Jump to content


Steven Gaal

Member Since 16 Jun 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:18 PM

Topics I've Started

Farewell Forum (last post)

02 August 2014 - 06:28 PM

Farewell Forum (last post)
Dino Brugioni was the Duty Officer at NPIC on the weekend following the Kennedy Assassination. He was notified by NPIC Director Arthur C. Lundahl, (who had been notified by CIA Director John McCone), that the Secret Service would be bringing in a film, requiring NPIC assistance. ..........
The agents  viewed the film 4-5 times with a stop watch involved to gain appreciation for the interval between shots. After viewing the film several times, the Agents requested that 12-15 specific frames be enlarged and blown-up using a precision high quality enlarger, and then selected prints to be mounted on briefing boards.......They did take the Zapruder Film, and a list of names of All involved in the Briefing Board process...... Horne believes the Brugioni and McMahon/Hunter interviews reveal a "compartmentalized operation" in which Brugioni made Briefing Boards using the Original Zapruder Film on Sat night, and McMahon made Briefing Boards the next night/Sunday, using an altered Zapruder Film which had been constructed at the Top Secret "Hawkeyeworks" facility. After viewing the Brugioni Briefing Boards which revealed wounds inflicted from shots NOT fired from behind, it was immediatley obvious that the Zapruder Film needed to be altered, and those Briefing Boards prepared by Brugioni disposed of.  Hence, the Zapruder Film was immediately sent to the Hi Tech, Top Secret "Hawkeyeworks" facility immediately, and the Sunday/McMahon Briefing Board Event scheduled at NPIC.  In 2009 Dino Brugioni confirmed that in 1963 Kodak had a State Of The Art Lab in Rochester. It was used by the CIA for various classified purposes, and that he visited that facility More than once, and even Prior to the assassination. During the Janney interviews in 2009, Brugioni stated that in regard to the technical possibilities at "hawkeyeworks", "They could do ANYTHING".   

Mannlicher-Carcano could only fire with aim sighting so fast and thus the need for (GAAL) ," ... a stop watch involved to gain appreciation for the interval between shots.". Dino Brugioni also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers.
Yes it seems the Secret Service had foreknowledge of the problems (multiple shooters) to be revealed in the Zapruder film.(GAAL)


David Josephs


Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:42 AM

Agree 100% David... If anything... once the turn onto Elm was completed that limo should have done nothing but accelerate its way to the freeway..

There were no more crowds and nothing but danger in the bowl of DP... and for these trained men not to have realized this weeks in advance is absurd to even consider.

When we look at Nix/Muchmoore Hill does not come close to the limo until well after z313...

Try jumping off a moving vehicle at 5-7 mph and hit the ground running and catch another moving vehicle in less than 1 second...

Greer is simply not doing his job here... and his testimony (ala analysis from Palmara) is wrought with CYA and plain out lying.
Karl... how is driving the POTUS thru DP at less than 10mph "nothing sinister"... once he completes the TRULY TURN (wide and almost on the curb that is not filmed anywhere) he has clear sailing..

there can be no explanation for that speed at that time given what we see the limo do after the shots... it is up to speed and roaring away by the time it gets to the overpass...
a real SS escort would have had him accellerating all the way down Elm and onto Stemmons...

Instead, we have him staring at JFK a SECOND time, up to the point of the headshot.... this is an "innocent" reaction to sounds like gunshot and the man in obvious distress fro 6-10 seconds ago?
While I would like to offer the benefit of the doubt... this sequence literally SCREAMS at you... WTF is he doing?

adio's forum Its been great .

I leave you with the words of Jesus Christ my Lord and savior.    


Lexham English Bible (LEB)


The Sermon on the Mount: The Beatitudes


Now when he[a] saw the crowds, he went up the mountain and after he[b] sat down, his disciples approached him. And opening his mouth he began to teach them, saying,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the ones who mourn,
    because they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
    because they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are the ones who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    because they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
    because they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
    because they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
    because they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you
    when they insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you, lying on account of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.

The Sermon on the Mount: Salt and Light

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if salt becomes tasteless, by what will it be made salty? It is good for nothing any longer except to be thrown outside and[c] trampled under foot by people. 14 You are the light of the world. A city located on top of a hill cannot be hidden, 15 nor do they light a lamp and place it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house. 16 In the same way let your light shine before people, so that they can see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

The Sermon on the Mount: The Law and the Prophets Fulfilled

17 “Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one tiny letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all takes place. 19 Therefore whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness greatly surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The Sermon on the Mount: Anger Toward Others

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people of old,[d] ‘Do not commit murder,’[e] and ‘whoever commits murder will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry at his brother will be subject to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Stupid fool!’[f] will be subject to the council, and whoever says, ‘Obstinate fool!’[g] will be subject to fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you present your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and first go be reconciled to your brother, and then come and[h] present your gift. 25 Settle the case quickly with your accuser[i] while you are with him on the way, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will never come out of there until you have paid back the last penny!

The Sermon on the Mount: Adultery and Lust

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[j]28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 And if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it from you! For it is better for you that one of your members be destroyed than your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it from you! For it is better for you that one of your limbs be destroyed than your whole body go into hell.

The Sermon on the Mount: Divorce

31 “And it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[k]32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for a matter of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Sermon on the Mount: Taking Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to the people of old,[l] ‘Do not swear falsely,[m] but fulfill your oaths to the Lord.’[n]34 But I say to you, do not swear at all, either by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, because it is the footstool of his feet, or by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king. 36 And do not swear by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be ‘Yes, yes; no, no,’ and anything beyond these is from the evil one.[o]

The Sermon on the Mount: Retaliation

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[p]39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek,[q] turn the other to him also. 40 And the one who wants to go to court with you and take your tunic, let him have[r] your outer garment also. 41 And whoever forces you to go one mile,[s] go with him two. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The Sermon on the Mount: Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’[t] and ‘Hate your enemy.’[u]44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, because he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not the tax collectors also do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing that is remarkable? Do not the Gentiles also do the same? 48 Therefore you be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Sermon on the Mount: Charitable Giving

“And take care not to practice your righteousness before people to be seen by them; otherwise[a] you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Therefore whenever you practice charitable giving, do not sound a trumpet in front of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, in order that they may be praised by people. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward in full! But you, when you[b] practice charitable giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, in order that your charitable giving may be in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The Sermon on the Mount: How to Pray

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to stand and[c] pray in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, in order that they may be seen by people. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward in full! But whenever you pray, enter into your inner room and shut your door and[d] pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

“But when you[e] pray, do not babble repetitiously like the pagans, for they think that because of their many words they will be heard. Therefore do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need[f] before you ask him. Therefore you pray in this way:

“Our Father who is in heaven,
may your name be treated as holy.
10 May your kingdom come,
may your will be done
    on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread,
12 and forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[g]

14 For if you forgive people their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive people, neither will your Father forgive your sins.

The Sermon on the Mount: How to Fast

16 “Whenever you fast, do not be sullen like the hypocrites, for they make their faces unrecognizable in order that they may be seen fasting by people. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward in full! 17 But when[h] you are fasting, put olive oil on your head[i] and wash your face 18 so that you will not be seen by people as fasting, but to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The Sermon on the Mount: Treasure in Heaven

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and consuming insect[j] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor consuming insect[k] destroy and where thieves do not break in or steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. Therefore if your eye is sincere, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. Therefore if the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 “No one is able to serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You are not able to serve God and money.[l]

The Sermon on the Mount: Anxiety

25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, what you will eat,[m] and not for your body, what you will wear. Is your life not more than food and your body more than clothing? 26 Consider the birds of the sky, that they do not sow or reap or gather produce into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth more than they are? 27 And who among you, by[n] being anxious, is able to add one hour[o] to his life span? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe the lilies of the field, how they grow: they do not toil or spin, 29 but I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was dressed like one of these. 30 But if God dresses the grass of the field in this way, although it[p] is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not do so much more for you, you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?,’ 32 for the pagans seek after all these things. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first his kingdom and righteousness,[q] and all these things will be added to you. 34 Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow, because tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.[r]

The Sermon on the Mount: On Judging Others

“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by what measure you measure out, it will be measured out to you. And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls in front of pigs, lest they trample them with their feet, and turn around and[a] tear you to pieces.

The Sermon on the Mount: Ask, Seek, Knock

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you, if his son will ask him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or also if he will ask for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 Therefore if you, although you[b] are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him? 12 Therefore in all things, whatever you want that people should do to you, thus also you do to them. For this is the law and the prophets.

The Sermon on the Mount: The Narrow Gate

13 “Enter through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it, 14 because narrow[c]is the gate and constricted is the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it!

The Sermon on the Mount: Recognizing False Prophets

15 “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits: they do not gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles, do they?[d]17 In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree to produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 As a result, you will recognize them by their fruits.

The Sermon on the Mount: False Followers

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 And then I will say to them plainly,[e] ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’

The Sermon on the Mount: Two Houses and Two Foundations

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it did not collapse, because its foundation was laid on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it collapsed, and its fall was great.”

The Sermon on the Mount: Response

28 And it happened when Jesus finished these words the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he was teaching them like one who had authority, and not like their scribes.


CIA Director George Tenet Facilitated 9/11

29 July 2014 - 10:20 PM




After becoming Director of the CIA (DCI) in 1997, George Tenet did what Louis Freeh had done after his appointment as FBI Director. He began to cultivate close personal relationships with the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Like Freeh, Tenet grew especially close to Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Bandar and Tenet often met at Bandar’s home near Washington yet Tenet did not share information from those meetings with his own officers who were handling Saudi issues at the Agency. The CIA’s Saudi specialists only learned about Tenet’s dealings with the Saudi authorities inadvertently, through their Saudi contacts. It seems that Tenet was operating within a network that surpassed the interests of the American public. Therefore the unsolved crimes of 9/11, attributed largely to young men from Saudi Arabia, should be considered in light of Tenet’s actions.

As Deputy Director for the CIA, in 1996, Tenet had worked to install one of his closest friends and confidants, John Brennan, as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. Brennan is now the DCI but, in his previous role, Brennan often communicated directly with Tenet, avoiding the usual chain of command. At the time, as an apparent favor to the Saudis, CIA analysts were discouraged from questioning Saudi relationship to Arab extremists.

The unusual relationship that both George Tenet and Louis Freeh had with Saudi intelligence (and George H.W. Bush) recalls the private network that was created in the mid-1970s to accomplish covert actions though means of proxies. This private network included disgruntled CIA officers who had been fired by President Carter, as well as the group known as The Safari Club, and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

The Safari Club resulted from an agreement between Saudi Arabian intelligence chief Kamal Adham, Anwar Sadat of Egypt, the Shah of Iran, and French intelligence director Alexandre de Marenches. The BCCI network grew, with the blessing of DCI George H.W. Bush, through the guidance of the Safari Club, which needed a network of banks to help fund proxy operations, including off-the-books operations required by the CIA. This private network was utilized in the arming of the Mujahideen, the precursor to al Qaeda.

The U.S. aid to the Mujahideen did not officially start until 1980 but went on for many years under the name Operation Cyclone. This operation relied heavily on using the Pakistani ISI as an intermediary for funds and weapons distribution, military training, and financial support. Evidence suggests that covert U.S. support for a “CIA within a CIA” existed twenty years later, when Tenet began leading the CIA, and that terrorist operations were among those that were funded.

tenet-and-bush.jpg?w=272&h=300That possibility underscores the failure of George Tenet’s leadership of the CIA as the Agency failed miserably to detect and prevent al Qaeda terrorism. This failure might make more sense in light of British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s claim that al Qaeda was not originally a terrorist group but a database of operatives used by the CIA. In any case, it was almost as if Tenet wanted al Qaeda to not only remain viable, but to be seen as an ever-looming threat.

For example, in February 1998, Al Qaeda made public its second fatwah, repeating its declaration of holy war against the United States and its allies. It included the signatures of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of the Jihad Group in Egypt. What did George Tenet’s CIA do in response?

  • According to CIA officer Michael Scheuer, “The Agency’s Bin Laden unit was ordered disbanded” in April 1998. Although Tenet rescinded the order later, Scheuer commented that “the on-again, off-again signals about the unit’s future status made for confusion, distraction, and much job-hunting in the last few weeks” before the embassy attacks.
  • In May 1998, Tenet traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Tenet and Abdullah made a secret agreement that Bin Laden, if captured, would not be given to the U.S. for trial but instead given to the Saudis. Recommending that the Saudis bribe the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over, Tenet canceled the CIA’s own operation to get Bin Laden.
  • Michael Scheuer claimed that, between May 1998 and May 1999, U.S. leaders passed up ten opportunities to capture Bin Laden. According to Scheuer, it was George Tenet and his deputies who rejected the proposals. 
Apparently two declarations of holy war by al Qaeda were not enough to compel George Tenet to increase his agency’s focus on Bin Laden. Not only that, Tenet seemed to intentionally back off pursuing Bin laden in 1998 and 1999, obstructing U.S. attempts to capture al Qaeda’s leader.

The result was the August 7, 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The date of the bombings marked the eighth anniversary of the arrival of American forces in Saudi Arabia. Just months before the bombings, the CIA had been warned by the Kenyan Intelligence Service that the embassy in Nairobi was going to be attacked by al Qaeda. But the CIA ignored the warning. Not only that, but the embassy bombings were “carried out by a cell that U.S. agents had already uncovered.”

Late that year, in a memo to the CIA, George Tenet declared war against al Qaeda. He wrote that “Our work to date has been remarkable and in some cases heroic” but “we must now redouble our efforts against Bin Ladin himself, his infrastructure, followers, finances, etc with a sense of enormous urgency.” He said, “We are at war…. I want no resources or people spared… either inside CIA or the [U.S. intelligence] community.”

Although meetings were held, Tenet did not attend them and his deputy went only once. The meetings were attended by few if any officers from other agencies and quickly stopped addressing the fight against al Qaeda. No other plan was made at the CIA or elsewhere in the U.S. intelligence community, as a result of this declaration of war by Tenet, to defeat al Qaeda.

Despite the attempts by Tenet and others to hype the threat from Bin Laden and his alleged network, as of August 1999 not even The Washington Post appeared to be convinced of the threat. Reporters Colum Lynch and Vernon Loeb at the Post questioned the emerging legend of al Qaeda by writing, “for all its claims about a worldwide conspiracy to murder Americans, the government’s case is, at present, largely circumstantial. The indictment never explains how bin Laden runs al Qaeda or how he may have masterminded the embassy bombings.”

Behind the scenes, Tenet’s lack of action suggested that he was also unconcerned. An example was given in March 1999 when German intelligence provided to the CIA the mobile phone number and first name of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers—Marwan Al-Shehhi. The CIA did nothing with the information. Although Tenet later dismissed its importance, others said that the number could have been easily traced, leading to the capture of Al-Shehhi.

Additionally, the CIA appeared “to have been investigating the man who recruited the [alleged 9/11] hijackers at the time he was recruiting them.” Although there is no evidence that the CIA took actions to stop the plot as it was unfolding, there were many interesting leads to follow. For example, in the summer of 1999 Bin Laden was reportedly given $50 million by a group of oil-rich sheikhs. The New York Times reported on this gift which came via a single bank transfer: “The Central Intelligence Agency has obtained evidence that Mr. Bin Laden has been allowed to funnel money through the Dubai Islamic Bank in Dubai, which the United Arab Emirates Government effectively controls.”

The links between al Qaeda and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were far greater, however. These included that the alleged plot architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was said to be living in Sharjah, UAE as of 1999. Sharjah was reportedly a major center of al Qaeda activity at the time. One of the alleged hijackers, Fayez Ahmed Banihammad, was from Sharjah, as was alleged plot financier Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi. All of the alleged 9/11 hijackers traveled through the UAE on their way to the United States, other than Mohamed Atta, Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, the latter of whom was said to be the one to facilitate the travel of the others. Accused hijacker pilot Ziad Jarrah was detained and questioned in January 2000 at Dubai Airport. However, CIA and UAE officials failed to warn German intelligence about Jarrah, who traveled on to Hamburg.

Overall, the lack of communication and action taken by DCI Tenet regarding the men who would be accused of perpetrating the 9/11attacks was reflective of the same attitude exhibited by FBI Director Louis Freeh. With the strong ties between Tenet’s good friend Clarke and the UAE, it would seem that much could have been done to stop the 9/11 attacks long before they happened.

Perhaps coincidentally, the CIA’s tracking of two 9/11 suspects who did not travel to the U.S. through the UAE has been reported extensively. This began with the monitoring of a January 2000 meeting in Malaysia attended by KSM and several other alleged al Qaeda leaders. The meeting included the two alleged 9/11 hijackers Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi. These are the two suspects who Tenet claimed the CIA had been looking for only in the few weeks before 9/11. The CIA must not have been looking too hard because when the two suspects came to the U.S., they lived in San Diego with an FBI asset.

With regard to the CIA’s failed communications prior to 9/11, author Kevin Fenton lets Tenet off the hook, saying that there is “no evidence of [Tenet] doing anything intentionally wrong before the attacks. Fenton acknowledges that Tenet lied extensively in testimony to the Joint Congressional Inquiry, and that he gave “a string of evasive answers” to the 9/11 Commission. Yet Fenton’s premise is that low-level CIA and FBI officers kept a secret plan [the hiding of evidence about the two suspects] from their superiors.

The facts, however, suggest that high-level CIA leadership was behind the orders to hide the evidence about Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi. Examples include the failure of the CIA station in Bangkok to communicate that the two suspects had left Thailand for the U.S., and the order referenced by the CIA station chief in Kuala Lumpur when he said that he was not supposed to show certain photographs related to the men. Although that order was disobeyed, and the surveillance photos of the Malaysia meeting were shared with FBI officers, such an order to a CIA station chief could not have come from low-level officers. Control of multiple CIA stations could only come from the top.

While the CIA withheld information about Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi living in the United States, Tenet simultaneously kept the threat hype going. A month after the Malaysia meeting, he told the U.S. Senate that Bin Laden was planning “to strike further blows against America.”

Despite this apparent threat, Tenet had not ordered a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism in his entire tenure, the last one having been produced in 1997. According to the 9/11 Commission, Tenet finally recognized this need and charged the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center with making a strategic assessment. But as with so many other coincidences, the person who was to lead the assessment didn’t start work until the day before 9/11.

U.S. intelligence officers later said they were told to back-off investigation of Bin Laden and the Saudis. After the Bush Administration took over in January 2001, there was a “major policy shift” at the National Security Agency in that OBL could still be investigated, but they could not look at where he got his money.

Adding to suspicions about Tenet are the mysterious links between Tenet’s mentor, David Boren, and training for the alleged hijackers. Currently the co-chair of President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board, Boren is the long-time president of the University of Oklahoma, which has its own airport. In the years before 9/11, the FBI came to the airport several times to talk to people there about the training of terrorism suspects. It was later learned that the university airport was where Zacarias Moussaoui trained to fly, and that Mohamed Atta and other alleged hijackers had called, emailed and visited the airport in the two years before 9/11.

These clues were ignored as Tenet refused to cooperate with the official investigations into the events of 9/11 and as he lied to representatives of the U.S. Congress. Tenet lied to the 9/11 Commission about having met with President Bush in the month before the attacks. He lied under oath about CIA foreknowledge of the alleged hijackers, and he lied to the 9/11 Commission by failing to tell them about torture videos that his subordinates later destroyed.

The facts show that, as DCI from 1997 to 2004, Tenet was responsible for an agency that had, at the very least, failed miserably to perform its duties related to counterterrorism. Overall the evidence suggests that, as with Louis Freeh and the FBI, some of those failures were intentional. Concerns that Tenet and Freeh had developed secret paths of communication with Saudi authorities, and that they might have disrupted plans to capture or investigate al Qaeda suspects, were never addressed. Therefore, an ongoing investigation into 9/11 should include George Tenet and his actions leading up to the attacks.


OOPS ! TSA to give you 400,000 Volts

12 July 2014 - 02:02 PM


history that never was....but could have been......

07 July 2014 - 11:08 PM

  • Dulles loyalist James Jesus Angleton seems to be connected to creating (if needed) a  Communist Agent Dallas patsy  inside of French Intelligence (Jean Souetre-Michael Mertz) . This is foreknowledge. SEE http://educationforu...=21126&p=287009
  • According to Neuville, « There are no coincidences in the suspicion business—just cover-ups. The case of communist infiltration of the French secret service was an appropriate cover-up to justify the presence of Colonel deLannurien at Langley, Virginia. » (653)

  • LHO was to die at Tippit or theater
  • Lower level conspirators know LHO is to die (and dont like it ) and  kept LHO alive hoping he would spew pro-Castro-Communist rhetoric, creating overthrow Castro.
  • Plot never brought to the stage  has SDECE agent Phillipe de Vosjoli  kill  SDECE agent Michel Victor Mertz .  James Jesus Angleton's man Phillipe de Vosjoli  finds made up "evidence" linking Oswald-Mertz  and  Moscow communist penetrated SDECE. Additionally evidence of communist penetrated SDECE is "found' linking the SDECE to De Gaulle's assassination attempt.
  • OAS is exonerated in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. OAS gains more prominence. SDECE is taken down a peg. False hero  Phillipe de Vosjoli is moved upward in SDECE hierarchy conducting a communist purge under the direction of James Jesus Angleton.
William Turner
When I reported the Camp Street discovery to Garrison, I recommended that we assign priority to interviewing Banister. Too late, he said, Banister had been found dead in bed in June 1964, his pearlhandled, monogrammed .357 Magnum revolver at his side. Although there was no autopsy, his demise was attributed to a heart attack. But Brooks, who had done some clipping and filing for Banister in 1962, had identified his deputy, Hugh F. Ward, as also belonging to the Minutemen as well as an outfit called the Anti-Communism League of the Caribbean, which was headed by Banister after he came to New Orleans in 1955. Brooks credited the ACLC with helping the CIA overthrow the leftist Arbenz government in Guatemala, opening the way for a succession of rightist strongmen. The ACLC continued to act as an intermediary between the CIA and right-wing insurgency movements in the Caribbean, including Cuba after Castro gained power. There was a chance that Ward would be willing to talk, but it turned out he was gone as well. On May 23, 1965, he was at the controls of a Piper Aztec chartered by former New Orleans mayor DeLessups Morrison when the craft, engines sputtering, crashed on a fog-shrouded hill near Ciudad Victoria, Mexico, killing all on board. That left Maurice Brooks Gatlin, Sr., an attorney associated with Banister, on Brooks's list of key Minutemen in Louisiana. According to Brooks, Gatlin served as legal counsel to the ACLC. In fact, Brooks had been a kind of protege of Gatlin. The attorney's passport was stamped with visas of countries around the world. In Brooks's estimation, he was a "transporter" for the CIA. On one occasion Gatlin bodaciously told Brooks, "I have pretty good connections. Stick with me-I'll give you a license to kill." Brooks became a firm believer in 1962 when Gatlin displayed a thick wad of bills, saying he had $ioo,ooo of CIA money earmarked for a French reactionary clique planning to assassinate General de Gaulle. Shortly thereafter Gatlin flew to Paris, and shortly after that came the Secret Army Organization's abortive ambush of the French president. But Gatlin as well was beyond Garrison's reach. In 1964 he fell or was pushed from the sixth floor of the Panama Hotel in Panama, dying instantly
As documented by Joan Mellen on pages 136-139 of her account of the JFK assassination investigation by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, titled A Farewell to Justice:

  • Centro Mondiale Commerciale was, by the US government's own admission, a CIA front.

    • CMC channeled money to OAS.

      • CMC's parent company founded by the CIA, PERMINDEX, was filled with Nazis and neo-Nazis.

        • President Charles de Gaulle publicly blamed PERMINDEX for attempting to assassinate him.

          • CMC president Ferenc Nagy, longtime asset of CIA DDP Frank Wisner, was, according to de Gaulle, a "munificent contributor" to OAS supporter Jacques Soustelle.

            • On the board of directors for CMC: Clay Shaw, indicted for murder of JFK by Jim Garrison.

            In addition, there are other less-documented incidents suggestive of deeper ties.  On page 242, Mellen writes of a confrontation between two CIA plants in Garrison's office where one pointed out that the other had been chief investigator of a group led by Guy Banister, the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, which sent $100,000 to the OAS. 
            Robert Paulsen


The OAS coup came on April 22, 1961 when four French Generals under the leadership of General Challe seized power in Algeria in an attempt to maintain the country's union with France.  Allegedly, secret soldiers of the CIA-supported NATO stay-behind army who had joined the OAS were directly involved.  The secret soldiers 'supported a group of generals who were resisting, sometimes violently, de Gaulle's attempts to negotiate Algerian independence and end the war', US author Jonathan Kwitny related in his article on the secret armies in Western Europe.44  Obviously, more research is needed on the involvement of the French stay-behind in the 1961 coup d'etat as it figures amongst the most sensitive dimensions of the history of the secret war in France.  As of now the evidence suggests that the stay-behind armies were involved in successful coup d'etats in Greece in 1967 and in Turkey in 1980, and in the coup against the French government in 1961 which failed.
The CIA and its Director Allen Dulles together with militant secret soldiers of NATO and the Pentagon in Washington had allegedly supported the coup against de Gaulle.  Immediately after the coup, 'minor officials at the Elysee Palace itself' had given 'to understand that the generals' plot was back by strongly anti-Communist elements in the United States Government and military services', as the Washington Star reported.  'Both in Paris and Washington the facts are now known, though they will never be publicly admitted', an article of Claude Krief revealed already in May 1961 in the widely read French weekly L'Express.  'In private, the highest French personalities make no secret of it.  What they say is this: The CIA played a direct part in the Algiers coup, and certainly weighed heavily on the decision taken by ex-general Challe to start the putsch.'  Shortly before the coup General Challe had held the position of NATO Commander in Chief Allied Forces Central Europe, cultivating close contacts not only with the Pentagon and US officers but also with the NATO secret stay-behind army, maintaining daily contact with US military officers.  General Challe, as Krief concluded, had acted directly on CIA orders: 'All the people who know him well, are deeply convinced that he had been encouraged by the CIA to go ahead.'45


Robert Paulsen

Originally Posted by Vasilios Vazakas viewpost-right.png
We all know about the CIA ducument saying that Jean Souetre was in Fort Worth on the morning of Nov.22 1963 and in Dallas the afternoon of the same day.
There is a dispute a to wether the man in question was Jean Souetre or Michel Victor Mertz.

1. Jean Souetre
Member of the French OAS, assassination attempts against DeGaulle. The OAS hated JFK for supporting the Algeria independence.
Souetre was in conduct with Banister and E.H.Hunt, perhaps for operations against Fidel Castro, not necessarily to murder JFK, but it could be possible tha he was.
Eugene Dinkin a US army code breaker (the man who knew too much) discovered a messsage that JFK was to be assassinated in November.
Dinkin was staged in Metz France and one of his duties was to decipher cable trafficking originating with the OAS.
Souetre gave an interview later and claimed that he was in Spain and not in Dallas and that he could prove it.
He said that a man named Michel Victor Mertz, a narcotics smuggler and SDECE agent was impersonating him in order
to leave a trail that could lead not back to Mertz but to his enemy Souetre. Of course it could have been the other way round and it was Souetre
who was impersonating Mertz.

2. Michel Victor Mertz was an agent of SDECE. James Jesus Angleton was in contact with SDECE and especially a man
named Phillipe de Vosjoli that many believe that he was spying against his country for Angeton. Now most of us accept that Angleton
was one of the main facilitators of the plot specially in framing Oswald. If he was also the facilitator that organized the shooters he
might have asked Vosjoli's help to recruit shooters from the French underworld connected to either the OAS or the SDECE.

3. A third alternative is that neither Mertz or Souetre were involved in the assassination and this dual confussion of two men using its other's
name was deliberately designed to confuse researchers and again create a cognitive dissonance were everything is possible but nothing is certain.
Similar to two Z films, two autopsies two everything.

It is more likely that the shooters came from the ranks of CIA special ops soldiers staged in Laos or Vietnam with no loose ends and connections that can be
traced back to their origins, like French terrorists, heroin smugglers or French agents could be traced.
Was Dinkin a "code breaker" or a "crypto operator"? Isn't a crypto operator someone who just looks after the computers and changes the codes on a regular basis? I've read in several places that Dinkin was a "crypto operator"... Just curious.



Troika, the WSJ and the NYT Keep the Public Befuddled About Austerity and Deflation

07 June 2014 - 03:43 PM

How the Troika, the WSJ and the NYT Keep the Public Befuddled About Austerity and Deflation
June 6/2014


By William K. Black


If the troika (the European Commission, ECB, and IMF) taught sex education students would believe that storks brought children, that sex had nothing to do with pregnancy, that confident women never got pregnant, and that women should be forced to lose weight when they became pregnant.  The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times would repeat these myths as science. The NYT would employ one of the world’s top gynecologists (Dr. Krugman).  Dr. Krugman would debunk these myths nearly every week – and neither the troika nor the reporters for the NYT and the WSJ would ever listen to him.

The last several days have led to a flurry of WSJ and NYT stories about “deflation.”  I just posted critiques of some of the earlier stories here and here.

There’s only one of me, but the dual U.S. heralds of the troika employ dozens of scribes who faithfully proclaim its message without any intervening critical thought.  I’ve decided to make a bulk response to the scribes.

Three Central Defects

I offer this overall critique of the central defects of all these articles (and the troika’s policies).  Both of them fail to address three points.

  1. Where does the troika think deflation comes from?
  2. Given that the troika’s says that the key harm of deflation is reducing already inadequate demand, why is thetroika insisting on inflicting austerity – which aggravates the inadequate demand?
  3. Why is their minimal discussion of the Great Depression levels of unemployment in Italy, Spain, and Greece and no discussion of the far superior alternative of using fiscal policy to speed the eurozone’s recovery?

Five Articles: No Coherent Analytics, Economics, or Humanity

Herehereherehere and here are the links to the flurry of articles dated June 3, 2014, that I have not already discussed in prior columns.

Demand: Several Mentions; None Coherent

One article explains that core inflation is falling because:

“That reflects, above all, the high unemployment and debt burdens in much of the region, which are holding down wages, spending and demand.”

The quoted sentence is almost coherent.  It is true that high unemployment holds down demand.  “Spending” is “demand” so the scribe’s grasp of the concept is poor.  “Debt burdens” reverses the accurate analysis.  It refers to the long falsified claim of the austerians that if a government has debt it lacks the capacity to spend.  Austerity is what is causing already inadequate demand to weaken further.

Another article starts strong.  It begins by answering the question of where very low inflation and deflation comes from – inadequate demand.

“After a 5-year debt crisis, in a growing number of euro zone countries, businesses faced with slumping demand have been pressured to cut prices.”

The article continues by appropriately emphasizing the importance of demand, but failing to understand it.


“After years of

a debt crisis, a number of countries in the euro zone are grappling with the effects of economic lethargy. At clothing stores, cellphone companies and factories making items as disparate as aluminum and tiles, owners faced with slumping demand have been pressured to cut their prices. In hard-hit countries, wages have also fallen sharply from precrisis levels.


Again, the strength is explaining to the reader in the second sentence that the inadequate demand causes low inflation and deflation.  The next sentence correctly notes that wages have fallen sharply and that this further reduces demand.

Especially in the most fragile economies, the dynamic is crimping growth and dampening government efforts to pay down debt, regain competitiveness and tackle unemployment.

‘The big picture is that with low inflation, it is more difficult for debt to come down and for economic growth to come back, so you could have a period of stagnation,’ said Reza Moghadam, the director of the European department at the International Monetary Fund in Washington. He recently coined the term ‘lowflation’ to describe the euro zone’s dilemma.”

Then things go horribly off the rails.  The obvious analytical points and policy advice that would arise from these admissions are (1) austerity is the problem and (2) fiscal stimulus is the solution.  Instead, the article careens incoherently as it must because it repeats faithfully the troika’s incoherence.  This sentence displays the logical inconsistency:  “[low inflation] is crimping growth and dampening government efforts to pay down debt, regain competitiveness, and tackle unemployment.”  Let us count the many problems packed into this single sentence.


++/ The “dynamic” that gratuitously forced the Eurozone into a second recession – and Italy, Spain, and Greece into a Second Great Depression – was inadequate demand induced by the troika inflicting austerity.  Low inflation may add marginally to the inadequacy of demand by causing consumers to defer discretionary purchases, but low inflation and deflation are caused by inadequate demand.


++/ “[D]ampening efforts to pay down government debt” would be a very good thing that would increase demand.  The “efforts to pay down government debt” are austerity.  Austerity is the disastrous policy because it decreases already inadequate demand.  The article starts by saying that inadequate demand is the problem, and then immediately loses the plot,


++/ “Regain[ing] competitiveness” is the troika’s euphemism for slashing wages in the periphery.  Look at the quotation again – it is found one sentence after correctly noting that one of the important contributors to reducing demand further was the fact that “wages have also fallen sharply from precrisis levels.”  Thetroika and the Nation’s leading financial papers cannot maintain logical consistency in adjacent sentences.  The troika’s bleeding of the economy and workers is a major contributor to the slashing of wages that has made consumer demand so inadequate.


The last paragraph quoted above about “stagnation” again misses the fact that inadequate demand causes both high unemployment and low inflation.  It also fails to note that because of the austerity-induced second Great Recession the eurozone suffered years of rising unemployment even when inflation was higher.

The article then veers back and presents a logical view – with no indication that the scribe understands the logical inconsistency.


“‘Inflation is so low,’ said Simon Tilford, deputy director of the Center for European Reform in London, ‘because wages have fallen sharply and consumer demand and investment have been depressed.’”


The final article that uses the word “demand” states:


“Deflation, spurred by falling wages and depressed consumer demand, hits borrowers by raising the real value of loans, and has the potential to weaken Europe’s fragile financial sector.”


“Raising the real value of loans” could make a recession more difficult to recover from, but it is far down in the ranks of potential contributors.  The far more important, and straightforward, point is that deflation and severe recessions have the same cause – grossly inadequate demand.

Even this article, which is by far the best of the five, is incoherent.


“Adding to the pressure [on the ECB to act], a separate report showed the European labor market continuing to stagnate.”


Note that the journalist acts as if the obscene level of eurozone unemployment is created by some unrelated (and unidentified) factor instead of inadequate demand.

Austerity: One Inept Mention

The best article notes that unemployment is at Great Depression levels in Spain and Greece and provides the only mention of “austerity.”


“The job market has been hammered by the euro zone debt crisis, which ushered in an era of fiscal austerity and, some economists argue, an insufficiently loose monetary policy by the European Central Bank.”


But note that even the best article gets it completely wrong.  The “job market” was not “hammered by the euro zone debt crisis.”  The eurozone job market was “hammered” first by the Great Recession and then by the troikainflicting austerity, which made already inadequate demand far more inadequate.  The largely faux eurozone“debt crisis” did not “usher[] in an era of fiscal austerity.”  The troika forced fiscal austerity in conditions we have known for at least 75 years would prove self-destructive.  The article, which is by far the best of the five articles, fails to even consider ending the bleeding the economy through austerity.

The NYT’s “Draghi as Physician” Simile

The most embarrassing of the five articles begins with this sentence.


“Mario Draghi might feel like a doctor trying to treat a chronically ill patient with unproven medicines.”


There are three vital things that are totally wrong about that sentence.  First, it was the ECB and its fellow troikamembers that forced the eurozone – as it was beginning to recover from the Great Recession – back into a gratuitous second recession and in several cases a Second Great Depression by inflicting austerity.  Second, the correct medical metaphor would be that Draghi is continuing to insist on “bleeding” the patient a century after we knew that the practice had no scientific basic and harmed the patient.  His practices were not “unproven” – they were known to be quackery.  Third, to the extent the focus is on low inflation, Draghi has been refusing to “treat” the “chronically ill patient” even though (A) the eurozone has repeatedly failed to meet the ECB’s stated inflation target and ( B) there are proven fiscal means of curing the “patient” which Draghi fights to prevent from being used.  


The troika and our leading financial papers admit that very low inflation levels are caused by inadequate demand and that they are harmful because they could further reduce that already inadequate demand.  The troika and the papers, however, find it impossible to recognize that the troika’s policies – austerity and forcing large wage reductions – are self-destructive because they further reduce demand.  The troika and the papers, therefore, refuse to even discuss the ready alternative of reversing the troika’s self-destructive policies.

The WSJ scribes have obvious institutional difficulties in writing honestly about the folly of austerity.  The NYTscribes continue to perplex.  The great majority of economists think the troika’s austerity policies are self-destructive.  The NYT has a Nobel Laureate who has spent years explaining this point.  The NYT scribes do not simply get the story wrong.  Their deflation coverage rarely presents the views of scholars who make the argument against austerity.  The papers do not cite Paul Krugman on the issue or the many other economists who have a far more successful predictive record than do the troika trolls.  It remains a de facto job requirement thatWSJ and NYT scribes writing about the EU austerity crisis check their critical faculties curbside.