars

8th August 2009, 07:39 AM

What's idiotic is stating that Obama is a Bush imitator. A better comparison would be to compare you and the truth movement to Al Qaeda, both hold extremist views, and truthers apologize for the violent actions of Al Qaeda on 911. Peace movement my butt.

BTW, I know many Political Science professors, they are not afraid to lecture about gerrymandering, it is in many of the textbooks they use.

Yes, and it's in the dictionary, too. But are they doing current research on the subject, and is it getting published? From what I understood of my source - a Ph.D. political scientist - that is not the case. (We're talking American universities and US gerrymandering).

OTOH, I just did a search in scholar.google.com, on "house of representatives" and "gerrymandering", for both 2000-2009. (1590 hits) and 1970 -1979 (224 hits). My source is retired, and perhaps was relating information pertinent to her graduate school days.... (She did work in academia for a while, but left it for the business world).

One of the hits from 2000-2009 has this to say:

Competition in U.S. House elections has been declining for more than 50 years and, based on both incumbent reelection rates and the percentage of close races, the 2002 and 2004 House elections were the least competitive of the postwar era.

Maybe it's getting more ink in academia since the problem is getting worse.

BigAl

8th August 2009, 07:55 AM

OTOH, I just did a search in scholar.google.com, on "house of representatives" and "gerrymandering", for both 2000-2009. (1590 hits) and 1970 -1979 (224 hits).

We didn't have the Internets as metamars knows it in 1979. That might explain the low count for that search.

Because redistricting happens after a US census, the discussion of gerrymandering is very cyclical, at 10 year intervals. We are discussing it now where I live because our congressional district is going to change. Change always makes someone unhappy.

The idea that the discussion of gerrymandering is somehow suppressed anywhere is pure stupid.

metamars

8th August 2009, 08:43 AM

The idea that the discussion of gerrymandering is somehow suppressed anywhere is pure stupid.

I said "effectively suppressed", and for a reason. I did question my source as to the nature of the effective suppression (which is my phraseology, not hers), and it has nothing to do with a cabal that sends out "thou shalt not" memos. People can figure out what's bad for their careers, even without such memos.

If you read Not Even Wrong and The Trouble with Physics, you will gain insights into how competing research to string theory gets effectively suppressed, again without "thou shalt not" memos being sent out by cabals. When Smolin, (author of The Trouble with Physics) wrote a paper, which he submitted to the Chronicle of Higher Education, detailing the problems of "me too" science (which is a function of the tribalism he describes in his book), his paper was rejected.

From "The Trouble with Physics", p. 345

They were willing to look at it, but they rejected it as soon as they read my draft. I was outraged: They were suppressing dissent! So I wrote them an unusually (for me) unpleasant e-mail questining their decision. They responded right away, telling me that the problem was not that the piece was radical - quite the opposite. Everything in it was well known and had been thoroughly aired, within the social sciences and the humanities. They sent me a pile of articles they had published in past years about power relations in academic decision making. I read them and quickly realized that it was only scientists who seem to be ignorant of these issues.

Now, if you want to argue that it wasn't at all bad for anybody's career, in the 1970's, to research gerrymandering, you'll have to argue with somebody else. I'm not a political scientist, much less one who worked as a poly sci academic or has any knowledge at all about, well, poly sci academic politics and sociology.

The general question of effective suppression of research (of various types) in academia is doubtless relevant to the specific questions of research into 911 events, the 911 truth community, and the lack of political standing of the 911 truth movement. But that is the subject of other threads.

Galileo

8th August 2009, 01:16 PM

Now that we know bin Laden was working with the US right up until 9/11, that raises the question as to how bin Laden was not caught planning the attacks.

LIHOP

FineWine

8th August 2009, 05:20 PM

Now that we know bin Laden was working with the US right up until 9/11, that raises the question as to how bin Laden was not caught planning the attacks.

LIHOP

Yes, sane people can easily conclude that bin Laden was, in fact, NOT working with the U.S. right up until 9/11.

I should be shot for asking you a serious question, but what the hell: how did bin Laden manage to continue working with the U.S. after the Khobar Towers attacks, the attacks on the embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole?

Edit: The Khobar Tower attacks are suspected to have been the work of a pro-Iranian terrorist group.

Locknar

8th August 2009, 05:49 PM

I have just moved 39 posts to AAH for being off-topic. This thread is about "Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11" - so please make sure your posts address the topic.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

metamars

8th August 2009, 05:56 PM

I have just moved 39 posts to AAH for being off-topic. This thread is about "Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11" - so please make sure your posts address the topic.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Good golly, Miss Molly! Some of those posts had nothing to do with 911. But why on earth would you remove the recent announcement of Sibel Edmonds' testimony, given on bradblog.com? While the reports are sketchy, and so far we know of, no information related directly to 911 was given, the fact is that we don't know the entirety of what she said. Even if we did know the entirety of what she said, if it was still that case that there was no relation to OBL or 911, people reading this thread would like to know that. Correct? After all, it's the same Sibel Edmonds who just recently said that OBL worked for* the US until 911.

* specifically, "had intimate relations with"

Gravy

8th August 2009, 06:12 PM

Good golly, Miss Molly! Some of those posts had nothing to do with 911. But why on earth would you remove the recent announcement of Sibel Edmonds' testimony, given on bradblog.com? While the reports are sketchy, and so far we know of, no information related directly to 911 was given, the fact is that we don't know the entirety of what she said. Even if we did know the entirety of what she said, if it was still that case that there was no relation to OBL or 911, people reading this thread would like to know that. Correct? After all, it's the same Sibel Edmonds who just recently said that OBL worked for the US until 911.
I am also outraged! The only opportunity to comment on Sibel Edmonds at the JREF forum has been denied! I am ashamed to be a member of such an organization!

boloboffin

8th August 2009, 07:19 PM

Not only is Sibel Edmonds being gagged, but now we cannot even speak of her in a thread talking about her statements on a radio show!!!

JUSTICE... DENIED!

~enigma~

8th August 2009, 07:21 PM

Does this mean we are gagged?

FineWine

8th August 2009, 08:26 PM

Does this mean we are gagged?

Well, if we are gagged as Sibel was gagged, this thread could rival "Realstice."

T.A.M.

9th August 2009, 04:53 AM

Good golly, Miss Molly! Some of those posts had nothing to do with 911. But why on earth would you remove the recent announcement of Sibel Edmonds' testimony, given on bradblog.com? While the reports are sketchy, and so far we know of, no information related directly to 911 was given, the fact is that we don't know the entirety of what she said. Even if we did know the entirety of what she said, if it was still that case that there was no relation to OBL or 911, people reading this thread would like to know that. Correct? After all, it's the same Sibel Edmonds who just recently said that OBL worked for* the US until 911.

* specifically, "had intimate relations with"

Take it to FORUM MANAGEMENT.

TAM

tsig

9th August 2009, 10:36 AM

Well, if we are gagged as Sibel was gagged, this thread could rival "Realstice."

The thread where I learned the true meaning of frustration.

ImANiceGuy

10th August 2009, 06:44 PM

Perhaps the legal ramifications of publishing her comments prematurely? Originally, I think it was the ACLU, were worried of possible lawsuits regarding comments that had been published, and then retroactively reclassified as Top Secret by Mueller.

Suffice to say that the bulk of her 9/11 related information deals with advance knowledge of the attacks and forewarnings; specific to intelligence agencies controlling AQ.

What I still don't get are members such as TAM, who scoff at the mere idea that Edmonds could have legitimate information regarding international conspiracy(in its literal and original definition) at the highest levels of government.

In my most sincere and honest opinion, with about 30 minutes of research, everyone should come to the conclusion that Dennis Hastert is a corrupt and self-serving individual. From the Turkish Lobby to the congressional page scandal, the prairie parkway and Jack Abramoff...Hastert has as much dirt on him as anyone I've ever seen. just for fun, his youngest son is a lobbyist in washington, and his oldest is a lawyer for Mayer Brown(MB) and would like to succeed his father in 2010(at 31, a congressman, 31......?).

Additionally, Hastert sponsored an MayerBrown partner for judge at a US District Court in 2007, which in and of itself does not amount to a conspiracy, just more evidence of the old-boys club strong at work; ie. hire my son, he needs a job.(I'm sure the judge was due for the promotion, blah blah blah, its always been who you know, not what you know)

So getting back to Sibel. This woman is offering information that is not vague, that includes times and places, names, classified file names, and that has been deemed credible by the goverment agencies involved. If there is a single chance that she is telling the truth(because she did pass an actual polygraph, and based on the previous info she's already scoring well), then it logically follows that there is a chance her information regarding 9/11 is truthful; admit to the chance(game theory people...) that it could be real.........would that be so hard? Even if you have to bold,italicize and underline "remote" in your replies?

How can any logical JREF member ignore this information and claim Edmonds is a liar, or had no access to classified information.

Anyway, were it not for the court and FBI sanctions, all of this information and all of the specifics would have been available for your dissemination immediately, am I correct?

I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?

R.Mackey

10th August 2009, 07:40 PM

Who needs a theory about why she'd make stuff up?

She has said nothing actionable about any 9/11 conspiracy, and there is no plausible way for her to have gained such information. That's it, cut and dried. You can whine all you want about what you think she would say, if she wasn't gagged, if the stars were in the correct alignment, whatever, but the simple fact is that until she does, and until it's verified, it ain't worth a hill of beans.

You're only hanging on her words because you know what you want her to say, and what you want to be true. Pretty bad way to investigate.

LashL

10th August 2009, 07:44 PM

Perhaps the legal ramifications of publishing her comments prematurely?
Except that she's been babbling away for years now, to anyone with a microphone or a camera.

Suffice to say that the bulk of her 9/11 related information deals with advance knowledge of the attacks and forewarnings; specific to intelligence agencies controlling AQ.

"Suffice to say"? "the bulk of her 9/11 related information"? What are you talking about? She has no knowledge or information about the events of 9/11 from the perspective of her brief stint as a contract employee of the FBI. She worked part time on contract for all of 5 months (max), no more than 20 hours per week, which puts her effective employment time at all of 2.5 months (max). Do you honestly think that a newly contracted translator was privy to anything at all along the lines of the nonsense that Edmonds and "truth" movement adherents want you to believe? Seriously?

In addition, her allegations in regard to foreknowledge were dismissed as unfounded by the same tribunal that found some of her complaints about her co-workers (nothing at all to do with 9/11) to have some basis for investigation, and some of her complaints about her co-workers (nothing to do with 9/11) to be unfounded. There is no evidence whatsoever that Edmonds has any relevant information whatsoever about the events of 9/11 and there are very good reasons to believe that she does not.

Not least of which is the fact that when her initial allegations didn't gain traction, she modified them, expanded upon them, and has continued to do so ever since. Look, it's like this. If I was a part time contractor to a government agency and learned of evidence that implicated my employer and other government agencies in the deaths of 3000 of my fellow citizens, I wouldn't pussyfoot about making allegations about punch card discrepancies, or travel voucher issues, or favourtism complaints - I would come out and say, "Holy Christ, the government was complicit in the events of 9/11 and here's the evidence of it: A, B, C, D, E, F, G..."

You'll notice that Edmonds did no such thing, and instead has made more and more serious allegations as time goes on that have nothing to do with her initial allegations. That should tell you at least something about the probable veracity (or lack thereof) of her allegations. She has consistently changed her allegations along the way, made more and more outlandish and unsupported allegations when her initial allegations were (rightly, although not necessarily correctly) met with skepticism. And although some of her allegations were ultimately determined to have some basis for investigation, it is also the case that some of her allegations were unfounded. So, she comes across as a whining newbie who complains about others to advance her own goals, makes all kinds of accusations without foundation, makes all kinds of accusations without even understanding the rules, procedures, and policies under which her employer and her fellow employees operate, and then whines even louder when her "go after my co-workers to advance my own goals" agenda fails.

Take a look at the progressive nature of her accusations, and then ask yourself if that makes any sense to you whatsoever.

What I still don't get are members such as TAM, who scoff at the mere idea that Edmonds could have legitimate information regarding international conspiracy(in its literal and original definition) at the highest levels of government.

Well, let's see. On the one hand, you have a newly hired part time contract worker (no more than 20 hours/week) for no more than 5 months (perhaps 4), whose job was only to translate certain items as assigned to her via a detailed hierachy of others well above her pay scale, and via experienced FBI agents.

If there were "international conspiracies at the highest levels of government", I can think of all kinds of reasons why the newly hired part time contract translator would not be given work that would potentially expose the vast conspiracy among the highest levels of government, but I cannot think of a single reason why the conspirators would give the newbie work that would even remotely potentially expose their vast conspiracy.

Anyway, were it not for the court and FBI sanctions, all of this information and all of the specifics would have been available for your dissemination immediately, am I correct?

No. You'll notice that she is not subject to any court or FBI sanctions other than the requirement that she comply with her obligations pursuant to the security and confidentiality agreements that she signed when she was a part time contract translator for the FBI for 4-5 months.

I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?

There are several possible motives for individuals to fabricate such information, as has been borne out time and time again. And please note, again, that Edmonds' allegations about the events of 9/11 were determined to be unfounded by the same body that found some of her allegations about her co-workers screwing the pooch to have some foundation. You seem to be conflating several things here in one post in what appears to be an attempt to lend credibility to her 9/11 claims without providing any basis for those claims. It is not even clear from your post that you know what her 9/11 allegations are. Do you? You haven't provided any evidence or support of her 9/11 allegations, either. Please do so, once you have spelled out what you believe her 9/11 allegations to be.

In any event, as to motivations, there are several possible motivations for someone to fabricate claims relating to 9/11. Drama queen/king, attention whore, disgruntled employee, money seeker, psychological disorder, fame seeker, etc., etc. If any one or more of those motivations apply to her, Edmonds would not be the first or the last of any of them, but just one of a long list of many.

Gravy

10th August 2009, 07:51 PM

I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?I don't know what information she claims to have, and I've never claimed that she has fabricated anything about 9/11. If you want information about why someone might do that, please ask these people and let us know their reasons:

Richard Gage
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin
Dylan Avery
William Rodriguez
Tony Szamboti
Kevin Ryan
Kevin Barrett
Kevin McPadden
etc., etc., etc.

Cl1mh4224rd

10th August 2009, 08:00 PM

In my most sincere and honest opinion, with about 30 minutes of research, everyone should come to the conclusion that Dennis Hastert is a corrupt and self-serving individual. From the Turkish Lobby to the congressional page scandal, the prairie parkway and Jack Abramoff...Hastert has as much dirt on him as anyone I've ever seen. just for fun, his youngest son is a lobbyist in washington, and his oldest is a lawyer for Mayer Brown(MB) and would like to succeed his father in 2010(at 31, a congressman, 31......?).

Additionally, Hastert sponsored an MayerBrown partner for judge at a US District Court in 2007, which in and of itself does not amount to a conspiracy, just more evidence of the old-boys club strong at work; ie. hire my son, he needs a job.(I'm sure the judge was due for the promotion, blah blah blah, its always been who you know, not what you know)

Two horribly useless paragraphs. So, Hastert might be a corrupt politician? Wow. The very foundations of our government shall be shaken by this profound revelation. :rolleyes:

If there is a single chance that she is telling the truth(because she did pass an actual polygraph, and based on the previous info she's already scoring well) [...]

Polygraph tests are useless for determining the truthfulness of the answers given.

How can any logical JREF member ignore this information and claim Edmonds is a liar, or had no access to classified information.

The issue is that truthers are claiming she has information that would prove government complicity in the attacks on 9/11. From what I've heard, her information, if true, would, at best, prove negligence.

If the information she has is as important as some truthers make it out to be, the fact that she is keeping quite because of a simple NDA is a pretty blatant affront to truth and an indication of lack of conviction on her part, if not outright cowardice.

I mean, what's a few years in jail if you blow the lid off one of the most complex and heinous crimes ever?

Anyway, were it not for the court and FBI sanctions, all of this information and all of the specifics would have been available for your dissemination immediately, am I correct?

No. We're not talking about mind-control here. All she has to do is talk, and "whoops!" there goes the conspiracy.

Hell, the fact that she wasn't killed immediately tells me the information isn't that important; that They™ aren't that concerned with keeping it secret.

I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?

The same reason fisherman tell stories about "the one that got away". The same reason the boy cried wolf. The same reason people play up their knowledge and skills in a job interview.

Attention, ego massaging, etc.

Personally, though, I think it's the truthers that are exaggerating the importance of her knowledge regarding 9/11.

ImANiceGuy

11th August 2009, 10:01 AM

Lashl - you failed to understand the context of my statement, and this led to your confusion. I used "suffice to say", because a previous post containing a list of her recent deposition information had been removed from this thread.

ImANiceGuy

11th August 2009, 01:18 PM

With regards to the bulk of your post:

Sibel Edmonds has claimed to have discovered evidence of deep corruption and conspiracy during her stint as a translator. Portions of the information was deemed credible by the FBI, who administered a polygraph when they learned the nature of her claims. She covers a wide variety of topics...

Her deposition for the IOG did not cover the information related to 911. They explicitly state in the declassified report that 911 info would be referred to the 911 commission. Nowhere do they comment on the validity of her 911 information. Please, oh pretty please, post a link and prove me wrong. (I honestly cannot find the original copy/link of the report I read)

You originally posted that she was not under any sanctions; edited out I suppose. Here's a link to the SSP: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_ag_605.htm

I suppose they always enact this privelege(sp?) as a precautionary measure right? If you, and TAM, and Mackey are so certain that she could know nothing of importance, that she would never have been exposed to such intel, why would Ashcroft use States Secret? Is he wrong and you're all right?

Gravy

11th August 2009, 03:01 PM

T.A.M.

11th August 2009, 05:42 PM

Keep in mind that "classified and sensitive national security information that could cause serious damage to our country’s security" includes the methods used to gather intelligence. It need not refer to the information gathered by those methods.

Precisely. It could be something as simple as the name of an informant, or as complex as the entirely of an intelligence "policies and procedures" manual (so to speak). Why do some people always assume privelege is evoked to "cover up" evil doings and secret plots?

TAM:)

newton3376

11th August 2009, 05:50 PM

Keep in mind that "classified and sensitive national security information that could cause serious damage to our country’s security" includes the methods used to gather intelligence. It need not refer to the information gathered by those methods.

This is correct.

Although not all sensitive information is classified....but all classified information is sensitive...

;)

Dave Rogers

12th August 2009, 01:50 AM

You originally posted that she was not under any sanctions; edited out I suppose. Here's a link to the SSP: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_ag_605.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_ag_605.htm)

I'm a little confused here. State Secrets Privilege is a means by which the government can choose not to supply information to a court case where that information might compromise state secrets. It's therefore a means by which the government can avoid having to give testimony, not a means by which the government can compel others not to give testimony. Therefore it seems to me that the often repeated assertion, that Sibel Edmonds has twice been gagged by the government asserting SSP, cannot possibly be true.

It's clear that the government has declined to provide information requested by Edmonds's counsel in a court case; but this is radically different to a gag order. Nothing appears to be preventing Edmonds stating what she knows; the government has simply chosen not to state what it knows.

Can either ImANiceGuy, or one of our resident legal experts, correct me if I'm wrong on this?

Dave

kevlar443

12th August 2009, 06:20 AM

FYI gunderson was interested in my case, a child abuse case, and he wormed his way into my life. It is a long story but he ended up working out of my house and because of illness, I quit my job and answered phone calls, sent out mail (whatever it was he was doing) and did research for him for a while.
Cheri Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael. She has a very fertile imagination. I still don't know what her reason was for writing what she did. Some is true some is not. I didn't know everything that was going on-thank God.
I threw gunderson out in 1993 and moved. He took us for almost every dime we (my 2 children and I) had, so I was unable to follow up on anything for years.
I had all of the files at my place-we were putting them together for Michael's defense.
I don't know why gunderson would have his webmaster (Chris Jones) now in prison for molesting little boys) would post that particular paper...but then you can never expect to figure out why a psycho does anything..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jacque:

You can find Ted Gunderson’s hand-written statement, dated 9/27/91, relative to RALPH OLBERG at Michael Riconosciuto's website.

Based on my understanding of Cheri Seymour's investigation relative to The Last Circle, she was tracking drug trafficking from Mariposa, California and contacted Ted Gunderson because he had written a lengthy report on drug trafficking in the Central Valley of California.

You wrote: "Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael."

In her various writings on this subject, Seymour noted that she only met Ted Gunderson (and you) face-to-face three times during her investigation in the early 1990's. She only visited your house twice. The first time, as noted in The Last Circle, was when she first met you and Ted Gunderson. The second time was at a birthday party held for Elizabeth Riconosciuto at Disneyland, and the third time was at your home when you were ill and Ted Gunderson was out-of-town.

In each of these instances, the visits only lasted a couple of hours, and there were no other "characters" hanging around your house when she was present, including Michael Riconosciuto, whom she never met face-to-face.

For purposes of clarity, can you explain why you said that she has a "fertile imagination" and some of what she wrote is not true? Your statements about Seymour in various of your writings on the Internet seem to indicate that you wish to debunk her, but you never explain in detail what she has written that is not true. Can you kindly explain? Thanks!

kevlar443

12th August 2009, 07:03 AM

RE: Bombshell - Tim Osman - Osama Bin Laden

Ted Gunderson sent a handwritten statement/affidavit, dated 9/27/91 to Michael Riconosciuto’s lawyer to be used in court in M.R.’s defense.

That letter which discusses Gunderson and Riconosciuto meeting in 1986 with Ralph Olberg, Tim Osman and others relative to Afghan Resistance weaponry, does NOT mention anywhere in the statement that Osama Bin Laden was present at that meeting using any pseudonym or posing as Tim Osman or anyone else.

If Osama Bin Laden was at that meeting, Gunderson surely would have mentioned that in his statement. At the time Gunderson’s statement was written, and numerous copies were provided to various of Gunderson’s associates, reporters, and lawyers, he surely would have disclosed that one of the individuals at that meeting was Osama Bin Laden, but he did NOT. During Riconosciuto’s trial, and for years throughout the 1990’s, neither Gunderson nor M.R ever mentioned Osama Bin Laden , posing as Tim Osman, was at that meeting in 1986.

The letter can be viewed at Michael Riconosciuto’s Homepage. Click on “Paper Trails/FOIA-PA.” Then click on “Affidavit of Ted L. Gunderson re: meetings with Afghan resistance.” Then scroll down to 9/27/91 – Statement of Ted L. Gunderson.

MikeW

12th August 2009, 08:02 AM

The letter can be viewed at Michael Riconosciuto’s Homepage. Click on “Paper Trails/FOIA-PA.” Then click on “Affidavit of Ted L. Gunderson re: meetings with Afghan resistance.” Then scroll down to 9/27/91 – Statement of Ted L. Gunderson.
Nice work! Here's the link (http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/ted_gunderson/).

ImANiceGuy

12th August 2009, 08:52 AM

It seems to me that the SSP is able to block testimony, as well as withhold information/evidence. It has proven tough to find a concise definition of its scope of power. Edmonds was called to testify in the lawsuit brought on by 9/11 Families for Bankrupting Terrorism; which was recently dismissed due to the possibility of negatively affecting Ameri-Saud relations.

"9/11 Families United...has filed suit against these terrorist financiers and it has a particular interest in having Sibel Edmonds testify in its lawsuit. That testimony has been precluded by the government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege."

Taken from: http://www.citizen.org/documents/edmondsamicus.pdf (This has a lot of very good info, worth a read) If there is any legal experts, please chime in at any time as to how the SSP can be used to block private citizen testimony.

Gravy, you make an excellent point as to what the nature of the information withheld could be. However, it seems the use of the SSP would be very extreme if the information they were suppressing was unspecific in nature to Edmonds' claims. There are plenty of other ways to continue the case in court without revealing classified details that do not pertain directly to the case. ie. publication bans and attorney security clearances.

"The district court should have, but did not, assure itself that: 1) the case could not have been litigated to judgment without the introduction of properly classified information; and 2) the substantial array of procedures available to a court to permit the use of classified information without its revelation to the public..." (from previous link)

"the court still reasoned that no part of her complaint could proceed and the information she needed to prove her prima facie case could not be disentangled from the secret information the government sought to protect."

This statement could apply for both specific information as well as non-specific(methods,names, etc.).....anyone have an alternate impressions?

Taken from: http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_1_Lyons.pdf

MikeW

12th August 2009, 09:06 AM

**Mods...previous 2 posts are completely unrelated to this thread**
The "Tim Osman" claims don't have anything to do with Edmonds, but they're very much related to supposed connections between the US and bin Laden, as well as the other Gunderson and Riconosciuto posts scattered throughout the thread.

ImANiceGuy

12th August 2009, 09:27 AM

The "Tim Osman" claims don't have anything to do with Edmonds, but they're very much related to supposed connections between the US and bin Laden, as well as the other Gunderson and Riconosciuto posts scattered throughout the thread.

Sorry about that; I thought this thread was specific to Edmonds' information re OBL, however, it seems we were merged together at some point.

I removed the message to the Mods.

signed,

a nice guy

Senenmut

12th August 2009, 10:15 AM

MikeW

12th August 2009, 10:56 AM

if ted was calling obl tim osman back in 86 then thats probably the name that came to mind.
He was still calling him Osman in 1991 - Gunderson's letter is dated after Riconosciuto.

kevlar443

12th August 2009, 09:07 PM

RE: Bombshell – DATES of Expose Tim Osman/Osama Bin Laden

Michael Riconosciuto’s letter providing “prior warning” of an imminent attack against the United States was dated 2/5/2001. The letter gave no details naming Osama Bin Laden as the potential attacker, though it did state that Tim Osman was allegedly Osama Bin Laden, but only in relation to a meeting, NOT in relation to the potential attack.

However, keeping in mind that Michael Riconosciuto was/is a genius with high analytical powers, it wouldn’t take a genius in February 2001 to discern through “public sources” that Osama Bin Laden had already made threats against the United States as far back as 1998, including his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Africa.

Do a Google search of Osama Bin Laden, January 2001.

Check out Osama Bin Laden – Wikipedia:
EXCERPT: Caption: Clinton Administration

“ --- Capturing Osama bin Laden has been an objective of the United States government since the presidency of Bill Clinton. Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.

"On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.

"In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état;

"In 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one bin Laden was in.

"In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Robert Oakley actually criticized their "obsession with Osama ---“.

kevlar443

12th August 2009, 09:29 PM

RE: Sibel Edmunds and Valerie Plame allegations

Check out the unwitting connection between Sibel Edmunds and Valerie Plame regarding “illegal weapons shipments”? Interestingly, both of these women observed and reported on corresponding subjects, thus making them “independent” supporting witnesses to each other!

Pardalis

14th August 2009, 09:10 AM

Any opinions on Elsässer's research?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

MPRI[Military Professional Resources] is a private military contractor that provides a wide range of services to both public and private customers, most notably the United States Department of Defense. MPRI specializes in various professions such as law enforcement, security, military training, logistics, etc. By its own account MPRI operates in over 40 countries. The firm is based in Alexandria, Virginia.

A member of International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), MPRI was founded in 1987 by eight ex-officers of the United States Army. It was sold to L-3 Communications in June 2000 for $40 million.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LLL) is a company that supplies command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C3ISR) systems and products, avionics and ocean products, training devices and services, instrumentation, space and navigation products. Its customers include the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Government intelligence agencies, aerospace contractors and commercial telecommunications and wireless customers.

L-3 is headquartered in New York City.

L-3 (named for Frank Lanza, Robert LaPenta, and Lehman Brothers) was formed in 1997 from the purchase of ten former business units of Lockheed Corporation when Lockheed merged in 1996 with Martin Marietta[2]; the ten units were those which the new Lockheed Martin was uninterested in owning.

L-3 has continued to grow since then through numerous acquisitions to become one of the top 10 US government contractors

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Lehman Brothers [...]

On September 11, 2001, Lehman occupied three floors of One World Trade Center where one employee was killed. Its global headquarters in Three World Financial Center were severely damaged and rendered unusable by falling debris, displacing over 6,500 employees. The bank recovered quickly and rebuilt its presence. Trading operations moved across the Hudson River to its Jersey City, New Jersey, facilities, where an impromptu trading floor was built and brought online less than forty-eight hours after the attacks. When stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, Lehman's sales and trading capabilities were restored.

See, I'm a bit slow. I didn't see the connection, but now in light of new developments, I can see what you really meant in this post.

L-3 is a company composed of Frank Lanza, Robert LaPenta and the Lehman brothers.

Now, you didn't check the backgrounds of Lanza or LaPenta, their names didn't sound "Jewish" enough. But you did check the background of the Lehman brothers. And then you found a very random connection with the WTC towers, and then you concluded a conspiracy!

I understand your way of thinking better now. No wonder you've been so secretive about your views so far, I also wouldn't parade them around if I were you.

I feel a bit foolish, I didn't make the connection.