911 truth

Sibel Edmonds reveals all in her new book

Sibel Edmonds worked for years prior to 9/11 interrogating terrorist suspects in Farsi, Turkish and other Middle-Eastern languages on behalf of the FBI. She learned of the terrorist attacks planned for September 11 2001, but her warnings were ignored by her superiors, with tragic results for 3,000 US residents and even more tragic results for Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Libyans, Yemenis, Somalis and Syrians, many hundreds of thousands who have since been killed in wars for which was used as both a direct and indirect pretext. After years of waiting for clearance to publish her book from the FBI, she has gone ahead and as Sibel Edmonds explains in this on .Sibel Edmonds worked for years prior to 9/11 interrogating terrorist suspects in Farsi, Turkish and other Middle-Eastern languages on behalf of the FBI. She learned of the terrorist attacks planned for September 11 2001, but her warnings were ignored by her superiors, with tragic results for 3,000 US residents and even more tragic results for Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Libyans, Yemenis, Somalis and Syrians, many hundreds of thousands who have since been killed in wars for which was used as both a direct and indirect pretext. After years of waiting for clearance to publish her book from the FBI, she has gone ahead and as Sibel Edmonds explains in this on .

What I find so remarkable is Sibel’s persistence in trying every avenue and possible outlet in trying to get the truth out. When going up the chain of command in the executive branch and Inspector General internal mechanisms for investigating fraud, waste, and abuse went nowhere, she sought judicial remedy by filing lawsuits only to be improperly gagged by “state secrecy privilege”. Along the way she also sought congressional assistance, testified to the 9-11 Commission, and engaged with various media and other non-governmental organizations. It’s somewhat ironic that Sibel herself demonstrated such enormous energy and passion throughout this decade quite the opposite of the “boiling frog” idiom she uses for her website as a warning to others. If her book can inspire readers to summon even 1/100th of the determination and resolve she has modeled, there’s hope for us!

-- Coleen Rowley

Retired FBI Agent & Time Magazine Person of the Year, 2002

I've read a million reviews of nonfiction books about our government that referred to them as "page-turners" and "gripping dramas," but I had never read a book that actually fit that description until now... Yet, thus far, no branch of our government has lifted its little finger to fix the problem of secrecy and the corruption it breeds, which Edmonds argues has grown far worse under President Obama. That's why this book should be spread far and wide, and read aloud to our misrepresentatives in Congress if necessary. This book is a masterpiece that reveals both the details and the broader pattern of corruption and unaccountability in Washington, D.C. Edmonds has not exposed bad apples, but a rotten barrel of toxic waste that will sooner or later infect us all.

-- David Swanson

Author & Activist,

Australian PM Gillard claims participation in war necessary to prevent Afghanistan again being used to launch terror

See also: with links to my to the and the concerning from which the submission is linked.

 

... we need to continue the fight against terrorism and particularly to deny Afghanistan as a place for terrorists to train.

What we know is that al Qaeda was facilitated for training in Afghanistan, that’s well known, we’ve seen the consequences of that training, tragically in violent incidents in our world that have taken thousands of lives, including the lives of Australians. So we are there on the same mission of strategic denial. 

 

...

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you said that Australia would be asking questions today. What are the compelling answers that you have for them for staying the course?

PM: Well, the same answer I gave you last week is the same answer I would give today – in the hardest of circumstances, we need to be determined to stay the course in Afghanistan.

We’re in Afghanistan because we don’t want it to be a safe haven for terrorists. It has been in the past, and if we left a security vacuum in Afghanistan it would be filled by terrorist groups from around the world. We’ve seen that happen in the past. We would see it happen again.

In order to ensure that Afghanistan doesn’t become a safe haven for terrorists, we need to see the mission through. 

 

...

Bin Laden waged war on innocent civilians. Under his command, al Qaeda planned and executed the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington in which nearly 3,000 innocent civilians were murdered.

Bin Laden’s al Qaeda also conducted, inspired or had links to numerous other terrorist atrocities in which Australians were killed and wounded.

Today, above all, we remember those who lost their lives in these attacks. These include:

  • 10 Australians on 11 September 2001
  • 88 Australians in Bali on 12 October 2002
  • 1 Australian in London on 7 July 2005
  • 4 Australians in Bali on 1 October 2005
  • 2 Australians in Mumbai on 26-29 November 2008
  • 3 Australians in Jakarta on 17 July 2009
  •  

    Why does Australian Peak Oil authority object to discussion of the justification for Iraq and Afghan wars?

    On 18 May 2009 a site visitor to the controversy surrounding 9/11 being raised on this web-site.

    As that is considered an authority on the question of petroleum and other fossil fuels and is moderator of the Australian Yahoo Group (roeoz) concerned with Peak Oil, I would have thought he would have been interested to know that don't accept the version of events used to justify the wars that have ravaged much of the oil-rich regions of the world, but I learnt from his unsolicited post, objecting to my article , reproduced below, that he was not interested.

    Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11? How about

    Frankly, I'm disappointed this subject has turned up on this blog. 9/11 truthout beliefs are like religion: you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't. In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, which is why too banned discussion on . End of story. There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it.

    Mike.

    As I was on holidays at the time I could not respond until 30 May. I advised him by e-mail that I had responded, but he never acknowledged .

    Update:23 May 2011

    My Google search using the term 'roez', showed up the following:

    roeoz is also a 9/11 conspiracy free zone. The matter was dealt with years ago, the US Government took advantage of the incident, ...

    Whether that is what Google shows to all Internet users is unclear. The full pronouncement on 9/11 on the is:

    roeoz is also a 9/11 conspiracy free zone. The matter was dealt with years ago, the US Government took advantage of the incident, quite likely even allowed it to happen in order to launch the wars it was already planning, so that was a conspiracy in a sense, but the conspiracy that they planned the incident or had the buildings demolished by controlled explosions is too far-fetched, unprovable over 8 years and a change of government, and tedious. This is the decision taken by all 3 moderators of this list.

    Discussion on whether it is any less 'far-fetched' that all to have occurred on the one day and never before and never again since is as censored on roeoz as it is in the mainstream media.

    One recent article, which may have been considered suitable for roeoz, if it were not a "9/11 conspiracy free zone" is the article . Much of the article describes the grab for oil and gas by US corporations which is being facilitated by the Afghan War. Not surprisingly, it questions the for the Afghan war, which is forbidden in the .

    French comic J-M Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz challenge Official 9/11 story on French Television

    English Version
    Version anglaise


    French version

    The 23 October 2009 Guillaume Durand, presenter of the program, on France2 television, had as his guests the comedian, Jean-Marie Bigard and the director Mattieu Kassovitz, purportedly to give them the opportunity to express their doubts about the official explanation of the events of 11 September 2001 (“9/11”) in New York and Washington, where two towers collapsed after non-accidental collisions with two airplanes and a third tower fell for reasons not known and another plane may have penetrated a wall of the Pentagon.

    Initially l’Object du scandale promoted an interview with Bigard and Kassovitz, plus , skilled at performing on television – and Niels Harrit, Danish scientist, professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, who has written a paper asserting that the rubble from the third tower contained thermite. He has appeared on the Danish news.

    For reasons that remain a mystery, hardly elucidated by compere Durand at the end of his program, invitations to Laurent and Harrit were cancelled. [Durand said that if he had had four people on each side of the debate (instead of two people on each side) the numbers would have caused chaos.]

    Commentary on the debate.

    I thought that Bigard and Kassovitz were cut off by interruptions from or were drowned out by the noise from Bonnaud, Gattegno and Durand. Several times Bigard and Kassovitz were begged ‘just to’ allow a question to be asked or an argument to be put, but, when they then tried to reply, they were made to shut up again, as if they themselves had just spoken. They were addressed like unreasonable children: “Jean-Marie, oh, Jean-Marie, please…”. It was shameful.

    Towards the end of the program, Guillaume Durand asked Bigard to give him an opportunity to speak, promising to allow Bigard to respond after Durand had said what he wanted to say. But subsequently Durand ended the program dishonestly without giving Bigard the opportunity to respond.

    Bigard and Kassovitz were provoked by Frédéric Bonnaud and Hervé Gattegno who seemed not to reply to the few words Bigard and Kassovitz were allowed to say, but who replied rather to commentaries in extracts from films that were played during the show.

    Why invite Bigard and Kassovitz if the program intended to concentrate on film extracts ?

    The program would have been much more worthwhile if Jean-Marie Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz had been able to say why they thought that a new, deeper enquiry into 9/11 is necessary. Instead there were attempts to ridicule them without allowing them to defend themselves properly. It all seemed very cowardly.

    Frédéric Bonnaud and Hervé Gattegno did not seem to know the subject because they relied on hurling accusations and on trying to make so much noise and cause so many interruptions that you could hear almost nothing coherently from Kassovitz and Bigard as they attempted to respond. Bonnaud and Gattegno seemed to want to drown out what the others had to say.

    For example, when Bigard or Kassovitz asked why, of all the video cameras positioned to film around the Pentagon, not one single useful piece of film of the attack was available, Bonnaud and Gattegno screamed that only idiots needed photos! But the question was why hadn’t the US government made all the films from all the video cameras operating at the Pentagon on that day available to the public?

    Also, the explanation that Bonnaud or Gattegno furnished for the failure by the FBI to label bin Laden as ‘wanted’ for 9/11 crimes might be true according to North American law (I don’t know) but it didn’t explain why the US had pursued bin Laden by making war in Afghanistan and Iraq, if the US was not sure that he was responsible. [2] [The explanation that Bonnaud and Gattegno gave (Bonnaud mainly) was that, since bin Laden had not been tried for 9/11 crimes he could not be labeled guilty for them and that his photo was nevertheless up there in the FBI wanted list for crimes he had been tried for and found guilty of by other countries.]

    Bonnaud and Gattegno did not succeed, however, in silencing Bigard and Kassovitz on this : Why was Harrit, the scientist who had written the article that the ‘Truthers’ cite on thermite, not invited? It is true that if the co-author – Steven E. Jones – of the paper on thermite has written an article defending the idea that Jesus had appeared in America, that is disquieting.[2] Nonetheless, referring to the article on Jesus is not the way to respond to the scientific argument. A man may believe in fairies, but if he advances a scientific theory, then his theory needs to be criticized and analysed on the basis of the science it relies on; it isn’t valid to refute it by changing the subject to fairies.

    After all, mormon scientists – similarly to islamic and christian scientists – manage to construct bridges, buildings, bombs and aeroplances just as well as non-religious scientists. The United States is full of believers in bizarre religions but it is also full of technical masterworks.

    In conclusion, I found that l’Objet du scandale owes Jean-Marie Bigard and Mattieu Kassovitz a new session with the guests who had originally been invited – Harrit and Laurent. This time perhaps they should use an on-screen stopwatch to exert some control over how much time is allocated to each person.

    If the French media is not able to conduct itself fairly towards J-M Bigard and M. Kassovitz, it only gives strength to theories of official conspiracy.

    Finally, thanks to France2 for having tried, nonetheless. It is obviously difficult for the official media to question official explanations. This is the reason for the existence of the non-official media.

    [1] “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.”

    “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. On 16 September 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.”

    “In a videotape recovered by US forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad, bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi in a way that indicates foreknowledge. The tape was broadcast on various news networks on 13 December 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

    “In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[80][90] In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.” Source:

    [2] On dit qu’il a interprété des pistes archéologiques des Mayenne préhistoriques comme témoignant que Jésus Christ aurait visité en Amérique.

    Pages