August 12, 2009
by Jeremy R. Hammond
Shahid R. Siddiqi contributed to this report
In an exclusive interview with Foreign Policy Journal, retired Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul responds to charges that he supports terrorism, discusses 9/11 and ulterior motives for the war on Afghanistan, claims that the U.S., Israel, and India are behind efforts to destabilize Pakistan, and charges the U.S. and its allies with responsibility for the lucrative Afghan drug trade.
Retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul was the Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1987 to 1989, during which time he worked closely with the CIA to provide support for the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Though once deemed a close ally of the United States, in more recent years his name has been the subject of considerable controversy. He has been outspoken with the claim that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were an “inside job”. He has been called “the most dangerous man in Pakistan”, and the U.S. government has accused him of supporting the Taliban, even recommending him to the United Nations Security Council for inclusion on the list of international terrorists.
In an exclusive interview with Foreign Policy Journal, I asked the… Continue reading
by Kevin R. Ryan
Scoop Independent News
Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers
Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers? This is the second essay in a series that attempts to answer that question. The first installment began by considering the tenants that occupied the impact zones and the other floors that might have played a useful role in the demolition of the WTC towers.  The result was a picture of connections to organizations that had access to explosive materials and to the expertise required to use explosives. Additionally it was seen that, in the years preceding 9/11, the impact zone tenants had all made structural modifications to the areas where the airliners struck the buildings.
The management representatives of these tenant companies were seen to be secretive and powerful. Through these powerful people, the tenants were connected to organizations that benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks, including the defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, and Science Applications International Corp (SAIC). The tenants also had strong connections to the Bush family and their corporate network, including Dresser Industries (now Halliburton) and UBS, and to Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries, reported to have brokered the insider trading deals. There were also links between these tenant companies and the terrorist-financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
Throughout this review we should keep in mind that, according to 2009 estimates, the membership of Al Qaeda’s conspiracy network is… Continue reading
By Erik Larson
Sibel Edmonds gave a sworn deposition in which she testified to her knowledge of treasonous crimes and corruption involving current and former members of Congress and State and Defense Dept. officials. Given the nature of the deposition, the lines of questioning focused on Turkish espionage and services obtained through bribery and blackmail by Turkish officials and proxies. However, Edmonds has previously disclosed that the corruption involving U.S. officials also includes money laundering, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets, U.S. support for Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, and obstruction of FBI investigations related to 9/11, before and after the attacks; she said these things came up “briefly” during the deposition. Edmonds learned of these things from wiretaps she listened to while working as a translator for the FBI in 2001-2002.
Video shot by me of Q&A sessions outside the deposition — Sibel Edmonds, Stephen Michael Kohn of NWC, Bruce Fein of TALDF and TACA (formerly w/ ATAA) and Davikorian, at Edmonds’ Aug 8, 2009 deposition
Edmonds’ Aug 8 testimony was subpoenaed by David Krikorian (Democratic 2010 Congressional candidate- OH) to support his defense against a lawsuit brought by Jean Schmidt, R-OH. Krikorian had circulated a flier in his 2008 campaign in which he alleged that Schmidt had accepted “blood money” from Turkish interests in exchange for opposing a Congressional resolution acknowledging the Turkish genocide of Armenians in World War I. The deposition took place in Washington, DC at the headquarters… Continue reading
Before you hear what she has to say, you should know a little about Sibel Edmonds’ background.
Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required).
Some of Edmonds allegations’ have been confirmed in the British press.
Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.
Is there are confirmation of Edmonds’ claim?
According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already supposedly wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.” US officials later told CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
So American forces had many opportunities to capture Bin Laden, and yet failed to do so.
Indeed, even… Continue reading
The Corbett Report
17 July, 2009
Government sources immediately began blaming North Korea for the recent cyberterror attacks on South Korea and the U.S., despite having no evidence to back up those claims. Now, an examination of the evidence by independent computer experts show that the attack seems to have been coordinated from the UK. The hysterical media coverage in the attack’s wake, however, echoing the government line that it was likely the work of North Korea, served to cement in the minds of many that this was an act of cyberwarfare.
The idea that this surprisingly unsophisticated attack could have come from a well-organized, hostile state or terrorist group comes as a blessing in disguise to those groups, agencies and advisors who have been calling for greater and greater federal snooping powers in the name of stopping a “cyber 9/11″ from happening.
The “cyber 9/11″ meme stretches back almost to 9/11 itself. Back in 2003, Mike McConnell, the ex-director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was fearmongering over the possibility of a cyber attack “equivalent to the attack on the World Trade Center” if a new institution were not created to oversee cyber security. Since then, report after report has continued to use the horror of 9/11 as a way of raising public hysteria over “cyber terrorism,” a subject more often associated with juvenile hackers and lone misfits than radical terrorist organizations.
The real reason behind the invocation of 9/11 in the context of “cyber terror”… Continue reading
July 12, 2009
by Christina Lamb in Karachi
Osama bin Laden and the top Al-Qaeda leadership are not in Pakistan, making
US missile attacks against them futile, according to the country’s interior
“If Osama was in Pakistan we would know, with all the thousands of troops
we have sent into the tribal areas in recent months,” Rehman Malik told
The Sunday Times. “If he and all these four or five top people were in
our area they would have been caught, the way we are searching.”
He added: “According to our information Osama is in Afghanistan, probably
Kunar, as most of the activities against Pakistan are being directed from Kunar.”
Washington does not directly acknowledge its missile attacks on Pakistani territory
by unmanned drone aircraft but Pakistani officials say the US has carried out
more than 40 attacks inside its borders in the past 10 months, killing hundreds
CIA officials claim these attacks have been highly effective in disrupting
Al-Qaeda’s ability to operate. However, Malik insists they are a waste
of time because the Al-Qaeda leadership is on the other side of the border in
“They’re getting mid-level people not big fish,” he said.
“And they are counterproductive because they are killing civilians and
turning locals against our government. We try to win people’s hearts,
then one drone attack drives them away. One attack alone last week killed 50
US officials in Islamabad say Pakistan’s government is being disingenuous,
claiming to oppose the… Continue reading
Note: The author is indebted to a few particularly useful sources of information and inspiration, including Russ Baker’s book “Family of Secrets”, the websites nndb.com, sourcewatch.org and secinfo.com, and Richard Gage.
On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.” On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush’s own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush’s conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bush’s own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of… Continue reading
Yesterday, something very interesting was reported on. However, before I tell you about it, I have a few things to say. Over the years, I have promoted information regarding the Pakistani ISI’s connection to “Al-Qaeda” and “terrorism.” I get a lot of flack for this, and am portrayed as someone who wants to see Pakistan and all Muslims killed. I am also portrayed as someone that doesn’t want to expose Israel’s alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. This is simply not true. Here’s an article I wrote about Ray McGovern and Israel on 5/7/2006. I added an introduction to address this issue. Another article I wrote addressed the “I want all Muslims killed” argument. In that I said, “you may have seen me say on occasion that 9/11 was not a Zionist crime, not a Muslim crime, not an American crime, etc… but a crime, and should be treated as such. A horrible crime took place on 9/11. 2,973 people were brutally murdered. When it first happened, our “leaders” told us it was an “act of war.” It wasn’t. It was a crime. Carried out by men. Those men may have been American. They may have been Saudi Arabian. They may have been Pakistani. They may have been Israeli. They may have been Muslim. They may have been Jewish. They may have been Episcopalian. It doesn’t matter. No nationality or religion committed the crimes of 9/11. Men did. Men who should be punished to the fullest extent… Continue reading
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009
CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans
would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from
other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,”
FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama
can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government
protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”
The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and… Continue reading
Court won’t hear Sept. 11 claims vs. Saudi Arabia
June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept.
11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over
charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal
appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity,
which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the
justices to pass up the case.
In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government’s court
brief filed in early June was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime
ally” just before President Barack Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their
officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible
for acts of terrorism committed by others.
The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands
of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained
property damage and other losses.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal
judge’s ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants
were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove
that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S.…
‘If I didn’t confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,’
claims torture victim
By Matthew Hickley
Last updated at 10:25 PM on 25th June 2009
A British man spoke publicly for the first time yesterday to accuse MI5 officers
of forcing him to confess to masterminding the July 7 bombings.
Jamil Rahman claims UK security officers were behind his arrest in 2005 in
He says he was beaten repeatedly by local officials who also threatened to
rape him and his wife.
Mr Rahman, who is suing the Home Office, said a pair of MI5 officers who attended
his torture and interrogation would leave the room while he was beaten.
He claims when he told the pair he had been tortured they merely answered:
‘They haven’t done a very good job on you.’
Mr Rahman told the BBC: ‘They were questioning me on the July 7 bombings, showing
me pictures of the bombers.
‘They showed me maps, terrains … they asked me to draw things out and write
names next to pictures.
‘They threatened my family. They go to me, “In the UK, gas leaks happen,
if your family house had a gas leak and everyone got burnt, there’s no problems,
we can do that easily”.’
He says he eventually made a false confession of involvement in the July 7
Jamil Rahman claims security officers in Bangladesh, under the direction of
MI5, made threats to rape his wife if he did not confess to… Continue reading
by Jon Gold
On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.”
On… Continue reading
We as members of the 9/11 Truth community deplore all forms of hatred and violence, including the unprovoked murderous attack by James von Brunn on June 10, 2009, in the Washington Holocaust museum. We also deplore peddlers of hatred who use such events for their own purposes, such as Glenn Beck, who recently said that von Brunn, because of his attack, was now “a hero in the 9/11 Truther community,” which “would like to destroy the country” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQnfJeUzzKk).
There is no foundation whatsoever for these flagrant lies. Beck intentionally overlooks the fact that he shares Von Brunn’s views on the Federal Reserve (stating “it’s totally fine to speak out against the Fed”), views that von Brunn acted upon when he tried to arrest the Fed’s Board with a bag of weapons in tow. Beck essentially overlooks the fact that von Brunn took action on his White Supremacist views, leading him to murder a Black guard in a Jewish museum. Yet Beck cautions viewers that 9/11 Truth advocates pose a graver threat, and are bent on working with al Qaeda to destroy the nation. (“… people like white supremacists or 9/11 truthers that would also like to destroy the country. They’ll work with anybody they can.”)
Beck ostensibly encourages thinking for oneself, questioning authority and holding people to account when it comes to the Fed, yet when it comes to the crimes of 9/11, the mere act of questioning is treasonous, fraught with potential dangers on a scale that threatens the nation itself.…Continue reading
By James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Founder, 911 Truth of Central Iowa
When I was living in Brazil as an academic two decades ago, the country’s
powerful military, after years of running the show, cut a deal with the ascendant
progressive civilian politicians giving them full latitude unimpeded within
a certain sphere, but leaving other aspects of the country’s affairs strictly
and permanently under military control. The result was Brazil’s new Constitution
of 1988, which made voting a compulsory duty of citizenship. As a result, no
non-progressive candidate for the presidency has gotten anywhere since. But
elective civilian power is strictly limited.
It strikes me that the relationship between the constitutional government
of the U.S. and its para-military security services, the tools of shadow dictators
of multinational mega-business, has gotten to be strikingly similar. If my observation
is correct, it would largely explain the seeming cowardice and complicit status
of the whole Congress, vis-à-vis the rogue executive branch and its repeated
trampling of the Constitution in recent years: Congress, including its progressives,
simply knows where the line is. And Congress knows, even in advance, that the
Executive, brought to heel by the shadow government’s board of directors,
will disdain the Constitution and public opinion in carrying out its ruthlessly
enforceable “agreement” with the true sovereigns of the United States.
I am as dismayed as anyone that our new, more progressive President has not
so far turned out to be a change agent in the vital sphere of civil liberties
and restoring accountability… Continue reading
By Rory O’Connor, MediaChannel.org
Posted June 12, 2009.
Powerful prosecutor and public figure Patrick Fitzgerald has been waging
a chilling private jihad aimed at "killing" a book critical of him.
Okay, so he’s one of the "sexiest
men alive" — but what does Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in
Chicago and Special Counsel in the CIA leak case, have against us poor, unsexy
journalists? It’s bad enough that Fitzie won’t answer my questions: ("Rory.
I just wanted to get back to you and let you know that I am going to decline
to be interviewed. Thank you. Pat") It’s worse that he was responsible
for the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent
85 days behind bars. Now comes word that Fitzgerald, who must have too much
time on his hands now that Scooter Libby has been freed and Rod Blagojevich
indicted, spent much of the last year and a half going after another journalist,
Peter Lance, in an attempt to kill a new edition of Lance’s investigative book
Triple Cross by threatening to sue both the author and his publisher
published in November 2006 by Regan Books, a division of Harper_Collins,
Triple Cross uncovers the story of how Al Qaeda master spy Ali Mohamed
infiltrated U.S. intelligence in the years leading up to 9/11 – "and how
the FBI’s elite bin Laden squad failed to stop him." Among the radicals
trained by Ali Mohamed –and photographed by the FBI in 1989… Continue reading
Submitted to 911blogger.com by Shumonik
On May 20, 2009, General Richard Myers was at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California to give a talk and a book signing. Bruno Bruhwiler and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel of WeAreChangeLA were there to call into question the ‘General’s’ credibility when it came to talking about 9/11 and threats to the nation.
Watch the following 3 videos, created by Paul Wittenberger, to see what happened.
Part 1 of 3:
Part 2 of 3:
Part 3 of 3:
WeAreChangeLA questions CFR President and Bush/Obama man Richard Haas on “Wars of Agenda,” Building 7 and the CFR’s ‘big ideas’ CFR
Submitted to 911blogger.com by Shumonik on June 8, 2009
On May 18, 2009, Richard Haas… Continue reading
Cheney said in an interview on Fox News:
“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” he told the Fox host. “There was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out… [President] George [Bush] … did say and did testify that there was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”
How important is Cheney’s admission?
Well, 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam” .
And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
Moreover, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative… Continue reading
Waterboarding was ‘well done,’ Cheney says
BY JOHN BYRNE
Published: June 1, 2009
On Iraq and 9/11: ‘That’s not something I made up’
Former Vice President Dick Cheney is usually very careful at choosing his words.
Perhaps not so today. In a speech Monday at the National Press Club, continuing along familiar themes of terrorism, Guantánamo and his hatred for The New York Times, Cheney spoke defensively of the administration’s practice of water-boarding detainees.
“I don’t believe we tortured,” Cheney remarked, noting that the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration were vetted by White House lawyers. They didn’t cross a “red line,” he said.
And then he delivered the whopper: “There were three people who were water-boarded…. It was well-done.”
The former vice president also made an odd comment about detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay.
He framed their detention as a choice between two options: either we imprison them, or we kill them.
“We need Guantánamo… If we didn’t have it, we’d need to (invent) it,” Cheney remarked. “If you don’t have a place to hold these people, the only other option is to kill them.”
“We don’t operate that way,” he added.
Cheney’s comments were transcribed by The Swamp, the blog of the Chicago Tribune.
“If I had it to do all over again, I would do exactly the same thing,” he continued. “I don’t have much tolerance or patience for those who have the benefit of hindsight eight years later and have forgotten what happened on 9/11….…Continue reading