Thursday, May 03, 2007

Sibel Edmonds, George Tenet's lies, and al Qaeda's nukes

While we're piling on George Tenet, I wanted to pick up on one particular lie from his 60 Minutes interview.

Tenet says "If al Qaeda were to acquire nuclear capability, the thousands of weapons we have would be irrelevant."

According to previous articles by former FBI translator & whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Tenet's statement appears to be a lie.

In Sibel's Nov 06 blockbuster article "The Highjacking of a Nation" where she outlines her case for all to see, she writes:
"Here is what CIA Director Porter Goss said bluntly before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2004,
“It may be only a matter of time before Al Qaeda or other groups attempt to use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. We must focus on that.”
And we know that he knows; has known for the longest time!"

I asked Sibel if that means what I thought she means - that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons - and she confirmed that's what she meant. (Granted, Sibel's definition of al Qaeda sometimes appear to diverge from what is commonly known as 'al Qaeda.' I'll have more on that in a later post).

If ex-CIA Director Porter Goss has known this 'for the longest time' - then ex-CIA Director George Tenet surely must also know the same. So we know Tenet is lying about that. And that's troubling.

Of course, when we're dealing with Sibel Edmonds' case, there's so much that's troubling...

It's troubling to know that al Qaeda has nukes. It's troubling to know that at least two CIA Directors, Tenet and Goss, are lying about what they know. It's troubling that al Qaeda got these nukes with the help of people in the US government. It's troubling that the US government agencies (FBI, CIA) have known about this all along, and done nothing about it. (see here for supporting documentation)

In other Sibel news, we still haven't had an answer from Waxman's office regarding "Let Sibel Edmonds Speak" - our call for new public hearings into her case. It looks like we'll have some new content to work off toward the end of next week - and we'll use that to put pressure on Waxman again. I'll keep you posted. (let me know if you want to get on my mailing list for whenever I have new Sibel-related news)



Anonymous said...

Luke, Sign me up for the mailing list .....Barbara ( heading for Canada ) Thanks

Enlightenment said...

Hmm. Not to go off on a tangent, but from reading Sibel's white paper it would appear that she supports the "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters" nonsense. Obviously she is a LIHOPer (Let It Happen On Purpose), of the school of thought that 9/11 was a "terrorist" attack (in her case she is calling it state-sponsored, with Saudi Arabia as the sponsor) which the U.S. government simply "allowed to happen", as opposed to an inside job cut from whole cloth (the MIHOP or Make It Happen On Purpose school of thought). This has always puzzled me about Sibel Edmonds. Surely she is a very intelligent woman, and also just as surely she has spent considerable time investigating various aspects of the 9/11 event. Which is why it puzzles me as to why would she be devoutly LIHOP as opposed to MIHOP. The LIHOP theory is intellectually bankrupt, as it basically accepts the "official" version of events that morning with the important exception of trading "they had no idea this could happen" for "they knew it would happen and let it happen". As LIHOP gives the "official" story a pass on its numerous easily-proven impossibilities and long string of "coincidences" that make a mockery of the laws of probability, LIHOP can be considered no more plausible than the "official" story itself. LIHOP demurs on the matters of the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 that would be impossible to occur like they did without explosives, the impossible cell phone calls, the magical passport that "survived" everything to be "found" a few days later near Ground Zero, several magical "hijackers" turning up alive days AFTER 9/11 wanting to know why they were wrongfully accused, the ridiculous fable of the "hijacker pilots" being neither skilled enough to master Cessnas let alone airliners and not Muslim enough to be willing to kill themselves to take some "infidels" with them (remember the liquor-drinking, cocaine-snorting, strip club-attending, pork chop-eating "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists"?), the painfully obvious fact that what hit the Pentagon wasn't an airliner, the fact that the part of the Pentagon hit was the part farthest away from Rumsfeld and the top brass (also the part hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with fewest military personnel present, also the part of the Pentagon that had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to better prevent a fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building), the obvious shooting down of whatever crashed in Shanksville as the two debris fields are miles apart meaning it disintegrated in midair, and the many other things that render the "official" version of 9/11 events no more believable than that pathological liar character on Saturday Night Live. If LIHOP is willing to give them a pass on all of those (it is) and instead claim that this impossible fairy tale was "allowed to happen" instead of the only explanation that fits with the facts, that it was MADE to happen, a U.S. government false-flag operation, then LIHOP will end up on the ashheap of history along with the "official" story. LIHOP, with the possible exception of making more people who might not otherwise question the "official" version of 9/11 start to look into the details of it and hopefully eventually graduate to MIHOP, aside from that LIHOP helps nobody but the Cheney administration, in that it is a safety valve for public disbelief in the "official" story while leading down a blind alley. It diverts attention away from MIHOP and also can provide a framework for (when the need eventually arises) what is known as a limited hangout, where the government admits to a smaller amount of wrongdoing in the hope that the public will chew on that and think it's the whole meal. When they need to they might say "OK, well we have 'known' for a while now that SOME 'rogue' elements in the government LET 9/11 happen", quickly followed up by the ritual denunciation of and prosecution of a handful of scapegoats. LIHOP dovetails nicely with that process.

Which makes me wonder about Sibel Edmonds. Why would a very intelligent, well-read, supposedly well-informed individual who claims to have "insider" information from her years at the F.B.I., not be MIHOP instead of LIHOP?

I know this might make you cringe Lukery and I apologize for that, but one must also consider the possibility that Sibel Edmonds is part of the cover-up, a tool to be used when the regime needs to conduct a limited hangout. Her being repeatedly muzzled by the government would then lend false credence to what she says when that event arises, making her seem like a genuine whistleblower, and lend false credence to the LIHOP limited hangout. I am not saying this is definite, just that it is a possibility that needs to be considered. Has anyone ever asked her about the numerous impossibilities in the LIHOP matter that render it untenable?

lukery said...

i think she's careful to restrict her comments to what she knows as fact.

for example, she knows that there's a coverup.

noise said...

Enlightenment, who do you think the alleged hijackers were? Do you have any particular theories as to the how and the attacks went down and why you believe your theory best explains the how? For example, if cell phones don't work at altitude then why would plotters suggest this happened? If it was an inside job why were the plotters so sloppy? In hindsight it's easy to say they had nothing to worry about (as in being charged with treason).

PS. I recently heard that Rowland Morgan, the author of 9/11 Revealed, has evidently discovered that Flight 77 did not have airphones installed.

Enlightenment said...

Lukery-- Physics are a fact, they aren't opinion. It is impossible, and I do mean IMPOSSIBLE for the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 to have "collapsed" anywhere near the manner in which they did without massive use of explosives. Common sense tells one that when one looks at the rate at which the "collapses" occurred, freefall rate in air, meaning the uppermost floors fell THROUGH the majority of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air. Meaning something (explosives) had to have reduced it to a state of offering no more resistance than air, otherwise even if the "collapses" COULD have started (they couldn't) they would have taken longer for the "collapse" by many orders of magnitude. This is simple common sense. Plus the voluminous video evidence that shows squibs shooting out, most noticeable on WTC # 7 but also seen on the Towers. Watch the footage of # 7 and it is so obvious a child can tell what it is.

Add to that the numerous other things rendering the "nineteen hijackers" myth impossible that I mentioned above that anyone who takes an afternoon to look into the details of 9/11 will see, and you will see how easily-provable it is that the "nineteen hijackers" crap is just that, crap. And as for sticking to things she can prove, why then did she go out of her way to claim that it was not only state-sponsored but even claim a specific country, Saudi Arabia? I say again, has anyone ever asked her about the mountain of impossibilities rendering the "nineteen hijackers" bullshit unbelievable and impossible?

Noise-- There were no actual hijackings that morning. The "hijackers" were patsies, C.I.A. assets whose task wasn't to comandeer any airliners at all, but rather to leave behind a trail of B-movie-quality phony "evidence" to flesh out the "nineteen hijackers" myth. That's it. That's why they weren't even capable of mastering Cessnas (let alone airliners), they didn't HAVE to be. That's why they were the polar opposite of genuine Islamic fundamentalists, instead drinking liquor, eating pork chops, snorting coke and frequenting strip bars, all against Islam for even normal Muslims, let alone people who are supposedly so devoted to Islam that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives to take some "infidels" with them. They sound much more like westernized, Americanized individuals who care little at all for Islam, and just happen to have been born into that religion but not practicing Muslims obviously, and the idea that people such as that could be "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" is so far-fetched as to be laughable. Then consider that where some got (rudimentary) flight training, Pensacola Naval Air Station, the "cradle of U.S. Navy aviation", making them much more likely to be C.I.A. assets than "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists". No, these guys were never intended to hijack any airliners, and they most certainly did not.

Tracking the “hijacker” assets:

“Hijackers” receiving flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station:

Not all of the "nineteen" were C.I.A. assets, several were not even involved, being victims of passport theft overseas whose names and photos were used for padding out the too-small list of actual "hijacker" assets. This is why days AFTER 9/11, several of the "hijackers" turned up alive and well, wondering why they were being wrongfully accused.

Yet we see the same nineteen faces and nineteen names as the "hijackers", and the F.B.I. denies there has been a mix-up:

And how many "20th hijackerS" have we been through now? Come on, it's phony. Certainly the assets themselves didn't know what their end purpose behind leaving this there and making a scene there, or else they wouldn't have gone along with it, but of course it would be compartmentalized with nobody knowing more that what they need to know to carry out their assigned tasks, the assets not knowing they would be disposed of most likely the morning of 9/11 or very shortly thereafter, so nobody could call in some radio show in October and say "Hey, I just saw Mohammed Atta at the Denny's!". So that's almost certainly the truth behind the "nineteen hijackers" themselves. And almost certainly the phony trail of "evidence" (like leaving a Koran on a barstool, the "suicide" note that sounded like it wasn't written by a Muslim etc.) is what was picked up on by anyone from the F.B.I. who was on the trail of these patsies.

Also consider, militating against the "nineteen hijackers" theory is that neither the Pentagon crash nor the Shanksville one looked anything like an airliner crash. The pictures taken right after the crash show nothing but small pieces, with no wings, no fuselage, no tail section, and not even a gouge in the lawn.

Here are some Pentagon photos taken after the section "collapsed":

Tell me if those look to you like an airliner crashed there. They sure didn't to Jamie MacEntyre there on the scene minutes later, who said on the air very plainly that it was apparant no airliner crashed there. The next day CNN retracted his statement for him, and for being obedient he is now SENIOR Pentagon correspondent. They didn't look to him like an airliner crash for the same reason they don't look in the photos like one, because it wasn't an airliner that crashed there. If it was it would have had to first do a high-G-force corkscrew turn to come in on the best possible side so as to not unduly endanger Rumsfeld and the top brass, so as to hit the part that had been heavily structurally reinforced just beforehand to better prevent a fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building, the part with the least amount of military personnel present. If the "airliner" somehow did that, it still had to zoom along mere feet off the ground at several hundred miles per hour, and somehow inexplicably (for an airliner) not clip its wing on the corner of the Naval Annex on its way in. All this while flying so low as to, from the place struck on the Pentagon, be dragging its engine nacelles feet below the ground in order to hit it. Yet no furrows in the lawn. Five years later, where is video footage showing an airliner crashing into the Pentagon? First there were the doctored five frames of the "tollbooth" video which we mysteriously never saw as video, only in still frames, and now remember their latest stunt, which they pulled off the air after a day because it was so fake? Where they say "now in this frame you see the nose of it, then it disappears, then you see the explosion". When there were several camaras on the Pentagon pointing at the crash site and at least three civilian security camaras nearby pointing at it whose tapes were confiscated by the F.B.I. within minutes of the crash. If they had video footage that actually shows what the "official" story claims then we would have seen it on the news on about September 12th.

As for the Shanksville crash, the debris fields show, like the Pentagon crash, nothing but small parts, no wings, fuselage, tail section etc., nothing that one would find in the crash of an actual airliner. Here is rare early footage from the Shanksville crash site:

And photos:

The tiny parts were also found in more than one debris field miles apart, meaning whatever it was disintegrated in midair into tiny chunks rather than plowed into the ground as per the "official" story.

Meaning the "flight that fought back" is another bullshit fairy tale. No wonder when "Mark Bingham" called his mother he said "Hi mom, it's me, Mark Bingham", sounding a hell of a lot more like someone reading from names on a list than someone calling their own mom. Also consider that a visa belonging to one of the "hijacker" patsies was "found" at one of the debris fields, magically surviving intact, just like its cousin the magic passport of another "hijacker" patsy "found" near Ground Zero in Manhattan.

Starting to sound like a bad B-movie yet? These are the final pieces of the "evidence" trail to try to make the "nineteen hijackers" fable sound a little more believable (on its face, until you consider both how ridiculous and convenient it is for these to "survive" plane crashes and a building "collapse"). In answer to your question regarding the cell phones and why would the planners use that if it is so easily disprovable, that would be because especially during the initial shock of 9/11, your average American is not going to think of things like that, instead it will be much more valuable as another bit of "evidence" to flesh out the story, something to answer "Why didn't anyone try to resist?", and a tale of "American bravery" sure to leave not a dry eye in the house, at a time when a jingoistic tale of [fake] heroism was just what the national psyche needed after getting such a bad [self-inflicted] bludgeoning. Though one or two people who work for cell phone companies at the time expressed their extreme surprise that "any calls would go through at all", this was swept under the rug as "just one of those odd occurrances" and it wasn't until a while later that the Achilles experiments were done. Why would they claim to "find" the magic passport of a "hijacker" near Ground Zero and "find" the magic visa of another "hijacker" and his magical red bandanna in pristine condition both at Shanksville when it sounds far-fetched to say the least? Because the only people who are talking about these things now are people who already know that 9/11 was a fake, everyone else has forgotten about details like this, and at the time of 9/11 everyone was in such a state of psychological shock that they didn't think about the implausibility of "little details" like that, instead since the public "knew" that 9/11 was an "Al Qaeda terror attack", things that SHOULD tip people off as phony "evidence" only acted to reinforce the "official" story in the public mind at the time. Why were they so sloppy? Well, if they were TOO sloppy they either would have failed on 9/11 to do what they intended or would have been found out as it being a false flag operation on that morning or later that day. But yes, they made some mistakes, as they're only human like the rest of us and considering how complex the 9/11 false-flag operation was, how many moving parts, it is understandable that some bits fly off the machine here and there so to speak, but the important thing was cementing in the public consciousness their version of what happened, which they did. As for any theories on exactly HOW the attacks were carried out, let's first digest what I've posted about the impossibility of the "nineteen hijackers" hijacking anything and flying it into buildings. Then we can move on to what appears to be the only plausible explanation as to what crashed into what.

Enlightenment said...

P.S.-- Lukery, just the other day you were saying that you think "Al Qaeda" likely doesn't exist at all, now you are saying you think it has nukes. With all due respect, what gives?

noise said...

Thanks for the response Enlightenment.

I've listened to my fair share of Edmonds' interviews. She did tell Alex Jones (after being asked about 40 times) that she wouldn't be surprised if 9/11 was an inside job. The impression I've gotten is that she sticks to what she knows from her FBI translation duties so far as public commentary goes. I could be wrong but I believe Edmonds' reference to Saudi sponsorship comes from the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry which Sen. Graham admits are about Saudi involvement.

Enlightenment said...

Most welcome Noise. Undoubtedly the Saudi intelligence has intimate relations with the C.I.A. and I would suspect that the Saudi officials mentioned as supporting the "hijacker" patsies inside the U.S. were Saudi intel and working hand in hand with the C.I.A. if in fact anything in Graham's inquiry is true. Judging by the 9/11 Commission, I'm pretty skeptical of anything emanating from Congress that purports to be an inquiry into 9/11. Regardless, it is certainly possible Saudi intel agents were working with C.I.A. in handling the patsies but definitely not INDEPENDENTLY of them. When one considers that "Al Qaeda" was a C.I.A. creation and continues to be directed by C.I.A. as a sock puppet, any Saudi "involvement" would have to be considered in that light. My problem with Sibel is that she seems to unquestioningly support the "nineteen hijackers" scenario when it takes all of an afternoon of looking into the "hijackers'" details to easily see that they didn't hijack anything. Just like so many other aspects of the "official" story, the "nineteen hijackers" myth doesn't pass the smell test, and that's being kind. Does Sibel Edmonds really believe that those guys were what the "official" myth says they were? REALLY??

noise said...

As for any theories on exactly HOW the attacks were carried out, let's first digest what I've posted about the impossibility of the "nineteen hijackers" hijacking anything and flying it into buildings.

You don't think planes were hijacked by somebody using fake ID's? I'm aware of problems with the hijackings...cell phones, no pilots keying in the 4 digit hijack code on their transponder, manifest issues...but I find it hard to believe everything was faked. I've researched the problems with the crash sites and agree they present problems. The question comes back to why plotters would attempt something so complex.

lukery said...

With all due respect, what gives?
E - the (tentative) answer is in the definition of 'al-qaeda'

i'll try to answer more concretely soon...

lukery said...

Noise - you are (mostly) correct about Sibel/Graham - see

of course, you always have to read through the lines a little with sibel.

lukery said...

... adding, btw, that sibel often points to the fact that the entire initial (CIA) report is still entirely redacted
(she also notes, repeatedly, that none of the official 911Comm is redacted)

lukery said...

Does Sibel Edmonds really believe that those guys were what the "official" myth says they were? REALLY??

i think she believes that there were people known as 'hijackers' on the planes.

noise said...

IMO, LIHOP and MIHOP are not helpful because LIHOP makes no sense. There is no "letting" involved. Obstructing investigations is a willful act. Ignoring warnings and not getting them to the officials who could best use the intel is a willful act. Thus, MIHOP=LIHOP.

I understand the difference between a full blown black op/psy op vs. a piggy back operation. From reading Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott I get the sense that 9/11 was a mix of the two...a bunch of students (amateurs) got caught up in radical Islam and were recruited by al Qaeda and sent to carry out the attacks. At that point certain elements of US intel (perhaps privatized) decided to make sure the attacks were successful. That would include actions like planting evidence, demolition and the use of hijacker doubles.

I would label this speculation as I still don't have a good grasp of what happened.

noise said...


I can't read Tenet's book. His slam dunk clarification is too fucked up.

I did read his chapter on 9/11 missteps. He says he told the FBI that Moussaoui had links to Chechen terrorists. I believe that the official story was that French intelligence gave the FBI some intel but it was deemed insufficient to issue a FISA warrant. Tenet says the intel he shared was definitely enough for a FISA warrant. He also claims that Pickard didn't know Moussaoui was arrested.

lukery said...

I understand the difference between a full blown black op/psy op vs. a piggy back operation.
there's a third option - outsourcing. e.g. Cheney says to Perle "Hey, PoD, you know bin laden, right? Doesn't he deliver you all that heroin? Sweet. Next time you see him, tell him that we'll invade iraq if he tries that bojinka thingee again. oh btw - i don't like the skyline in nyc, and the X-Wing of the Pentagon will be being repaired in the last half of 2001"

lukery said...

bummer about the book thing :-(

noise said...

I read several of the articles about his book and watched a few of his interviews.

It made me sick. Even Hitchens slammed him.

Enlightenment said...

Noise-- "You don't think planes were hijacked by somebody using fake ID's?"

No. They don't appear to have been hijacked by anyone, fake IDs or otherwise. My point is, the people that the official myth claims were the "hijackers" were in more than one way not capable of doing what they are accused of. The "fake ID" matter is the matter of several passports of people completely uninvolved being used to fatten out the list of "hijackers", as the number of actual "hijacker" assets was too small to be believable. Also consider, why on earth would "Al Qaeda" steal a few passports to use as fake IDs when Atta, al-Shehhi, Hanjour etc. all used their real names and passports? Why go to the trouble to get some passports for lesser-important "hijackers" and let the "ringleader" and other important ones keep using their real identities? It makes no sense, but makes perfect sense if the identity-theft victims were uninvolved and simply had their stolen passports used to pad the "hijacker" list.

One reason the people accused of being the "hijacker pilots" couldn't have pulled it off is lack of skill. For example, the ones given the hardest task of all, swooping in just above the ground at hundreds of miles per hour to hit the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, Almihdhar and Alhazmi, were three fuck-ups who couldn't fly small planes worth a damn let alone pull off in an airliner what they are credited with. Though Almihdhar and Alhazmi were said to be the first two of the cadre to be recruited by KSM, with the BBC saying "KSM trained the first two suicide operatives recruited - Saudi nationals Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar - basic English, and how to read a phone book, make travel reservations, use the internet and encode communications" (See: ), they were totally inept at even the most basic skills of flying even small planes. Cox News Service has an article quoting their instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, Rick Garza, as saying "I told the FBI they seemed like 'Dumb and Dumber". (See: ). Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post quotes Garza as saying "They had no idea what they were doing" and that he sat them down and told them "This is not going to work out". (See: ). In the same article she describes Hani Hanjour's lack of skill: "Certainly, Hanjour's own piloting skills were shaky. He took lessons at a Scottsdale, Ariz., flight school four years ago, but eventually was asked to leave by instructors who said his skills were poor and his manner difficult. Just a month ago, instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie flew with him and deemed him unfit to rent a plane by himself."

In the same article she mentions the other glaring reason why it's easy to see that these "hijackers" didn't hijack anything, that they weren't anywhere near devout enough to be willing to die in order to take some "infidels" with them. Far from being a "bunch of students (amateurs) [that] got caught up in radical Islam" as Noise called them, they appear to have had little devotion to their faith at all. She says they "were Islamic fundamentalists who nevertheless indulged in Western culture, from fast food to hard liquor", and goes on to say: "In ways that were curiously out of sync with Islamic orthodoxy, these young men seemed to revel in their brief taste of American life. They wore shorts and T-shirts. Last month, Majed Moqed, 22, another hijacker on American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, stopped into a Beltsville store that rents adult videos. After scanning the titles, he did not rent any, but he returned at least once. Some of the hijackers who passed through New Jersey during the summer developed the habit of buying doughnuts by the boxful and meals from a Chinese carryout. Others frequently stopped by a bar at night for Salem or Parliament cigarettes, Heineken or Budweiser beer." An article in the Miami Herald mentions Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, the "hijacker pilots" that according to the "official" story flew the "airliners" into the North and South Towers respectively, getting drunk at an oyster bar: "It happened at Shuckums, a raw bar on Hollywood's Harrison Street. Al-Shehhi and Atta knocked back drinks -- forbidden by the Islamic teachings they so zealously embraced. The men bickered with a bartender over a $48 tab." Huh? How can they "so zealously" embrace Islamic teachings if they are knocking back drinks? This is an oxymoron stretched into a sentence. (See: ). An article in the St. Petersburg Times describes the same situation: "A bar manager in Hollywood told FBI agents he saw the two men drinking heavily last week. Tony Amos, the night manager at Shuckums Bar in Hollywood, told the Palm Beach Post that Atta argued with him over his tab. When Amos asked Atta whether he could pay, Atta got offended and said, "I'm a pilot for American Airlines and I can pay my bill," bartender Patricia Idrissi said. "They were wasted," said Idrissi,, who said she directed the two men to a Chinese restaurant a few doors down. They later returned and each ordered about five drinks, she said. The bill came to $48 and the men began arguing in broken English. After the confrontation with Amos, she said, Atta paid her with a $100 bill from a thick wad of currency in large denominations." (See: ). Now where would a man get a thick wad of currency if according to the Miami Herald's article quoted above "They held no obvious jobs"? The same article says "They kept multiple addresses or changed them often, some by the month" and that "Bank accounts were opened. Leases were signed". Atta also did cocaine. And Atta and al-Shehhi were getting drunk in a strip bar called the Pink Pony the night before 9/11 (not a wise idea if you have to get up early the next morning to fly "airliners" into buildings), an article in CBS saying "In Daytona Beach, [John] Kap said he told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran - the sacred book of Islam - that was left at the bar." (See: ). Hmmm. Kinda un-Islamic behavior for such "devout" "Islamic fundamentalists" to be getting lapdances, getting shitfaced drunk, and leaving the Islamic holy book at the bar, isn't it? In addition to the Quran left there as "evidence", they also made their presence known by spewing anti-American sentiments and threatening bloodshed, the article quoting the bar owner as saying "They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed". Which completely blows out of the water the "theory" that they really WERE devout Islamic fundamentalists but "in disguise", as if they were trying to blend in then why draw attention to themselves by spewing anti-American sentiment there? Because they were TOLD to, to add more "evidence" to flesh out the "hijackers" myth? Wow, ya' think so? Then consider that in addition to Atta and al-Shehhi going to strip bars and Majed Moqed showing an interest in looking at adult videos, Mohamed Atta lived with a girlfriend for a while, Amanda Keller, yet wasn't married to her. Ziad Jarrah when in Griefswald, Germany, also had a live-in girlfriend, also of course not married, and a classmate of his girlfriend's criticized Jarrah for it, saying "I used to criticize him for living with her. By our religion, this living together before marriage is not allowed". But Jarrah's girlfriend's classmate wasn't a "devout Islamic fundamentalist" accused of flying an airliner into a building to kill "infidels". But this contradicts other parts of the "official" myth that say Atta became radicalized while in Germany, with Financial Times reporting that "Between 1995 and 1997, though, Atta began to change, spending long periods away from university and returning with stronger religious beliefs and a beard. He set up a Muslim student society at the technical university, and became even less friendly - and sometimes hostile - to fellow women students." (See: ). The C.I.A. needs to keep its story straight because Atta's actions make the idea of him becoming radicalized nonsense. I ask you, do any of these "hijackers" sound like anything remotely close to being "devout Islamic fundamentalists"?

More on the "hijacker" asset patsies subject either tomorrow or the next day, depending upon when I have time.

noise said...

The film Who Killed John O'Neill suggests al Qaeda in the US was basically a (CIA?) drug running operation located in Florida. That is what Hopsicker has reported...that Atta had ties to drug running. According to this theory someone got the idea to frame the drug runners as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The problem is that Hopsicker's Atta (drug runner) cannot be McDermott's (Perfect Soldiers) Atta (German architecture student, Islamic fundamentalist).

Maybe the drug runners (intelligence assets/hired guns) framed the Islamic students (Jarrah, Atta, Shehhi, etc.). Why? I don't know.

Another strange account:

This is from Unsafe At Any Altitude by Susan and Joe Trento:

The authors detail the account of Eric Gill who worked a security checkpoint at Dulles. Gill said that on 9/10 he got into a confrontation with several men trying to enter an employees only door. The problem was that only a couple of the men had valid security cards. Gill told the the men without ID cards they couldn't go through the door. One man got upset and after a brief argument with Gill all the men decided to leave. Later, Gill identified the man who got upset as Nawaf al-Hazmi (alleged Flight 77 hijacker) and identified one of the other men as Marwan al-Shehhi (alleged hijacker who piloted Flight 175 out of Logan).