Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

JoeyDonuts said:
Wowzers, that's harsh.

Funny, but harsh.
Click to expand...

yah i know, but my point was not so much that Sibel is like BTK (notice that is not the comparison), but rather that there is an ifinitum of difference between JOA and Sibel, just as there is between BTK and Jesus.

TAM:)
 
Senenmut said:
do u still have these documents? how are u attached to this? i only have read about two cases where Michael Riconosciuto's files were found. carol marshall, the author of the last circle, and the canadian royal mounted police. the story goes the canadians came down and did some investigation into promis. this is some of what they said they found:


http://www.stewwebb.com/Ted Gunderson Nothing is Secret by Kelly Patricia O Meara.html

"Then," continues Seymour, "he said something that was just really out there. He stood in my dining room with a straight face and told us that ... more than one presidential administration will be exposed for their knowledge of the PROMIS software transactions. He said that high-ranking Canadian government officials may have unlawfully purchased the PROMIS software from high-ranking U.S. government officials in the Reagan/Bush administration, and he further stated that the RCMP has located numerous banks around the world that have been used by these U.S. officials to launder the money from the sale of the PROMIS software." Seymour was stunned. "First," she says, "I wondered if this guy was for real and, second, did he have something against Republicans." Just when she thought things couldn't get any weirder, "McDade detailed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico attended by the heads of the intelligence divisions of the U.S. [CIA], Great Britain [MI6], Israel [Mossad] and Canada [CSIS]. McDade said the topic of the discussion was UNIQUE ELEMENTS, and that during this meeting it allegedly was revealed that all four allied nations share computer systems and have for years. The meeting was called after a glitch was found in a British computer system that had caused the loss of historical case data."

McDade continued with this scenario by telling the astonished group: "The Israeli Mossad may have modified the original PROMIS modification [the first back door] so it became a two-way back door, allowing the Israelis access to top U.S. weapons secrets at Los Alamos and other classified installations. The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States." According to Seymour, he concluded by saying that "the Jonathan Pollard [spy] case is insignificant by comparison to the current crisis."

i have no idea if this info is true or not but it is very interesting considering that i showed yall the mossad did have promis from gideons spies.
Click to expand...





FYI gunderson was interested in my case, a child abuse case, and he wormed his way into my life. It is a long story but he ended up working out of my house and because of illness, I quit my job and answered phone calls, sent out mail (whatever it was he was doing) and did research for him for a while.
Cheri Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael. She has a very fertile imagination. I still don't know what her reason was for writing what she did. Some is true some is not. I didn't know everything that was going on-thank God.
I threw gunderson out in 1993 and moved. He took us for almost every dime we (my 2 children and I) had, so I was unable to follow up on anything for years.
I had all of the files at my place-we were putting them together for Michael's defense.
I don't know why gunderson would have his webmaster (Chris Jones) now in prison for molesting little boys) would post that particular paper...but then you can never expect to figure out why a psycho does anything..
 
FineWine said:
Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links
Click to expand...

WOW, to borrow a term...that's some fine investigoogling there!!!

Is that what you call real research?

you accuse "truthers" of not doing real research, in this case because it was an internet link, then you counter it with another internet link and at the same time smear the "truther" for not doing "real research"
 
FineWine said:
Notice how you "truthers" get caught in silly lies. You pretend, unconvincingly, that you've already read the 9/11myths discussion. Yet, you post the garbled piece of paper that shows nothing in particular. What are you expecting? Osama has said repeatedly that he had no contacts with the Americans.
Click to expand...

LOL, maybe because that would break his cover!!! Duh!
 
thatsmystory said:
I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.
Click to expand...

This assertion - that Alec Station "protected" al Qaeda operatives - is erroneous and in contradiction to Scheuer's own statements and complaints. Unless you misinterpret US government's incompetence in following up on the intelligence and lack of aggressiveness at targeting bin Laden as "protection". But that would be an ironic use of the term, not a literal one. Regardless, you're wrong, and in contradiction to the very person you cite.

thatsmystory said:
Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.
Click to expand...


During the Afghan wars, bin Laden did indeed function with the consent of the Saudi government, going so far as to deliver money from the Saudi government to the Afghan Mujahadeen, even though bin Laden was primarily known as a self financer. The money and connection to Prince Turki served as an "in" to the world of the Afghan resistance. Turki in turn used bin Laden to recruit Arabs to the Afghan cause. But this is all specific to the Afghan-Soviet conflict. Presuming that any connection beyond that invalidates "the notion that bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family" is erroneous, and contradicted by established history, some of which was stated by Scheuer and, separately, much of which was published in The Looming Tower. Since you read this book, you'll of course recall the chapter where the relationship between Turki and Osama started to sour over bin Laden's grandoise plan for overthrowing the Yemeni government. You'll also recall that the Saudi government directly ordered him not to meddle in Yemen's affairs, and that he defied them, embarassing the government to the point where Prince Naif demanded his passport to prevent him from travelling outside the country again.

You'll also recall later chapters where his falling out with the Saudi government became complete over the first Gulf war, where bin Laden was in the minority that recognized Saddam Hussein's threat but was angered at the Saudi government's reliance on America's military for protection. Which was in contradiction to bin Laden's desire to raise an army from friends he made during the Afghan wars along with unemployed Saudis.

You'll also recall from your reading that bin Laden openly defied Prince Turki's plans to elevate one of the Afghan warlords to dominance, which indirectly lead to another warlord - the famous Shah Massoud - launching an attack touched off the Afghan civil war. Which made him an open enemy of Prince Turki, as well as someone who through his actions opposed Saudi government policy.

And to top it all off, you must recall the various parts in the book where Osama's antagonism towards the Saudi government for allowing US troops on Saudi "soil" became complete, and he started contemplating a coup to overthrow that government. As well as the parts where the Saudi king was so upset at bin Laden's agitations against the government that he ordered Turki to "bring this man to heel", and had the Interior Ministry order the bin Laden family to cut off support to him.

In light of all these details that were published in Looming Tower, it's a mystery why you would assert that Saudi protection was contrary to the notion that bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. The book clearly lays out the path from cooperation to antagonism, and also describes how bin Laden indeed become an enemy of the Saudi government, as well as why. When you read Scheuer, you must realize that his filter is that much of the West misunderstands the Middle East, which is an accurate statement. But your statement - "the public didn't understand that before 9/11, the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views..." you fail to realize that this is correcting public misperceptions about the origins of bin Laden. It's not refuting the fact that bin Laden eventually grew to hate and work against the Saudi government.

thatsmystory said:
It sure looks like US intelligence agencies were given orders to back off Saudi linked terrorist organizations. In light of Scheuer's comment this means orders to back off al Qaeda. Scheuer has put forth a few explanations for US conduct. One, he has stated that pre-9/11 capture/kill missions failed due to risk averse policy makers. Two, he stated that CIA withholding about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was due to concern about poor FBI computer systems. Three, as previously mentioned he suggested that al Qaeda was protected by the Saudi government.
Click to expand...

The first two statements you cite are clear evidence of incompetence, nto active protection. You said it yourself: "risk averse policy makers". There's nothing conspiratorial about that.

And any suggestions that al Qaeda is protected by the Saudi government fail in the light of that government being a stated target of the group. Furthermore, the Saudis have demonstrated that they're willing to obstruct outside assistance in order to pursue their own justice, as demonstrated in the case of the culprits in the Khobar Towers bombings. They obstructed US investigations only to execute 4 culprits through their own system. You cannot confuse that with open protection.

thatsmystory said:
I don't consider myself a "truther." I do consider myself a skeptic of official explanations. Where is the 9/11 transparency from the government? If skeptics are so full of it then why is there so much secrecy almost eight years after the attacks?
Click to expand...

The real question is why, if all you are is a skeptic asking questions, are you merely reiterating standard conspiracy peddling claims? An also, why you fail to comprehend primary and secondary information, and instead trust the spinning of facts by conspiracy peddlers over truly independent analysis? The fact of the matter is that truly undecided researchers research the primary information and take pains to understand the depth of the story, instead of merely retailing conspiratorial myths. You have demonstrated a propensity to favor conspiracy myths. So you may believe that you're no truther, but your actions demonstrate otherwise.
 
Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order Unless DoJ Intercedes

From Bradblog.com, includes a nice review of the Edmonds story. FWIW, I expect another gag order. The Obama administration has proven to be mostly a continuation of the Bush administration, when it comes to torture and transparency. Holder recently showed some signs of independence, but I have trouble believing that he'll have the guts to let Sibel speak. (I welcome him to prove me wrong; as always, there's also the legitimate question of protecting sources and methods, so it's not like I'm fully aware of any legitimate constraints that should be on her.)

Quite frankly, I don't know who exactly had the authority to issue the subpoena. I'm guessing that Krikorian's defense requested it, and the judge agreed, and it is only the judge who can issue the subpoena. Can any lawyers spell this out for us?


Unless the Dept. of Justice re-invokes their twice-invoked "state secrets privilege" claim in order to once again gag former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, her attorneys have notified the department by hand-delivered, sworn letter of declaration [PDF] this week, that she intends to give a public deposition, open to the media, in response to a subpoena this Saturday in Washington D.C..
Click to expand...
 
I hope they do remove the gag order. Then they will be able to hear all of her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I hope they do remove the gag order. Then they will be able to hear all of her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
i hope they remove the gag order so we can find out she never had anything to talk about in the first place
 
Bombshell: Bin Laden likes to wear women's underwear because it makes him feel "pretty". You hear it here first folks.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Wait... guys, why are we just accepting that there's any gag order on Edmonds? Last time this claim came up, nobody provided any proof of one. Did I miss something since then? Can someone provide some evidence that there is in fact a court ordered suppression on her?
Click to expand...

Ok, this is what that Brad Blog site said:
She notes that her agreement with her former employer, the FBI --- who fired her illegally after she filed whistleblower allegations about corruption and foreign infiltration in the linguistics department --- includes certain non-disclosure requirements. However, those requirements do not preclude her answering to a legally issued court subpoena
Click to expand...

So what she's been operating under is an NDA, not a court suppression. All right. Now it's clear. We were presuming that this was a literal "gag order" in the past.

Ok. An NDA is a pretty serious thing in itself, and it's not something that should be violated lightly. Then again, given the gravity of the claims the truthers are spreading about what she knows, this is exactly the sort of whistleblower topic that she should violate the NDA over and claim whistleblower protection for. I need someone else to clarify this for me (Does Jhunter wanna invoke the Goddess of Legaltainment again? :D), but my understanding is that this is exactly what whistleblower protection exists for. Anyway, I do know that she's been prevented from giving court testimony due to the state secrets act, but I'd need someone like Lash to tell me if that prohibition applies outside of court testimony. Only references I see to state secrets has been in conjunction with either her lawsuit or her giving testimony in other lawsuits; I've seen no real "gag order" from a court (note I'm distinguishing that from the NDA) preventing her from speaking out in public. I only see the NDA.

Maybe this is one of those catch 22s. She's bound by the NDA except in court, but she's bound by the State Secrets act in a court. That's what this whole thing is looking like to me.
 
Oh, and before anyone thinks I'm giving credence to the Kos site claim that "Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11.": No. I'm merely discussing the dynamics of the NDA and the court issue with the State Secrets act, not the veracity of the claims themselves. The fact remains that the truth about the relationship between Pakistan's ISI and the Talbian, and between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden is well known. Whatever she may say and truthers may claim, the fact is that Taliban=/= bin Laden, and that bin Laden's relationship with the Saudi government deteriorated to the point of being openly adversarial. He is indeed an enemy of the Saudi government. And has been one of the US for many years now as well. Even if the relationship was neutral or moderately friendly during the Afghan war - and available evidence says it was not (see prior posts of mine in this thread discussing Looming Tower. And read that book, as well as the others I've referenced) - it most certainly deteriorated when the US put forces in Saudi Arabia, and it hit rock bottom when the US forced the Sudan to kick him out and lose his fortune in the process. That is documented. Whatever Sibel Edmonds presents must account for all of that, or provide alternate explanations that do not contradict established fact. Whatever she provides must be able to explain what Lawrence Wright, Steven Coll, and Peter Bergen has published in order to be credible. And if she does, then I'm interested to see what impact that has on truther "theories". Because the obvious inference, contrary to all established data, is that the US was secretly in cahoots with bin Laden up till 9/11. So either the truthers have been overreaching and filling in blanks with fantasy rather than reasonable extrapolation (like that's never happened before :rolleyes:), or Sibel herself has been exaggerating such claims.

One way or another, I'd like to see what she has to say.
 
ive always wondered if the stealing of nuclear secrets edmonds speaks of is somehow related to 911. take for instance:
For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets

"The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” she said.

They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.
....

"The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official."

Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece?Submitted=true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom