Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer: Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer: Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11On the Monday, March 5 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, who is known for his revelations about government mishandled intelligence prior to the September 11 attacks and for the censoring of his book, Operation Dark Heart, by the Pentagon. Shaffer is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Lt.Col. Anthony Shaffer breaks down how Anwar al-Awlaki Was A Triple Agent, A FBI Asset Before 9/11.


Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmluzUxLhXU


Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 2/3


Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 3/3

On the Monday, March 5 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, who is known for his revelations about government mishandled intelligence prior to the September 11 attacks and for the censoring of his book, Operation Dark Heart, by the Pentagon. Shaffer is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Lt.Col. Anthony Shaffer breaks down how Anwar al-Awlaki Was A Triple Agent, A FBI Asset Before 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmluzUxLhXU

http://www.abledangerblog.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://twitter.com/#!/RealAlexJones

This adds more context to the al-Hazmi, al-Mihdhar withholding

From The Next Wave: On the Hunt for Al Qaeda's American Recruits by Catherine Herridge

When Al-Awlaki was detained at JFK International Airport on October 10,2002, (FBI agent) Ammerman told customs to let him go even though the warrant for al-Awlaki's arrest was still active.

Neither the FBI nor my law enforcement contacts ever challenged our conclusion that the Bureau was trying to cultivate al-Awlaki as a human intelligence asset. Or at the very least, the Bureau wanted to track the cleric after he entered the country.

I understood that Ammerman was not senior enough to call the shots on al-Awlaki, given the cleric's strong connections to the hijackers. The Bureau doesn't work that way. The clearance had to come from higher up.

Ammerman made only one comment to me. You can decide what it means. My notes were sketchy, but it went something like this: "I don't think anyone wants me talking 'bout what I was involved in."

pg. 216-217

From Coleen Rowley's memo to FBI Director Mueller:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)

We can either believe that the FBI got suckered by some triple agents and that explains all the secrecy and cover up or the more plausible explanation that some people at FBI headquarters were facilitating the 9/11 plot. One argument against this is that they had no idea the end result of the obstructed investigations would be 9/11. Did these officials not have any awareness of the '98 embassy bombings or the Cole attack? Were they completely unaware of the Millennium plots or WTC '93?

Will the media interview Tom Pickard and ask him to explain all of this?

Thank you

for reminding us that the FBI let him go @ JFK airport.

Amazing.

Warrant still in effect?

Thanks for the reminder that Al-Awlaki was released from being detained at JFK airport. Rather than the FBI directing his release with an arrest warrant still in effect, the way I recall it is that the warrant was cancelled on October 9, the day before Al-Awlaki arrived. Since the warrant had been cancelled, the FBI directed that he be released. For reference, see this ABC News article.

According to Herridge's book

the arrest warrant was pulled later that day (on the 10th). Meaning the warrant was pulled a few hours after the fact to mesh with a high level decision to let him go.

US media has an extremely hard time mentioning the word corruption. Thus they come up with theories like triple agent even though they have no idea what went on in the intelligence community due to all the secrecy. One of the key aspects of 9/11 is the way the government has abused national security classification procedures to keep the public ignorant as to what happened. A recent example is AG Holder justifying the killing of al-Awlaki based on "due process." Basically the whole war on terror consists of a bunch of insiders making decisions in secret. The public side is a mix of fearmongering, secrecy and propaganda.

From January 8, 2010...

Talks about identifying the terrorist cells:

Edited Version

Here is an edited clip of the interview which gets to the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_habOTSTM&feature=youtu.be

"Even before the 2001 terrorist attacks, American-born imam Anwar al-Aulaqi drew the attention of federal authorities because of his possible connections to al-Qaeda."
"Aulaqi said that while in prison in Yemen, he had undergone multiple interrogations by the FBI that included questions about his dealings with the Sept. 11 hijackers."

"I don't know if I was held because of that, or because of the other issues they presented," Aulaqi said without elaborating. He said he would like to travel outside Yemen but would not do so "until the U.S. drops whatever unknown charges it has against me." Aulaqi did not respond to requests for an interview."

"State Department officials said they are barred by privacy law from discussing Aulaqi's detention because he is a U.S. citizen."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html

"The FBI told the 9/11 Commission and Congress that it did not have reason to detain Aulaqi."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html

Amazing. The state Department didn't want to invade his privacy, and the FBI didn't want to detain him, but President Obama wanted to kill him. And did. And then said it was justified because he said so. I had mixed feelings about Obama killing bin laden. Where do you draw the line? For me it was the "American citizen" line. Because the U.S. Government kills other people during wars. That line has been crossed. Thanks to a "Constitutional Scholar" and "Bush protector" named Obama. Thanks for the hope and the change.

When A Shaffer says Aulaqi had a documented relationship with the Government and the FBI as far as I know this is true in that it is documented that the FBI conducted an Investigation on him in 1999 and 2000 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative, which ended in March of 2000 which coincidentally is shortly after he befriended the first two hijackers to come to America. The informant housing those hijackers also knew Aulaqi, It is also amazing that he was invited to the Pentagon after 9-11. The FBI also interviewed him several times after 9-11. As for Aulaqi being an "asset" or triple agent, this could well be the real reason for his killing. If Ali Mohammed is still alive (he seems to have disappeared) he should consider himself very lucky.

Government Assets: OBL & al-Awlaki

The takeaway here is that both Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the two men who were assassinated last year) were both assets of the US government according to testimony provided by Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer.

One asset was blamed for 9/11 and the other asset was blamed for post-9/11 terrorism plots. IOW, the "Muslim" connection is actually a US government connection.

Clarification

What would you say to using the word "also" to that last sentence, instead of "actually"? Something like:

" IOW, the "Muslim" connection is also a US government connection."

Sibel has been saying that the US has been using Muslim extremists and fanning the flames of Muslim extremism to suit their purposes. Like 80's Afghanistan, Balkans and Caucasus through 2001 and beyond, and currently in Libya and Syria. (Also see her articles about Fethullah Gülen, his madrassas in the middle east, and his charter schools in the US. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/fethullah-gulen/)

Sure,

but what would that mean exactly? If there's official complicity in committing acts that could not otherwise be committed, then who is ultimately to blame? Who's calling the shots?

I don't deny the existence of Muslim extremism in the world.

But if Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were agents of the US then it's game over. (If the LAPD was involved in orchestrating a massacre, that would trump the idea that some of the officers were Latino).

Plus the murders of 2,200 in demolitions were the direct result of insiders. Calling for 9/11 Justice means getting to the bottom of this. You can't "let" demolitions happen.

I think we're on the same page.

Muslim extremism was and is being used as a tool by the establishment.

Having the establishment be guilty does not erase muslim extremism.

Muslim extremism does not erase establishment guilt.

These are not mutually exclusive. In fact we can say the establishment is also guilty of creating much of the muslim extremism. I would say the heart of the beast is the fascist establishment.

Sound okay to you?

ETA I would also not deny muslim extremists taking action independent of the fascist establishment. But on 9/11, we are definitely seeing interdependence.

Assets or Agents?

I agree that extremists are sometimes used as assets by the establishment, but an agent implies a bit more. If Atta received funding from the ISI and Bin Laden worked for the US all the way up until 9/11, and Awlaki was a triple agent, it changes the picture.

There's official complicity no matter what, but if key characters were working for us as opposed to being unwittingly used as tools, then their actions are part of the insider crime and evidence of their employer's guilt.

.

Good Question

I think it will help members here to come together if we can agree that there were Muslim extremists involved. To what degree and with what integration with the establishment for each of them is a good question and I don't know the answer. We have some clues from some of the whistle blowers and researchers.

I'm in agreement with you about the official complicity - again there are going to be degrees for each player and we're on the road to finding out what they are. It seems like we've got enough knowledge to start knocking over dominoes, but the DOJ won't act. The media won't act. To me it's like we went through a military/intelligence/fascist establishment coup and now live in a soft police state/world that's getting harder as we speak.

I'd be happy to see a domino fall from any entry vector strong enough to knock one over. The CD vs Govt-Extremist-Integration vectors should not be pointed at each other. Nor should the assets vs agents black and white absolutes.

Thanks for your conversation and consideration.

Let Dominoes Fall

I'd be happy to see a domino fall from any entry vector as well, whether it's AQ ties to the US (either as assets or full-blown agents), whether it's official complicity in allowing successful air strikes on key targets which resulted in killing approx. 800, whether it's evidence for remote control of one or more aircraft potentially, or whether it's CD evidence leading to justice for the approx. 2,200 people who were murdered with explosives. I welcome anything that gets traction and opens the door for fuller investigation, truth, accountability, and justice.

Re: Muslim and Al-Qaeda: Islam is a religion, not a race. I have doubts that some of the accused players were devout Muslims, esp. Atta and the Venice gang. Unlike some here, I don't dismiss the research of Daniel Hopsicker. Furthermore, if Atta received funding from the ISI, with ties the CIA, then it casts more doubt on religion being the motivation. It reveals intelligence ties.

So to blame 9/11 on Muslims is to blame religion.

As for "Al-Qaeda" who exactly are they? Do they exist wholly separate from US and other intelligence services? I suspect not. If the accused Al-Qaeda players were doing the bidding of intelligence, then that's who's responsible in my view. If they were actual agents then it's even more blatant. But yeah, whether these people were tools or agents, they did the bidding of those who made it happen on purpose.

Who's operation? Who did the tools/agents work for? Go ahead and knock that domino over, zica.

Religion

Personally, I view all religious thought as degrees of mental illness. So, blaming religion is like blaming depression, or more specifically brainwashing.

People who consider themselves religious and devout or even extreme can benefit from their ties to intelligence, because it allows them to have money to build madrassas, for instance. There are undoubtedly some who are wholly acting the part of religiosity, in order to gain money and power (think of a mega church in any American suburb).

It seems like you are trying to say that ties to intelligence are mutually exclusive with being religious. If so, I would disagree with you.

As I said before, I think the heart of the beast lies with the fascist establishment with arms of government, intelligence, and the military media corporate complex. I'm not comprehending why you want to exonerate the facilitation provided by extreme religious thought, behavior, and conditioning. Because to go after it in no way excludes going after the heart of the beast.

Please consider again why the US has been funding Muslim extremism throughout the world. Don't you see the pattern of it's use and manipulation, for terrorism with geopolitical strategic goals? Why would 9/11 be so different?

It seems like we're agreeing, except then you want to say that it wasn't religion. When that's what religion HAS BEEN, IS, AND SHALL BE EVERMORE. AMEN.

Let's assume

your warped reasoning is sound for a minute, just for the sake of argument.

Where is your outrage over the remaining 800 McGee? You seem transfixed on the "CD" deaths, evidence for which is rapidly evaporating I might add.

And now that we're on the subject, show me your calculations and your sources, please. You keep making these casualty estimates without substantiation.

I gotta laugh at your antics, SnowCrash

Ha... ...I almost can not believe how strained your criticalness gets. And you bait and badger for a word war. Your continuous, repeated, condescending attacks and "all knowing" remarks make you look pretty silly as a person. People like that... ...no one really enjoys being around people like that, because part of their humanity is lacking. ...their soul drying up like a worm on hot concrete.
And you make this comment: "...the "CD" deaths, evidence for which is rapidly evaporating I might add."
Ha! I just gotta laugh.
Pretty silly, SnowCrash.

Answer me this

Following McGee's reasoning, is the US government innocent and cleared of any responsibility of approximately 800 9/11 deaths?

I for one

I'm sure glad SnowCrash is here. It's easy for me to see that he is very intelligent, intuitive, and culturally/socially very adept. I don't know if English is his first language or if it's another, but I have a feeling SC could get along in a lot more places than most people, so I wouldn't worry about his soul.

There were a couple analogies and logical devices that RL McGee used that I didn't think made sense either. They aren't the most important parts of his argument though, and I chose to ignore them. If you think SC is hyper critical, you can say that without attacking his soul.

"People like that..." is a poor example of what wavelength you're on, isn't it?

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm not that easy to get along with when it comes to 9/11 and contentious issues, but outside of that, I'm just like anybody else.

Gotta take a stand for something. English isn't my native language (I'm Dutch) but I was once criticized on this site for my poor command of it, so I decided I never wanted to hear that again; and now some people like Aldo Marquis think my lack of style, spelling and grammatical errors is grounds for suspicion. It's always something...

Anyways, you gotta take the hatefest back and forth with a grain of salt, too. ;-)

Dutch, huh?

That explains a lot. Now I understand why you're so contentious. You should try taking off those wooden shoes for a while.

Seriously, your English writing is very good and natural. Efficient, effective, and excellent. I'm a big fan of your general approach SnowCrash. I think you've kept me reading here in the last year. Not to be a servile flatterer - you deserve it.

p.s. Don't forget to duck under the wind mill blades.

Please add

You allude to rapid evaporation of CD evidence, but apart from the recent case of Millette disputing Harrit et al's finding that the aluminum in the red layer is in elemental form, the rest of the evidence of CD is just as intact as it ever was, and best I can tell isn't going anywhere. Furthermore, Millette apparently hasn't attempted to repeat the calorimeter tests to see if the stuff behaves like thermite, leaving his disagreement with Harrit et al currently being little more than one of semantics. Of course there was all the steel which was shipped off for recycling without being ever being cataloged as any legitimate investigation would have done, but we've all had plenty of time to come to terms with that loss. So, if there is anything more to your claim of evaporating evidence, please share.

Show "Example: Sonnenfeld" by SnowCrash

I'm familar with the Sonnenfeld photos

I'm not familiar with any hype suggesting Sonnenfeld's photos would or should show the thousands of cut columns you claim, which seems to be based on a misconception that the steel should either look like that which has been through a typcial controlled demotions or there was no controlled demolition, a false dichotomy. Of course any hype to that regard obviously evaporated when the photos came out, but what evidence the photos do actually constitute isn't going anywhere. Furthermore, those columns bent into a pretzel you casually dismiss are an example of such evidence, at least as long as nobody can explain how the lack of stress fracturing on them can be accomplished without temperatures well beyond what can be accounted for within the context of the official story.

As for angular cuts Jones promoted, I've always figured they could have been done by cleanup workers, but I've never seen it proven as fact one way or another. How did you arrive at the conclusion you claim? Also, "secret thermite butter cutter", really?

Ten unique examples

Where are they?

And rather than ask why plastically buckled columns weren't fractured, show me how this was accomplished with either thermite or high explosives.

You can't do it.

How do you do this with thermite or high explosives?

Explain it to me. Where is the corroded surface, where are the typical surface distortions and melted residue associated with thermite damage? How do you bend a steel column like this with a shaped charge? Can you cite precedent?

You can't.

Also, "secret thermite butter cutter", really?

Yes, really. Eight years of studying this crap. Excuse my skepticism. (Yes, I know about the patented contraptions designed to cut columns with thermite, show me one of those in the debris, where are they? They can't all have self-consumed completely)

I'm talking positive evidence. Countdown at WTC 7? Okay, that's positive evidence. But... This could have been done, that could have happened, that's speculation. Enough of that, let's get down to business.

I don't think these questions are unreasonable, I think they are an anchor to reality.

Of course your questions are unreasonable

You're badgering me for all sorts of evidence and explanations I've never claimed to have, and you call that "an anchor to reality"? Furthermore, I didn't "ask why plastically buckled columns weren't fractured", and rather pointed out the fact that "nobody can explain how the lack of stress fracturing on them can be accomplished without temperatures well beyond what can be accounted for within the context of the official story." Unless you start addressing what I actually type here, your aren't really engaging in conversation.

Conversation

You said You're badgering me for all sorts of evidence and explanations I've never claimed to have, and you call that "an anchor to reality"?

Yes. Yes, I do. And those questions aren't directly at you but at anyone who will answer them.

Furthermore, I didn't "ask why plastically buckled columns weren't fractured", and rather pointed out the fact that "nobody can explain how the lack of stress fracturing on them can be accomplished without temperatures well beyond what can be accounted for within the context of the official story."

I don't see how your rephrasing changes a thing.

"Unless you start addressing what I actually type here, your aren't really engaging in conversation."

Likewise.

What we have here is a typical standoff regarding burden of proof and where it lies. We're off-topic too, you're free to continue in the nanothermite thread. If you continue here, I will continue here. If you stop, I'll stop, which would be fine with me because this isn't going anywhere.

I want you to prove your point, and you want me to prove mine. It's a stalemate.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, here's the notorious "Heiwa", (Part C can never crush part A, even if dropped from outer space!) member of AE911Truth:

First, A, a plastic hinge develops in the middle of the compressed column due to lack of strain energy there, then, B, two more plastic hinges develop above and below the first hinge, then, C and D, the column 'kneels' and finally, E, a severly deformed part of the column may punch a hole in the floor below it, while the solid mass above or force applied is shifted sideways. All these deformations require energy that is applied by the displacing mass above! The column will never fracture in any location and it will nevel rupture due to fractures at the hinges into several pieces, i.e. it will always be connected, albeit very deformed.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

So, which is it? Always fracture or never fracture?

Hey, don't look at me, ask AE911Truth if they should discuss this specific matter internally and come up with a consistent position. Like so many other cognitively dissonant issues on which they want to have it both ways.

The lay of things

The burden of proof for your claim of "evidence for which is rapidly evaporating" lies squarely on you. The responsibility for rephrasing which you attribute to me also actually lies with you, since I simply quoted my original statement in response to your twisting of my words. Furthermore, replies to me are hardly the place for laying out your questions to "anyone who will answer them", an open letter would be far better suited for that.

Show "Okay" by SnowCrash

Arriving at the conclusion I claimed

The author of this video is Arie, A.K.A. "11septembervideos" on Youtube.

He's well known and one of us.

See also Major Tom's discussion:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=42&MMN_position=68:68

There is no question this was not a shaped charge. Steven was wrong, and you were wrong to insinuate "doubt" here:

"As for angular cuts Jones promoted, I've always figured they could have been done by cleanup workers, but I've never seen it proven as fact one way or another."

You've "never seen it proven as fact one way or another"? Well, that's nice, Pavlovian Dogcatcher. Ten years after 9/11 and counting. Dream on. My questions are not unreasonable, and it's wholly unacceptable that, as your reaction shows, these canards are still floating around somewhere in the realm between fact and fiction as if we're inside Stephen King's "Four Past Midnight".

And I haven't even discussed the "workers huddling around glowing thermite pit" hoax also promoted by Steven. It was a construction light.

Yes, I've still never seen it proven one way or another

Arie's video is excellent, Tom reaches a bit much, but neither went so far as to claim anything lines of "no question this was not a shaped charge", let alone your previous claim of "in fact cut by cleanup workers". Stephen was wrong to promote those cuts as if they were proof, but I'm not insinuating doubt here, I'm accepting the facts as they stand. Part of that includes accepting the fact that a proper investigation, which would have documented what happened to that column along side all the others, never happened. You've been dreaming if you imagined that fact would be overcome in time, and have had over a decade to get over the fact that the vast majority of the steel which would have facilitated a detailed understanding into exactly how the buildings came down was shipped off and melted down without ever being cataloged.

As for your previous reply to me above in which you argued "you're saying you find the heavily warped/bent condition in which some columns were found, implausible": no, I'm saying that the condition of those beams is impossible within the context of the official story, as when steel is bent like that without getting it glowing hot first, it develops a series of small cracks radiating throughout the bend, and nothing in the official story can get such prices of steel anywhere near that hot.

As for the construction light photo, I'm familiar with it and never imagined it was anything else. Perhaps you could take a break from all the the negativity, and discuss Jones's debunking of the notion that the molten material was probably just aluminum instead?

Show "Imagination" by SnowCrash

You keep missrepresnting

Again, I didn't "ask why plastically buckled columns weren't fractured", and I don't consider their condition "implausible" , and neither Arie nor Tom went so far as to claim anything lines of "no question this was not a shaped charge", let alone "in fact cut by cleanup workers" in what you posted from them. You continue the misrepresentations in your most recent post, but won't bother enumerating and addressing them, as you seem far too caught up in your own imagination for me to rightly expect you to comprehend what actually has been said.

Show "Whatever" by SnowCrash

Please take some time to think this through

You've obviously been too busy looking for an argument to comprehend my potion, and agree with Tom on this matter aside from the part where he engages in the same false dichotomy that I pointed out in your argument here earlier.