August 15, 2008
You may have noticed that lately I’ve been making movies that “force” people to go to www.historycommons.org (www.cooperativeresearch.org). I’m hoping people will see just how important a tool it can be.
Please support www.historycommons.org. They have been invaluable to me, and hopefully will be for you as well.
This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes former diplomat from the State Department’s Foreign Service J. Michael Springmann. Mr. Springmann served postings in Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in Washington D.C. He is a published author of several articles on national security themes, and is an attorney in private practice in Washington D.C.
Michael has attended several 9/11 Conferences over the years, most notably, the 9/11 Omission hearings on 9/9/2004 chaired by former Representative and current Green Party candidate for President, Cynthia McKinney, as well as the recent conference in Keene, NH.
Included in this important interview is a discussion regarding a new article by Mr. Springmann titled, THE MISTAKE DEPARTMENT: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster (reprinted below) that discusses the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and it’s relationship to 15 of the 19 alleged September 11th hijackers. In it, he says that “the Jeddah Consulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation”, “the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia,” and “these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.”
Visibility 9-11 welcomes State Department’s Foreign Service J. Michael Springmann
Direct download: media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_springmann.mp3
THE MISTAKE DEPARTMENT
One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster
by J. Michael Springmann
After airplanes flew… Continue reading
By Jim Loney
Originally published July 22, 2008
Someone has just brought to my attention a possible interpretation of this statement different than what I had come to, so in the spirit of accurate reporting and non-sensationalism, I am adding this for your consideration. As always, we hope you carefully interpret all information coming to you, no matter what the source, (including ours, of course). My interpretation of these comments was that Stone was simply making the case (the crux of the case) that Hamdan knew the target, therefore Hamdan must have been a party to the attack. I had not considered that Stone may have been (supposedly) quoting Hamdan fully, and that Hamdan may have been the one reported as having said, “If they hadn’t shot it down…,” not Stone. Nonetheless, it seems quite odd that the US prosecution, led by military officers, would have made any reference to Flight 93 having been shot down… [End of update.]
A couple key points here from the Gitmo show trials not really being shown:
1) Defense attorney for bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, stated: “There will be no evidence that Mr. Hamdan espoused or believed or embraced any form of what you will hear about, radical Islam beliefs, extremist Muslim beliefs.” Where have we heard that before? A little like Atta and friends drinking Dewars scotch, paying for lap dances, partying it up… fundamentalist Muslims who hate Americans’ ‘freedoms’? I think not…… Continue reading
* 7/7 London bombings mastermind Haroon Rashid Aswat was alleged to be an informer by a counterterrorism expert in 2005, and the British authorities certainly showed a surprising lack of interest in him during his career
* Lead 7/7 London bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan was monitored by the British security services
* Details of calls by Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett
* Vice President Cheney’s demands for alterations to 9/11 Commission report
* Progress of the Washington’s Post investigation
* Dick Cheney’s first hiring to work in the executive branch
* Nixon’s mental health, according to Barry Goldwater
* The Reagan Doctrine, its originator’s visit to a Nazi cemetery and jokes about bombing the Soviet Union
The History Commons has a new blog up. Here’s where you can find the latest about the Commons, including news on the move towards “History Commons 2.0,” fundraising, community outreach, and more. Please share your opinions with us.
A second contributors’ blog is also up and running. Here’s where you can talk about the material published at the Commons. We keep the two blogs separate because the content is separate from the History Commons itself. Please join the discussion.
“Scoop” Independent News
(June 17, NYC). A surprise development occurred at today’s hearing in the case of Susan Lindauer versus the United States. A long time associate of the accused, associate professor of computer science at Toronto’s York University, Parke Godfrey, Ph.D., testified that Susan Lindauer predicted an attack on the United States in the southern part of Manhattan. According to his testimony, she said that the attack would be very similar to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Godfrey said that Lindauer made the prediction on several occasions, one as late as August 2001.
The testimony occurred in a hearing on Lindauer’s competence to stand trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska, Southern District of New York, in lower Manhattan. On March 11, 2004, Lindauer was arrested for acting as an “unregistered agent” for the nation of Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Prosecutors have delayed the trial for over four years claiming Lindauer was delusional for asserting that she was a U.S. intelligence asset over a period of nine years, including the period covered by the indictment.
This was Lindauer’s first real opportunity to argue her competence to stand trial and deny the delusions claimed by court psychiatrists. Lindauer asserts that she had been a U.S. intelligence asset since working on the Lockerbie case and subsequent antiterrorism efforts.
Appearing for the defense, Dr. Godfrey testified under oath that Lindauer told him of her specific concerns about an attack on the… Continue reading
Two new papers have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is an article by Frank Legge, called “9/11 and Probability Theory”.
Here is an excerpt:
“If we compare these two explanations for the collapse of the towers it is immediately apparent that they are different in a particularly significant way: the fire based official explanation is a series of events, like links in a chain, while the explosive based explanation is a parallel set of scientific studies of evidence.”
The second paper is a letter from Kevin Fenton, entitled “WTC Collapse Initiation Floors: What They Were And How Much Damage They Suffered”:
“It is interesting to compare the collapse initiation floor in WTC1 to the central impact floors in terms of three of the main aspects thought to have influenced the collapse: impact damage, jet fuel spilled, and debris available to remove fire insulation.”
Peter Dale Scott
The Deep State and 9/11
The unthinkable — that elements inside the state would conspire with criminals to kill innocent civilians — has become not only thinkable but commonplace in the last century. A seminal example was in French Algeria, where dissident elements of the French armed forces, resisting General de Gaulle’s plans for Algerian independence, organized as the Secret Army Organization and bombed civilians indiscriminately, with targets including hospitals and schools. 1 Critics like Alexander Litvinenko, who was subsequently murdered in London in November 2006, have charged that the 1999 bombings of apartment buildings around Moscow, attributed to Chechen separatists, were in fact the work of the Russian secret service (FSB). 2
Similar attacks in Turkey have given rise to the notion there of an extra-legal “deep state” — a combination of forces, ranging from former members of the CIA-organized Gladio organization, to “a vast matrix of security and intelligence officials, ultranationalist members of the Turkish underworld and renegade former members of the [Kurdish separatist] PKK.” 3 The deep state, financed in part by Turkey’s substantial heroin traffic, has been accused of killing thousands of civilians, in incidents such as the lethal bomb attack in November 2005 on a bookshop in Semdinli. This attack, initially attributed to the Kurdish separatist PKK, turned out to have been committed by members of Turkey’s paramilitary police intelligence service, together with a former PKK member turned informer. 4 On April 23, 2008, the former Interior Minister Mehmet Agar was ordered… Continue reading
By Tad Walch
Published: May 3, 2008
Sixteen months ago, Brigham Young University and Steven Jones parted ways, but he said this week he isn’t bitter about the academic divorce.
He certainly hasn’t curtailed his volatile research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
(Yes, three towers fell, not just two. If you didn’t know that, Jones is particularly interested in reaching you with his message that some other group, in addition to al-Qaida, likely contributed to the collapses.)
In fact, Jones is the lead author of a paper on the collapses published April 18 in a civil engineering journal. (Ed.: Full paper can be read here at www.Bentham-open.org.)
The journal article does not list his past tie to BYU, and that’s a big Mission Accomplished for university leaders, who felt they acted to protect BYU’s reputation when they worked out a retirement package with Jones and he left at the end of 2006.
But Jones is sharing a cramped BYU office with some professors. He also does research in a BYU lab as an outside user with a student who works with him.
Most importantly, he is preparing several more papers that, if they pass peer review and are published, will give him the peace of mind that his case reached the public.
Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress… Continue reading
by Aidan Monaghan
The following is a response from the U.S. Secret Service to a Freedom of Information Act request for the arrival time of U.S. vice president Richard Cheney at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) on September 11, 2001, as well as the names of all those granted entry there that day.
Reference is made to your Freedom of InformationlPrivacy Acts requests originally received by the United States Secret Service on April 17, 2008, for information pertaining to the following:
File no. 20080330: copies of documentation pertaining to the names of persons admitted entry into the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) located within the White House on September 11, 2001 ;
File no. 20080331: copies of documentation which reveal the time on September 11, 2001, Vice President of the United States Richard Cheney entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) located within the White House.
A review of the Secret Service’s systems of records indicated that there are no records or documents pertaining to your requests in Secret Service files. Enclosed is a copy of your original request.
If you disagree with our determination, you have the right of administrative appeal within 35 days by writing to Freedom of Information Appeal, Deputy Director, U. S. Secret Service, Communications Center, 245 Murray Lane, SW, Building T-5, Washington, D.C. 20223. If you choose to file an administrative appeal, please explain the basis of your appeal and reference the case number listed above.
Craig W. Ulmer Special Agent In… Continue reading
More material has been added covering the NSA’s surveillance of Ahmed al-Hada, father-in-law of alleged Pentagon hijacker Khalid Almihdhar. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney used the non-exploitation of calls between his phone in Yemen and the hijackers in the US to justify the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program in January 2006. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell attributed the failure to trace the calls to a 1981 executive order earlier this year, and Mukasey bizarrely then claimed that one of the calls was between the US and Afghanistan, rather than Yemen. This confused the media somewhat, and a group of congressmen asked Mukasey for an explanation.
There are additional entries about the day of 9/11. A senior official later disputed Richard Clarke’s account of the day’s events, some Pentagon security cameras did not show the crash site, and the fighters who later responded to the Pentagon attack attended anti-terrorism training earlier in the day. There is a dispute over which gate American 11 left from at Boston airport, where suspicious passengers arrived on September 10, when Larry Silverstein’s publicist cancelled an appointment at the WTC for 9/11. Other entries point out United 93’s autopilot was turned off, top air force officials continued with a meeting when they learned the WTC had been hit, and crew on United 93 had previously attended antiterrorism training. Pilots on American 77, American 11 and United 93, were allocated… Continue reading
Steven E. Jones
April 18, 2008
Letter published at 911blogger.com
Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)
Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That’s one reason this particular journal was chosen — open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it — let us know would you?
In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses.…Continue reading
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) have released a copy of their audio files, telephone conversations and situation room discussions, from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The files are posted on this website:
The specific link is here:
9-11 audio recordings
Over 100 hours of audio recordings of various military communications channels on 9-11.
Made available in multiple mp3 files.
OPEN/DOWNLOAD THIS FILE FOR LIST OF FILES AND LINKS TO THE AUDIO FILES – [.zip files - posted 15-Apr-2008]
Copies of some of these audio files may have been available previously via peer to peer systems but this is the first time these have been posted in a readily accessible format online.
Vanity Fair did a story on these tapes a couple of years ago but only posted brief excerpts:
There’s a Keith Olbermann MSNBC piece on YouTube that relies on some of the tapes, but presents only tiny but chilling excerpts:
Latest Findings Raise New Questions about Hijackers and Suggest Incomplete Investigation
A contributor to the History Commons has obtained a 298-page document entitled Hijackers Timeline (Redacted) from the FBI, subsequent to a Freedom of Information Act request. The document was a major source of information for the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Though the commission cited the timeline 52 times in its report, it failed to include some of the document’s most important material.
The printed document is dated November 14, 2003, but appears to have been compiled in mid-October 2001 (the most recent date mentioned in it is October 22, 2001), when the FBI was just starting to understand the backgrounds of the hijackers, and it contains almost no information from the CIA, NSA, or other agencies. This raises questions as to why the 9/11 Commission relied so heavily on such an early draft for their information about the hijackers.
CooperativeTimeline.org has posted new information from the “Hijackers Timeline,” recently released by the FBI. Links to the full FBI documents are at the end of the article, (which also contains many links to other Timeline entries in the original announcement, at the source).
In addition, the 90-page “Charge Sheet” (see also press release 2/11/08, “Sept. 11 Co-Conspirators Charged”) conveys an enormous amount of information relating to the hijackers for a significant period of time before, and on, September 11th.
For an event this government has said “no one could have… Continue reading
by Joseph Cannon, Monday, December 10, 2007*
When the CIA tells you that a piece of evidence has been destroyed, you should react as skeptically as you would to the death of a Marvel supervillain.
As you know, CIA Deputy Director of Operations Jose Rodriguez reportedly made the decision to destroy tapes of prisoner interrogation, allegedly to protect the identities of the interrogators. This action, we are told, ran contrary to the wishes of Porter Goss, who then ran the Agency.
Joseph Cannon in his blog of Dec. 10 recalls how past CIA claims of lost evidence later turned out to be untrue: “When the CIA tells you that a piece of evidence has been destroyed, you should react as skeptically as you would to the death of a Marvel supervillain.”
One certainty is that the CIA lied, either when it told the 9/11 Commission that tapes of certain interrogations were never made, or else in its current claim that such tapes did exist but have been destroyed. This serves to underline the absurdity of accepting any CIA statements, any at all, especially about 9/11. By extension, the 9/11 Commission is yet again tainted for using the CIA’s prisoner “transcripts” uncritically as a main source in its report; whether out of cynicism or unforgivable naivete is irrelevant.
It’s near impossible to tell on how many levels the CIA can be (and probably is) lying about the torture tapes. They may be lying about having certain… Continue reading
Editor’s Note: The original piece by Collateral has been removed from the web. In its place we have posted an excerpt from Core of Corruption that focuses on Shreveport Louisiana dentist, Dr. David Graham. Dr. Graham met two 9/11 terrorists, ten months before 9/11, in his native Shreveport. Graham met a Pakistani man, Jamal Khan, who housed two men who would later be named 9/11 hijackers. Graham documented that he alerted a Congressman, a Shreveport FBI agent, and the Secret Service. The information he provided was passed on the to Porter Goss, who later headed the CIA. While the CIA was actively tracking hijackers Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdhar. This clip includes footage recorded by Graham. Oddly enough, he also points out an area in Pakistan where he thought Bin Laden might be found. Abbottabad is in the circled area drawn by Dr. Graham.
The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the information Dr. Graham passed on almost a year before 9/11. Why didn’t Porter Goss or the FBI do anything with the information they were given, including concerns regarding two of the 9/11 hijackers.
See related article:
“Treason in Shreveport”, Sander Hicks;
“Who Poisoned Local 9/11 Investigator Dr. David Graham?”, Jeff Ferrell of KSLA news;
“The strange death of Dr. David M. Graham”, YES! Weekly, Greensboro’s Alternative Newsweekly.
Collateral is an independent weekly newsshow produced in Philadelphia, PA at Woodshop Films. The show focuses on stories that get little or no news coverage and offers perspectives not typically found in the corporate media.…Continue reading
9/11 family member and “Jersey Girl” Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that — before 9/11 — the government knew the day, the type of attack, and the targets.
Why is this important? Because, previously, whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds had given more vague information on the government’s foreknowledge. For example, Ms. Edmonds had hinted that the government only knew of a general timeframe for the attacks, and that they had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was just one of many potential targets.
Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.
Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward. Ms. Casaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11… Continue reading
Will DOJ Look into the First Death of a U.S. 9/11 Researcher?
By Sander Hicks
October 14, 2007
From 9/24 to 10/1/07 I traveled throughout Louisiana and Texas, with reporter Jordan Green, investigating the death of 9/11 researcher Dr. David Graham.
Our suspicions were validated: there’s a huge story here. It’s almost overwhelming. The best way to summarize is to publish my complaint filed last week with the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General.
If you support an investigation into the death of Dr. Graham, please say so, in the comments section, at the end. (Please send me your email, too, I may be doing some sort of activism around this. Mine is sander [at] voxpopnet.net)
October 11th, 2007
Office of the Inspector General
Department of Justice
1425 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005
I am writing to request a special investigation into possible FBI corruption inside the Shreveport, LA. office. I have been researching the strange death of Dr. David M. Graham since I was passed his unpublished manuscript, last spring. This case is of the utmost importance, and is about to receive serious media attention.
A week ago, I returned from a fact-finding mission in Shreveport, New Orleans and Houston. Alongside reporter Jordan Green, I met many of Dr. Graham’s surviving friends and coworkers. Every one of them indicated that Dr.… Continue reading
The Hidden History of 9-11-2001: Prof. Paul Zarembka
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001: PROF. PAUL ZAREMBKA (SUNY Buffalo) — New video available
On August 9, 2007 at Chautauqua Institution, Paul Zarembka confronted Philip Zelikow. exec. director of the official 9/11 investigation, with a couple of uncensored questions. Professor Zarembka had done his homework. He is the editor of The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 . In this video, Zarembka outlines the book’s chapters: What we now know about the 9-11 hijackers (Jay Kolar); Initiation of the 9-11 operation, with evidence of insider trading beforehand (Zarembka); The destruction of the World Trade Center: why the official account can’t be true (David Ray Griffin); The military drills on 9-11: bizarre coincidence or something else? (Four Arrows aka Don Jacobs); Terrorism and Statecraft: Al-Qaeda and western covert operations after the Cold War (Nafeez Mossaddeq Ahmed); September 11 as Machiavellian State Terror (David MacGregor); Making History: the compromised 9-11 Commission (Bryan Sacks); Islamophobia and the War on Terror: the continuing pretext for US imperial conquest (Diana Ralph). Filmed Aug 9, 2007, Chautauqua, NY. See also abstract of Zarembka’s book
27 min interview with Prof. Zarembka
You can watch a shorter 10 minute interview that includes the August 9, 2007 questions asked of Phillip Zelikow here: