911 Cover Blown by Jeff Steinberg

[quicknthedead]

I ran across this today that is very interesting news to me. It was published July 10, 2009 at the LPAC website.

I searched this forum to see what posters here thought about it but could not find any mention of the story. (Perhaps my search capabilities are failing me again.)

So, pardon if this has already been posted at JREF somewhere, but I would still like so see thoughts and comments on this report.

Here is the story:
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10997

Video of Steinberg being interviewed:
http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11005

Thanks!

[AJM8125]

I stopped reading at "Lyndon LaRouche".

[Quad4_72]

Yeah. I am not reading that retarded nonsense.

[quicknthedead]

I stopped reading at "Lyndon LaRouche".

LOL
I here you!

But please don't let that hinder you from looking into this.
Perhaps I should have included an excerpt from the 1st paragraph of the document:

Much of what you have been told about the events of 9/11 has been a hoax. The truth, which is clearly revealed in newly declassified documents, available through the National Archives, is that two leading presumed U.S. allies--Saudi Arabia and Great Britain--were up to their eyeballs in the attacks on New York City and Washington. The United States was betrayed by leading elements within the Saudi Arabian Royal Family and intelligence services, in league with the British Empire. And top officials of the Bush-Cheney White House, the Justice Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were both aware of and fully complicit in the coverup of the crime of the century.

[Quad4_72]

LOL
I here you!

But please don't let that hinder you from looking into this.
Perhaps I should have included an excerpt from the 1st paragraph of the document:

So let me get this straight. The government declassified documents that expose them in the murder of thousands? Enough please.

[T.A.M.]

Show me the documents in question, that they refer to as the "smoking guns". In my reading of docs available through the Archives, I have seen no such papers.

If they cannot directly reference the documents they mention, then they are FOS lying pieces of crap.

TAM:)

[Lensman]

What "British Empire"? :confused:

There hasn't been a "British Empire" for over 60 years.

[AJM8125]

What TAM said. Sources please.

[quicknthedead]

Copy that. I too want accurate information, documents, corraborating evidence, etc. for validation or refutation (this is the reason for the post).

Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks.

[Brainster]

LaRouche is shocked, shocked I tell, you, to find out that the Brits are behind it. Here he thought all that Queen Elizabeth was doing was running the international drug trade; turns out she's also behind the terrorist attacks. Is there no end to her perfidy?

:rolleyes:

[Stellafane]

Shucks, you'd have thought that the release of Government documents proving that the British Empire (who knew?) and the Saudis pulled off 9/11 with Bush's blessing would have made some sort of splash in the media. I mean, I know everybody's attention has been riveted lately to the President sharing a brewski with a Boston cop and Harvard professor and all, but still you'd expect someone to say something, wouldn't you?

[Björn Toulouse]

Is this another one of those "bombshells"?

[Toke]

So let me get this straight. The government declassified documents that expose them in the murder of thousands? Enough please.
:dl:
Nice.

[AJM8125]

Copy that. I too want accurate information, documents, corraborating evidence, etc. for validation or refutation (this is the reason for the post).

Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132904

Unsealed 9/11 Commission records discussed here, if that's what I gather ol' Lyndon is on about now.

[brodski]

What "British Empire"? :confused:

There hasn't been a "British Empire" for over 60 years.

Closer to 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_handover_ceremony) years.

[Justin39640]

dont they still have the Falklands?

[T.A.M.]

no, just the Falkers.

TAM;)

[bill smith]

LOL
I here you!

But please don't let that hinder you from looking into this.
Perhaps I should have included an excerpt from the 1st paragraph of the document:

Do you think hat if I refuse to aknowledge it that t will go away ? Please ? lol

[bill smith]

dont they still have the Falklands?

You mean the Malvinas.

[progge]

LOL
I here you!

But please don't let that hinder you from looking into this.
Perhaps I should have included an excerpt from the 1st paragraph of the document:

Leaving aside the alledged UK conspiracy, I encourage you to read the original, de-classified documents on the possible Saudi connection. Here are the interviews with Bayoumi (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01190.pdf), Al-Rasheed (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01254.pdf), al-Thumairy (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01249.pdf), al-Yafai (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01250.pdf), Basnan (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01193.pdf), Khalil (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01252.pdf), the Saudi FBI-Agent (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-Abdussattar-Shaikh), and this anonymous Saudi (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01251.pdf).

Much stuff to read, I know. But these are the original documents from the 9/11 commission, if you want do do your own research (which is always better than reading LaRouche propaganda).
There are also related FBI documents, two (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-03-FBI-penttbomb-bayoumi.pdf) on Bayoumi (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-03-FBI-status-penttbomb-nour-bayoumi-landlord.pdf), some (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2003-08-18-FBI-FD302-omar-al-bayoumi.pdf) interviews (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2003-09-17-FBI-interview-of-omar-bayoumi.pdf) with Bayoumi (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2003-09-17-FBI-tty-interview-of-omar-bayoumi.pdf), and for a broader picture there are more documents to find here (http://intelwire.egoplex.com/documents.html).

If you need a coherent (although fragmentary and unproven) story on this, read Shenons "The Commission", ch.9, 27, 44; or Bob Grahams "Intelligence Matters", ch. 2, 3, 4, 6, 15 and summary. For the geopolitical context I recommend Robert Baers "Sleeping With The Devil".

[progge]

[...] and for a broader picture there are more documents to find here.

Brief correction: "Here" was meant to be here (http://intelwire.egoplex.com/documents.html).

[quicknthedead]

Brief correction: "Here" was meant to be here (http://intelwire.egoplex.com/documents.html).

Thanks progge -- I will read them all, and appreciate greatly your help in providing originals!

[FineWine]

Do you think hat if I refuse to aknowledge it that t will go away ? Please ? lol


Bill, whenever you get asked to tell us what Mackey got wrong in his lecture, you run away. It's fun taunting empty-headed frauds like you, but it becomes a bit tiresome. Can we assume that your trademark intellectual cowardice represents agreement with the NASA engineer? Do you finally acknowledge that hands can break bricks?

[quicknthedead]

I notice in this article by Steinberg that he provides no sources or references, as if you are to believe everything he writes on his say-so alone.

This should not be for a good paper, especially one propounding these kinds of allegations as fact. I'm starting to get an impression he is to LaRouche what Watson is to Jones.

I don't spend time at the LaRouche website, so does anyone know anything about who Jeff Steinberg is (other than his involvement with LaRouche)?

Thanks.

[carlitos]

This should not be for a good paper, especially one propounding these kinds of allegations as fact. I'm starting to get an impression he is to LaRouche what Watson is to Jones.
He is certainly Larouche's biggest defender, and he edits various Larouche publications / websites.

If I recall correctly, he also spent a bunch of time looking into the "real" story of how Princess Diana was alive hours after the crash, and British royalty and the highest levels of French government were responsible for her death. In addition to antisemitism, neo-fascism and conspiracies in general, Larouche is known for blaming the British for everything. Steinberg "refused to rule out (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/2525_diana_wars.html)" the idea that Prince Philip may have ordered Diana assassinated. He, like Larouche is not to be taken seriously.

[beachnut]

After 7 years the nut cases (those that make money off of the not so knowledgeable; nut case idea salespeoples) come out and make money off of those with conspiracy minded needs for more delusions on 911. Jeff Steinberg is filling the need and making money. Who is not trying to make money. Gee, with a bunch of CT hounds out after the latest pile of tripe to feast on this will fit the bill.

The die hard conspiracy hounds are out with the latest smoking gun for the cult zombie lies are em 911 delusion club.

[Brainster]

I thought I might be able to track down the memorandum for the record that is referenced at the beginning of the article:

Early this year, the National Archives released documents from the files of the 9/11 Commission, which were previously classified. Three of those documents, recently obtained by EIR, provide the ``smoking gun,'' proving the central role of Saudi intelligence, and the critical support role of British intelligence in the preparation, execution, and coverup of 9/11. The most significant of the documents, still partly classified, is a ``Memorandum for the Record,'' summarizing an April 23, 2004 interview with a Southern California-based FBI informant, who rented a room in his home to two of the 9/11 hijackers during 2000. Although the memorandum redacted the informant's name, other public sources have identified the man as Abdussattar Shaikh. His FBI handler has also been publicly named as Steven Butler.

But although the memoranda for the record (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html) are online here, the only file dated 2004-23-04 is an interview with FBI Agent Ken Breen. I checked his interview and it concerns his investigation into possible illicit trading based on foreknowledge of 9-11, and doesn't have anything to do with the FBI informant/landlord. The dates shown on the files are the date of the interview, so it appears the first checkable thing in the article is wrong.

Abdussattar Shaikh is indeed the landlord who rented the room to Al-Midhar and Al-Hazmi. His story is well-known, and he was interviewed in the LA Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/firstweek/20010916-sdattack.html), so there's no real reason why his name would have been redacted.

"They were nice, but not what you call extroverted people," said Shaikh, who became close to Alhamzi. As the friendship grew, Shaikh helped Alhamzi open an account at a Bank of America branch in Lemon Grove, and assisted when his houseguest wanted to post a personal ad on a Web site for a Mexican wife. Alhamzi was unable to compose a letter in English. "No one responded," Shaikh said.

[Bobert]

Is this another one of those "bombshells"?
Oh man NOT ANOTHER ONE!!!
And to think that I have had my bags packed 100's of times due to all these smoking guns and bombshells awaiting my removal to the FEMA death camp.
I CANT TAKE THE PRESSURE ANY LONGER!!!

[progge]

I thought I might be able to track down the memorandum for the record that is referenced at the beginning of the article:



But although the memoranda for the record (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html) are online here, the only file dated 2004-23-04 is an interview with FBI Agent Ken Breen. I checked his interview and it concerns his investigation into possible illicit trading based on foreknowledge of 9-11, and doesn't have anything to do with the FBI informant/landlord. The dates shown on the files are the date of the interview, so it appears the first checkable thing in the article is wrong.

Abdussattar Shaikh is indeed the landlord who rented the room to Al-Midhar and Al-Hazmi. His story is well-known, and he was interviewed in the LA Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/firstweek/20010916-sdattack.html), so there's no real reason why his name would have been redacted.

According to Bob Grahams book "Intelligence Matters", the FBI did not want to release the name of the informant, so as to leave the media reports somewhat unconfirmed. The interview with Abdussattar Shaikh can be found here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-Abdussattar-Shaikh), and his name is indeed redacted.

[BigAl]

According to Bob Grahams book "Intelligence Matters", the FBI did not want to release the name of the informant, so as to leave the media reports somewhat unconfirmed. The interview with Abdussattar Shaikh can be found here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15877639/911-Commission-MFR-for-FBI-Informer-Abdussattar-Shaikh), and his name is indeed redacted.

I think you are misreading Graham. I read it but was a long time ago. I believe that as of the time he wrote the book, he had either made inquires and not gotten answers why the NSA didn't cooperate with the FBI or ( I conjecture) he knew but was under serious non-disclosure rules and did his best to tell us without being put in jail.

With much more known, Bamford in The Shadow Factory discusses this and lays all the blame on the NSA.

In any case, the FBI had plenty of info to probably disrupt the 9/11 plotters with what they knew in the summer of 01.

[progge]

I think you are misreading Graham. I read it but was a long time ago. I believe that as of the time he wrote the book, he had either made inquires and not gotten answers why the NSA didn't cooperate with the FBI or ( I conjecture) he knew but was under serious non-disclosure rules and did his best to tell us without being put in jail.

To get this straight, the NSA really plays a minor role in Grahams book, for whatever reason. Graham basically blames the FBI for pre-9/11 failures and bad coorperation with the 9/11 commission. (Just look at the register of the book, only a few hits for "NSA", and dozens of hits for "FBI".)
As to the FBI informant in San Diego, I especially refer to ch. 15. Here is one relevant quote for our context (p. 164):

Mueller [FBI chief] pointed out that to disclosure the informant´s identity would make it indefinitely more difficult to recruit informants from the Muslim community.
We [Graham and Porter Goss] argued that the informant would be able to testify in private, not sharing his identity. Besides, we pointed out, a San Diego newspaper and Newsweek magazine had already exposed the informant, and thus they were talking about keeping from Congress something the press and public already knew.
They argued that the informant´s name hadn´t been confirmed officially.
Both Porter Goss and I expressed doubt about the informant´s continuing value, but Ashcroft and Mueller were unmoved. They suggested, instead, that we write up some questions; they would deliver them to the informant, who would answer them.

Graham´s dissapointment by the FBI´s lack of coorperation and investigation remains unchanged in his 2008 postscript to the book, as far as I can see. This is from p. 235 et seq.:

One of the last things I did as a senator was to write about four pages of questions to the FBI - questions regarding the financial arrangements surrounding 9/11, as well as two terrorists who had lived with an FBI informant in San Diego - in the hopes that they would have a shred of professional pride and respond. [...] I read the FBI´s purported response to the questions I had asked in December 2004. The document was a defense of their actions rather than an explanation of what had transpired.
It appears that my questions will go unanswered.

But Grahams harsh critique of several FBI actions is of course just one view on the whole, big complex of pre-9/11 failures and the problems investigators faced during the investigation of these failures.

With much more known, Bamford in The Shadow Factory discusses this and lays all the blame on the NSA.

Thanks for the reading tip, BigAl, never heard of this title before. Added this to my must-read-list.

[BigAl]

To get this straight, the NSA really plays a minor role in Grahams book, for whatever reason. Graham basically blames the FBI for pre-9/11 failures and bad coorperation with the 9/11 commission. (Just look at the register of the book, only a few hits for "NSA", and dozens of hits for "FBI".)
As to the FBI informant in San Diego, I especially refer to ch. 15. Here is one relevant quote for our context (p. 164):





Graham´s dissapointment by the FBI´s lack of coorperation and investigation remains unchanged in his 2008 postscript to the book, as far as I can see. This is from p. 235 et seq.:



But Grahams harsh critique of several FBI actions is of course just one view on the whole, big complex of pre-9/11 failures and the problems investigators faced during the investigation of these failures.



Thanks for the reading tip, BigAl, never heard of this title before. Added this to my must-read-list.

All of Bamford's books are excellent. FWIW, the NSA even sort of approves of him in a general way.

Also read Spying Blind by Amy somebody. She shows how much info the FBI had in the summer of 2001 and how the lack of central review of evidence made it impossible to see the big picture. They were still chasing John Dillinger.