DoD Inspector General Reports For 9/11 Can't Be Trusted

“Isn't it great that all of these "reports" are coming out clearing the Pentagon of any wrong doing?” - Jon Gold, 9/22/2006

Jon Gold
9/28/2017

On 5/7/2009, New York Times columnist Frank Rich went on the Rachel Maddow show, and shared his belief that the DoD Inspector General's office's investigations over the years may have been cover-ups that were "carried out in response to "orders from above." He said that any report "over the past five or six years during the war in Iraq" may be suspect, and that "there may be a much bigger story here."

In 2006, two reports were released from the DoD Inspector General’s Office. One on 8/5/2006, and one on 9/21/2006.

The first report let NORAD off the hook for lying about 9/11. The Washington Post reported on 8/2/2006 that "the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public" and that "the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation."

Three days later a report from 2005 was released by the DoD Inspector General's office that said NORAD's “mistakes” were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping." A ridiculous excuse within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq (from 2009)."

The second report from the DoD IG said there was nothing to the Able Danger-9/11 Story. The New York Times reported on 8/9/2005 that "more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.”

A report was released on 9/21/2006 by the DoD Inspector General's office, and it was reported that, "a review of records from the unit, known as Able Danger, found no evidence it had identified ringleader Mohamed Atta or any other terrorist who participated in the 2001 attacks." In this report, former Rep. Curt Weldon said that report was created by a an Inspector General that acted "in a sickening bureaucratic manner, the DOD IG cherry-picked testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance of the Able Danger effort.” Also within "the past five or six years during the war in Iraq (from 2009)."

If you go by Frank Rich’s timeline, both of those reports met his requirements. Unfortunately, because names weren’t flying around in the corporate news (the news in general will write “DoD Inspector General,” and not mention any names. It turns out that WaPo mentioned Thomas F. Gimble), and because those 2 reports were released around the same time, I thought they came from the same office. I was incorrect. I thought that because they rarely released the name of the DoD Inspector General that maybe it was classified (it was 7 years ago already).

Trump recently and horribly brought up Pat Tillman to use for the “Patriotic Binge. (Michael Parenti).” Because of that, he reminded me of this report that I wrote in 2010 that mentions Pat Tillman. That, in turn, reminded me of the two reports from the DoD Inspector General.

So, I started my research. After a few hours, I finally managed to see that there were two IGs around that time instead of one. The one who was DoD IG when NORAD was let off the hook was James E. Shmitz. The one who was “acting” DoD IG when a report was released that said there was nothing to the Able Danger-9/11 story was Thomas F. Gimble. I will post all research that I didn’t include after this article.

When I found their names, I was so happy I made this movie. I thought I could put it aside for a while and let other people research them. Then, I got curious and looked into both of them.

James E. Schmitz resigned in September 2005. It seems to be in disgrace, but he says “he gave notice of his resignation in September 2004.” Why wait a year, and why do it when the shit hit the fan? He then went to work with Blackwater (disgusting). Recently, he was hired by Trump as a “Foreign Policy Adviser (absolutely disgusting).” These actions (and the ones that drove him to resign) do NOT make me trust him or his office.

Before a new DoD Inspector was appointed, there was “acting” DoD Inspector General, Thomas F. Gimble (the man who replaced him as DoD IG was Claude M. Kicklighter on 4/30/2007). In 2010, Catherine Herridge reported that "at least five witnesses questioned by the Defense Department's Inspector General told Fox News that their statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information, backing up assertions that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified a year before 9/11." The report goes on to say that investigators were "hostile" towards witnesses, and that they also attempted to "intimidate" them. These actions do NOT make me trust him or his office.

I looked into other DoD IG’s, and found that it seems corruption is business as usual (“the Department of Defense have not responded to requests for comment,” and “He notes that Department of Defense’s Inspector General, which is investigating the claims, can’t be trusted to carry out such an investigation.”).

These two reports were supposed to give us some truth. They were supposed to pick up where the 9/11 Commission left off (they were so compromised and corrupt themselves). We got no such thing. I do NOT trust them, and neither should you.

Going back, and looking at the time-frame of 2005-2006... it feels like those reports (DoD IG) were printed yesterday. It brings back a lot of anger. First of all, those reports never really got a lot of attention. I'm thankful I have all of the news archived on my site. At the time, Representatives would write form letters endorsing the 9/11 Commission and their work. The corporate news GREATLY ignored those who were questioning 9/11, and were gradually working into their attack campaign against us that made us the equivalent of a baby killer or dog torturer. I look at where we are today, the wars are still going on, our civil liberties are greatly destroyed, we have something called a DHS which screws a lot of causes and people over, it's not being taught correctly in schools, there is a $700B Pentagon budget for more war, and on top of it all, there has never been accountability. Really infuriating. Not sad. Infuriating.

End

UPDATE: Thomas F. Gimble is mentioned in the first report about NORAD, but as “Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence.” He’s listed in the report for Able Danger as “acting.” It’s possible that Gimble was the lead investigator on both, and I was right, it was one DoD IG. Both are HORRIBLE, ESPECIALLY Thomas F. Gimble. I don’t think he could do it without letting James Schmitz, his boss, see it. Again, he could have been taking orders “from above.” Or from whoever...

After I did all of my research looking for the names of the DoD IGs, I re-discovered this page (I looked at it before, but didn’t scroll or I would have seen it... UGH).

Research

Catherine Herridge’s report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings.html

DoD Inspector General Report for NORAD (5/27/2005): http://www.dodig.mil/FOIA/err/05-INTEL-13.pdf

DoD Inspector General Report for Able Danger (9/18/2006): http://www.dodig.mil/FOIA/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf

Thomas F. Gimble as “acting” DoD IG (2/14/2006): http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/PressReleases/DODIG_Testimony_Final_0206.pdf

Thomas F. Gimble as “acting” DoD IG (3/20/2007): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/gimble_testimony_03_20_07.pdf

Report before Kicklighter that mentions David H. Kaufman as a withdrawn candidate for DoD IG, but lists Joseph E. Schmitz as the last (12/6/2006): https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061206-4.html

Another Report before Kicklighter that mentions Joseph E. Schmitz as being the last (2/26/2007): https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/02/text/20070226-2.html

Claude M. Kicklighter Confirmation (4/30/2007): https://web.archive.org/web/20140317075947/https://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=127

Joseph Schmitz (look him up) resigned in September 2005. After that, Thomas F. Gimble was made “acting” DoD IG. Claude Kicklighter became the next DoD IG on 4/30/2007.

Two related articles of mine from years ago:

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?21617-Further-Proof-9-11-Needs-A-Real-Investigation&p=98489#post98489

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?20635-DoD-Inspector-General-s-Reports-Within-The-Last-5-6-Years-May-Have-B...

Around the time those reports

Around the time those reports from Frank Rich and Catherine Herridge came out, I was heavily involved in the NYCCAN initiative, and then committing civil disobedience (because I had done "enough" research, especially after the NYCCAN initiative failed). When the reports were released in 2006, I read both. I didn't know how "corrupt" the DoD IG was. 3-4 years later when Rich and Herridge did their thing, I didn't go back and re-read them like I should have because I was involved with the other stuff. Then this happened and that happened and this happened, etc... I'm sorry it took so long.

Edit: If Thomas F. Gimble was the "lead investigator" (my words) from the DoD IG for both NORAD and Able Danger, and his office was "hostile" and "intimidat(ing)" towards witnesses and witnesses' "statements were distorted by investigators in the final IG's report -- or it left out key information" for Able Danger, what are the chances the same thing happened for the NORAD investigation? An investigation that produced a ridiculous report that says “mistakes” (LIES) were due to "inadequate forensic capabilities" and "poor record-keeping?" A report that wasn't released for nearly a year and a half? VERY good.