Why Sibel Edmonds Shouldn't Be Trusted-- She Perpetuates "The Big LIe"

[spooked911]

This essay is from August 2004, but it makes some very important points that may not be immediately obvious:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id4.html

"If only it were true, that Edmonds explodes the 9/11 Report. Remember that what the Commission "omitted" from its report is that 911 was an inside job, that the gov't MANUFACTURED these attacks and everyone else covered that up. Instead of showing that, the Report finds not that the gov't did 9-11, but pretends that governmental intelligence "failures" and bad coordination failed to protect us from them. Consequently, the fact that Edmonds is going public with what she says were "systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the terrorist attacks" is NOT exploding the report. She's just trying to add more bullshit to it, additional problems and "errors" and "cover-ups of those errors" NONE OF WHICH LEAD TO THE TRUTH, THAT 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. 9-11 is not about "ERRORS". 9-11 was a governmental SUCCESS story. Why do people in the 9-11 truth movement still consider Edmonds, this so-called ex-FBI whistleblower, a hero when her stories just support the government's limited hangout of "failures" and "coverups of failures"? You'll hear more about Edmonds this Sunday on 60 minutes, I understand. People can read about these bullshit government limited hangouts from the mainstream media, get it? It shouldn't be the 9-11 truth movement and those aligned with it supporting and disseminating Edmond's crap. Will it never end?

There's an article that everyone in the 911 Truth Movement should familiarize themselves with. It's called:

"Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
by Michel Chossudovsky.

The author is cautioning all of us in his very title, to be careful about what it is you are revealing/exposing. Some of the "lies" you are revealing only serve to perpetuate the "big lie".

One of the lies that the author talks about AS ONLY PERPETUATING THE "BIG 911 LIE" is the "forewarnings". Edmonds, the FBI translator is big on forewarnings, forewarnings of terrorist planning that they deliberately failed to translate, forewarnings that they erroneously
translated, etc.

From the article:

"The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act".
This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and "Bush bashers" because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.

Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.

"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. . ."
----

Remember, Al Qaeda is more aptly called Al Cia-da.

Everyone in the 911 truth movement needs to ask themselves whether these "forewarnings" are truly credible. This is what the author says:

"Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.

In other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a "true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an "Enemy of the Homeland". . .

" The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. . . "

"Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings. Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question: What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an "intelligence asset".

"the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same
time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks."

In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?""

More on why Edmonds, and her sponsor, Daniel Ellsberg, can't be completely trusted, is here: http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/ellsberg.html#4

[seemslikeadream]

1. Hijacked bank

Questions also remain regarding the web of money transfers from Princess Haifa, Prince Bandar and the daughter of late King Faisal, some of which reached Nawaf Alhazmi and fellow terrorist Khalid Almihdar.Princess Haifa's bank account--the source of the funds which ultimately supported the alleged hijackers--was with Riggs Bank where Jonathan J. Bush, the brother of former President George H. W. Bush and uncle of President George W. Bush, is CEO, President and Director of Riggs' investment management subsidiary.

snip

After Al Bayoumi fled the U.S. to England in July, 2001--two months before the attacks, Princess Haifa's Riggs Bank checks were then sent to Osama Basnan, who with his wife Majeda Dweikat, were both later to be found in the U.S. illegally as a result of poor or suspicious State Department visa supervision.

Former FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds said she found evidence of espionage in both the State Department and the FBI in pre-9/11 translations of intelligence intercepts--which also warned about planes used as weapons well before the attacks.A federal law enforcement source said Basnan was a known "al-Qaeda sympathizer" who "celebrated the heroes of September 11" at a party after the attacks and openly talked about "what a wonderful, glorious day it had been," according to Newsweek.

Al Bayoumi and Basnan both befriended Alhazmi and fellow Saudi hijacker Khalid Almihdar after they arrived in San Diego, according to the sources; and the Riggs checks from Prince Bandar's wife helped the terroists pay rent and living expences in the months just prior to the attacks, according to reports. Newsweek said Al Bayoumi helped them obtain social security cards and helped them arrange for flying lessons in Florida--indicating dramatic evidence of the state of congressional internal security oversight.

Basnan was convicted of visa fraud and deported to Saudi Arabia on November 17, 2002. His wife Majida Ibrahim--who had also laundered checks from Riggs Bank--was deported the same day to her native Jordan for visa violations. (Washington Post, 9-24, 2002) Reasons were not given why the White House allowed the high profile suspects to leave the country on charges much less important than being implicated as an accessory to mass murder.

more



http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=53

[spooked911]

2. Again, Edmonds is supporting the official story in your excerpt

-- that Al Qaeda and Saudi sympathizers were the movers behind 9/11, rather than being patsies.

Although in your excerpt you can also clearly see the hand of the US government supporting these people.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Whistlerblower Coming in Cold From The FBI

MUST read..there is so much information in this article

...the article mentions a woman named Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish woman married to a major in the U.S. Air Force. The woman told Edmonds that she couldn't believe America was monitoring people who were their chief "persons of interest" because Dickerson and her husband had done favors for them...shopping...

"Ms. Edmonds has told the Judiciary Committee that soon after, Ms. Dickerson tried to establish social ties with her, suggesting they meet in Alexandria and introduce their husbands to each other.

When Sibel invited the visitors in for tea, she said, Major Dickerson began asking Matthew Edmonds if the couple had many friends from Turkey here in the U.S. Mr. Edmonds said he didn't speak Turkish, so they didn't associate with many Turkish people. The Air Force officer then began talking up a Turkish organization in Washington that he described, according to the Edmondses, as "a great place to make connections and it could be very profitable."

Sibel was sickened. This organization was the very one she and Jan Dickerson were monitoring in a 9/11 investigation. Since Sibel had adhered to the rule that an F.B.I. employee does not discuss bureau matters with one's mate, her husband innocently continued the conversation. Ms. Dickerson and her husband offered to introduce the Edmondses to people connected to the Turkish embassy in Washington who belonged to this organization. ..."My husband keeps thinking he's talking about promoting business deals," Ms. Edmonds later said of the encounter. "He has no idea the man is talking about criminal activities with some semi-legitimate front."

These are classic "pitch activities" to get somebody to spy for you, according to a Judiciary Committee staffer who investigated Ms. Edmonds' claims. ...The targets of that F.B.I. investigation left the country abruptly in 2002. Later, Ms. Edmonds discovered that Ms. Dickerson had managed to get hold of translations meant for Ms. Edmonds, forge her signature, and render the communications useless."

more
http://www.gailsheehy.com/9_11/9_11_art1_21.html


Immediately after 9/11 the FBI hired Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish translator, who was given a top-secret clearance although she worked for organizations that were FBI targets of investigation and had ongoing relationships with two individuals who were FBI targets of investigation. Dickerson used her translator position to block investigations into those organizations until she left hastily in 2002 and to take top secret documents out of the FBI with the assistance of her supervisor, Mike Feghali, who was subsequently promoted to supervisor of the Arabic languages unit;

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary16.htm

Edmonds is the translator hired by the FBI after 9-11 to help its
woefully inadequate staff translate documents and wiretaps
pertaining to the attacks in languages such as Farsi and Turkish. As
she has told the Voice in past and recent interviews, she was given
a top secret security clearance. She soon discovered that there were
what she describes as two enemy moles with possible connections to
9-11 working both in the FBI and with the Air Force in weapons
procurement for Central Asia, at one point. These were the
Dickersons: Douglas with the Air Force and his Turkish-born wife,
Melek Can Dickerson, with the FBI as a translator monitor. After
they were subpoenaed for a court hearing, they left for Belgium in
September 2002 and have not been heard from since.

Among other things Edmonds told her FBI superiors, she had
discovered that Melek Can Dickerson affixed Edmonds's name to a
printout of inaccurate translations. Properly translated, she says,
these wiretaps revealed a Turkish intelligence operative in
communication with his spies in both the Pentagon and the State
Department.
http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=U2kJc.44922%24_V4.32999%40read1.cgocable.net&rnum=4



Take a visit via the Net to the world of associations.

...the reality is that it and other affiliated associations are the US government.

...

It is in and through such associations that US political, economic and military policy is made and the American public subsequently "educated" to support policies that are not, and could not, be debated in public because of their illegality, audacity, complexity and, arguably, necessity.

...

America Gives Birth to New EuroAsia

Now, before you yell, "Conspiracy," you might want to think Necessity and Stability, particularly in light of the opening to Central Asia, the Caucasus and the new Europe provided by 9-11. Pull up Net maps of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe. Once you've done that, consider what political, economic and military activities (defined as US national interests) the United States has underway in those regions. It is no less than the development of a US-dominated New EuroAsia that includes the "Stans," Ukraine, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech, Croatia, and Poland. Crazy? Hardly, it is a brilliant gamble. There are many compelling reasons to create a New EuroAsia with the US with a controlling interest.

...

ACPC was founded in 1999 and is chaired by former National Security Advisor Zibigniew Brezinski, former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr., and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz. ACPC, according to its website, is composed of more than one hundred distinguished Americans representing both major political parties and nearly every walk of life.

And who are those 100 Americans? Well, to name a few, there's Geraldine Ferraro, former Democratic candidate for vice president; Frank Gaffney, CEO of the Center for Security Policy whose board members include Doug Feith, Gordon Sullivan, CEO of the Army Association of the USA, and Bob Livingston of the Livingston Group; Elliot Abrams and Mike Leeden. And who would have guessed that Richard Gere and PJ O'Rourke would be members of the ACPC?

And the story gets routine and boring as it moves on. The honorary chair of the American Georgia Business Council (AGBC) is James Baker III. Its members include ExxonMobil, Northrop Grumman and Ernst &Young. President of the AGBC is S. Enders Wimbush, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and Booz Allen Hamilton employee. A trustee of note on the Hudson Institute is Al Haig. The same connections, whether through individuals or organizations, can be found for Ukraine and Belarus, as well as Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Six Degrees of Zibigniew Brezinski

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/021805Stanton/021805stanton.html

[OneMind]

4. The Big Monster behind the Big Lie

Hey, spooked911,

I agree that, in some ways, Sibel Edmond's might be perpetuating the Big Lie. However, it might be unintentional on her part.

I believe that I heard Karl Scharz mention (perhaps during his interview with Stadtmiller - I don't have the info in front of me) that Sibel uncovered solid evidence of drug trafficking.

The Defense budget is about $400 billion annually, but estimates of the Black Ops budget are generally around $1 TRILLION. Black Ops are paid for, in large part, through drug trafficking. When the truth about this could have become publicly known during the Iran/Contra hearings, Senator John Kerry covered it up.

[MrSammo1]

5. I agree

all this woman does is point to the government's dropping the ball that day. She's nothing but a red herring.

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

[paulthompson]

6. Anyone who thinks Edmonds is supporting the official story...

doesn't know what they're talking about. I scanned some of that link, and it's so immature, the kind of thing where the author repeatedly writes JUDAS in all caps.

Edmonds is looking at both incompetence AND criminal behavior. People often don't understand what she's saying because she's whistleblowing about multiple things, and the most important stuff is mostly buried under the gag order. But ultimately she talking about how high officials in the Bush Administration had ties to a criminal network of drugs, money laundering, etc..., and that network had ties to 9/11.

This goes back to something I've said before, which is I'm frustrated with the simpleheaded thinking of people who think that if they believe in MIHOP, there can't be any foreign involvement in 9/11. That's not so. It would make sense to have multiple players with different roles.

I find it ironic that that link tries to use Michel Chossudovsky to knock Ellsberg, because Chossudovsky and Ellsberg believe the same things. Chossudovsky has done groundbreaking research on the role of the ISI in the 9/11 plot. And here's a quote from Ellsberg from my timeline:

Daniel Ellsberg, the “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower during the Nixon presidency, stated, “It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in <9/11> ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it’s hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of.” (GUARDIAN, 7/22/04)

Chossudovsky, Ellsberg, Edmonds, Mike Ruppert, Nafeez Ahmed, David Ray Griffin, myself, and many others see an investigation of the ISI role in the plot as an opportunity to investigate what US role there might have been, to follow connections from Pakistan back to the US.

I should also point out that another false dichotomy is this disparagement of any evidence suggesting incompetence. I'm sorry, but this also is overly simplistic. Incompetence can greatly facilitate a criminal enterprise. Let's say people in the US did do MIHOP. They would want their MIHOP plans unrecognized by those in government not in on the plans, and the more incompetence, the easier it is for them to succeed. Furthermore, the difference between incompetence and criminality is often just speculation on a person's motivation. We know a certain thing happened or didn't happen, and as to why that is, what the players were thinking, is often pure speculation. Calling something incompetence allows the mainstream media to report on it when they'd be too afraid to if it was called criminality. Over time, a body of evidence grows which one can then use to postulate a criminality argument.

If I can make a larger point, all this talk of limited hangouts is self destructive. Yes, there are limited hangouts sometimes. One good example which I'll have to look up and add to my timeline is a story about one of the hijackers buying 19 box cutters on Sept. 9, 2001. This didn't even pass the simple logic test - the hijackers were already in separate towns at the time. And now the new theory is short knives were mainly used instead since it was later revealed that box cutters were actually prohibited on 9/11. So this 19 box cutters story is conveniently forgotten by the 9/11 Commission and the like.

Rather than ignore such stories, one can accomplish much by discovering such contradictions in the official story and exposing them. What I try to do is work with all the information given, even if I suspect it's bogus. If I suspect the latter, than my goal is to actually prove it and not just proclaim it with loud cries of JUDAS! or whatever. Proving such things is not a waste of time, because contradictions are very good evidence in and of themselves.

A lot of people in the MIHOP camp tend to forget that for the vast majority of Americans, LIHOP would completely rock their minds, and even significant incompetence would be shocking to very many. I tend to see a slippery slope. If one sees the incompetence, then one can open one's mind to the possibility of LIHOP. If one believes that much, then they're much more open to MIHOP. Very, very few people are going to go from the common "the attacks could not have been prevented" belief to MIHOP.

[spooked911]

9. You're right-- Sibel Edmonds could rock a lot of people's worlds if she

was allowed to tell her story. No doubt.

I guess the frustration is that if her story ever came out, the public would think "okay, so THAT'S the terrible truth behind 9/11", the media would reinforce this and not delve further, and a lot of important people involved in 9/11 would then be essentially absolved.

Right now, there is clearly a growing movement for more public disclosure on 9/11, and Sibel seems to be being groomed for this new disclosure. As important as her information may be, it WOULD still be a limited hang-out and thus not be real justice.

This is where the frustration comes in, as shown by "Angie", the writer of the piece. I guess it boils down to how pragmatic you want to be about 9/11 truth-- accept a major limited hang-out with Edmonds as the best we can realistically achieve right now, or hold out for a more pure and complete disclosure of 9/11, which may never really be achievable.

Basically, I would love to have Edmonds tell her story. But if and when she does, we also have to be ready to exploit the moment to say there IS more to the 9/11 story.

And you're right of course about foreign involvement, especially Pakistan-- that is a very important element to 9/11.

I have a question for you Paul. Percentage-wise, how much of the "official 9/11 story" is clearly a lie and how much is merely doubtful, according to your research? Thanks!

[paulthompson]

14. Reply

I don't like it when people like Angie spend so much of their time attacking what other 9/11 skeptics have to say. She's done a lot of that, such as attacking David Ray Griffin for having some vague connection to the Council on Foreign Relations. That kind of mentality is deadly. Unless the allegations against someone are so clearcut that it's plain as day they're disinfo agents or whatever, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. Infighting is what kills movements.

The problem is, the vast majority of people are so deceived that even the notion of impeachment for criminal incompetence and after the fact coverup relating to 9/11 would be beyond the pale. So most anything that challenges the official story and opens peoples' minds to other possibilities is good. If people with theory X spend all their time attacking people with theory Y, we'll never get anywhere.

I don't think Edmonds is being "groomed." I've spoken to her and I have a good idea what she's about. I think that if she could speak and if we had the press and politicians willing to follow through (a HUGE if), she's right that some very high ranking people would go to prison and some very ugly things about what the US government regularly does with drug dealing, money laundering, etc... would come out. If you have any evidence of her being "groomed" please show it to me, because I don't see it.

As to how much of the official story is true, I can't put a percentage on it, but I would say a surprising amount, more than a lot of 9/11 skeptics would think. The lies are mostly lies of omission and distortions rather than outright lies. For instance, if it's said that Mohamed Atta stayed at such and such a hotel on such and such a day, he probably did, though the reason why he did may be different than the one given, and occassionally it could have been someone else in the plot or a patsy. Or, another example, the 9/11 Commission didn't really so much lie about Pakistan's role in 9/11 as ignore the whole issue (even though we know they had lots of that info, according to an LA Times story). It's been said that the best kind of disinformation is that which is 90% true and 10% lies, because it's that much harder to find the lies. Things that conflict with the official story are generally ignored instead of refuted.

That said, there are areas with more lies than most. One such area is the timing of Day of 9/11 events. The 9/11 Commission created some HUGE whoppers there, which built on previous lies. My personal favorite is NORAD claiming CNN started showing footage of the burning WTC nine minutes after it did, when that it so easily debunked. On many other subjects, it's lies of ommission. For instance, look at insider trading. That whole story went down a black hole with just one tiny "nothing to see here" footnote in the 9/11 Commission report rather than an elaborate cover story.

[paulthompson]

17. One more thing on lies

I should mention that I agree with a lot of things Chaim Kaupferberg has to say, but I disagree on the details, where he tends to see most everything as a lie and I don't. I told him in emails that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. One example: he thinks that the story of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed being the 9/11 mastermind is an after the fact construct, a relatively minor figure raised up to be some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein. Whereas I believe KSM really was a 9/11 mastermind (though not the only one). There's just too much information about him that fits together perfectly and goes back all the way to the early 1990's. For instance, the transcript of an interrogation of a co-conspirator back in 1995 and released before 9/11 said that all KSM wanted to talk about was getting pilots and training them for future plots.

As I said before, it's much much more effective to take an existing truth and spin it a bit, rather than make something up out of whole cloth. In KSM's case, he really was an amazing terrorist mastermind who did all the things it's been said he did, but the spin lie is the notion that he joined al-Qaeda late (thus burying the whole connection between Bojinka and 9/11). The lie of omission is his connections to the ISI. And, this is speculation, but if the US intelligence knew he was an ISI agent all along, that would explain why they were reluctant to go after him and why he could operate all over the world for ten years with seeming impunity, why they went after everyone in the Bojinka plot but him, why they left his name out of court records, etc...

[Christophera]

7. It All Could Be True

She could be set up to reveal existent lapses of security as a distraction in a scenario where critical information to complicity that is NOT yet distinguished, in the hope that it will not be.

Because of mkultra she may not know why she is doing what she is doing and be thinking shes doing something good. Hilton might be another such. Self sabotaging in his case.

[paulthompson]

16. Hilton et al

Stanley Hilton was poison. I had a legal friend who's a 9/11 skeptic look at Hilton's legal briefs, and the friend said this was a complete piece of BS, not in term of content, but in terms of how it was done. It was self-sabotaging. Then when he started going on about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in an interview that confirmed to me he was bad news.

The Ellen Mariani case handled by Phil Berg on the other hand, seems to be a legit case by well-intentioned people.

As I mention elsewhere, I've met Edmonds and I was very impressed. I think she's too smart to be "used." Frankly, I worry about her physical safety, because the more successfully she pushes, the more they're going to push back.

[gandalf]

8. Hypothesis

If one assumes MIHOP, it would be certainly a good idea to create several layers of deception. Someone like Edmonds could theoretically be a very convincing layer for the more skeptical people (the idiots believe the official story, a second group believes LIHOP, those could be addressed by a second layer story). A similar concept is proposed here: Truth, lies, and the legend of 9/11, Chaim Kupferberg.

But Edmonds might as well be honest. If 9/11 was the result of MIHOP, where some "terrorists" were set up, the complete operation was probably built on existing "terrorist infrastructure". The more innocent parts of the intelligence apparatus would probably detect some indicators of the preparations and create warnings. The concept of warnings does not necessarily mean that someone propagates the official BS.

[spooked911]

10. Yes, I think you are right and I think Edmonds is personally trustworthy.

But if her case goes anywhere, the official people pushing her case may NOT be completely trustworthy, however.

[Christophera]

11. If Complicity Is Unmentioned By Edwards

If complicity by the government is unmentioned or the possibility unaccepted by Edwards then there is very good chance her case is subterfuge.

Somebody needs to ask her and observe her reaction.

[spooked911]

12. Good point. I think she has fairly close to the vest about that idea.

The main problem I have had with her is she keeps alluding to something important but says she can't talk about it due to the gag order. But it seems to me if she has really important info, she should violate the order-- I mean what is more important, major criminals going free or the chance she could go to jail?

[paulthompson]

15. Complicity

She's already talked about the complicity, it's just that the mainstream media downplays those tidbits. For instance, did you know the husband in the husband wife team she's revealed to be traitorous moles is a man by the name Major Douglas Dickerson, who was actively serving in the US Army. His wife Can was purposely mistranslating documents directly relating to 9/11. Together they tried to recruit Edmonds to join their larger network. The Dickersons fled the country in 2002 after Edmonds outed them (the authorities did nothing and let them go). If that's not complicity of at least one high ranking military officer in the 9/11 plot, then what is?

And as for her breaking her gag order, she has a plan that's smarter than that. She CAN say things publicly if she does it with the right backing in the right forum, for instance, if she's under oath in front of a Congressional committee and someone knows to ask her the right questions. And if she does it that way, it'll have much more impact. What she needs is backing and support. She already has a few politicians willing to help out, Henry Waxman is one, but she needs more.

It's taking time, but frankly I think Edmonds is doing a kick ass job. She's been winning lately, and it's not because her story's being "groomed" by the powers that be, it's because she has a strategy and she's working hard to achieve her goals. They picked the wrong person to mess with. She told me a story about the day she got fired from the FBI. Her boss escorted her out of the building in a threatening manner, saying if you talk to the media you'll go to jail, if you talk to congresspeople you'll go to jail, etc... Her response? I paraphrase: "Only one of us is going to jail, and that's you. I'm going to make sure of it."

And Edmonds aside, I personally know some people who have been in the news who believe in LIHOP or even MIHOP, but they don't have the evidence to prove it personally, and are afraid that if they say that speculation publicly then they'll be ignored on the things that they can speak authoritatively about. Needless to say, I can't name names. (It's like the problem of a blind person trying to identify an elephant by feel - if you only have one piece, you can't know for certain what the whole thing is.) Everyone has to make their choice on how best to go about getting the truth out, and things may change over time.

[spooked911]

20. Thanks-- that is extremely interesting.

And that is a very important point about the Dickersons being moles and the military connection.

As I pointed out in another post, I think Edmonds personally is on the up and up. The main fear is that she would be used by somebody as a limited hangout to close off further investigation of 9/11. The fact that you know she has a strategy for what she is doing is very encouraging.

Thanks again.

[Christophera]

23. Complicity, Marginalization & Public Support: Catch 22

Paul wrote:
"She's already talked about the complicity, it's just that the mainstream media downplays those tidbits. For instance, did you know the husband in the husband wife team she's revealed to be traitorous moles is a man by the name Major Douglas Dickerson, who was actively serving in the US Army. His wife Can was purposely mistranslating documents directly relating to 9/11. Together they tried to recruit Edmonds to join their larger network. The Dickersons fled the country in 2002 after Edmonds outed them (the authorities did nothing and let them go). If that's not complicity of at least one high ranking military officer in the 9/11 plot, then what is?"

Excellent, and the possibility exists that she hasn't pushed it because of what you say in my third quote below. She doesn't want to be marginalized. The MIHOP + aspects of the translators could be devastating to the ruse.

Paul wrote:
"What she needs is backing and support. She already has a few politicians willing to help out, Henry Waxman is one, but she needs more."

Agreed completely. I think the public is on the spot for that support. But media is the only way to them. Catch 22. The people referred to below would be much encourages by a public action showing support.

Paul wrote:
"I personally know some people who have been in the news who believe in LIHOP or even MIHOP, but they don't have the evidence to prove it personally, and are afraid that if they say that speculation publicly then they'll be ignored on the things that they can speak authoritatively about."

If they had circumstantial evidence saying that it was at least MIHOP and probably worse, I wonder how they would act?

[Woody Box]

26. Yes

Your points in this thread are good and important. I think it's fair to say that 9/11 was an incredible complex crime, with LIHOP *and* MIHOP elements. Very few people knew the whole plan. Look at the government: Ashcroft believed in LIHOP (that's why he stopped flying commercial flights - he was really scared), but Cheney was probably the maestro MIHOPper.

[reprehensor]

13. Edmonds is a Truthteller.

And so is her 'sponsor' Daniel Ellsberg.

...In 1969 and 1970, with the help of my friend Anthony Russo, a former Rand associate, I secretly photocopied the entire forty-seven-volume Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of U.S. decision making in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968, which were then in my authorized possession, and gave them to Senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1971 I also gave copies to the New York Times, to the Washington Post, and ultimately, in the the face of four unprecedented federal injunctions, to some seventeen other newspapers, all of which defied the government in printing them for the public to read.

I wasn't wrong about the personal risks. Shortly thereafter I was indicted in a federal court, with Russo later joining me in a second, superseding indictment. Eventually I faced twelve federal felony charges totaling a possible 115 years in prison, with the prospect of several further trials for me beyond that first one. But I was not wrong, either, to hope that exposing secrets five presidents had withheld and the lies they told might have benefits for our democracy that were worthy of the risks. This truth telling set in motion a train of events, including criminal White House efforts to silence or incapacitate me, that led to dismissal of the charges against me and my codefendant. Much more important, these Oval Office crimes helped topple the president, an act that was crucial to ending the war.

This is the story of the greatest change in my life, which began well after my return from Vietnam. The disillusionment of the brief hopes that I experienced in Vietnam and the skepticism toward the war that I brought back in mid-1967 were not really new for me. On the contrary, they were a return to the pessimism that I had acquired on a first trip to Vietnam in 1961 and that had been reinforced in my first year in the Pentagon form mid-1964. By 1967 this skeptical mood was widely shared inside the government, perhaps even more in the public. This was a time when my general desire to see the war ended did not distinguish me from almost any of my colleagues in the government or government-sponsored research, whether or not they had served in Vietnam. An entire generation of Vietnam-era insiders had become just as disillusioned as I with a war they saw as hopeless and interminable. I was like them in most respects, no different in character or values, no less committed to the cold war, to anticommunism, to secrecy, and to the presidency. By 1968, if not earlier, they all wanted, as I did, to see us out of this war. Indeed this poses a question that I have worked at understanding over since: How could it be, under these circumstances, that after the massive disillusionment of the Tet offensive in 1968 the war still had seven years to go?

Ellsberg, Daniel. Secrets: a memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, 2002, Viking Press, (Preface VIII-IX).

Daniel Ellsberg is one of the bravest Americans that you have the honor of walking this soil with. He is a true patriot, because his love of the truth, his country, and the people in it, compelled him to stick his neck out in a period of time when political assasination was commonplace here.

Sibel Edmonds is of this fiber.

The fact that what she reveals does not coincide with either Chossudovsky, Ruppert or Thompson in a perfect jigsaw puzzle pattern, does not make her experience any less true.

For a practical example of this, google 'Gulf of Tonkin'. The event that President Johnson used to escalate the Vietnam war. To this day, millions of Americans believe that the U.S. Navy was on a 'routine patrol in international waters' when out of the blue, a barrage of torpedoes attacked a Navy boat.

To this day, not a shred of physical evidence exists to support this claim. Millions died after this incident.

In all likelihood, over-anxious sonar operators panicked and identified 'ghost' sonar echoes as live torpedoes streaming in from every direction. An attacking ship was never spotted. Debris from supposed 'hits' was never identified.

The truth is a difficult concept, Ellsberg and Edmonds are dealing with it the best they can. Ms. Edmonds has not yet revelead in an open and forthright manner everything she knows. But she will. She is on the side of truth and has already stuck her neck out to test the water. For all of our sakes, I hope she jumps in soon.

[spooked911]

22. While Edmonds and Ellsberg may well be truth-tellers in the noblest sense

(and this is the conventional viewpoint) there is some difference of opinion on Ellsberg. Basically, some people think he was playing a high-stakes game to blame the failures of Vietnam on the Pentagon (a limited hangout of sorts), and in so doing took most of the heat off the CIA for the terrible things they did in Southeast Asia during the war.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/ellsberg.html#4

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Sibel is an example of the right direction IMHO

Keeping my fingers crossed that this lady gets to talk about her story in public...

[paulthompson]

19. Uh-oh

If BB likes Sibel Edmonds, then I take back all the nice things I said about her. Just kidding. :)

Seriously, while we're on the subject, she send me an email just now with this link and the comment "Good one":

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/030905Stanton/030905stanton.html

It doesn't go into her case directly but more looks at the larger geopolitical millieu of relations between the US, Pakistan, and Turkey to put her case into context.

[spooked911]

21. Interesting article, and I agree 100% that the key issue is accountability

in the US government, and the lack thereof.

[paulthompson]

24. Sibel's remarkable letter

People who say Edmonds should be more specific probably don't know about this letter she wrote in August 2004:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00012.htm

I recommend that everyone here read it (I really need to add the info in it to my timeline - I'm going to do that today).

I'm surprised she didn't get in trouble with this letter, because she does name some names. In particular, she outs the name of her supervisor, Mike Feghali. While the media has discussed her case of untranslated documents as incompetence to get a bigger budget, she's stating here he was acutally part of a criminal conspiracy. For instance, this bit:

"In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent’s hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document."

Note what Feghali was keeping secret: "certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas." What if that building was, say, the WTC? This agent could have found out that terrorists were actively targeting that building and taken steps to defend it.

She makes it clear later in the article that there is deliberate "incompetence," but that his actions went beyond incompetence:

"Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department...."

She also names Thomas Frields as another FBI superior blocking some very explosive information. These are some of the people we should be keeping an eye on and eventually sending to prison.

Yet, after all this comes out, Mike Feghali is actually PROMOTED so he's now in charge of all Arabic language translations too. This is huge. It means people higher up want this guy who is criminally tricking FBI field agents to be in a position to essentially do the same to any info coming out of the Muslim world!

So Edmonds took a risk in talking about such specifics, and sent this letter off to the media, and how many news organizations reported on it? Zero! Absolutely zero. Even outlets that reported sympathetically on her in the past like the Village Voice didn't do a story on this important letter. So she has a really difficult road to get this info out to a larger audience.

Most of the letter talks about a few specific cases, but in this below part she again makes some tantalizingly vague larger claims:

"After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ‘ protecting certain foreign business relations.’ The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ‘ safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.’ Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so."

I think one thing we can surmise from this is that when the US fails to follow up on a criminal act that leads to, say, Saudi Arabia, everyone tacitly says, "ah, what can you do, that's how that country is, we cut turn a blind eye to some of their ties to terrorism and so forth because they give us all our oil and are so strategically important." But people in the US can actually commit large crimes and by involving Saudis in them, know that those crimes won't get investigated. Pretty clever. In fact, just a couple of days ago, wasn't there a story about some Saudi prince smuggling large amounts of drugs into the US using diplomatic immunity? It's a good bet in cases like that that some people in the US are getting a cut of the profits.

In other disclosures elsewhere, she's revealed that some of the translations she saw related to money laundering involving large very sums of money. I'd like to see some more of that kind of thing come out, the stuff that really gets to the heart of the matter. But even the stuff in this letter is apparently too much for the tame mainstream media to handle.

[Christophera]

25. Connection?

Paul wrote:
"Note what Feghali was keeping secret: "certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas." What if that building was, say, the WTC? This agent could have found out that terrorists were actively targeting that building and taken steps to defend it."

Perhaps information from

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0301/S00032.htm

m. bush and stratsec