Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11
- Thread starter metamars
- Start date
Yes, sane people can easily conclude that bin Laden was, in fact, NOT working with the U.S. right up until 9/11.
I should be shot for asking you a serious question, but what the hell: how did bin Laden manage to continue working with the U.S. after the Khobar Towers attacks, the attacks on the embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole?
Edit: The Khobar Tower attacks are suspected to have been the work of a pro-Iranian terrorist group.
Last edited:
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
I have just moved 39 posts to AAH for being off-topic. This thread is about "Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11" - so please make sure your posts address the topic.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar
Good golly, Miss Molly! Some of those posts had nothing to do with 911. But why on earth would you remove the recent announcement of Sibel Edmonds' testimony, given on bradblog.com? While the reports are sketchy, and so far we know of, no information related directly to 911 was given, the fact is that we don't know the entirety of what she said. Even if we did know the entirety of what she said, if it was still that case that there was no relation to OBL or 911, people reading this thread would like to know that. Correct? After all, it's the same Sibel Edmonds who just recently said that OBL worked for* the US until 911.
* specifically, "had intimate relations with"
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I am also outraged! The only opportunity to comment on Sibel Edmonds at the JREF forum has been denied! I am ashamed to be a member of such an organization!
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Not only is Sibel Edmonds being gagged, but now we cannot even speak of her in a thread talking about her statements on a radio show!!!
JUSTICE... DENIED!
JUSTICE... DENIED!
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The thread where I learned the true meaning of frustration.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Perhaps the legal ramifications of publishing her comments prematurely? Originally, I think it was the ACLU, were worried of possible lawsuits regarding comments that had been published, and then retroactively reclassified as Top Secret by Mueller.
Suffice to say that the bulk of her 9/11 related information deals with advance knowledge of the attacks and forewarnings; specific to intelligence agencies controlling AQ.
What I still don't get are members such as TAM, who scoff at the mere idea that Edmonds could have legitimate information regarding international conspiracy(in its literal and original definition) at the highest levels of government.
In my most sincere and honest opinion, with about 30 minutes of research, everyone should come to the conclusion that Dennis Hastert is a corrupt and self-serving individual. From the Turkish Lobby to the congressional page scandal, the prairie parkway and Jack Abramoff...Hastert has as much dirt on him as anyone I've ever seen. just for fun, his youngest son is a lobbyist in washington, and his oldest is a lawyer for Mayer Brown(MB) and would like to succeed his father in 2010(at 31, a congressman, 31......?).
Additionally, Hastert sponsored an MayerBrown partner for judge at a US District Court in 2007, which in and of itself does not amount to a conspiracy, just more evidence of the old-boys club strong at work; ie. hire my son, he needs a job.(I'm sure the judge was due for the promotion, blah blah blah, its always been who you know, not what you know)
So getting back to Sibel. This woman is offering information that is not vague, that includes times and places, names, classified file names, and that has been deemed credible by the goverment agencies involved. If there is a single chance that she is telling the truth(because she did pass an actual polygraph, and based on the previous info she's already scoring well), then it logically follows that there is a chance her information regarding 9/11 is truthful; admit to the chance(game theory people...) that it could be real.........would that be so hard? Even if you have to bold,italicize and underline "remote" in your replies?
How can any logical JREF member ignore this information and claim Edmonds is a liar, or had no access to classified information.
Anyway, were it not for the court and FBI sanctions, all of this information and all of the specifics would have been available for your dissemination immediately, am I correct?
I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?
Suffice to say that the bulk of her 9/11 related information deals with advance knowledge of the attacks and forewarnings; specific to intelligence agencies controlling AQ.
What I still don't get are members such as TAM, who scoff at the mere idea that Edmonds could have legitimate information regarding international conspiracy(in its literal and original definition) at the highest levels of government.
In my most sincere and honest opinion, with about 30 minutes of research, everyone should come to the conclusion that Dennis Hastert is a corrupt and self-serving individual. From the Turkish Lobby to the congressional page scandal, the prairie parkway and Jack Abramoff...Hastert has as much dirt on him as anyone I've ever seen. just for fun, his youngest son is a lobbyist in washington, and his oldest is a lawyer for Mayer Brown(MB) and would like to succeed his father in 2010(at 31, a congressman, 31......?).
Additionally, Hastert sponsored an MayerBrown partner for judge at a US District Court in 2007, which in and of itself does not amount to a conspiracy, just more evidence of the old-boys club strong at work; ie. hire my son, he needs a job.(I'm sure the judge was due for the promotion, blah blah blah, its always been who you know, not what you know)
So getting back to Sibel. This woman is offering information that is not vague, that includes times and places, names, classified file names, and that has been deemed credible by the goverment agencies involved. If there is a single chance that she is telling the truth(because she did pass an actual polygraph, and based on the previous info she's already scoring well), then it logically follows that there is a chance her information regarding 9/11 is truthful; admit to the chance(game theory people...) that it could be real.........would that be so hard? Even if you have to bold,italicize and underline "remote" in your replies?
How can any logical JREF member ignore this information and claim Edmonds is a liar, or had no access to classified information.
Anyway, were it not for the court and FBI sanctions, all of this information and all of the specifics would have been available for your dissemination immediately, am I correct?
I've still never heard what motivation Edmonds could have for fabricating 9/11 information......any theories?
Last edited:
Who needs a theory about why she'd make stuff up?
She has said nothing actionable about any 9/11 conspiracy, and there is no plausible way for her to have gained such information. That's it, cut and dried. You can whine all you want about what you think she would say, if she wasn't gagged, if the stars were in the correct alignment, whatever, but the simple fact is that until she does, and until it's verified, it ain't worth a hill of beans.
You're only hanging on her words because you know what you want her to say, and what you want to be true. Pretty bad way to investigate.
She has said nothing actionable about any 9/11 conspiracy, and there is no plausible way for her to have gained such information. That's it, cut and dried. You can whine all you want about what you think she would say, if she wasn't gagged, if the stars were in the correct alignment, whatever, but the simple fact is that until she does, and until it's verified, it ain't worth a hill of beans.
You're only hanging on her words because you know what you want her to say, and what you want to be true. Pretty bad way to investigate.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Except that she's been babbling away for years now, to anyone with a microphone or a camera.
"Suffice to say"? "the bulk of her 9/11 related information"? What are you talking about? She has no knowledge or information about the events of 9/11 from the perspective of her brief stint as a contract employee of the FBI. She worked part time on contract for all of 5 months (max), no more than 20 hours per week, which puts her effective employment time at all of 2.5 months (max). Do you honestly think that a newly contracted translator was privy to anything at all along the lines of the nonsense that Edmonds and "truth" movement adherents want you to believe? Seriously?
In addition, her allegations in regard to foreknowledge were dismissed as unfounded by the same tribunal that found some of her complaints about her co-workers (nothing at all to do with 9/11) to have some basis for investigation, and some of her complaints about her co-workers (nothing to do with 9/11) to be unfounded. There is no evidence whatsoever that Edmonds has any relevant information whatsoever about the events of 9/11 and there are very good reasons to believe that she does not.
Not least of which is the fact that when her initial allegations didn't gain traction, she modified them, expanded upon them, and has continued to do so ever since. Look, it's like this. If I was a part time contractor to a government agency and learned of evidence that implicated my employer and other government agencies in the deaths of 3000 of my fellow citizens, I wouldn't pussyfoot about making allegations about punch card discrepancies, or travel voucher issues, or favourtism complaints - I would come out and say, "Holy Christ, the government was complicit in the events of 9/11 and here's the evidence of it: A, B, C, D, E, F, G..."
You'll notice that Edmonds did no such thing, and instead has made more and more serious allegations as time goes on that have nothing to do with her initial allegations. That should tell you at least something about the probable veracity (or lack thereof) of her allegations. She has consistently changed her allegations along the way, made more and more outlandish and unsupported allegations when her initial allegations were (rightly, although not necessarily correctly) met with skepticism. And although some of her allegations were ultimately determined to have some basis for investigation, it is also the case that some of her allegations were unfounded. So, she comes across as a whining newbie who complains about others to advance her own goals, makes all kinds of accusations without foundation, makes all kinds of accusations without even understanding the rules, procedures, and policies under which her employer and her fellow employees operate, and then whines even louder when her "go after my co-workers to advance my own goals" agenda fails.
Take a look at the progressive nature of her accusations, and then ask yourself if that makes any sense to you whatsoever.
Well, let's see. On the one hand, you have a newly hired part time contract worker (no more than 20 hours/week) for no more than 5 months (perhaps 4), whose job was only to translate certain items as assigned to her via a detailed hierachy of others well above her pay scale, and via experienced FBI agents.
If there were "international conspiracies at the highest levels of government", I can think of all kinds of reasons why the newly hired part time contract translator would not be given work that would potentially expose the vast conspiracy among the highest levels of government, but I cannot think of a single reason why the conspirators would give the newbie work that would even remotely potentially expose their vast conspiracy.
No. You'll notice that she is not subject to any court or FBI sanctions other than the requirement that she comply with her obligations pursuant to the security and confidentiality agreements that she signed when she was a part time contract translator for the FBI for 4-5 months.
There are several possible motives for individuals to fabricate such information, as has been borne out time and time again. And please note, again, that Edmonds' allegations about the events of 9/11 were determined to be unfounded by the same body that found some of her allegations about her co-workers screwing the pooch to have some foundation. You seem to be conflating several things here in one post in what appears to be an attempt to lend credibility to her 9/11 claims without providing any basis for those claims. It is not even clear from your post that you know what her 9/11 allegations are. Do you? You haven't provided any evidence or support of her 9/11 allegations, either. Please do so, once you have spelled out what you believe her 9/11 allegations to be.
In any event, as to motivations, there are several possible motivations for someone to fabricate claims relating to 9/11. Drama queen/king, attention whore, disgruntled employee, money seeker, psychological disorder, fame seeker, etc., etc. If any one or more of those motivations apply to her, Edmonds would not be the first or the last of any of them, but just one of a long list of many.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I don't know what information she claims to have, and I've never claimed that she has fabricated anything about 9/11. If you want information about why someone might do that, please ask these people and let us know their reasons:
Richard Gage
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin
Dylan Avery
William Rodriguez
Tony Szamboti
Kevin Ryan
Kevin Barrett
Kevin McPadden
etc., etc., etc.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Two horribly useless paragraphs. So, Hastert might be a corrupt politician? Wow. The very foundations of our government shall be shaken by this profound revelation.
Polygraph tests are useless for determining the truthfulness of the answers given.
The issue is that truthers are claiming she has information that would prove government complicity in the attacks on 9/11. From what I've heard, her information, if true, would, at best, prove negligence.
If the information she has is as important as some truthers make it out to be, the fact that she is keeping quite because of a simple NDA is a pretty blatant affront to truth and an indication of lack of conviction on her part, if not outright cowardice.
I mean, what's a few years in jail if you blow the lid off one of the most complex and heinous crimes ever?
No. We're not talking about mind-control here. All she has to do is talk, and "whoops!" there goes the conspiracy.
Hell, the fact that she wasn't killed immediately tells me the information isn't that important; that They™ aren't that concerned with keeping it secret.
The same reason fisherman tell stories about "the one that got away". The same reason the boy cried wolf. The same reason people play up their knowledge and skills in a job interview.
Attention, ego massaging, etc.
Personally, though, I think it's the truthers that are exaggerating the importance of her knowledge regarding 9/11.
Last edited:
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Lashl - you failed to understand the context of my statement, and this led to your confusion. I used "suffice to say", because a previous post containing a list of her recent deposition information had been removed from this thread.
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
With regards to the bulk of your post:
Sibel Edmonds has claimed to have discovered evidence of deep corruption and conspiracy during her stint as a translator. Portions of the information was deemed credible by the FBI, who administered a polygraph when they learned the nature of her claims. She covers a wide variety of topics...
Her deposition for the IOG did not cover the information related to 911. They explicitly state in the declassified report that 911 info would be referred to the 911 commission. Nowhere do they comment on the validity of her 911 information. Please, oh pretty please, post a link and prove me wrong. (I honestly cannot find the original copy/link of the report I read)
You originally posted that she was not under any sanctions; edited out I suppose. Here's a link to the SSP: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_ag_605.htm
I suppose they always enact this privelege(sp?) as a precautionary measure right? If you, and TAM, and Mackey are so certain that she could know nothing of importance, that she would never have been exposed to such intel, why would Ashcroft use States Secret? Is he wrong and you're all right?
Sibel Edmonds has claimed to have discovered evidence of deep corruption and conspiracy during her stint as a translator. Portions of the information was deemed credible by the FBI, who administered a polygraph when they learned the nature of her claims. She covers a wide variety of topics...
Her deposition for the IOG did not cover the information related to 911. They explicitly state in the declassified report that 911 info would be referred to the 911 commission. Nowhere do they comment on the validity of her 911 information. Please, oh pretty please, post a link and prove me wrong. (I honestly cannot find the original copy/link of the report I read)
You originally posted that she was not under any sanctions; edited out I suppose. Here's a link to the SSP: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_ag_605.htm
I suppose they always enact this privelege(sp?) as a precautionary measure right? If you, and TAM, and Mackey are so certain that she could know nothing of importance, that she would never have been exposed to such intel, why would Ashcroft use States Secret? Is he wrong and you're all right?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Keep in mind that "classified and sensitive national security information that could cause serious damage to our country’s security" includes the methods used to gather intelligence. It need not refer to the information gathered by those methods.
Precisely. It could be something as simple as the name of an informant, or as complex as the entirely of an intelligence "policies and procedures" manual (so to speak). Why do some people always assume privelege is evoked to "cover up" evil doings and secret plots?
TAM
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
This is correct.
Although not all sensitive information is classified....but all classified information is sensitive...
