Latest doubts about 911 commission: Former Vice President calls for "Phase 2"

[editor]

So mate, do you have "expert analysis, credible research and independent studies" to back up your beliefs about state incompetence? State arrogance? State stupidity? Where's your proof people were being stupid and arrogant and incompetent?

I really can't believe you're asking such an incredibly stupid question. Hopefully you'll have worked out the obvious in the morning, but I'm none too hopeful.

 

[fela fan]

I really can't believe you're asking such an incredibly stupid question. Hopefully you'll have worked out the obvious in the morning, but I'm none too hopeful.

I am in the morning and have just had my breakfast.

But you have done a great wriggle there!! I can't believe how easily you think you have got out of your own predicament! Maybe in your morning you will realise my question is not stupid, rather, most pertinent...

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Now here's a thing.

Still, talking of playing games, your "I'm only interested in the truth and not conspiracies" gambit isn't exactly the most convincing one I've seen.

The underlying tone of your posts - and your scatter gun, selective methodology and penchant for YouTube conspiraloons - reveal that your mind is already firmly made up.

So, let's not pretend, eh?

Ah, so sad your psychic talents are eluding you once more. Im pretty interested in conpiracies, it doesnt mean i believe them. My mind is probably less firmly made up the more I look into things and the more I discuss things.

I am suspicious, I said that some time ago - Im hardly hiding it. The main reason why I have got "scattergun" on this thread is when other people have gone off the main point and raised questions that I have dealt with and answered to the best of my ability. File under: damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I have not displayed a penchant for YT conspiraloons. I posted up one link (even with your opinion of the uploader you have to conceed that "loons" implies plural). That was for perfectly mundane reasons I have fully explained many times.

Anyhow, have you thought of raising money with with a sponsored "how long can editor obfuscate away from a central thread theme"?

I havent been as obsessive to count up your posts here. Maybe 20 or more I guess. I dont recall you speaking to the OP point. Do you need a reminder?
It regarded the credibility of the commission in the light of observations by a NYT journalist and the opinion stated by a former VP that more formal investigation was required.

Over to you to think of something else to talk about instead.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Sorry editor

You did say you required

"expert analysis, credible research and independent studies" (a bit like the stuff linked to in the OP that you keep avoiding for example)



and you did say

""I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people."

It is far from "incredibly stupid" to seek the former to back up the latter claim, it is an incredibly obvious thing to ask.

I think FF is being quite flattering to call your response a "great wriggle". "vapid" and "petulant" come to mind as more accurate descriptions.

Anyway, if your conjecture about arrogance and stupidity is correct I imagine you werent too impressed with a commission that failed to cite it.

What can you see that they didnt?

Do you think there should be further formal investigation or are you prepared the oversight go?

 

[8den]

The part that relates to 911 is:

‘Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.
Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”
link

Sibel Edmonds is a fucking serial liar who has consistently tantalized people about the evidence she has.

She was a translator for the FBI for six months hired after 911.

The article gives the same anonymous security official canard about the ISI and Atta.

In 7 fucking years. I'll say that again 7 YEARS, this has never been verified and I'd bet you £1000 quid that the lazy hack who wrote this article is refering back to the Times of India anonymous security source, from 2001.

Furthermore Edmonds makes no claim, I'll say that again, NOT ONE SINGLE CLAIM, that the US had information or that any of these SUPPOSED AGENTS, that a translator ON THE JOB FOR SIX MONTHS, made NOT A SINGLE SPECIFIC CLAIM that referenced 911.

How the fuck you use this to justify a claim for a new investigation just boggles the fucking mind.

 

[EddyBlack]

Edmonds has had all sorts of official secrets restrictions put on her.

I think she wants to make her testimony.

She did reveal quite a bit in the Times, mainly about the selling of nuclear secrets and equipment for money by all sorts of people. She includes the likes of Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith.

You say she is a bulshitter because she hasn't gone all the way, but she has been prevented from talking under threat of prosecution. I think she is trying to get a proper platform, in a well respected American newspaper or in court, so that if she is going to go for it, it will be worthwhile and have the maximum attention.

Interestly you say both Edmonds and Posner are liars, but I don't think that you have convinced anyone there.

 

[8den]

Edmonds has had all sorts of official secrets restrictions put on her.

According to her.

I think she wants to make her testimony.

I think she wants to milk this for all it's worth.

She did reveal quite a bit in the Times, mainly about the selling of nuclear secrets and equipment for money by all sorts of people. She includes the likes of Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith.

So you admit she said nothing specific about 911?

SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK SHE'S THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR A NEW 911 INVESTIGATION?

You say she is a bulshitter because she hasn't gone all the way, but she has been prevented from talking under threat of prosecution. I think she is trying to get a proper platform, in a well respected American newspaper or in court, so that if she is going to go for it, it will be worthwhile and have the maximum attention.

So let me clear this woman has damning evidence of conclusion, she's just picky about the nationality of the newspaper she will offer her evidence to?

I think she is looking for a book deal. To con gullible idiots.

Interestly you say both Edmonds and Posner are liars, but I don't think that you have convinced anyone there.

You've got two people making unsubstantiated allegations they cannot support, offering only 2nd hand ancedotal evidence, that supposedly implicate the US in 911?

Thats it? Thats all you got? After seven fucking years?

You're telling me I'm the one not convincing anyone?

Delusional Eddy, you are very delusional.

 

[fela fan]

how angry is this man?

"Sibel Edmonds is a fucking serial liar

In 7 fucking years. I'll say that again 7 YEARS

How the fuck you use this to justify a claim for a new investigation just boggles the fucking mind.

SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK SHE'S THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE FOR A NEW 911 INVESTIGATION?

Thats it? Thats all you got? After seven fucking years?"


And this is just from his last two posts. What an angry man he is.

And a most interesting style of debate. I guess the strength of anger is what makes his points so compelling. Strong language = strong argument. How come i never saw this before? Silly boy i am.

 

[fela fan]

counterbalancing 8den's views on edmonds

Due to 8den’s rubbishing of edmonds, I thought I’d give posters a bit of balance to help them better in deciding whether to take his word for it…

Here’s an interesting angle on sibel edmonds, from a story four years ago. Interestingly (for me anyway), it gives support to the view that 911 happened because of incompetence in the US…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml


And here’s a rather illumiating radio interview with her, again from 2004. Reading the transcript, one is left wondering again whether incompetence was the order of the day, or something more sinister. Does it do certain people big favours for us, the public, to think that high-up officials, charged with defending the US from external attacks, are incompetent in carrying out their duties?

In fact, this interview gives readers varied insights into the machinations of powerful people in the US.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

 

[8den]

Due to 8den’s rubbishing of edmonds, I thought I’d give posters a bit of balance to help them better in deciding whether to take his word for it…

I'm angry with fucking conspiracy liars parading bullshit about 911.

Here’s an interesting angle on sibel edmonds, from a story four years ago. Interestingly (for me anyway), it gives support to the view that 911 happened because of incompetence in the US…

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml


And here’s a rather illumiating radio interview with her, again from 2004. Reading the transcript, one is left wondering again whether incompetence was the order of the day, or something more sinister. Does it do certain people big favours for us, the public, to think that high-up officials, charged with defending the US from external attacks, are incompetent in carrying out their duties?

In fact, this interview gives readers varied insights into the machinations of powerful people in the US.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Wanna see something funny?

That's right. Nobody. None of them. Zilch. Not a one.

Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG last night that her phone had been ringing of the hook since the Times story hit. From reporters around the globe, she said. As to America: "Not a single mainstream media channel, not even a newspaper

From here

But what's this fela, you just linked from two fucking stories from 2004, in mainstream media, four years before the times story, which means the mainstream media in the US have been covering her "story" for years.

Which means she's liar.

I'm angry Fela, I'm tired of morons and idiots propagating myths and lies about 911, and the fucking jackels profiting from these myths and lies.

Sibel hasn't been able to explain how a low level translator hired for six months after 911 could gain access to every fucking clandestine US foreign agent plot for over a decade. She's not offered a single coo-berated fact despite the fact she's hawking and touting her story for over half a decade.

 

[EddyBlack]

In a series of Sunday Times investigations relating to Edmonds, this came to light:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

Who is the liar here, the FBI or Sibel Edmonds?

You question whether Edmonds has had a gagging order put on her. It is important to try and confirm these things.

‘Asia Times Online has obtained a copy of the court's recent decision, and in its presentation of the case's "Factual Background" - beyond the allegations Edmonds widely made - it notes that Edmonds asserted that "the safety and security of the Plaintiff (Edmonds) and her family has been jeopardized and that a foreign country has targeted Plaintiff's sister to be interrogated 'and taken/arrested by force'". It also notes that on May 8, 2002, Senator Grassley wrote to (FBI head) Mueller regarding what he perceived as the gravity of Edmonds' charges, urging Mueller to "emphasize to [FBI] officials ... that retaliation against current or former FBI employees is not acceptable, especially when retaliation endangers a person's family member".

On July 6 the court decided Edmonds' case, finding that "the plaintiff's case must be dismissed, albeit with great consternation, in the interests of national security", doing so as Ashcroft invoked the seldom-used "state secrets privilege", in effect precluding a trial.’
Link

In terms of credulity, I find it difficult that she would be able to make such a thing up, that is the part about having state secrets restrictions placed on her. In this Canal+ documentary, We see Edmonds attending court , interviews with her lawyers, a press statement afterwards by her lawyers etc.
link

I think Edmonds is credible. This sems a reasonable point to make though, I believe the author is a former CIA agent, mentioned in the Asia Times article:

'It is possible that Sibel Edmonds has made up or embellished a story for reasons that would have to be considered unknowable, though that is not likely based on the evidence currently available. It is also possible that she has made assumptions about what she saw that ultimately will not stand scrutiny. Even if that proves to be true, she still deserves her day in court.'

The author also speaks to why the US MSM has not not picked up on this.
link

There are also interviews with her on that particular point on the 'Brad Blog'.

 

[EddyBlack]

I'm angry with fucking conspiracy liars parading bullshit about 911.



Wanna see something funny?




From here

But what's this fela, you just linked from two fucking stories from 2004, in mainstream media, four years before the times story, which means the mainstream media in the US have been covering her "story" for years.

Which means she's liar.

I think the important part is 'since the Times story' in January 2008, I think the point she was making is that although the story had been given attention, it had not been picked up in the US. So again your liar accusations are a bit hasty.

I'm angry Fela, I'm tired of morons and idiots propagating myths and lies about 911, and the fucking jackels profiting from these myths and lies.

Sibel hasn't been able to explain how a low level translator hired for six months after 911 could gain access to every fucking clandestine US foreign agent plot for over a decade. She's not offered a single coo-berated fact despite the fact she's hawking and touting her story for over half a decade.

Corroberated by the Times which made the FBI in fact the liar. Se last post.

She was a well educated Turkish American, who also spoke quite a few other languages. Although she was fairly low level in command and hierachy terms, I think she was given quite high level clearence to translate intelligence.

 

[editor]

I think the important part is 'since the Times story' in January 2008, I think the point she was making is that although the story had been given attention, it had not been picked up in the US. So again your liar accusations are a bit hasty.

CNN: July 7, 2004

Edmonds has testified in closed session to the 9/11 commission and has made claims that the FBI possessed some information prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which could have proved helpful in preventing the terrorist strikes

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/06/fbi.translator/index.html

New York Times 2004
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFDB103DF93AA15754C0A9629C8B63

etc etc

 

[EddyBlack]

Edmonds was saying that the the information in the Sunday Times article in January, like for example, the nuclear spy ring stuff, which was Edmond's fullest and most important revelations so far in a msm outlet, had not been reported in the US media. This story was in January 2008. This is what her interview on the 'Brad Blog' was reffering to when she said that nobody in the US msm had covered this story or contacted her about it. She was saying that the story had been covered in various other countries, but not a word about it in the US.

She was not saying that the US msm had never ever ever mentioned her or anything about her in print.

 

[editor]

She was saying that the story had been covered in various other countries, but not a word about it in the US.

So do you think the US mainstream media all conspired together to keep her story out of the news then?

 

[EddyBlack]

No, I doubt they all 'conspired together'. I'm not sure why the story was covered by leading Uk, Isareli, Pakistani, Iranian and Turkish media outlets but not in America.

Yours and 8den's attempts to portray her as a liar/uncorroborated bullshitter have failed pretty miserably I see. Is there some sort or selective, blinkered reading going on that you both managed to completely miss the point there? A desperation to rubbish her maybe?

 

[editor]

Yours and 8den's attempts to portray her as a liar/uncorroborated bullshitter have failed pretty miserably I see. Is there some sort or selective, blinkered reading going on that you both managed to completely miss the point there? A desperation to rubbish her maybe?

Wooargh. Hold on there. I have made no such claims or assertions about her testimony.

Kindly apologise for that.

Oh and not being sure "why the story was covered by leading Uk, Isareli, Pakistani, Iranian and Turkish media outlets but not in America" doesn't prove a thing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[EddyBlack]

Alright... soz. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph though.

 

[editor]

Alright... soz. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph though.

I was trying to establish the truth of the matter and discover what point was being mooted by the supposed absence of her face in the US media.

 

[EddyBlack]

Oh and not being sure "why the story was covered by leading Uk, Isareli, Pakistani, Iranian and Turkish media outlets but not in America" doesn't prove a thing. Absolutely nothing.

I'm not sure why is all, I wasn't trying to prove anything. Just saying that the US msm hasn't covered it. It was in fact 8den who raised that point, clumsily trying to make her look like a liar.

The fact is though that it hasn't been covered in the US, and I only know of one instance, on the Fox news website, where the Times article was c&p'd. It is however an interesting question. Your guess is as good as mine though.

 

[editor]

I'm not sure why is all, I wasn't trying to prove anything. Just saying that the US msm hasn't covered it. It was in fact 8den who raised that point, clumsily trying to make her look like a liar.

The fact is though that it hasn't been covered in the US, and I only know of one instance, on the Fox news website, where the Times article was c&p'd. It is however an interesting question. Your guess is as good as mine though.

Perhaps it might reflect on the perceived credibility of the source?

 

[EddyBlack]

I believe that many in the media have too much of a subservient attitude. What can we learn from their behaviour during the Iraq war build up? And it is only really a fringe belief that Bush and co. are liars and war criminals today in America.

It would be a step outside of the usual circuses that pre-occupy political commentary. So I assume it would need some guts to go with this, and also, to get the blessing of their bosses. Perhaps the controllers of the media are wary because it is involves prosecutable breaches of the ‘national security perogatives’. Is it perhaps a problem of journalistic integrity? In fact I think in some cases we can assume that they, (the bosses) are a load of pale, self serving, accomplices to the USG. But that would only provide a partial explanation. We only have to look at the larger segment of our own media, and I reckon that the US is several degrees worse in this respect

I think Edmonds is credible, she has been corroborated also by the latest Times piece, which showed the existence of one of the programmes Edmonds reffered to, which they had tried to deny. I think only 8den has actually attacked her credibility on here, none too successfully.

As I say I don’t really know why, but I think they are in fact failing the American public by not covering this.

Vietnam era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and Sibel Edmonds spoke to the ‘Brad Blog’ about this particular issue. This might provide some ideas or explanations:

‘"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this, it's communications intelligence.'" Edmonds, who founded the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), contends that she's very sensitive to matters of national security and would never reveal information that could put the country at risk.

…"What about the BBC? Would you do that?," we asked. "Why am I going on BBC? This is about this country! This is about this country, and more of America needs to know the true face of the mainstream media," she exclaimed. "The only way they got away with it was because of the mainstream media. They are the biggest culprit for the state of our country. Whether it's Iraq, or torture or the NSA wiretapping --- which the New York Times sat on for over a year! --- these people are the real culprit.”

… What about Kieth Olbermann? Surely he'd pick up this story! A producer at MSNBC's Countdown --- perhaps the outlet most often suggested to us as likely willing to interview her --- expressed interest during multiple inquiries we'd made to them. Each time, the promise was made to call us back with on the record information on whether they would do the interview, and if not, why not. They never called us back. Edmonds' phone was "ringing off the hook" for requests for interviews from independent radio shows. Ours was too, and our email inbox yielded dozens of similar requests. But Edmonds has been clear: "I'm gonna do one major interview" to tell all of the 'states secret' information. "Afterwards, I'll do the others. But this is gonna be one round, give it all and say 'here it is.'" The ground rules seem fair enough. She is risking being rushed off to prison after all.’
Link


Regarding why Democrats in Washington have not made more of this opportunity, this article speaks to that:

‘Curiously, the states-secrets gag order binding Edmonds, while put in place by DOJ in 2002, was not requested by the FBI but by the State Department and Pentagon—which employed individuals she identified as being involved in criminal activities. If her allegations are frivolous, that order would scarcely seem necessary. It would have been much simpler for the government to marginalize her by demonstrating that she was poorly informed or speculating about matters outside her competency. Under the Bush administration, the security gag order has been invoked to cover up incompetence or illegality, not to protect national security. It has recently been used to conceal the illegal wiretaps of the warrantless surveillance program, the allegations of torture and the CIA’s rendition program, and to shield the telecom industry for its collaboration in illegal eavesdropping.

Both Senators Grassley and Leahy, a Republican and a Democrat, who interviewed her at length in 2002, attest to Edmonds’s believability. The Department of Justice inspector general investigation into her claims about the translations unit and an internal FBI review confirmed most of her allegations. Former FBI senior counterintelligence officer John Cole has independently confirmed her report of the presence of Pakistani intelligence service penetrations within the FBI translators’ pool.

Edmonds wasn’t angling to become a media darling. She would have preferred to testify under oath before a congressional committee that could offer legal protection and subpoena documents and witnesses to support her case. She claims that a number of FBI agents would be willing to testify, though she has not named them.

Prior to 2006, Congressman Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee promised Edmonds that if the Democrats gained control of Congress, he would order hearings into her charges. But following the Democratic sweep, he has been less forthcoming, failing to schedule hearings, refusing to take Edmonds’s calls, and recently stonewalling all inquiries into the matter. It is generally believed that Waxman, a strong supporter of Israel, is nervous about exposing an Israeli lobby role in the corruption that Edmonds describes. It is also suspected that Waxman fears that the revelations might open a Pandora’s box, damaging Republicans and Democrats alike.’
Link

 

[fela fan]

I'm angry Fela, I'm tired of morons and idiots propagating myths and lies about 911, and the fucking jackels profiting from these myths and lies.

Sibel hasn't been able to explain how a low level translator hired for six months after 911 could gain access to every fucking clandestine US foreign agent plot for over a decade. She's not offered a single coo-berated fact despite the fact she's hawking and touting her story for over half a decade.

However dodgy she may seem to you, or any of this 911 stuff, it just can't be good for your health to get so worked up over it.

And it won't be the best style of writing to choose if you wish to win posters over to your views.

So it seems to me you're on a double-lose wicket mate. It's only fucking politics. Give it the due short-shrift it deserves.

Now as for those two links i gave from four years ago: the first one lent credence to the incompetence angle for how 911 occurred, and the second one allowed the reader to question this whole aspect of incompetence in the US intelligence services.

For me it's tempting to believe that yes, the whole event could have happened because of widespread incompetence. After all, we've all seen how stupid the americans can be at times.

But on the other hand, you don't get to be the most powerful nation on earth, and probably the most powerful empire in history without some kind of nous and cleverness, and cunning and guile. So perhaps it suits those in powerful positions in the US for the public to think that incompetence exists in US bureaucracy. It would be the perfect shield and cover for their nefarious activities.

Those two links taken together show how it is not easy for anybody to come down definitively for incompetence, or for complicity. Like i have said many times during the years here on urban, i favour the latter, but have my own moments of doubt where it's easy to say yes, incompetence, stupid stupid incompetence allowed the 911 attacks to take place. But bloody hell, it really did have to be staggering and widespread incompetence. So many rabbits caught naked in front of the headlights...

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
And it won't be the best style of writing to choose if you wish to win posters over to your views.
. . .

And you've won how many over do you reckon?

Looks to me like 8den's simply (and rather eloquently) expressing the view of the vast majority of peeps on these boards.

 

[EddyBlack]

8den's shouting abuse at people and making an arse of himself has impressed you has it?

I doubt the majority of 'peeps' on Urban 75 have read this thread, and still less comprehended or followed the disussion. Your occasional interruptions are pretty rubbish as well.

 

[goldenecitrone]

8den's shouting abuse at people and making an arse of himself has impressed you has it?

I doubt the majority of 'peeps' on Urban 75 have read this thread, and still less comprehended or followed the disussion. Your occasional interruptions are pretty rubbish as well.

Superb self-deluded arrogance and pomposity. Well done.

 

[EddyBlack]

I see you avoided my question. Are you finished disrupting the thread with your rubbish, or is it simply attention that you are seeking?

 

[MikeMcc]

However dodgy she may seem to you, or any of this 911 stuff, it just can't be good for your health to get so worked up over it.

And it won't be the best style of writing to choose if you wish to win posters over to your views.

So it seems to me you're on a double-lose wicket mate. It's only fucking politics. Give it the due short-shrift it deserves.

Now as for those two links i gave from four years ago: the first one lent credence to the incompetence angle for how 911 occurred, and the second one allowed the reader to question this whole aspect of incompetence in the US intelligence services.

For me it's tempting to believe that yes, the whole event could have happened because of widespread incompetence. After all, we've all seen how stupid the americans can be at times.

But on the other hand, you don't get to be the most powerful nation on earth, and probably the most powerful empire in history without some kind of nous and cleverness, and cunning and guile. So perhaps it suits those in powerful positions in the US for the public to think that incompetence exists in US bureaucracy. It would be the perfect shield and cover for their nefarious activities.

Those two links taken together show how it is not easy for anybody to come down definitively for incompetence, or for complicity. Like i have said many times during the years here on urban, i favour the latter, but have my own moments of doubt where it's easy to say yes, incompetence, stupid stupid incompetence allowed the 911 attacks to take place. But bloody hell, it really did have to be staggering and widespread incompetence. So many rabbits caught naked in front of the headlights...

Does it look like she's hyping up her story - Yes it does. Does the basic story seem possible, again yes. That there was a shortage of interpreters, a backlog of work, empire building, protection of funding, these are all symptoms of a large bureaucracy. I can only speak of my experiences in the Army, I certainly saw examples of empire buiding and the results of funding shortages. The recent comments from the coroners have highlighted that.

It just highlights my points earlier about LIHBA with a subsequent cover-up of the ineptitude. It certainly doesn't point to any LIHOP or MIHOP theories.

I think the claims about the nuclear secrets seem fanciful at best, how would a low-grade interpreter find out so much detail abut such a scheme? If it is a lie then it does not help with her other claims, truthful or not.

 

[EddyBlack]

No there is nothing that she has said that points to LIHOP or MIHOP.

Regarding 911, what has been claimed is that suspects have been shielded, that senior State Department officials took bribes from foreign agents to release suspects. This is what the Times reported:

‘Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.
Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

There is nothing in that to indicate a LIHOP, or MIHOP scenario. If you accept this, and it is pretty slim by itself, it would show criminality and treason. It would be very disturbing and serious. The other things that she has talked about, the nuclear spy ring stuff, is widespread. It would be corruption and criminality of the most serious kind.

It is worth bearing in mind that the latest Times story has corroborated, only partly, but an important part of her story, and it shows that some of the specific claims are being covered up and lied about by the FBI in this instance.

She also claims there is much more, and that she has all the evidence. And the fact is that she has been denied a voice. I looked at whether she has really been gagged form speaking and is under threat of prosecution in post 161. I think she has been.

 

[MikeMcc]

No there is nothing that she has said that points to LIHOP or MIHOP.

Regarding 911, what has been claimed is that suspects have been shielded, that senior State Department officials took bribes from foreign agents to release suspects. This is what the Times reported:

‘Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.
Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

There is nothing in that to indicate a LIHOP, or MIHOP scenario. If you accept this, and it is pretty slim by itself, it would show criminality and treason. It would be very disturbing and serious. The other things that she has talked about, the nuclear spy ring stuff, is widespread. It would be corruption and criminality of the most serious kind.

It is worth bearing in mind that the latest Times story has corroborated, only partly, but an important part of her story, and it shows that some of the specific claims are being covered up and lied about by the FBI in this instance.

She also claims there is much more, and that she has all the evidence. And the fact is that she has been denied a voice. I looked at whether she has really been gagged form speaking and is under threat of prosecution in post 161. I think she has been.

Your comment there is two sentences taken out of context. What does it mean by a 'primary target'? What's their relationship with the undisclosed 'official'? What would be the 'beans' that could be 'spilt'? If the 'Primary Target' is somebody under surveillance by one organisation in the US but can phone an 'official' in the FBI, could it be that they are an FBI informer? Could it be to protect some assets, I don't know, pure supposition, but those two sentences are not necessarily proof of anything.