How The FBI Protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer

New Revelations about Ali Mohamed


by Dr. Peter Dale Scott
October 8, 2006

The following text is an expanded version of Peter Dale Scott's Talk at Berkeley, September 24, 2006, entitled "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out.”

I want to talk tonight about using the 9/11 Report as evidence – evidence of what is being suppressed. We can use it in this way because some parts of the Report are accurate and reliable. This base line of reliability helps define other parts of the Report which are misleading, and in a few places I believe dead wrong. These relevant omissions and deceptions should be taken as clues as to what is being suppressed, and where the hidden truth lies.

I shall talk of the Report’s occasional resistance to the truth. Let me give an easy and incontrovertible analogy from the Warren Report. The Warren Report got many things right; but it also minimized the links between Jack Ruby and organized crime.1 This resistance was a clue that Ruby in fact was crime-related and that this was important. The House Select Committee on Assassinations, even though they got many things wrong, amply confirmed the importance of Ruby’s crime links.

We find similar symptomatic resistance in the 9/11 Report.

1) Here is an easy example: the identity of the hijackers. The FBI had distributed a list naming 18 of the 19 alleged hijackers by 10 AM on 9/11.2 Within two weeks the identities of at least six of the hijackers were unclear; as men in Arab countries with the same names and histories, and in some cases the same photographs, were protesting that they were alive and innocent.3 In response to these protests, FBI Director Robert Mueller soon acknowledged that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt.4 But there is no discussion of this problem in the detailed treatment of the alleged hijackers in the 9/11 Commission Report.5

2) WTC-7. This is obviously a big area of doubt, as you have just heard. The Report’s solution was not to mention WTC-7 at all. And yet Kean and Hamilton, the 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs, have the nerve to claim in their new book that after the Report “those believing conspiracy theories now had to rely solely on imagination, their theories having been disproved by facts.”6 In other words, they are still covering up that there was a cover up.

3) The U.S. government’s intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter.

In our book, 9/11 and Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, I wrote of Ali Mohamed, the close ally of Osama bin Laden and his mentor Ayman al-Zawahiri.7 It is now generally admitted that Ali Mohamed (known in the al Qaeda camps as Abu Mohamed al Amriki — "Father Mohamed the American")8 worked for the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. Special Forces. As he later confessed in court, he also aided the terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, a co-founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and by then an aide to bin Laden, when he visited America to raise money.9

The 9/11 Report mentioned him, and said that the plotters against the U.S. Embassy in Kenya were “led” (their word) by Ali Mohamed.10 That’s the Report’s only reference to him, though it’s not all they heard.

Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney who negotiated a plea bargain and confession from Ali Mohamed, said this in testimony to the Commission.

Ali Mohamed. …. trained most of al Qaeda’s top leadership – including Bin Laden and Zawahiri – and most of al Qaeda’s top trainers. He gave some training to persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing…. From 1994 until his arrest in 1998, he lived as an American citizen in California, applying for jobs as an FBI translator.11

Patrick Fitzgerald knew Ali Mohamed well. In 1994 he had named him as an unindicted co-conspirator in the New York landmarks case, yet allowed him to remain free. This was because, as Fitzgerald knew, Ali Mohamed was an FBI informant, from at least 1993 and maybe 1989.12 Thus, from 1994 “until his arrest in 1998 [by which time the 9/11 plot was well under way], Mohamed shuttled between California, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia and at least a dozen other countries.”13 Shortly after 9/11, Larry C. Johnson, a former State Department and CIA official, faulted the FBI publicly for using Mohamed as an informant, when it should have recognized that the man was a high-ranking terrorist plotting against the United States.14

As I say in our book, in 1993 Ali Mohamed had been detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada, when he inquired at an airport after an incoming al Qaeda terrorist who turned out to be carrying two forged Saudi passports. Mohamed immediately told the RCMP to make a phone call to the United States, and the call secured his release.15 We’ve since been told that it was Mohamed’s West coast FBI handler, John Zent, “who vouched for Ali and got him released.”16

This release enabled Ali to go on to Kenya, take pictures of the U.S. Embassy, and deliver them to bin Laden for the Embassy bombing plot.

In August 2006 there was a National Geographic Special on Ali Mohamed. We can take this as the new official fallback position on Ali Mohamed, because John Cloonan, the FBI agent who worked with Fitzgerald on Mohamed, helped narrate it. I didn’t see the show, but here’s what TV critics said about its contents:

Ali Mohamed manipulated the FBI, CIA and U.S. Army on behalf of Osama bin Laden. Mohamed trained terrorists how to hijack airliners, bomb buildings and assassinate rivals. [D]uring much of this time Mohamed was …, an operative for the CIA and FBI, and a member of the U.S. Army.17 …Mohamed turned up in FBI surveillance photos as early as 1989, training radical Muslims who would go on to assassinate Jewish militant Meir Kahane and detonate a truck bomb at the World Trade Center. He not only avoided arrest, but managed to become an FBI informant while writing most of the al Qaeda terrorist manual and helping plan attacks on American troops in Somalia and U.S. embassies in Africa.18

That Mohamed trained al Qaeda in hijacking planes and wrote most of the al Qaeda terrorist manual is confirmed in a new book by Lawrence Wright, who has seen US Government records.19 Let me say this again: one of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes was an operative for FBI, CIA, and the Army.

Yet this TV show, just before the 9/11 anniversary, was itself another cover-up. It suppressed for example the information given it about Mohamed’s detention and FBI-ordered release in Canada. According to Peter Lance, the principal author for the show, the show suppressed many other sensational facts. Here is Lance’s chief claim: that Fitzgerald and his FBI counterpart on the Bin Laden task force, John Cloonan, learned shortly after 9/11 that Mohamed “knew every twist and turn of” the 9/11 plot.20

Within days of 9/11 Cloonan rushed backed from Yemen and interviewed Ali, whom the Feds had allowed to slip into witness protection, and demanded to know the details of the plot. At that point Ali wrote it all out - including details of how he'd counseled would-be hijackers on how to smuggle box cutters on board aircraft and where to sit, to effect the airline seizures.21

If all these latest revelations about Ali Mohamed are true, then:

1) a key planner of the 9/11 plot, and trainer in hijacking, was simultaneously an informant for the FBI.

2) This operative trained the members for all of the chief Islamist attacks inside the United States – the first WTC bombing, the New York landmarks plot, and finally 9/11, as well as the attacks against Americans in Somalia and Kenya.

3) And yet for four years Mohamed was allowed to move in and out of the country as an unindicted conspirator. Then, unlike his trainees, he was allowed to plea-bargain. To this day he may still not have been sentenced for any crime.22

Peter Lance has charged that Fitzgerald had evidence before 1998 to implicate Mohamed in the Kenya Embassy bombing, yet did nothing and let the bombing happen.23 In fact, the FBI was aware back in 1990 that Mohamed had engaged in terrorist training on Long Island; yet it acted to protect Mohamed from arrest, even after one of his trainees had moved beyond training to an actual assassination.24

Mohamed’s trainees were all members of the Al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, which served as the main American recruiting center for the Makhtab-al-Khidimat, the “Services Center” network that after the Afghan war became known as al Qaeda.25 The Al-Kifah Center was headed in 1990 by the blind Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who like Ali Mohamed had been admitted to the United States, despite being on a State Department Watch List. 26 As he had done earlier in Egypt, the sheikh “issued a fatwa in America that permitted his followers to rob banks and kill Jews.”27

In November 1990, three of Mohamed’s trainees conspired together to kill Meir Kahane, the racist founder of the Jewish Defense League. The actual killer, El Sayyid Nosair, was caught by accident almost immediately; and by luck the police soon found his two co-conspirators, Mahmoud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh, waiting at Nosair’s house. They found much more:

There were formulas for bomb making, 1,440 rounds of ammunition, and manuals [supplied by Ali Mohamed] from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg marked “Top Secret for Training,” along with classified documents belonging to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The police found maps and drawings of New York City landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, Times Square – and the World Trade Center. The forty-seven boxes of evidence they collected also included the collected sermons of blind Sheikh Omar, in which he exhorted his followers to “destroy the edifices of capitalism.”28

All three had been trained by Ali Mohamed back in the late 1980s at a rifle range, where the FBI had photographed them, before terminating this surveillance in the fall of 1989.29

The U.S. Government was thus in an excellent position to arrest, indict, and convict all of the terrorists involved, including Mohamed.

Yet only hours after the killing, Joseph Borelli, Chief of NYPD detectives, struck a familiar American note and pronounced Nosair a “lone deranged gunman.”30 Some time later, he actually told the press that “There was nothing [at Nosair’s house] that would stir your imagination…..Nothing has transpired that changes our opinion that he acted alone.”31

Borelli was not acting alone in this matter. His position was also that of the FBI, who said they too believed “that Mr. Nosair had acted alone in shooting Rabbi Kahane.” “The bottom line is that we can't connect anyone else to the Kahane shooting," an F.B.I. agent said.”32

In thus limiting the case, the police and FBI were in effect protecting Nosair’s two Arab co-conspirators in the murder of a U.S. citizen. Both of them were ultimately convicted in connection with the first WTC bombing, along with another Mohamed trainee, Nidal Ayyad. The 9/11 Report, summarizing the convictions of Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima, and the blind Sheikh for the WTC bombing and New York landmarks plots, calls it “this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort.”33 It says nothing about the suppressed evidence found in Nosair’s house, including “maps and drawings of New York City landmarks,” which if pursued should have prevented both plots from developing.

What explains the 9/11 Report’s gratuitous and undeserved praise for the superb effort of Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI in the New York landmarks case? How can it be “superb” to know that terrorists intend to blow up buildings, to lie to protect them from arrest, to allow them to bomb the WTC, and only then to arrest and convict them? Lance now alleges that Kenya was allowed to happen as well, before a few of the bombers there were convicted with the aid of the arch-plotter. This pattern of toleration can make for good arrest and conviction records, but at a terrible cost to public security.

Did the authors of the 9/11 Report recognize that here was an especially sensitive area, which if properly investigated would lead to past U.S. protection of terrorists?^This question returns us to Peter Lance’s charge that Fitzgerald had evidence before 1998 to implicate Mohamed in the Kenya Embassy bombing, yet did nothing and let the bombing happen. Did Fitzgerald have similar advance evidence before the 9/11 attack, and again do nothing as well? Skeptics will need a thorough investigation before they can be reassured that this is not the case.

As a first step, all U.S. agencies should release the full documentary record of their dealings with Ali Mohamed, the FBI and CIA informant who allegedly planned the details of the airline seizures. Then and only then will a close interrogation of Fitzgerald satisfy those who accuse members of the U.S. Government of assisting the 9/11 plot, or alternatively of failing to prevent 9/11 from happening.34

Now, what did the 9/11 Commission know about this scandalous situation? I suspect they knew more than they let on. Is it just a coincidence that they selected to write the staff reports about al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot, and conduct the relevant interviews, a man who had a personal stake in preventing the truth about Mohamed from coming out. This man was Dietrich Snell, who had been Fitzgerald’s colleague in the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s office. (Thus Snell presumably drafted the praise for the superb effort by his former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald and the FBI). Of the nine people on Snell’s team, all but one had worked for the U.S. Government, and all but two for either the Justice Department or the FBI.35

Keep in mind that what I have said so far is about a government-Mohamed connection and cover-up that goes back to at least 1990, long before the Bush-Cheney administrations. But the 9/11 Commission staff reports went out of their way to cover this up. The 9/11 Report, based on the Snell staff reports, mentions Mahmoud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh, two co-conspirators of Ramzi Yousef in the first WTC bombing of 1993 (72). It does not mention that these two men had been trained by Ali Mohamed, even though Fitzgerald referred obliquely to this fact in his testimony. Nor does it mention that, had it not been for a police and FBI cover-up protecting Ali Mohamed back in 1990, Abouhalima and Salameh should probably have been in jail at the time of the WTC bombing --for their involvement in the murder of Meir Kahane by Ali Mohamed’s trainees three years earlier.36

If I had had time today, I would have written about other key areas where the 9/11 Report shows resistance to relevant facts and allegations. Central to these, and to my forthcoming book on 9/11, would have been the Report’s failure to deal with important testimony challenging Vice President Cheney’s account of his conduct on 9/11, and in particular his important relationship (which the Report obscured) to the stand-down and shoot-down orders of that day. There was important testimony contradicting both Cheney and the Report itself from two eyewitnesses inside the White House, Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke, which the Report flagrantly, and symptomatically, failed to deal with.

But I consider the scandal of Ali Mohamed’s tolerated terrorism to be a still more fundamental problem, an on-going problem for which we need a more serious remedy than just putting a Democrat in the White House. As has happened after past intelligence fiascoes, our intelligence agencies were strengthened as a result of the 9/11 Commission, and their budgets increased.

It’s time to confront the reality that these agencies themselves, and their own sponsorship and protection of terrorist activities, have aggravated the greatest threats to our national security.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher.

1 Warren Report, 801.

2 Richard Clarke heard that the FBI had the names at 9:59 AM, the time of the collapse of WTC Tower 2. See Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 13-14; Thompson, The Terror Timeline, 441. This investigative tour de force is even more amazing when we consider that in the FBI, according to the 9/11 Report (77), “prior to 9/11 relatively few strategic analytic reports about counterterrorism had been completed. Indeed, the FBI had never completed an assessment of the overall terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland.”

3 Peter Dale Scott, “The 9/11 Commission Report’s Failure to Identify the Alleged Hijackers,” .

The mainstream U.S. press, such as the New York Times, later attributed the confusion about the hijackers’ identity to the number of different Arabs sharing the same names. But at least five shared histories as well as names with the alleged hijackers. Waleed al-Shehri told the BBC “that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco” (BBC, 9/23/01). Saeed al-Ghamdi, alive and flying planes in Tunisia, also studied at Florida flight schools, as late as 2001. According to the London Telegraph (9/23/01), CNN used his photograph in describing the hijacker with his name. Abdulaziz al-Omari acknowledged the same date of birth as the accused hijacker al-Omari, but claimed his passport was stolen when he was living in Denver, Colorado (London Telegraph, 9/23/01; Thompson, The Terror Timeline, 497).

4 BBC, 9/23/01; Newsday, 9/21/01; Paul Thompson, The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute (NewYork: HarperCollins/Regan Books, 2004), 498.

5 9/11 Report, 1-14, 215-42. Discussion in David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Errors and Omissions (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2005), 19-23.

6 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Knopf, 2006), 268.

7 David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott (eds.), 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2006), 74, 76-77.

8 San Francisco Chronicle, 9/21/01; Toronto Globe and Mail, 11/22/01.

9 This admitted connection to al-Zawahiri has led some to identify Mohamed (Abu Mohamed al Amriki) with the al-Amriki alleged by Yossef Bodansky to have acted as go-between between Zawahiri and the CIA: “In the first half of November 1997 Ayman al-Zawahiri met a man called Abu-Umar al-Amriki (al-Amriki means “the American”) at a camp near Peshawar, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. High-level Islamist leaders insist that in this meeting Abu-Umar al-Amriki made al-Zawahiri an offer: The United States would not interfere with or intervene to prevent the Islamists' rise to power in Egypt if the Islamist mujahideen currently in Bosnia-Herzegovina would refrain from attacking the U.S. forces there. Moreover, Abu-Umar al-Amriki promised a donation of $50 million (from unidentified sources) to Islamist charities in Egypt and elsewhere. This was not the first meeting between Abu-Umar al-Amriki and Zawahiri. Back in the 1980s Abu-Umar al-Amriki openly acted as an emissary for the CIA with various Arab Islamist militant and terrorist movements… then operating under the wings of the Afghan jihad…. In the late 1980s, in one of his meetings with Zawahiri, Abu-Umar al-Amriki suggested that Zawahiri would need “$50 million to rule Egypt." At the time, Zawahiri interpreted this assertion as a hint that Washington would tolerate his rise to power if he could raise this money. The mention of the magic figure, $50 million, by Abu-Umar al-Amriki in the November 1997 meeting was interpreted by Zawahiri and the entire Islamist leadership, including Osama bin Laden, as a reaffirmation of the discussions with the CIA in the late 1980s about Washington’s willingness to tolerate an Islamic Egypt. In 1997 the Islamist leaders were convinced that Abu-Umar al-Amriki was speaking for the CIA -- that is, the uppermost echelons of the Clinton administration” (Bodansky, Bin Laden, 212-13). As we shall see, it is the case that Mohamed was allowed to travel to Afghanistan even after his designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in 1994 (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/21/01).

10 9/11 Report, 68.

11 Patrick Fitzgerald, Testimony before 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004,, emphasis added. Actually Mohamed was in Santa Clara, California, by 1993 (New Yorker, 9/16/02). Fitzgerald was flagrantly dissembling. Even the mainstream account by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon (The Age of Sacred Terror [New York: Random House, 2002], 236) records that “When Mohamed was summoned back from Africa in 1993 [sic, Mohamed in his confession says 1994] to be interviewed by the FBI in connection with the case against Sheikh Rahman and his coconspirators, he convinced the agents that he could be useful to them as an informant.”

12 Peter Lance, “Triple Cross: National Geographic Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story,” Huffington Post, 8/29/06, Unfortunately Lance’s book on Mohamed, Triple Cross, was not yet available as this book went to press. Cf. Lawrence White, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 181-82; Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror (New York: Random House, 2002), 236;^Lawrence Wright, New Yorker, 9/16/02: “In 1989…Mohamed talked to an F.B.I. agent in California and provided American intelligence with its first inside look at Al Qaeda.”

13 Raleigh News & Observer, 10/21/01,

14 San Francisco Chronicle, 11/04/01. What was clear to Johnson cannot be clear to the American public. We have no way of knowing whether or not Mohamed forewarned his American handlers about the embassy bombings, or even (since his current whereabouts are a mystery) about 9/11. See below.

15 Toronto Globe and Mail, 11/22/01,; Peter Dale Scott, “How to Fight Terrorism,” California Monthly, September 2004, Mohamed’s companion, Essam Marzouk, is now serving 15 years of hard labor in Egypt, after having been arrested in Azerbaijan. Mohamed’s detention and release was months after the first WTC bombing in February 1993, and after the FBI had already rounded up two of the plotters whom they knew had been trained by Ali Mohamed.

16 Peter Lance, “Triple Cross: National Geographic Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story,” Huffington Post, 8/29/06, Unfortunately Lance’s book, Triple Cross, was not yet available as this book went to press.

17 Dave Shiflett, Bloomberg News, 8/28/06,

18 Glenn Garvin, Miami Herald,^

19 Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 181.

The Report claims (56) that “Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.” But Wright reports that Mohamed, while on a leave from the U.S. army, went to Afghanistan and trained “the first al-Qaeda volunteers in techniques of unconventional warfare, including kidnappings, assassinations, and hijacking planes.”^This was in 1988, one year before Mohamed left active U.S. Army service and joined the Reserve.

20 Peter Lance, “Triple Cross: National Geographic Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story,” Huffington Post, 8/29/06, Cloonan was the FBI agent in the Bin Laden squad who received the famous memo from Kenneth Williams in Phoenix recommending that the FBI compile a list of all the Arabs attending flight schools. He reportedly “wadded it into a ball and threw it against a wall. `Who’s going to conduct the thirty thousand interviews?’ he asked the supervisor in Phoenix” (Lawrence White, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 [New York: Knopf, 2006], 350).

21 Peter Lance, “Triple Cross: National Geographic Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story,” Huffington Post, 8/29/06, .

22 According to publicity for the National Geographic special, Mohamed is “currently in U.S. custody,” but “his whereabouts and legal status are closely guarded secrets” (Rocky Mountain News, 8/28/06, 2D). Lance wrote that Mohamed was put into the witness protection program. “David Runke [Ruhnke], a defense attorney in the African embassies bombing case, says, ``I think the most likely thing that will happen is he'll be released, he'll be given a new name and a new identity, and he will pick up a life someplace.'’' (Shiflett, Bloomberg News, 8/28/06). As of November 2001, Mohamed had not been sentenced and was still believed to be supplying information from his prison cell.

23 “Ali Mohamed had stayed in [El-Hage’s] Kenyan home in the mid 90's as they plotted the bombings. Another agent in Fitzie's squad Dan Coleman, had searched El-Hage's home a year before the bombings and found direct links to Ali Mohamed and yet Fitzgerald failed to connect the dots” (Lance, “Triple Cross,” Huffington Post, 8/29/06).

24 Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge (New York: Regan Books/ Harper Collins, 2003), 29-37.

25 Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2005), 278; John K. Cooley, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America, and International Terrorism (London: Pluto Press, 1999), 87-88; Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge, 29-31; Independent, 11/1/98.

26 Rahman was issued two visas, one of them “by a CIA officer working undercover in the consular section of the American embassy in Sudan” (Peter L. Bergen, Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden [New York: Free Press, 2001], 67). FBI consultant Paul Williams writes that Ali Mohamed “settled in America on a visa program controlled by the CIA” (Paul L. Williams, Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror [[Upper Saddle River, NJ]: Alpha/ Pearson Education, 2002], 117). Others allegedly admitted, despite being on the State Department watch list, were Mohamed Atta and possibly Ayman al-Zawahiri (Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism [Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2005], 205, 46).

27 Wright, The Looming Tower, 177.

28 Lance, 1000 Years, 34.

29 Lance, 1000 Years, 31; Peter Lance, Cover Up: What the Government Is Still Hiding about the War on Terror (New York: Regan Books/ HarperCollins, 2004), 25.

30 Newsday, 11/8/90; quoted in Lance, 1000 Years, 35.

31 New York Times, 11/8/90; Robert I. Friedman, Village Voice, 3/30/93.

32 New York Times, 12/16/90.

33 9/11 Report, 72.

34 Fitzgerald is of course the U.S. Attorney who for years has been investigating the leak of the name of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame. It could appear that he has been putting pressure on the Bush White House to forestall disclosure of his own (and possibly the CIA’s) embarrassing and improper relationship to the chief planner of the 9/11 plot.

35 Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedent, 273 (chapters); Lance, Cover Up, 212-20 (reports). Snell was assisted by Douglas MacEachin, the former CIA deputy Director for Intelligence.

36 Lance, 1000 Years, 31-35.

Alot to digest

but a key phrase...

"19 Let me say this again: one of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes was an operative for FBI, CIA, and the Army. MikeJr

According to Richard Clarke...

"The FBI had the names (of the hijackers) at 9:59 AM."

What time did Flight 93 crash? Between 10:03 and 10:06am.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Hey remember now, there was

Hey remember now, there was no way they could've connected the dots before 9/11

Peter Lance has more to say...

TRIPLE CROSS: Nat Geo Channel's Whitewash of the Ali Mohamed Story by Peter Lance

Ali Mohammed

Thanks for shedding some light on this shadowy guy. If we keep shedding more light, the cockroaches will start to scramble in all different directions.

Keep up the good work.

Let's break this story!!! Peter Dale Scott speaking again

9/11 Press for Truth premieres in Palo Alto with authors- Paul Thompson and Peter Dale Scott
Friday, October 27th 7 pm at Spangenberg Theater
Gunn High School, 780 Arastradero Road.

This film tells the story of the battle between the grieving families and the White House. The families won one battle and forced the Commission into existence, but they were distressed to witness the Commission's failure to address most of the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee. The documentary adapts Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline and pieces together news clips, buried stories, and government press conferences to reveal a pattern of lies, deception, and spin. The film raises questions about 9/11 that have led many families to express skepticism about the official story and demand a new investigation. The film will be followed by a discussion with Paul Thompson and Peter Dale Scott, editor of 9/11 and American Empire, both of whom have researched extensively the relationship between the terrorists and the US government.

$5 Admission, students with ID free, proceeds benefit the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance
(Paul Thompson and Peter Dale Scott help break the myth of "Al Qaeda" and show its incestuous relationship with the US government. If we really want to rid ourselves of the "Terrorist Problem"- we must make sure that we do not fund, train, assist, protect, "elect" terrorists, and purge them from public office.


I would LOVE to attend.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

9/11 Truthers do the good deed at Columbia University

Those aren't...

9/11 Truthers.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It's funny...

I just found out that someone attempted to vote someone out of a 9/11 Truth group because they're against illegal immigration.

All I'll say about illegal immigration is that there are laws in place (at the moment) for immigration, and those laws were put in place for a reason.

No one says you can't become an American, but there are legal ways in which to do so.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

That is so inaccurate to say

That is so inaccurate to say those kids were truthers. They were truly clueless. Those kids made me want to vomit. However, the guy they chased off the stage is a political shill if you read about him and is a thief and that movement is a neocon organization for political reasons to make it look like republican neocons are not pushing for global amnesty. 95% of americans want illegal immigration to stop. 40% of americans think 9/11 was an inside job. It's not the same people at all so stop saying that.

i love it, they sure aint

i love it, they sure aint 9/11 truthers but they still did good. chased those ignorant ass racist fucks right off the stage. the conservative blogosphere is going crazy over that one, hahaha.


Are they "ignorant ass racist f_cks", and why do you continue cursing at will when the owner of this site has asked repeatedly for people not to?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

clearly you dont know

clearly you dont know anything about the Minutemen and who they lay down with. neo nazis are only the half of it. oh, and i forgot you were a puritan, sorry i cussed and offended you.

Synopsis, please?

Can I get a quick synopsis of what that video shows and where the Truthers are in it? I can't get it to play.

They are not...

9/11 Truthers.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Refute this!

Here we go again, another dude who believes in "coincidences".

I betcha you believe that it is just a "coincidence" that this article about the patriotic 9/11 Truther act at Columbia,, just happens to be the same people who support the 9/11 Truth Movment here:

9/11 Truth showed its stuff at Columbia University!

Counterpunch Special: "Why Did the World Trade Towers Fall?"

My curiosity was prompted by this hint:

Special Investigation: Why Did the World Trade Towers Fall?

(on top of the page).

Really? And this is not just a paraphrase of FEMA / NIST reports? It is really a "special investigation"? Man, I'm impressed.... these guys must now be under a lot of pressure if they feel the need to take up the topic from their gatekeeper angle....

And whaaaaat?? This "Special Investigation" is available in the subscriber version only?!?

Anyone here able to post lots of quotes on some website (under "fair use" terms, blah blah)? Anyone already seen a public response to this counterpunch special already?

it shows a bunch of

it shows a bunch of protesters crashing the stage at a Minuteman rally on some college campus. the crowd went wild. there are no 9/11 activists in it. although, i guess you could call them truthers regardless.(just maybe not 9/11)

You're right.

I don't know anything about them. Show me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

you want me to hold your

you want me to hold your hand and do the research for you? heres a tip i can remember off hand, get the current(or possibly the issue before that one) of EXTRA!(the magazine of FAIR). they have a good section on the minutemens neo-nazi ties. and take a look at how they operate, going around the border flashing guns at poor people(illegal or not) and acting like f*cking cowboys. screw the minutemen.

Is that what...

You would say to a newcomer of the 9/11 Truth Movement who asks a question? "You want me to hold your hand and do the research for you?"

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

are you newcomer or have i

are you newcomer or have i had run-ins with you before? sorry Jon, that game aint gonna work.

I asked you a simple question...

"Why are they "ignorant ass racist f_cks?"

The responses I got were:

"clearly you dont know anything about the Minutemen"


"you want me to hold your hand and do the research for you?"

You're an aggressive individual who needs to chill out. I would hate to think you act this way with newcomers.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

trust me Jon, i dont, im

trust me Jon, i dont, im only aggressive with people i have had run-ins with in the past or people who are clearly here to stir sh*t up and nothing else. also Jon, you didnt just ask me why i thought they were racist, you threw in your little unneeded jab about my "curse words". thats why the aggressive response. you know what your doing.


Why do you continue to drop f-bombs, and other colorful adjectives when you KNOW that the owner of this site has asked people not to? Is that an "unneeded jab" or a legitimate question?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

does it honestly

does it honestly bother/offend you? if so, i can see why you asked me about it, if not, i dont understand why you would care enough to take a jab about it. honestly, sometimes i forget and i throw in curse words occasionally. sometimes its because im angry, sometmes i just wanna show more emotion in my comment, sometimes, like i said, i just forget the site rules about cursing. ive seen plenty of people drop f-bombs here and curiously, you didnt go at them about it. interesting. its a legitimate question if you HONESTLY are offended by the word f*ck. if not, of course its an uneeded jab.

It bothers me...

And offends me that you are disrespectful to the owner of this site. For whatever the reason, you "throw in curse words" at will.

The question is a legitimate one.

I used to be one of the biggest offenders on this site, but I have since backed off. Why can't you do the same?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Jon, i have seen you use

Jon, i have seen you use f*ck, if even with the little star in there in the past. why have you in the past disrespected the owner of this site with that? do you see how petty you are? are you offended by it or not? you've used the language before so im guessing no. that means you are doing nothing but going after me for? for what reason Jon? its not legitimate coming from you, oh hell no. hypocritical b*stard. oops, sorry if i offended you Jon. grow up already, aint you like 45? jesus christ.........

ahh, i see you edited your

ahh, i see you edited your entry because you knew i was gonna come with the "your a hypocrite" stuff based on your past. touche. still a hypocrite though.

Um, no...

I edited it because as it stood, I was being a hypocrit. It had nothing to do with what I thought your response would be.

Do what you like. I was just trying to get you to stop cursing because I know the owner of the site doesn't like it, and he's a friend of mine.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

It's a context thing.

I use the f-word generously in everyday speech and am not offended by it at all when used by people I know. When used by strangers, as regular posters are to people checking out this site for the first time, it can be intimidating for reasons that are difficult to explain. Therefore, I too have tried to avoid using those words that are part of my Anglo-Saxon heritage that dz has requested we eschew.

Chris, sometimes you need to just ignore Jon's needling, and vice versa. As entertaining as you guys can be when you go for each other's throats, in truth you probably have better things to do. I will now butt out.

Thanks Mom...


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

right again casseia, but

right again casseia, but your a bit more rational than the both of us combined,haha. truth be told, i respect the hell out of anyone that takes time/money out of their life to devote to 9/11 truth, so ultimately i respect what he does, he just seems to take a bit of glee in nitpicking about me every now and then. there was absolutely no need for him to take a shot at me about using the f word. and you are right, i should have just ignored it, but im not nearly as mature or rational as you. i can admit it.


I can see Jon and Chris in the same foxhole fighting the New World Order some day. Arguing the whole time. But covering each other's back.

Good entertainment about the f* bomb, guys. I personally don't like to use it. But if I slam my finger in the door, the f* bomb has a way of exploding.

Sometimes, driving in the car, if some IDIOT pulls a STUPID stunt, I find the f* bomb wants to go off, but I do my best to deactivate it.

"sometimes i forget and i throw in curse words occasionally"

"sometimes i forget and i throw in curse words occasionally"

You're free to edit your own postings and remove things which you regretted later. And you're free to add a comment saying ("My original comment had a f-word in it, and I deleted that now because it is against the site's rules, but which I stll find appropriate to use in private", or whatever....)

"sometmes i just wanna show more emotion in my comment,"

Why not find a better (and more impressive way) to show your emotions? F-words are cheap, and don't impress many a folks.....

"sometimes, like i said, i just forget the site rules about cursing"

Again: the "edit" link is your friend.

"ive seen plenty of people drop f-bombs here and curiously, you didnt go at them about it.."

So what???

"Mom -- GWB has done wrong too, so why won't you let me do wrong as well?"

Tsss, tsss.....

"its a legitimate question if you HONESTLY are offended by the word f*ck. if not, of course its an uneeded jab."

I personally don't care a lot if I encounter people who use swearing lots of times and frequently. I just don't take them as serious as I do take people who are able to calmly and soberly argue their case (and show their emotions in an intelligent, convincing way -- swearing is not one to impress me. I guess I'm not alone). Hmmm... I guess that means I do care about swearing encounters.... just not the way the swearer assumes he does.


all I'm saying is this: swear if you feel like and swear if it gives you an extra thrill (or a relieve, or climax, or whatever) -- but don't expect this will lead me to look at your postings in a more favorable way; rather the contrary.

If you want to win over newbies to the 9/11 truth movement, you need to know how. And be aware that you don't talk to Jon, or me, or whoever in private unless you write a private mail; whatever you publish in a comment on this site, the world will be able to read it.

wow. now thats what i call

wow. now thats what i call micromanaging. thanks for the condescending type tips. noted. Little Pipe doesnt take me seriously. thanks buddy. i'll try not to use the word "f*ck" in the future, it never caused such a furor here before. i wasnt expecting to be tag teamed over such petty stuff, but 'i'll try not to offend you and "use my friend the edit link" in the future. and as far as this bullsh*t comment goes:"ive seen plenty of people drop f-bombs here and curiously, you didnt go at them about it.."

So what???

"Mom -- GWB has done wrong too, so why won't you let me do wrong as well?"

Tsss, tsss.....

you obviously dont understand that Jon and i have argued in the past. that was my point, not that he isnt going after others for it, but that he was specifically going after me. believe me, i dont want Jon or anyone else to go "tattling" on people for cursing or anything else unless its blatant racism/hatred or something of that sort,and i wouldnt put them up to it. f*ck just doesnt offend me or bother me like it does some here. and quite frankly, if the use of a curse word causes someone to shut off their brain mid sentence and lose respect or whatever, than i could care less if they take me seriously. sorry i offended you.

Oh, boy. Feel free to dub my

Oh, boy.

Feel free to dub my remarks as "condescenting" ones or otherwise.

But please, don't feel free misquoting me. I didn't say I don't take you seriously altogether. Read again... not "as serious as I do take people who are able to calmly and soberly argue their case".

I can assure you, currently I'm still reading comments, and still take into account their content when making up my mind. It's just how my first impression is when I read a comment.... but first impressions are important, believe it or not. And sometimes they stick forever. It always takes more effort to wipe out an unfavorable first impression by a combination of good 2nd, 3rd,...10th impressions.

You've got only one chance for a first impression.

Why make your life more difficult?

"you obviously dont understand that Jon and i have argued in the past."

You're right. I don't.

Please don't mistake this site as your private quarrel ground. Both of you.

Please consider this: every day a few dozen people will encounter this website for the first time in their lifes, and they don't know "Jon Gold" nor "Chris", nor their pre-history of previous debates. Nor do they care much.

indeed they are

indeed they are "condescending". you dont dissapoint.

Whatever.... But you didn't

Whatever.... But you didn't dispute the fact that you misquoted me. Nor apologize for it. Noted as well.

GASP! and he plays semantics

GASP! and he plays semantics too? who would have guessed that? nope, i will not apologize for your verbal games.

Jon, this covers a lot more

Jon, this covers a lot more than the Minutemen but it's a good read:

Sowing the Seeds of Fascism in America by Stan Goff

Here's a tiny excerpt:

In American society right now, with the immigration hysteria fueled by faux populists like CNN’s execrable Lou Dobbs, there is a growing wave of xenophobia that has begun to legitimate vigilantism, like that of the Arizona Minutemen (supported even by the governor of California); and vigilantism is always a feature of fascism in periods before it decisively achieves state power. The lines between the comic-opera militias parked along the Arizona border, the “libertarian” militias in the Midwest and the Aryan militias in the Idaho foothills are not terribly clear. Timothy McVeigh could have easily related to all of them.

Published on Saturday, July

Published on Saturday, July 1, 2006 by Inter Press Service
Lou Dobbs' Dubious Guest List
by Bill Berkowitz

OAKLAND, California -- On the May 23 edition of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight", the generally affable talk-show host, who has become the network's go-to-guy on immigration issues, used a graphic provided by the white nationalist Council of Conservative Citizens to pound home his point about a racist anti-immigrant conspiracy theory.



Good elucidation of the 9/11 "niggers" role

This is more informaion fleshing out the details of how the "movers" and shakers of the events of 9/11 used Arab "niggers" to create credible demons in the minds of the American public to justify the current racist big oil war crime in Iraq.

What we really need is focus on the real operatives who converge at the nexus of the 9/11 plot. These are individuals such as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld of course but more intrinsically dark forces in the US Army and Navy, CIA and FBI, Abramoff and similar figures, and extremly importantly, Israeli covert operations such as Mossad.

Careful even mentioning Israel, PNAC, and AIPAC because you will be accused of being anti-semitic upon any such utterance.This article( highlights the type of attacks you will face if you talk about such issues as "the dancing Israelis" etc. so have courage.

The Arab "nigger" story is interesting but secondary to the main plot which is in large part classified and impenetrable. The "nigger" story was designed as cover for the real story that heavily involves Israel but because it is heavily classified and heavily protected by the majority of politicians held in the thrall of groups such as AIPAC, it will never likely be exposed.

Don't let anybody play that card, folks...

"Anti-Crime" is not "anti-semitism". If the evidence leads to pro-Israeli Zionists or the Mossad, so be it...we have to pursue it....

Zionism is a political, not a racial's fair game.....

All thinking people on this blog see the "anti-semitism" card for what it is...a smear to deflect attention from possible real evidence of Mossad and Israeli foreknowledge (at the very least) on 9/11.


///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Name me a false flag operation

where along with the broad outline of the plot narrative becoming public, the shadowy US government and armed forces figures behind the production were identified and prosecuted.........

It hasn't and likely will not happen for reasons related to the intrinsic nature of highly classified government information relating to military power.

We didn't have the Internet then.... expose it (Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag, The Maine) in almost real-time....

I suppose the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter and her manufactured testimony about Kuwaiti babies being pulled from incubators should've been exposed, if the media had served the public at the time.

False-Flag operations being exposed and prosecuted, maybe not...

...but Watergate and Iran/Contra were conspiracies uncovered and prosecuted (to an extent).

The mere concept of "State-Sponsored False-Flag Terrorism" is a new one for the general public. Once that becomes a household term, people will look for it and attention wil be called. Up until recently, this practice was unknown to citizenry, so it was easy to get away with it. Going forward, this will be easier to expose and prosecute, if the public awakens.

You've nailed it on the

You've nailed it on the head. These psychological techniques were not known to the masses prior to the controversy surrounding 9/11. A lot of people still don't want to believe these techniques are used. 9/11 is providing the US citizens with the perfect chance to dig deep and root out(and hopefully hang) these treacherous individuals who will kill en masse to achieve their own higher goals. Stay positive and keep informing others of these false flag tactics. It's the only way we will prevent others in the immediate future and aquire true justice for those who lost their lives.

South Park

What's the story on this South Park exposing 9.11? I figured yall'd be all over it. Do they really get deep into it?


see Jon Gold Kicking

Ecoli Outbreaks

"The outbreaks have sparked demands to create a new federal agency in charge of food safety. Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both New York Democrats, are sponsoring legislation authored by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., to create the unified Food Safety Agency.


This was a false flag OP to bring about the centralization of food safety!!
They're poisoning the spinah; this is is all part of the NWO!



Another major setback for the 9/11 Truth Movement

Read the paper that has the 9/11 Truth Movement stumped: WTC CD?. This is the paper Steve Jones has avoided repeated requests to address, the straightforward, heavily footnoted analysis showing the high improbability of planted explosives in any of the WTC towers.

Thanks for this

Whenever I read such "documents" I become even more convinced of controlled demoliton.

That paper sucked

The basic premise of that "paper'" is that explosive charges and the "wiring' associated with such demo charges, could not have survived temperatures in an office building fire!

Steven Jones has published a paper which looks at the howling questions about tons of molten metal in the basements in all 3 WTC builds.

Now maybe if someone were to write a paper... addressing MOLTEN IRON and GLOWING RED HOT STEEL ....(and how such temperatures were achieved in an office building fire)....

Then maybe Steven Jones would answer.

that paper needs to be posted on "Urinal of 9/11 Studies"

No evidence of "molten metal in the basement."

There has never been physical evidence of "molten metal" presented. Even Steven Jones had to lie about that in his paper by showing a photo of a block of concrete with rebar coming out of it as "resoldified molten metal."

Like molten metal would solidify around METAL rebar. Jones was called on that the day he posted his paper last winter and refuses to correct it. So do you think the liar is going to try to refute the paper posted? Only if you are in extreme denial.

You can write him yourself and see if you can get him to refute the paper. And take down his lie about concrete being molten metal.


expect more censorship.

like me too. not for long. does not recognize copyright laws which means they have a wide variety of great content. say goodbye to that.

Google snaps up YouTube for $1.65B

SAN FRANCISCO - Internet search leader Google is snapping up YouTube for $1.65 billion, brushing aside copyright concerns to seize a starring role in the online video revolution.

Google Admits Terror Storm Blackout
But claims "error" and not censorship for second successive time as 9/11 film enters top 100

Following our attempts to get an answer as to why Google was seemingly artificially stifling the viewership numbers for Terror Storm, ensuring the film didn't enter Google Video's popular categories, the online giant has admitted the figures were pegged but claims again that the change was due to a technical glitch.

Google's response in full is reprinted below.

In light of Google's $1.65 billion acquisition of You Tube, potential control and censorship of the Internet's newest burgeoning platform - online videos - should be of paramount concern.

Terror Storm has now entered the top 100 category of popular videos on Google. Will its viewership numbers be falsely represented for a third time by Google - ensuring the film plunges back into relative online obscurity - or will Google fix its "mistake," rescind its censorship, and allow the online video domain to be a fair and level playing field?

that's all fine, but just one problem...

there's no evidence of any hijackers in the first place. In fact, there's no evidence of the original planes crashing either