Motivation for a new investigation

[GregoryUrich]

This film about Sibel Edmonds points to what I suspect is the tip of the iceberg that a new investigation would uncover. Sibel Edmonds describes, to the extent she is allowed, her knowledge of crimes of drug trafficing, illicit nuclear trade, and spying (illegally sharing intelligence) and their connection to terrorism. She states that the 9/11 Commission, the FBI, Justice department were aware of and chose to cover up these crimes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497

 

[~enigma~]

This film about Sibel Edmonds points to what I suspect is the tip of the iceberg that a new investigation would uncover. Sibel Edmonds describes, to the extent she is allowed, her knowledge of crimes of drug trafficing, illicit nuclear trade, and spying (illegally sharing intelligence) and their connection to terrorism. She states that the 9/11 Commission, the FBI, Justice department were aware of and chose to cover up these crimes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497

Drug trafficking, illicit nuclear trading and spying have nothing to do with 9/11 so why did you post this in this forum?

 

[Alt+F4]

...to the extent she is allowed....

Huh? I think the Girl Scouts of America is one of the few organizations to which she hasn't given an interview to.

She was not allowed to proceed with her whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the FBI because a federal appellate court ruled it would reveal state secrets.

Ms. Edmonds herself is under no gag order, in fact she loves talking to the press, naming names...

Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=7032

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds
FBI Whistleblower Talks to Antiwar.com by Christopher Deliso
http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917

Lost In Translation: FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Whistleblowers’ Dirty Dozen: Interview with Sibel Edmonds By Luke Ryland
http://www.nswbc.org/DirtyDozen/Interview-Re-DirtyDozen.htm

Even The Armenian Weekly got an interview with her:

In Gag We Trust? An Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (Part I)
By Khatchig Mouradian
http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/fea05120701.htm

 

[GregoryUrich]

Drug trafficking, illicit nuclear trading and spying have nothing to do with 9/11 so why did you post this in this forum?

The article below suggests that it is related to 9/11.

After September 11, 2001: High-Ranking State Department Official Allegedly Arranges Release of Four 9/11 Suspects

An unnamed high-ranking official at the State Department arranges the release of four foreign operatives that have been taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the 9/11 attacks, according to FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds will later leave the FBI, becoming a whistleblower, and say she knows this based on telephone conversations she translated. Edmonds will say that the target of an FBI investigation into a nuclear smuggling ring calls the official, indicates names of people who have been taken into custody since 9/11, and says, “We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans.” The official says he will “take care of it,” and the four suspects on the list are released from interrogation and extradited. [Sunday Times (London), 1/6/2008]

 

[~enigma~]

The article below suggests that it is related to 9/11.

And the three specific items you mentioned have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. So tell me, what in your post links the three items to 9/11?

 

[beachnut]

This film about Sibel Edmonds points to what I suspect is the tip of the iceberg that a new investigation would uncover. Sibel Edmonds describes, to the extent she is allowed, her knowledge of crimes of drug trafficing, illicit nuclear trade, and spying (illegally sharing intelligence) and their connection to terrorism. She states that the 9/11 Commission, the FBI, Justice department were aware of and chose to cover up these crimes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497

Hired after 9/11?

This is pure junk, not a thing to do with 9/11. A dead-end, like the rest of your imagined "ample evidence" ideas. This is not 9/11. She sounded like she lack the knowledge to understand what you was translating was about.

Please research this tripe first before calling this a reason to investigate what? Her lack of understanding, or what?

No, she made up what she thinks about 9/11. She has as much evidence on 9/11 as 9/11 truth. Zero.

I am cautioning you now this is exactly like your “ample evidence”, something you and 9/11 truth imagine to be some great smoking gun.
What you should do since you are pushing this great stuff. Apply for the Pulitzer Prize and publish her work; Bradley forgot to do it, you can ace him out! Go get it.

7 years and still the imagined evidence is egging on those exercising their biases, political ideas and imagination instead of using knowledge and sound judgment.

She is a dream for journalist who wants to publish junk ideas, and they have her to be the person saying it. Hearsay, it protects the paper, the TV guys, and you from telling lies themselves, they let her spew the crackpot ideas and they are safe as you are, save your gullibility.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Huh? I think the Girl Scouts of America is one of the few organizations to which she hasn't given an interview to.

She was not allowed to proceed with her whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the FBI because a federal appellate court ruled it would reveal state secrets.

Ms. Edmonds herself is under no gag order, in fact she loves talking to the press, naming names...

Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=7032

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds
FBI Whistleblower Talks to Antiwar.com by Christopher Deliso
http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=2917

Lost In Translation: FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Grants First Interview To Ed Bradley http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

On April 30th, Sibel Edmonds was my guest for 50 minutes on WGDR radio.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Whistleblowers’ Dirty Dozen: Interview with Sibel Edmonds By Luke Ryland
http://www.nswbc.org/DirtyDozen/Interview-Re-DirtyDozen.htm

Even The Armenian Weekly got an interview with her:

In Gag We Trust? An Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (Part I)
By Khatchig Mouradian
http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/fea05120701.htm

Do you mean that she can't testify in court, but it's OK to talk to the press...all in accord with the state secrets privilege order?

And, yes, she is brave enough to push the boundaries on what she is able to say publicly.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Hired after 9/11?

This is pure junk, not a thing to do with 9/11. A dead-end, like the rest of your imagined "ample evidence" ideas. This is not 9/11. She sounded like she lack the knowledge to understand what you was translating was about.

Please research this tripe first before calling this a reason to investigate what? Her lack of understanding, or what?

No, she made up what she thinks about 9/11. She has as much evidence on 9/11 as 9/11 truth. Zero.

I am cautioning you now this is exactly like your “ample evidence”, something you and 9/11 truth imagine to be some great smoking gun.
What you should do since you are pushing this great stuff. Apply for the Pulitzer Prize and publish her work; Bradley forgot to do it, you can ace him out! Go get it.

7 years and still the imagined evidence is egging on those exercising their biases, political ideas and imagination instead of using knowledge and sound judgment.

She is a dream for journalist who wants to publish junk ideas, and they have her to be the person saying it. Hearsay, it protects the paper, the TV guys, and you from telling lies themselves, they let her spew the crackpot ideas and they are safe as you are, save your gullibility.

Oops, you didn't do your research.

On January 14, 2004 , the Justice Department's Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department's Inspector General's report on Edmonds found that many of her claims "were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

I think most of the junk on this forum comes from you.

 

[GregoryUrich]

And the three specific items you mentioned have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. So tell me, what in your post links the three items to 9/11?

She also describes foreknowledge of Bin Ladin attacking in the US using airplanes.

 

[Ragnarok]

Oops, you didn't do your research.



I think most of the junk on this forum comes from you.

So it's not just me then?

 

[beachnut]

Oops, you didn't do your research.

I think most of the junk on this forum comes from you.

Oops. As you will find out, not a thing do with your woo of 9/11 and your imagined “ample evidence”. But keep on hoping, and apply for that Pulitzer Prize.

Please show me all her allegations that pertain to 9/11 directly and what it means. Oops, this is almost 5 years old and no Pulitzer Prize for 9/11 truth. Ouch, guess the problems her shotgun allegations actually hit, were not significant for your “ample evidence” imaginary crimes of 9/11.

Yep, I have junk (good junk, you should see my center channel), and you have “ample evidence” equal to woo. I like junk.
You have 5-year-old “ample evidence”. Now what have you done about it?

 

[bje]

I hear a lot of yawns.

 

[GregoryUrich]

So it's not just me then?

Did you forget to do your research too?

 

[Thunder]

I predict within 6 months, all posters at JREF will have become soo bored with 9-11 Conspiracy theories that this section will be removed due to lack of postings and interest.

One can only hope.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you mean that she can't testify in court, but it's OK to talk to the press...all in accord with the state secrets privilege order?

She can talk to any member of the worldwide press about any issue she chooses to, she can name names regarding who was behind 9/11, she can make her own movie, write her own book. She can't sue the FBI but she can expose them for the entire world to see.

 

[Alt+F4]

She also describes foreknowledge of Bin Ladin attacking in the US using airplanes.

How? Isn't she under a gag order?

 

[The Big Dog]

I think most of the junk on this forum comes from you.

"On January 14, 2004 , the Justice Department's Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department's Inspector General's report on Edmonds found that many of her claims "were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

Which claims, Greg? My recollection is that they were not the claims you mentioned in your OP.

 

[~enigma~]

She also describes foreknowledge of Bin Ladin attacking in the US using airplanes.

She does that in your post. Care to show me where or is this another truther fail thread?

 

[Brainster]

I distrust Sibel Edmonds because she has lied before. Consider her open letter to the 9-11 Commission, where she states:

Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

Note the very specific nature of the warning (bolded for emphasis) that Sibel claims.

And later:

The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004).

The Chicago Tribune article is not available at the Tribune's website, but a Truther site archived it. And guess what? It does not back up Sibel's claims:

According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.

The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."

It's not hard to see that the only part about the warning that Sibel gets right is that the attack involved planes. There is nothing in there about 4-5 US cities, and in fact the indication was that it would be more likely that the attack would be overseas. The claimed imminence of the attack is also wrong; the article clearly states there was no indication as to when the attack would take place. And there is no basis for her claim that some of the individuals involved were already in the United States.

 

[GregoryUrich]

I distrust Sibel Edmonds because she has lied before. Consider her open letter to the 9-11 Commission, where she states:



Note the very specific nature of the warning (bolded for emphasis) that Sibel claims.

And later:



The Chicago Tribune article is not available at the Tribune's website, but a Truther site archived it. And guess what? It does not back up Sibel's claims:



It's not hard to see that the only part about the warning that Sibel gets right is that the attack involved planes. There is nothing in there about 4-5 US cities, and in fact the indication was that it would be more likely that the attack would be overseas. The claimed imminence of the attack is also wrong; the article clearly states there was no indication as to when the attack would take place. And there is no basis for her claim that some of the individuals involved were already in the United States.

Why are your sources correct and my source incorrect? Why do your sources contradict each other? To me, ths is just the type of thing the Commission should have investigated to the smallest detail!