Support 911Blogger


Sibel Edmonds Blows Open the Cover Up

Crimes of the State

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has released some new information in The Sunday Times (UK--also posted to Alternet.org), and on her website. This should be required reading for every US citizen.

Sibel risks jail time (or worse) in order to make these highly disturbing allegations against high ranking US government officials. Sibel has been officially gagged by the Justice Department (sic) for several years.

Sibel also testified to the 9/11 Commission, but her allegations were ignored, and her testimony eliminated from their final report. In her open letter to Thomas Kean, the nominal head of the 9/11 Commission, Edmonds first made public her most shocking allegations:

“If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited ‘direct pressure by the State Department,’ and in other cases ‘sensitive diplomatic relations’ is cited. ...Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain US officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so." --Sibel Edmonds, Open Letter to Thomas Kean (emphasis added)

This is an open accusation of conspiracy by a former FBI employee with first hand knowledge. Yet, the US corporate media will not run this story, even as their UK counterparts have begun to investigate Sibel's information. The UK Times story has also been covered in Pakistan, India and Israel. No mention of this issue reaches US network television audiences at all.

But there's more!

Sibel herself posted a State Secrets Privilege Gallery of photos on her website, with no text explanation or identification of the people shown. This may fall within the technical restraints placed on her by the Justice Department (sic), as she does not explain who the individuals are, or why they are shown.

Blogger Larisa Alexandrovna has identified the individuals in the photos.

"Richard Perle...
Doug Feith...
Eric Edelman
Marc Grossman
Larry Franklin
Dennis Hastert
Roy Blunt
Dan Burton
Bob Livingston
Stephen Solarz
Graham Fuller
David Makovsky
Alan Markovsky
Enver Yusuf
Sabri Sayari
Mehmet Eymur
Henry Kissinger (He is not shown in Sibel's gallery, but I believe him to be on of the MIA photos)"

Alexandrovna further identifies Marc Grossman as the former State Department official referred to in the Sunday Times article:

"...one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the [nuclear secrets] information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan."

"They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities." --(emphasis added) The Sunday Times UK, For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets, January 6, 2008

Marc Grossman's name has come up before.

Relates to 9/11

Included in the Edmonds Sunday Times piece is a highly censored area: the funding of the 9/11 attacks themselves. This is something I haven't seen in a corporate media news story since 2001:

"The Pakistani [nuclear secrets] operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications [by the FBI] showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks." --Sunday Times

Now this isn't the entire story, of course. But, it's a start.

"On September 10, [2001] a Pakistani newspaper reports on [ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad's] trip so far. It says his visit has “triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council” as well as meetings with CIA Director Tenet (see September 9, 2001), unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon, and his “most important meeting” with Marc Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.” [News (Islamabad), 9/10/2001], ISI Director Mahmood Ahmed, Complete 911 Timeline (emphasis added)

Just why isn't former ISI chief Ahmad not being sought for the crimes of 9/11? Could it be his deep involvement with treasonous elements in the US government? This cover up is being exposed, and it must be making some people in Washington DC a bit nervous this week.

Sibel and the Times blatantly link the Turks, the Pakistanis and the Israelis together along with treasonous US officials. These US officials are just two steps away from "Al Qaeda" which was created and controlled by Pakistani ISI. These links must be pursued on the basis of "national security" if for no other reason.

The Israelis also had a massive spy ring in operation somehow related to the 9/11 attacks, and this connection of a working and covert relationship between the Israelis and the Pakistanis could be the final straw that demolishes the official cover up of 9/11.

So many slips and leaks have rendered the official fiction of the 9/11 attacks inoperable.

Sibel, we are with you

Sibel, we are with you through this. This should serve as conclusive evidence of the complete charade that Big Media is.

I am...

Loving the fact that all the debunkers can do is call her names. They have been completely discredited (as if they haven't been for along time already).


Who Is? Archives

Show "god.." by jpass

Obviously.

Add Brent Scowcroft to the list

Poppy Bush's best friend. Oh my!

The Gallery has easter eggs

The Gallery has easter eggs - 'View Page Source'
--
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

imgstacke, can u clarify for the less computer savvy?

...don't believe them!

This is a great summation/

This is a great summation/ explanation of Sibel's list at Brad blog.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5521#more-5521

You might notice that Larisa removed some Democratic names from Sibel's original list....for which has gotten justifiable flack!!!!

Screen Shot:
SibelEdmondsStatesSecretsPrivilegeGallery_010708.jpg

This video kept me up last night.....it was one was one of those times when the implications of all of this just really sinks in.....

Radical Pragmatist

videos

glad you liked the video

my youtube channel has been going gangbusters all week

other popular ones are
"greatest hits"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSN-8Dmvx0A

and "investigations thwarted"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cm-uRQmfUU&NR=1

http://lukery.blogspot.com

Jon Gold You Divide...

The "debunkers" Jon? You mean people who are skeptical of the Sibel Edmond's story and how it will affect 911 Truth?

Discredited? Do you have to be so obviously divisive and egotistical about these issues?

Sibel has been secretive (because of the gag) on much of her information. You are saying people who were skeptical are 'discredited' because of the latest revelation which the newspaper has claimed it has yet to confirm with other sources?

Of course, Jon Gold would like you to then believe that this makes hime "credited' on other issues as well. Who would have guessed! Jon Gold gets 10 truther points!

We have access to the same information Jon. To claim people are discredited because they've come to different conclusions based on that limited information is disgraceful and just another example of the Jon Gold Method Of Division.

Unlike you, I welcome and admire skeptcis on all issues.

Skeptics have every right to be skeptical about Sibel's claims. Even to this day her claims have YET to be confirmed. Anyone could have guessed who some of the names on the list were. Did you read the article...?

YET TO BE CONFIRMED

I'm STILL skeptical and I will remain that way...as will others...without Jon Gold's personal stamp of accredadation.

The truth behind her story, as compelling as it sounds, has yet to be completely mapped out. Whether or not it will effect the 911 Truth movement in a profound way is even further away from our vision.

Jon, would Sibel Edmonds claim support for the 911 Truth movement in public? Would you ask her in an interview if you ever happen to talk to her...please.

Extroidinary claims need extoidinary evidence. Let's see the evidence. That's all I've ever asked along with the other skeptics. That and :

"Will this help 911 Truth in a positive way"?

For example, the 911 Commission was formed because of 911 Families. It was an awesome campaign that everyone admires.

But what happened? It was a cover-up and now it's used when referencing things like the Patriot Act, invasions of 2 foreign countries which led to 100,000s of thousands dead in the name of fighting terror. I'm not suggesting that those who protested for a 911 investigation lead us to war...in fact they were protesting the entire time DURING the 'commission'.

What I'm saying is "Can we trust the 'government' to investigate ANYTHING in the interest of Truth...let alone 911 Truth? That is the skepticism that you are claiming is 'discredited', in my view.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

No...

I'm referring to the "debunkers" that referred to her as a fruitcake, and previously as a moron. As far as the newspaper confirming what she said, they reported that the individuals they spoke with "did provide overlapping corroboration of Edmonds’s story" but were not "aware of specific allegations against officials she names."

However, providing "overlapping corroboration" of her story is a pretty good indication that what she says is credible even if they weren't aware of the allegiations. However, if they spoke with someone like John M. Cole, they would most assuredly be able to confirm most if not all of what she's saying.

This has already helped 9/11 Truth in a positive way. I can't help the fact that you can't see it.


Who Is? Archives

Sibel Edmonds' claims already verified

"Skeptics have every right to be skeptical about Sibel's claims. Even to this day her claims have YET to be confirmed."

How many times do we have to post the FACT that Sibel Edmonds' claims have been independently verified?

(July 8, 2004): DOJ Inspector General Report Supports FBI Translator’s Allegations
Edit event

Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general, completes his report on Sibel Edmonds’ allegations (see Afternoon March 7, 2002). The 100-page report determines that “many of Edmonds’ core allegations relating to the co-worker [Melek Can Dickerson] were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses” and concludes that “the FBI did not, and still has not adequately investigated these allegations.” Additionally, Fine’s report concludes that Edmonds was fired because she was having a “disruptive effect,” which could be attributed to “Edmonds’ aggressive pursuit of her allegations of misconduct, which the FBI did not believe were supported and which it did not adequately investigate.” Fine adds, “[A]s we described throughout our report, many of her allegations had basis in fact. We believe… that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.” The report is immediately classified by the FBI. Not even Edmonds is allowed to see the contents. An unclassified 37-page summary of the report will be released in January 2005. [Washington Post, 7/9/2004; Associated Press, 7/30/2004; Associated Press, 1/14/2005; CNN, 1/14/2005; New York Times, 1/15/2005; Vanity Fair, 9/2005]

Entity Tags: Glenn Fine, Sibel Edmonds, US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (DOJ), Melek Can Dickerson

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
July 29, 2004: FBI Letter Vindicates Many of Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds’ Allegations
Edit event

A letter by FBI Director Robert Mueller regarding FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is leaked to the media. Edmonds has made some very serious allegations about the FBI, including claims of important missed 9/11 warnings and the existence of a foreign spy ring inside US government agencies. Mueller’s letter reveals that a highly classified Justice Department report on Edmonds has concluded that her allegations “were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services.” This report also criticizes the FBI’s failure to adequately pursue her allegations of espionage. An anonymous official states that the report concludes that some of her allegations were shown to be true, others cannot be corroborated because of a lack of evidence, and none of her accusations were disproved. [New York Times, 7/29/2004]

Be careful not to read too much into the OIG's report

The purpose of the OIG's investigation was to assess the FBI's response to Edmonds' allegations, not whether the allegations were true. Understand that in a retaliation case, the whistleblower does not, and should not, have to be correct. In order that whistleblowing not be chilled, an institution should respond by good faith investigation and not retaliating, regardless of the outcome of that investigation. The OIG also was concerned about the securirty implications of not taking Edmonds' allegations seriously. Thus, the response is very important, regardless of the ultimate outcome, both to protect employees' rights and as a matter of institutional health.

A finding that a person was retaliated against for allegations is separate from a finding that the allegations were true. Treating someone as "disruptive" for reasonable, good faith whistleblowing is an instututional problem that OIG wanted to address. I could be wrong, but the point is that this is a completely plausible and reasonable response and that can't be easily called a coverup.

Here's what OIG did:

"We closely examined nearly a dozen separate allegations by Edmonds against the co-worker which, when viewed together, amounted to accusations of possible espionage. We sought to determine, with respect to each individual allegation, whether the facts supported or refuted the allegation. However, the ultimate determination as to whether the co-worker engaged in espionage, as Edmonds’ allegations implied, was beyond the scope of the OIG’s investigation. We communicated to the FBI during our review that the OIG was not making such a determination, and that the potential espionage issue should be addressed by the FBI, not the OIG. Instead, our investigation focused on the FBI’s response to the complaints Edmonds raised about her co-worker and other language translation issues."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/index.htm

As seen above, it's true that the OIG made determinations as to whether the allegations were supported.
This had to be done to assess whether the response was proper--was there enough to warrant a serious response?

In some cases, OIG found her allegations were supported, in other cases, not.

"With regard to some of Edmonds’ allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds’ assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. While there are potentially innocuous explanations for the co-worker’s conduct, other explanations were not innocuous. Although the exact nature and extent of the co-worker’s security issues are disputed, it is clear from the OIG’s investigation that the facts giving rise to Edmonds’ concerns could have been uncovered had the FBI investigated Edmonds’ allegations further. We believe that the FBI should have investigated the allegations more thoroughly. We also believe the FBI’s handling of these allegations reflected an unwarranted reluctance to vigorously investigate these serious allegations or to conduct a thorough examination of Edmonds’ allegations. As will be discussed in the next section, the FBI did not, and still has not, conducted such an investigation."

It's impossible to know the ultimate outcome of Edmonds' allegations without seeing not only the classified OIG report, but also the actual investigation of the espionage allegations.

Sure, this might be a coverup, but we can't know that just from the OIG report, and we can't claim without knowing more that the classified report should not have been classified.

I will end with the OIG's statement of Edmonds' background.

"Edmonds, who was born abroad and speaks English fluently, moved to the United States in 1991 to attend college. She married an American citizen in 1992. Before joining the FBI, Edmonds worked as a volunteer at a local courthouse, as a court-appointed special advocate for children, and for the Rostropovich foundation, a non-profit organization that delivers medical supplies and food to a children’s hospital. In addition, Edmonds served as a corporate officer (Secretary) for her husband’s consulting business."

She was a part-time contract linguist for six months. I'm sorry, but I can't know that she was capable of assessing what she heard. Even if she was, the problem is that this is the easy and obvious response by someone who wants to dismiss her claims.

I also have doubts about her story of a room of 200 translators sharing information. I just don't believe that FBI has such lax operational security, which must require strict compartmentalization. Sure, over time, people might share information, but how much time did she have there? I've done translation and it is quiet, thought-intensive, and time-consuming work.

I'm asked to treat this story as important. I don't just see it here, but at Daily Kos and Chris Floyd's website. I even overheard somebody talking excitedly about Sibel Edmonds at my local coffee shop. Since this story has invaded my mind space and I'm asked to take it seriously, and because you have raised the OIG's report which I took the time to read, I feel justfied in expressing my doubts here.

I agree that jpass should not be calling people "shills." I am not doubting Sibel Edmonds' sincerity and think that whistleblowing is a very good thing that should be encouraged and protected. I'm aslo not doubting the sincerity of anyone who thinks this story is important in establishing facts about 9/11. I just don't see that.

And I will note that the OIG report did not substantiate a key allegation of Sibel Edmonds---that she was told to slow down translation so FBI could hire more translators. It doesn't make sense to begin with, since she says there were no Turkish translators before 9/.11 and a huge backlog. This doesn't mean she was not told that. The problem is that this would be the perfect story to feed someone if you're pushing the bureaucratic incompetence line.

OIG

It's true the the unclassified report doesn't have a whole lot of information. The classified version is 3 times as long.

It's true the the unclassified report focuses on the bureaucratic incompetence - but Sibel DOESNT.

eg if you read
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-heck-is-sibel-edmonds-case...
you'll see that I don't even touch the bureaucratic angle - or even the espionage at the translation unit

In terms of whether she was ' capable of assessing what she heard' - it wasn't her doing the assessing, the FBI agents in charge of Turkish CI were directing the investigation, telling her what to read, what to listen to etc. In fact, it was the head of TUrkish CI, Dennis Saccher, who originally brought these claims forward, not Sibel.

Another CI agent, Gilbert Graham, also filed complaints and was sacked. His report is still classified too (most of it)

Also remember that there were two unclassified briefings that were held in congress (later re-classified) where the FBI confirmed her accounts

After those briefings, Sen Charles Grassley, for example, said "Absolutely, she's credible. And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

Another FBI CI veteran, John Cole, said " "The (people at the FBI who have read SIbel's report) were telling me that Sibel Edmonds was a 100 percent accurate, that management knew that she was correct."

But yes, you are correct, we didn't learn a whole lot from the unclassified OIG report.

Thank You

Thank you Lukery for all of your work and support of Sibel Edmonds!

And thank you for coming to 911 Blogger, and offering your insight on all of this. It is greatly appreciated.

I hope you continue to be a regular contributer here!

Radical Pragmatist

drop in

I do drop in here occsasionally if i see somethinjg about sibel up here.

i've been flat out this week for obvious reasons

drop me an email if you want me to come over and clear something up (if i can)

http://lukery.blogspot.com

Very interesting, very deep

I've just begun looking at this and certainly don't know all the facts and may never understand it. It seems like something bigger than 9/11, which is my concern. My question is: how does it relate to 9/11, specifically?

Ironically, I recently began thinking the Sibel Edmonds story was important because I finally got around to buying and reading Webster Tarpley's book. I'd been avoiding it but Chip Berlet trashing him made me take a look.

Tarpley put Sibel Edmonds' case in a perspective that made sense to me, saying: "Edmonds' story may give some the impression that the FBI was penetrated by a Middle Eastern organization, but a careful reading suggests that the penetration was in the opposite direction." This is a little unclear, but he explains what he means: moles in the FBI -- U.S. citizens -- obstructing the investigation of honest FBI agents in order to allow patsies to remain free so that they may be blamed for the crime.

But just as I was done reading this book, the party line became that Tarpley is bad, bad, bad, for reasons that need not be rehashed here. I still think his framework of citizen moles and foreigner patsies makes sense, and that the drug and arms dealing, etc. is important and related but overly broad for purposes of understanding 9/11.

What do you think, Lukery?

thanks for being open

To see what SIbel's case has to do with 911, see here
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/07/sibel-911.html

To see what Sibel's case is really about, see here
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-heck-is-sibel-edmonds-case...

I'm not really familiar with Tarpley's work - so I can't comment, really. If I'm not mistaken, i did read the 3-4 pages that had to do with Sibel and they were pretty spot-on, mostly dealing with facts. (so long as I'm thinking about the correct author/book)

I'm reluctant to comment on Tarpley's comment that you quote without the full context, and as you note, it isn't clear in and of itself - however, I'd cautiously agree with his doubt re: " the impression that the FBI was penetrated by a Middle Eastern organization"
e.g. see http://lukery.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-are-fbi-juice-men-in-sibel-edmond...

http://lukery.blogspot.com

I'm open, but still skeptical

The below allegation doesn't strike me as at all plausible, nor is it substantiated in the DOJ-IG report as claimed.

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down or even stop translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of an "extensive backlog of untranslated documents" and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translations, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up (please refer to the CBS 60 Minutes transcript from October 2002 provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (please refer to Sen. Grassley's and Sen. Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). Apparently, this confirmed report has been substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (please refer to DOJ-IG report "Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation," provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed acount of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this (please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on Feb. 11, 2004)."

From Edmonds' Open Letter to the Panel as posted at your website, bold emphasis added.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/index.htm

The OIG interviewed ten linguists who were either named by Edmonds in her allegations or were named by Edmonds as having information relevant to her allegations, including those whom Edmonds specifically stated could corroborate her allegation regarding the alleged instruction to slow down. Only three of these linguists stated that they recalled hearing about the alleged instruction to slow down. Two said they heard the allegation only from Edmonds. The third said that she had heard about the slow down instruction from others in addition to hearing about it from Edmonds, but said she could not recall who those others were. The other seven denied ever hearing about such an instruction.

We found insufficient evidence to substantiate Edmonds’ allegation that such time and attendance abuse was condoned or occurred. Moreover, given the backlog of translation work at the FBI, we do not believe the FBI would need to intentionally slow down the linguists’ work to support hiring additional translators.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0533/app7.htm

With regard to various other allegations made by Edmonds concerning the FBI’s foreign language program, our review substantiated some but did not substantiate others. For example, we found that certain travel by linguists was wasteful, and that a contract monitor was hired even though he had not scored high enough on the language test to qualify for the position. However, we did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate Edmonds’s allegations that the FBI condoned time and attendance abuse, an intentional slow down of work to support hiring additional analysts, or travel fraud.
(emphasis added)

Just In: A couple of interesting angles on the Sibel Story

All worth considering:

First :
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/09/what_...

(Notice he is not questioning Sibel's integrity...she just happened to over hear a sting operation/ so her list of villians become hero's with Isreal's help and the focus remains on Pakistan nukes)

Second: (This is the first I have seen of a response from the intelligence establishment (the site is pretty obviousely such).
Look how they use Sibel's story to work within the larger agenda of their article( she's at the bottom of article)...its very revealing.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1386093

Combined with first peice you can see a potential outline of why Ruppurt Murdock may have decided to go with the story at this time and where it might be heading.

Who knows at this point....but its definately some food for thought.

Radical Pragmatist

Except...

Joe of all people says everything is ok. Here is an interesting take from Prof. Chussodovsky. Because the Times reported the information about Lt. General Ahmad and 9/11, one might think that they were getting ready to "spring" that evidence to use against Pakistan. However, the fact that his alleged involvement has been covered up NICELY for 7 years, and to my knowledge, a U.S. paper has yet to pick up this story, suggesting it is still being covered up, I don't think they're in any hurry to "spring" anything. I think there is an incriminating reason why. I could be wrong.


Who Is? Archives

Well if "honest Joe" says

Well if "honest Joe" says everythings O'kay...He is my Senator and I have......

.....absolutely no trust in anything he says...As you may suspect.

There are many layers working here , so it very hard to tell why anyone involved is doing or saying anything. We can only speculate and try to create some rough and reasonable parameters in which these actors may be performing. Towards that end , Prof. Chussodovshy article and others at Global Research are extremely helpful. I read that article two days ago, and I've been waiting patiently for him to make some comment on the "Times/ Sibel Edmonds" affair. So Far, Global Research has only crypticaly posted Sibel's 2004 letter to Commisioner Keane

.Radical Pragmatist

Of course

Her story does not ring true to me, which does not mean she's lying. But she was a short-time, part-time contract linguist that was exposed to a lot in six months, and the obvious response is that she did not understand what she was hearing. That might be false, but the point is that these stories are easily explained away, leaving not moles but the fear of nuclear terrorism.

I'm also disturbed about the timing of this story, given that intervention in Pakistan is being planned if not already carried out.

I also would like to know what language would be spoken between a Turk and two Saudie meeting in Detroit, or between Turkish and Israeli targets speaking to a State Department official. I also would also like to know the source of most of the information in the Sunday Times article, which is either not attributed to Edmonds or if it is, seems unlikely to be the result only of taped conversations, particularly conversations in Turkish, Azeri, or Farsi. The author of the article is unnamed, which also concerns me.

There are legitimate reasons

There are legitimate reasons to doubt Sibel Edmond's story as written in the original Sunday Times article. Coming from a Murdoch paper, that is freaking obvious. I don't know why some will not even acknowledge that possibility.

As to whether Sibel Edmond's herself can be trusted or considered credible, I share the above poster's opinion that her short stint at the FBI is itself fishy.

--------------------------------------------
WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy-
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/384

The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-
http://www.ae911truth.org

except...

It comports with everything we knew already - so it isn't BS.

I know quite a lot about Sibel's story, and I thought the Times piece was a really straight, solid piece - with no discernible spin.

It's conceivable that Murdoch is running the piece for a purpose, but the story itself is straight.

http://lukery.blogspot.com

English?

In many cases the conversations were in English.

That is, they tap the phone line of, say, a Turkish diplomat, and then give the raw feed to the translators. Some of the conversations might be in Turkish, but many might be in English too.

http://lukery.blogspot.com

'fake ring'

Some have wondered recently whether sibel accidentally stumbled across a sting operation - and that all that she heard was 'fake' parts of that operation.

She says:
"That was the first thing the Senate Judiciary Committee had to rule out before they took my case officially/formally and investigated it. In June & July 2002, two senior senators, Grassley (R) & Leahy (D), summoned several FBI-DOJ and DOD officials to rule out: 1- no covert operations involved; 2- No double agent situation in Dickersons' case."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo...

Thank you for clearing that

Thank you for clearing that up. Thats very important. I was unaware of that quote and the fact that the Judiciary Committee had to rule that out before taking the case. Hopefully that fact will keep anyone from using the 'fake' or 'real' sting angle to explain Sibel's story. My concern was that they could/would use the "covert-op angle" to make criminals look like hero's.

Obviously, the next question is were are Leahy, Waxman, Grassly, Kuccinich, Now???!!!
Its all there for the grabbing.
The american people would understand that this is obviously someone who needs to be heard and would understand her gag order as "self protection" for those she is accusing.

Radical Pragmatist

P.S Please stay close to offer your insight on these blogs /threads.....

that quote

that particular quote is about four hours old :-)

http://lukery.blogspot.com

Quick to call people "shill"

JPass works overtime to minimize the revelations about Pakistani and Saudi officials involvement in 9/11, and now apparently Sibel Edmonds as well.

Don't you have something more productive to do than stalk Jon Gold?

There are some obvious glaring issues here that the white house (and congressional committees) want to remain buried. Apparently Jpass also prefers they stay buried.

I take the other route. What they want to hide should be what we want to uncover.

As far as I'm concerned the head of Pakistani intelligence ordered the wire transfers that aided in the 9/11 attacks, as published in several reputable newspapers.

The US government has never exonerated ISI chief Ahmad, and never explained his actions at all. They have COVERED IT UP AS IF THE NEWS ARTICLES NEVER EXISTED.

That's a pretty clear guide as to why we need to pursue these leads. All the angry boy spin in the world isn't going to change it, JP.

Jon Gold is a shill?

Then what are you?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Ditto

Stop wasting our time, jpass.

yea you have me pegged...

I post on 2 websites on the entire internet. Jon is free to post his weak google research on Pakistan and the ISI anywhere else without as much as a whimper from me.

But that is your style. If they don't 'read n repeat' call them stalkers? Nice one.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Find one example...

Of me minimizing Saudi involvement...?

I don't even think I ever mention the Suadi in any of my comments ever on this site
Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Not Quick To Call Him A Shill

I've waited over a year to express concerns I had from the get go. How long would you suggest I wait to warn the 911 Truth movement that Jon Gold is a Shill? Should I just pretend I don't feel this way?

In fact, I waited until this very conclusive moment when Jon Gold decided to use this apparent "911 Truth Victory" for his own personal, selfish reasons.

He chose to claim that the debunkers have been discredited!! Jon says he was talking about other 'debunkers' who called Sibel bad names...funny...I would not consider THOSE tactics debunking....name calling discredits itself.

Jon is obviously lying. "Debunkers" meant "Jon Gold's skeptics".

I have been at odds with Gold over a few issues over the past few years. I've complimented him at times for his hard work with 911 Families and some other things.

Obviously you can't handle the obvious skepticism that people have about these issues. That makes me even more skeptical. It's all or nothing for Gold.

It's all about 'read n' repeat'...skepticism will not be tolerated....read n' repeat....

I actually think people should be encouraged to express their views on who they think are shills. I waited over a year and the feeling just never went away. Judging ones actions over a year is plenty of time to make this sort of call.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Must you continue crapping?

Try staying on topic. The thread is about Sibel Edmonds, and her numerous revelations which the Bush junta justice (sic) department have made classified. As a "truth" movement, it would appear that we would want to know more about these matters -- or is that just crazy talk?

In a battle of credibility between Sibel Edmonds and JPass, I don't think that even the 'laugh test' adequately describes the comparison.

Do you have anything relevant to say at all?

"Jon says he was talking about other 'debunkers' who called Sibel bad names...funny...I would not consider THOSE tactics debunking....name calling discredits itself."

So, of course YOU know better what he meant than he himself. How could it be otherwise?

Jon is obviously lying. "Debunkers" meant "Jon Gold's skeptics"."

Which means YOU, of course. Everything he says, anywhere, must be a personal attack on you. This is time wasting bullshit.

Show factual evidence that contradicts Sibel Edmonds or shut the fuck up. Stop wasting our time.