VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

A Lesson In 9/11 Research

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

Good morning, class… today we’re going to discuss the events of 9/11. Please take out your copies of “The Terror Timeline,” and turn to page 560.

You’ll see at the bottom half of the page, an entry entitled, “May 2004: Previously Public Information About FBI Whistleblower Is Now Classified.”

I’m going to read it out loud for everyone to hear…

“The Justice Department retroactively classifies information it gave to Congress in 2002 regarding FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. Senator Charles Grassley (R) says, “What the FBI is up to here is ludicrous. To classify something that’s already been out in the public domain, what do you accomplish? … This is about as close to a gag order as you can get.” The New York Times reports that some of the information discussed is “so potentially damaging if released publicly” that it has to be classified. Topics like what languages Edmonds translated, what types of cases she handled, and where she worked is now classified, even though much of this has been widely reported on shows like CBS’s 60 Minutes. [NEW YORK TIMES, 5/20/04] In late 2002, the Justice Department invoked the rarely used “state secrets privilege” to limit what she could say. [Salon, 3/26/04]

Ok… just to clarify what took place here, someone who worked for the FBI found out some information pertaining to 9/11 that was “damaging” in nature. She then tried to make that information public by what’s known as “whistleblowing.” For those of you who don’t know, “whistleblowing” is what it’s called when someone officially “tattle-tales” on someone else. They get what’s called, “Whistleblower Status,” and they are supposedly “protected” by the government. That, as we can see, is not the case, but I thought I’d explain it anyway.

Does anyone have any questions so far?

Herbert: “Uh, yes sir, I do… doesn’t Freedom Of Speech give us the ability to speak our minds?”

That’s a good question, Herbert. The Freedom Of Speech guarantees us the right to essentially, speak. However, because of national security, it is sometimes necessary to keep certain information out of the hands of the public. For instance, we’re currently engaged in the Iraq War. Sometimes, the military will plan an “operation” that requires absolute secrecy. If that information got out, a lot of people may suffer the consequences. Men and women could be killed. We don’t want that to happen, do we? Of course not. However, there are individuals who sometimes can’t keep their mouths shut. Because of that, certain “safeguards” have been put into place to make sure that doesn’t happen. If you are privy to “classified” information, and you leak it, you can possibly lose your job, pay an inordinate amount in fines, and even in some cases, go to jail.

Ok, back to the article… we see that the Department of Justice classified what Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator, had to say. We also see that Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican, doesn’t agree with the “retroactive” classification. A “retroactive” classification is the classification of information after it’s already been made public. For instance, let’s say today you go out and buy “The DaVinci Code.” You read it, enjoy it, share it with your friends, and put it on the shelf to collect dust. Two years later, because of a particular group’s so-called, “Activism,” the government decides that “The DaVinci Code” is a dangerous book, and should be taken off the shelves, and all copies of the book should be destroyed. However, for the millions of people who already read the book, and know what the story is about, how do you extract the information from their brains? You can’t. Therefore, a “retroactive” classification makes no sense.

Alice: “Oooh Oooh… Mr. Gold, I have a question…”

Yes Alice, what is it?

Alice: “It sounds to me like certain people in the government don’t want certain information to get out…”

And…

Alice: “Well, if the government classifies information for the protection of someone in government, doesn’t that mean that individual will get off without being punished? Doesn’t that mean that they are above the law?”

AH-HAH!!!… Therein lies the essential question to this lesson, and I will answer it in time. Very good Alice, you get an apple…

Ok, back to the article… we see that the New York Times stated that if this information were to get out it would be “so potentially damaging” that it HAS to be classified.

Billy: “Oooh Oooh Mr. Gold…”

I’m glad that everyone is so interested in this topic. Yes Billy, what’s your question?

Billy: “Damaging towards who?”

Wow, you kids really want to get to the bottom of this don’t you…

Ok, here’s what I want you to do. Turn on your computers, and open up your browsers… Go to www.google.com.

In the interest of saving time, I’m going to give you some hints on what to search for.

Because the main focus of this article was about “Sibel Edmonds,” what do you think we should type in the “search field”?

Eric: “I KNOW…. OOOH OOOH MR. GOLD…. I KNOW!!!”

*sigh* Eric… that was sarcasm. Here’s your apple anyway…

You’ll see that the first link listed on your search is:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Huh, that’s interesting. The Baltimore Chronicle has been around since 1973. That’s a fairly long amount of time. Anyway…

This article has a transcript of an interview Sibel Edmonds did on WGDR radio, April 30th of 2004. The interview was hosted by Jim Hogue.

“Jim Hogue: Ms. Edmonds, what I’ll do is invite you to tell us whatever you would like–your stint with the FBI–and what the brouhaha with Ashcroft and company is all about.

Sibel Edmonds: I started working for the Bureau immediately after 9/11 and I was performing translations for several languages: Farsi, Turkish, and Azerbaijani. And I do have top-secret clearance. And after I started working for the Bureau, most of my translation duties included translations of documents and investigations that actually started way before 9/11.”

From these first two statements alone we already answer the question Alice alluded to, and George asked…

From Jim’s question, we can see that John Ashcroft personally had something to do with the “retroactive” classification of what Sibel had to say. The fact that Sibel didn’t deny that in her answer, shows that to be the case.

Now as we all know from the papers, John Ashcroft is NOT a respected politician. He lost his run for the US Senate in Missouri against a dead man, Mel Carnahan, in the year 2000.

We also know that the Bush Administration is the one who appointed him Attorney General of the United States of America.

Billy: “Aahahahahah, he lost to a dead man… ahahahahah”

Billy, it’s not nice to make fun of ex-Attorney General Ashcroft, no matter HOW MUCH fun it can be…

Anyway, please return to Google, and type in the following searchwords:

“Tom Flocco, Sibel Edmonds”

The link that is returned is:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/DOJAskedFBI.htm

The article is entitled, “DOJ Asked FBI Translator To Change Pre 9-11 Intercepts.”

The first paragraph states:

“FBI translator Sibel Edmonds was offered a substantial raise and a full time job to encourage her not to go public that she had been asked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to retranslate and adjust the translations of [terrorist] subject intercepts that had been received before September 11, 2001 by the FBI and CIA.”

Alice: “Mr. Gold, how do we know that Tom Flocco is “trustworthy”?

That’s a good question Alice. For you students here who have never heard of Tom Flocco, the answer to that question is you probably won’t find him “trustworthy.”

There are things you can do when coming across an article like this… the first thing I always do is contact the author of the article which in this case, happens to be Tom Flocco. His email address is readily available on the site…

Just so you know, I have also contacted Sibel, and she has verified the quotations in these articles.

Another thing you can look for is to see if Sibel Edmonds asks for a retraction to this article anywhere. I have already looked for it, and it doesn’t exist.

Billy: “This is really wierd…I don’t know what to say…”

Yep, it gets even scarier.

You’ll see at the bottom of the article it states the following:

“Kristen Breitweiser, 9-11 family member and also one of the nick-named Jersey girls, arranged to have Ms. Edmonds address the gathered media right after Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified.”

Wow, a 9/11 family member thought enough of Ms. Edmonds to push for the media to hear her comments.

Just so you know, Kristen Breitweiser was one of the family members who also pushed for the creation of the “9/11 Commission.”

Billy: “Why did she need to ‘push’ for the creation of the 9/11 Commission?

That’s a great question, Billy… in other tragic events throughout our history–the JFK Assassination, Pearl Harbor, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster–commissions were created to investigate those events almost immediately.

However, in regards to 9/11, that was not to be the case. Apparently, the Bush Administration didn’t want 9/11 to be investigated. They did what seemed to be everything in their power to stop the commission from being created. If not for the family members, and citizens of these United States, that commission would have never been created.

Ok, please click on the following link:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FBILinguist.htm

“In an exclusive interview on Saturday, we asked Edmonds if she would deny that laundered drug money linked to the 911 attacks found its way into recent House, Senate and Presidential campaign war-chests, according to what she heard in intelligence intercepts she was asked to translate.

“I will not deny that statement; but I cannot comment further on it,” she told TomFlocco.com, in a non-denial denial.”

Wow. Here are some more excerpts from that article…

“Once this issue gets to be…investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.”

“There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized”

Alice: “Oh my goodness… this is just wrong! They can’t be allowed to get away with this!”

Calm down Alice… although I agree with you, and think you are right to get emotional, there are other avenues from which to direct your frustration.

As it turns out, there is a wonderful organization of people who are already fighting for this cause. They are referred to as the “9/11 Truth Movement.” They are comprised of several different organizations, but if you’re interested, I recommend the following sites:

www.911truth.org

www.911CitizensWatch.org

www.911Visibility.org

www.justicefor911.org

Also, you can see what Sibel Edmonds is up to today by going to her website:

www.justacitizen.org/

Eric: “Mr. Gold, this is a lot to take in.”

You’re right, Eric, it is. I have a few words of motivation for you, and hopefully you’ll listen to what it is I have to say.

We are an amazing group of people. When I say we, I’m referring to us as Americans. When 9/11 took place, everyone was terrified. They didn’t know what was going to come next. However, everyone stood together, and wanted to do EVERYTHING in our power to help those who needed it. We, as a people, contributed $5 billion out of our pockets to help the family members.

Unfortunately, because of manipulation on the part of the media, and the Administration, that energy was directed towards shopping.

If you think this cause important, go to the sites that focus on truth, and absolute accountability. Tell them that you want to sign up, and help with the cause. We need to find that energy that existed after 9/11, and bring it back. Only this time, we need to put it towards what’s best for this country, and our futures.

Alice: “Mr. Gold, I’m going to take a look at those sites tonight, and show it to my mom and dad.”

That’s a great idea, Alice… here’s an apple.

To answer your original question, Alice… Whether or not people in government are “above the law,” the answer to that question is a RESOUNDING no.

RING RING… RING RING…

Well, it looks like we’ve run out of time for today. Tonight’s assignment, tell someone about Sibel Edmonds.

Hey, where did all my apples go?

911truth.org hereby grants to all readers of this website permission to link to any and all articles found in the public areas of the website, www.911truth.org, so long as the full source URL is posted with the article.