Steven Gaal

So they have a party, and while neither Schmidt nor Michael Paine were present, Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald and became fast friends, while it would take a while longer for Michael Paine to meet Lee Harvey Oswald.

In a footnote, (p. 353), Epstein notes: “Kuetemeyer had been experimenting, according to Schmidt, on a group of schidoids during World War II. The experiments had been interrupted in 1944, when Kuetemeyer had become involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler and had been forced into hiding from the Nazis.”

Dr. Whilhelm Keutemeyer was a professor of psychosomatic medicine and religion at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Keutemeyer’s son was Volkmar Schmidt’s best friend, and Schmidt looked to Keutemeyer as a surrogate father figure. Keutemeyer was also a colleague of Swiss psychoanalysist Carl Jung, who attempted to use his professional associations in attempts to influence Hitler’s behavior. When that failed they just tried to kill him.

According to Schmidt, Keutemeyer was also associated with Herr Von Halen and Dr. Adam von Trott zu Solz, both of whom were captured, tortured and executed because of their roles in the failed assassination and coup of July 20, 1944. (For details of their roles Peter Hoffman’s the History of German Resistance, 1933-1944, MIT Press, 1977).

Also involved was one Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius, a Gestapo officer assigned to Switzerland, who tried to get the OSS chief of Bern, Allen Dulles, to broker a separate peace between Germany and the Western Allies, without Hitler, to fight the Russians together. This plot evolved into the July 20th bomb explosion at the Fuhrer’s “Wolfschanze” bunker headquarters near Rastenburg, Germany.

Col. Claus Schenk Grav von Stauffenberg planted a briefcase bomb under the map table next to Hitler, left the bunker, witnessed the explosion and the flew back to Berlin where he met with Gisevius. Together they drew up press releases to counter Goebel’s propaganda, but when it became clear that the bomb failed to kill Hitler (the heavy wooden table leg saved his life), those responsible were rounded up and executed. Many hundreds, some say thousands were eventually implicated, but somehow, Gisevius went underground and eventually escaped using false identification provided to him by Allen Dulles, though his personal assistant Mary Bancroft.

Mary Bancroft, the stepdaughter of the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, was also Dulles’ mistress at the time, and served as a intermediary between Dulles and Gisevius. She also helped Gisevius translate his history of the Third Rich, later published as “Bis zum bittern Ende.” (two volumes, Fretz & Wasmuth, Zurich, 1946, 1954; To the Bitter End,” Richard and Clara Winston, Jonathan Cape, London, 1948; Rutten & Loening, Hamburg, (1964).

As related in her own “Autobiography of a Spy” (William Morrow, 1983), Mary Bancroft was a close personal friend of Michael Paine’s mother Ruth Forbes Paine Young. Their intimate friendship dated from the 1920s when Ruth Forbes Paine was married to New York architect Lyman Paine, one of the founders of the Trotyskite movment in the U.S. and father of Michael Paine. Bancroft and Ruth Forbes Paine traveled extensively overseas and were together on board an ocean liner when Bancroft met her future husband, a Zurich businessman.

Hans Bernd Gisevius was called to testify for the defense at the Nurenberg trials, but instead of aiding them, he helped send the Nazis to the gallows. He then came to America where Allen Dulles provided him with a $5,000 a month retainer and set him up in the home of his CIA deputy Tom Braden. At the time Braden was head of the International Organizations Division (IOD), and his assistant was Cord Meyer, Jr., who would later take his place. Cord Meyer, Jr. was the co-founder of the World Federalists, which also included it’s Philadelphia adherents, Michael’s mother Ruth Forbes Paine Young and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, when she was a student at Bryn Mawr.

So there you have it - Dr. Wilhelm Keutemeyer, Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius, Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles, four direct participants in the July 20, 1944 Hitler assassination attempt and failed coup d’etat, who also became related to the events that culminated in what happened on November 22, 1963.

=======================================

First National Bank of Boston owned by the Cabots controlled Textron which controlled Bell Helicopter. Textron went to the Pentagon lobbying in 1958 for increased Helicopter use in warfare. The Vietnam war AKA the Helicopter War. Michael Paine worked at Bell Helicopter and was a Cabot on both sides of his family.

• Michael Paine...was sixth in descent from Robert Treat Paine the signer of the Declaration of Independence. His mother Ruth Forbes was a great-granddaughter of Emerson and a granddaughter of William Hathaway Forbes, founder and first president of the American Bell Telephone Company. Her father, Ralph Emerson Forbes, left an estate of $2.5 million when he died in 1937. Her uncle, W. Cameron Forbes, a former Ambassador to Japan, had been until his recent demise a director of United Fruit....Michael's great-great-great-uncle, Robert Bennet Forbes, is said by the Dictionary of American Biography to have played "a prominent role in the outbreak of the Chinese Opium War." Robert's mother was a Perkins, of a family who were partners in the "most powerful American house in China." ...Michael Paine was descended from the Cabots on both his father's and his mother's side; he was thus a second cousin once removed of Thomas Dudley Cabot, the former President of United Fruit who offered another of his companies, Gibralter Steamship, as a "cover" for the CIA during the Bay of Pigs adventure. He was also a cousin of Cabot's partner, Alexander Cochrane Forbes, a director of United Fruit and trustee of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes. Paul F. Hellmuth vice-president of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, was a trustee of the J. Frederick Brown Foundation, a CIA "conduit", along with G.C. Cabot. Thus the Paine family [had] links with the blue-blood intelligence circles of the "Oh So Social" OSS and CIA, though one would not guess this from their description in the Warren Report...
  • ###########################
    • The station had been told by headquarters that the man in the photographs was not Oswald. On 9 October, a few days after the photographs were taken, the station alerted CIA headquarters to the visit of the man claiming to be Oswald: “Have photos male appears be American entering Sovemb 1216 hours, leaving 1222 on 1 Oct. apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline.” Headquarters consulted the genuine photographs and personal information in its file on the defector. It replied by cable the next day, stating that, on the contrary, the 23–year–old “Oswald is five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty–five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes."
      ==
      The reply from CIA headquarters is available online at http://www.ourmaninmexico.com/documents_oswald.html. Despite sending this truthful description to Mexico City, CIA headquarters passed on the incorrect description to the FBI, the Navy, and the State Department; see Newman, op. cit., pp.398f.
      ==
      • Not only were individuals within the CIA’s headquarters and Mexico City office aware of Oswald’s identity, but they were of course aware also of the significance of a US citizen making contact with communist officials. According to one of the CIA officers who helped to issue the cable from headquarters to Mexico City on 10 October, the reply revealed that the agency possessed “a keen interest in Oswald on a need–to–know basis” just six weeks before President Kennedy’s assassination
      See Jefferson Morley, ‘What Jane Roman Said, part 3’ at history–matters.com. CIA headquarters obscured its “keen interest in Oswald” by withholding from the Mexico City station the fact that it was aware of the incriminating activities which Oswald had undertaken in New Orleans a few weeks before his trip to Mexico City. For more about Oswald’s apparent undercover work in New Orleans, see The Career of Lee Harvey Oswald.
      ==
      Bill Simpich, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald, was published at the www.maryferrell.org website.

      The description of Lee Oswald sent by CIA headquarters to its Mexico City office on 10 October was: “five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty–five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes”. Simpich points out that this description was not entirely correct, and that other descriptions of Oswald in official files prior to the assassination were also incorrect, but in different ways. In some files, his name is given as Lee Henry Oswald; in others he is said to have acquired Soviet citizenship. In this example it is Oswald’s weight that is incorrect. On the day of his arrest, Oswald weighed 131 pounds, not 165.21

      This series of inaccurate files was generated by the CIA’s internal counter–intelligence department, which hoped to identify moles within the CIA and the FBI by noting where particular items of incorrect information surfaced. Although not sinister in itself, (But COULD BE. Bad information could let slip patsy into Dallas,GAAL) this is further proof that Oswald was being followed closely by elements within the CIA long before the assassination.

      It may or may not be coincidental that this particular item of incorrect information surfaced very soon after the assassination, twice:

      • Within fifteen minutes of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, a bystander described the gunman to the Dallas police as a “slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165”. The description is unlikely to be genuine: the bystander would not have been able to ascertain the gunman’s height or weight merely by glimpsing the upper half of his body from the street below, and the most obvious and distinctive aspect of the gunman’s appearance, his clothes, are not mentioned. The bystander was never identified.
        • The same description was given to a police officer at the scene of Officer J.D. Tippit’s murder, again by an unidentified member of the public: “a white male about 5′ 10″, weighing 160 to 170 pounds … brown bushy hair”.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm

        The new records suggested George Joannides was one such SAS operative. The reason for his interest? The bulk of the available evidence indicates that Joannides in late 1963 was running a psychological warfare operation designed to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the Castro government without disclosing the CIA’s hand.

        George E. Joannides (pronounced “Joe-uh-NEE-deez”) is a new and important character in the Kennedy assassination story. The son of a well-known Greek-American newspaper columnist in New York City, he went to law school and joined the CIA in 1951. Joannides, fluent in Greek and French, was sent to the Athens station. By 1963, he was 40 years old, a rising protégé of Tom Karamessines. He was highly regarded for his skills in political action, propaganda and psychological warfare operations. A dapper, witty man, Joannides presented himself publicly as a Defense Department lawyer. In fact, in 1963 he was Dick Helms’ man in Miami.
        ==

        A keen interest in Oswald

        The agency’s interest in Oswald in late 1963, Roman explained, was the result of his involvement with the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, often known by its acronym, FPCC. The agency had wiretap transcripts proving that the FPCC was funded by the Cuban government, via Castro’s delegation at the United Nations in New York. It was Oswald’s FPCC activities that most interested the counterintelligence staff in 1963, she said.

        Newman then reviewed the routing slips on two documents about Oswald that Roman herself had received in September 1963.

        The first was the FBI report from agent Hosty in Dallas. Hosty reported on Oswald’s address in the summer of 1963 and his recent leftist political activities, including his subscription to the Socialist Worker newspaper.

        The second report was more provocative. It was a report from the FBI in New Orleans, dated September 23, 1963. Oswald, it seemed, had gotten arrested. He had been handing out FPCC pamphlets on a street corner in New Orleans on August 9, 1963 when he was confronted by some members of the militantly anti-Castro group called the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil or DRE, which was known to North American newspaper readers as the Cuban Student Directorate. An altercation ensued. Oswald and some of the Cubans were arrested. An agent in the New Orleans office of the FBI wrote up a report and sent it to Washington.

        The FBI, it should be noted, was not the only organization interested in Oswald’s political activities. The Cuban students were also collecting intelligence on the young ex-Marine.

        The Cuban Student Directorate, long since forgotten, was among the most prominent anti-Castro organizations of the day. Composed of exiled middle-class students from the University of Havana, the Directorate rallied young people in Miami against Castro’s communist movement. It won headlines around the world for sensational actions such as attempting to assassinate Castro outside a Havana hotel in August 1962. At CIA headquarters in Langley the group was known by the code name AMSPELL. With the U.S. support, the Directorate flourished and established chapters in cities throughout North and South America in the early 1960s.

        The Directorate followed up on Oswald’s antics just as the FBI did. In August 1963, the New Orleans delegation of the group reported to the Directorate’s headquarters in Miami that a Castro supporter named Oswald was trying to infiltrate their ranks. The Directorate leaders in Miami authorized the New Orleans chapter to issue a press release denouncing Oswald’s pro-Castro ways. The New Orleans students also challenged Oswald to a debate on a local radio program. When Oswald accepted they made a tape of his remarks criticizing U.S. policy toward Cuba.

        Of course, none of this was in the FBI records. At the time of our interview with Jane Roman, Newman and I knew only that the Directorate had received funding from the CIA under a program with the code name of AMSPELL. There was, it turns out, much more to know. All we had was the FBI report on the arrest of Oswald and his antagonists in the Cuban Student Directorate that was forwarded to the CIA. The routing slip showed that Roman signed for it on October 4, 1963.

        Newman recounted the circumstances in which she signed for the report. Five weeks after his brawl with the Cuban Student Directorate in New Orleans, Oswald had caught a bus to Mexico City where he visited both the Cuban and Russian diplomatic offices seeking a visa. The CIA surveillance team watching two offices figured out the visitor’s name was Lee Oswald. The surveillance team reported their finding to David Atlee Phillips, the chief of Cuban operations in Mexico City. Phillips notified his boss, Win Scott, the chief of the Mexico City station. On October 8, 1963, Scott sent a cable to headquarters in Washington asking for more information about Oswald. Two days later, headquarters sent a response.

        This was the next document that Newman gave to Roman for her perusal. She had helped prepare it thirty-one years before.

        This three-page cable, dated October 10, 1963, seems innocuous. It was drafted by a woman named Charlotte Bustos. She worked on the Mexico desk of the CIA. It was her job to handle such routine inquiries. She did this by checking to see if the agency had ever opened a so-called 201 file on anyone named Lee Oswald. (A 201 file, sometimes known as a personality file, is opened on anybody of interest to the agency.) Because of his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959, Oswald already had a 201 file at CIA headquarters. Bustos reviewed it and drafted a reply. By the end of the workday on October 10, 1963, her draft had been revised by other CIA offices for coordination, authentication, and approval. No CIA cable could go out with such vetting.

        The markings at the bottom of the document indicated which offices and which officers had been consulted. Jane Roman was identified as one of the officers who had seen in the cable “in draft form.” The cable was also seen by an “authenticating officer” whose task it was to vouch for its contents. That was J.C. King, the chief of all CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere. Finally, the cable had to be signed by a “releasing officer” who approved the policy contents of the message. That was Tom Karamessines, who served as top deputy to covert operations chief, Richard Helms.

        At 10:28 p.m. on the night of Wednesday, October 10, 1963, the cable went to Mexico City.

        Partisans of the anti-conspiratorial interpretation of Kennedy’s death stress that this cable was routine. It certainly seems to be, despite the hour at which it was sent. In the cable, Karamessines passed on to Mexico City what the agency purported to know about Lee Oswald: that he had defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959, that he had married a Russian woman, and that he had moved back to the United States in the spring of 1962. The cable stated that the “latest HDQS [headquarters] info[rmation]” about this young American was a State Department report from May 1962, which stated that his time in the Soviet Union had “a maturing effect” on him.

        In the interview, Newman called Roman’s attention to this seemingly minor statement.

        “It’s not even a little bit untrue,” he noted bluntly. “It’s grossly untrue.”

        The juxtaposition was clear.

        On the table was one cable which showed that Roman had signed off on the statement that the “latest HDQS info” on Oswald was a report from State Department report dated May 1962.

        On top of that cable was the cable and routing slip that showed she had just a few days before signed for the two FBI reports on this same Lee Harvey Oswald. She had signed for the second of these reports on Oct. 4, 1963.

        Newman’s implication was clear. If Roman had read the FBI reports, then she knew on October 10, 1963 that Oswald had just a few weeks earlier been handing out pamphlets on behalf of the FPCC, the most prominent pro-Castro organization in the United States. Moreover, Oswald’s pro-Castro activism had embroiled him in an altercation with members of the Cuban Student Directorate, one of the agency’s most favored front groups in the anti-Castro cause. All of this information was on Jane Roman’s desk in October 1963.

        The logical conclusion: On October 10, 1963 the “latest HDQS info” on Oswald wasn’t a 17-month old State Department memo speculating about Oswald’s state of mind. It was a month-old FBI document about Oswald’s contacts with a CIA-sponsored organization. And Jane Roman—if she had done her job—had known it.

        Roman thought carefully about what Newman was suggesting. Her response was telling. She didn’t deny that she had read the FBI reports on Oswald. She couldn’t--not with her initials on the routing slips.

        Instead, Roman spoke about who had responsibility for the handling the contents of a cable about Oswald. She said the responsibility did not belong to CI/LS but to another office in the agency’s Directorate of Plans: the Special Affairs Staff (SAS). She was precise on why the cable didn’t it mention Oswald’s most recent activities, namely his clash with the anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans.

        “The only interpretation I could put on this [the language of the cable] would that this SAS group would have held all the information on Oswald under their tight control,” she said.

        In the fall of 1963, the SAS was a new bureaucratic entity in the CIA. Created at the behest of the Kennedy White House, it was tasked with overthrowing of the government of Cuba without too much “noise,” meaning domestic political consequences. It was the bureaucratic incarnation of John and Robert Kennedy’s secret but abiding determination to remove Fidel Castro from power. It was created after the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 was resolved. When the showdown over Soviet missiles in Cuba ended peacefully, Castro’s grip on power was stronger than ever.

        Some thought JFK had squandered an opportunity to get rid of Castro. Others thought he had acted prudently. There was consensus that Operation Mongoose, the Kennedy brothers’ first covert program to oust the charismatic communist, was going nowhere. The SAS was created in January 1963 to take over the job. As for tactics, the Kennedy brothers didn’t care what SAS did as long as the White House had plausible deniability. The SAS operatives tried everything from assassination conspiracies to propaganda to political action to “psychological warfare,” the contemporary term of art for espionage that deceived and disoriented and divided the communists. Along the way, some of the SAS men became interested in the very obscure character named Lee Harvey Oswald.

        At least that was Jane Roman’s reading of the cables.

        These SAS men were being very careful with what they knew about Oswald. Under their tight control. Roman stressed that she was not privy to such things. She said that, for the counterintelligence staff, running such a check on a then-unknown personality like Oswald was simply mundane duty.

        “All these things that you have shown me so far before the assassination would have been very dull and very routine,” she said.

        That was very likely true, and Newman didn’t dispute it. He stressed a different point: that Roman, having read the FBI cables on Oswald and having seen the draft form of the cable to Mexico City, personally knew that the line about “latest HDQS info” on Oswald was not entirely accurate.

        “You had to know that this sentence here was not correct,” Newman said.

        “Well, I had thousands of these things,” Roman protested.

        “I’m willing to accept whatever your explanation is,” Newman allowed, “ but I have to ask you this--”

        Roman was getting testy.

        “And I wasn’t in on any particular goings-on or hanky-panky as far as the Cuban situation,” she added.

        “Right, so you wouldn’t have”--Newman groped for the right words, “what you’re saying is” He finished the thought: “…tried to examine it that closely?”

        “Yeah, I mean, this is all routine as far as I was concerned,” she answered.

        “Problem though, here,” Newman noted. He pointed to the line in the cable about “latest HDQS info.”

        Roman understood his point and finally conceded it: “Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.”

        I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.

        This was doubly interesting. Roman was not only acknowledging not only was somebody in SAS interested in Oswald six weeks before Kennedy was killed. She was stating that whoever that somebody was made an affirmative decision to withhold information about him from other CIA officers before November 22, 1963.

        Newman did not dwell on the point. He did not imply that Roman was involved in anything sinister. She was merely saying that she participated in drafting a cable in which the men higher up in the clandestine operations division chose not to tell the whole truth—something that was in the nature of their jobs.

        Responsibility for the cable on Oswald, Roman said, belonged to the most senior officer who signed it, Tom Karamessines.

        She was no doubt correct. Karamessines was Dick Helms’ right hand man. While Helms was sleek and bland, an Ivy Leaguer who was barbered to the nines and kept a clean desk, Karamessines was an earthy assimilated New Yorker. He had distinguished himself as a frontline soldier in the vicious Greek civil war of 1946-48. He went on to become the chief of the CIA station in Athens, the largest outpost of U.S. intelligence in the Near East. There he recruited a large number of Greek-Americans to work for the agency. In March 1962, Helms made him his top assistant and trusted him totally.(Greek mechanics ?? ,Prouty)

        ============

        see

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21126&p=288603

        ===

        FOR more JJA see Probe JJA parts I & II

Russian air control radars apparently registered an unidentified blip suddenly appearing on screen close to flight MH17 at the moment it was apparently hit; this blip later disappeared. Kartopolov insisted the radar signature was a Ukrainian military jet, apparently an Su-25 that could have attacked Flight MH17, using its two R-60 short-range heat seeker “shoot-and-forget air-to-air,” which these military planes are designed to carry for self defense.

According to the chief of staff of the Russian Air Force, Lieutenant-General Igor Markushev, who together with Kartopolov presented the official Russian outline of the MH17 crash, Ukrainian officials deny any of their military aircraft were in air at the time over Donbas, “but you see that is not so,” which is an indication of guilt, he alleged.

Further evidence to support this claim is shown below.

The R-60 missile hole in MH17 notice rounded bullet holes bottom right going in which differs from shratnel holes coming out on the far left. Notice the scrapping on the right hand side with the metal dented in and the burn marks on the left and the metal pushed out.

More rounded bullets holes in the front bagage area of flight MH17

The section which was struck on MH17

Comparison of a huamn to BUK missile in greenwhich is too large when compared to the impact zone on MH17

for more info on R-60 Air-to-Air missiles see

http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH07%20-%20R-60

==

• Arseniy Yatsenyuk Admits Ulraine Military has Used Surface to Air Missiles in Ukraine

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.

That 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.

Hi Sterling,

Here's the translation of another article from Chinatimes.com that mentions 40 W input to generate 1.8 kW output that I've mentioned before. Base on this article, I think the need for 40 W input is not just for start up but for the duration of the power generation. So this is essentially a QMoGen device. I believe the existence of the battery rack is to supplement the generator in case there is a momentarily load of larger than 1.8 kW (for instance a 2 kW boiler).

Maglev Generator Generates 1.8 kW Electricity from 40 W Input

Inventor Teng successfully developed the world's first "maglev generator" which powered a light during the demonstration yesterday.

Taiwanese inventor Mr. Hon Gi Teng had led the R&D team for nearly three years to develop the "Maglev Generator" which is capable of electricity generation without relying on external energy. Preliminary estimates suggest that it can produce 43 kilowatt hours of electricity a day, far more than the consumption by an average home. It is expected to be in mass-production in a year. Teng claimed that the installation can result in an annual electricity bill savings of about $60,000 ($2,000 USD).

During the product launch event, Teng first started up a single "maglev generator disc" through a coil to power up a 110W light. Then he started up an array of 6 maglev generator discs that powered up a fridge and air-conditioner.

Teng stated that the generator utilized permanent magnets. Each generator disc (rotor?) has 12 magnets, using the magnetic principle of repulsion to generate power. The power generated is stored in the battery rack.

Teng also added that each generator unit has six 12-magnet generator discs. Each disc is capable of generating 300 W of electricity. If the generator operates 24 hours, it can generate 43 kW-h a day, which far exceeds an average daily home's use of 10-15 kW-h. The battery rack is capable of storing 7.2 kW-h of electricity as standby.

In fact, the company originally researched for more efficient wind power technology. But one day they encountered no wind. Teng thought, "Is wind really the only option?" The team then started venturing into using a motor to replace the wind turbine. Teng said that it only requires 40 W to power the motor. This invention is to use 40 W to generate 1800 W of electricity.

Teng said that currently they still have the design of the casing left to be accomplished. It was expected to be finalized in a year's time. They were currently negotiating with Hon Hai (Foxconn) for manufacturing. They have already gotten distribution networks in Germany, Japan, and Myanmar, of which Myanmar has an estimated monthly demand of 20,000 units.

• (This bullet points to the present page. Hence, there is no hyperlink.)
  
  
  Featured: Electromagnetic > QMoGen > Taiwan Edison >
  Maglev Generator Generates 1.8 kW Electricity from 40 W Input (Translation) - The "Maglev Generator" is capable of electricity generation without relying on external energy. Preliminary estimates suggest that it can produce 43 kilowatt hours of electricity a day, far more than the consumption by an average home. It was expected to be on mass-production in a year. (PESWiki; July 28, 2014)

• Taiwan invention Maglev generator power 1800 watt 40 watt Health (Radio Taiwan International; July 20, 2014)

• Directory:Maglev Magnet Generator by Taiwan Edison Creative Technology Co., Ltd
• Directory:Motor-Generator_Self-Looped_with_Usable_Energy_Left_Over
• Directory:Electromagnetic

HANCOCK WROTE

And to answer your question, no, political connections inside DPD are the last thing you want since they show up in investigations. What you want is very simple, to access one or more officers or even detectives known to do a few marginally legal activities on the side...for money. If they have done a couple of things that would make them subject to blackmail, even better.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21126&p=286920

\ the burger dosent lie/ Gaal

McDonald’s franchisees most pessimistic in a decade

Wolf Richter wolfstreet.com, www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

Consumers are “straining against rising prices on daily essentials to afford summer travel, dining out, and discretionary household purchases – the kinds of purchases that ordinarily keep an economy humming.” That’s what Gallup found when it used a new survey to dive deeper into consumer spending.

Its regular monthly survey has been mixed. The average dollar amount consumers spent in June swooned to $91 per day from $98 in May, after a crummy January-April period ranging from $78 to $88 per day. The May spurt seems to have been an outlier that had given rise to a lot of speculation consumers would finally hit “escape velocity,” now obviated by events. But from 2012 until late last year, the averages had been rising.

So Gallup dove deeper into the issue with its new survey conducted in mid-June to sort through what consumers are spending more or less money on. And what it found was that they’re buying a little more – “just not the things they want.”

They’re spending more on things they have to buy, and in many instances they’re spending more in these categories because prices have jumped. At the top of the list: groceries.

• Groceries: 59% spent more, 10% spent less.
• Gasoline: 58% spent more, 12% spent less
• Utilities: 45% spent more, 10% spent less
• Healthcare: 42% spent, 8% spent less
• Toilet paper and other household goods: 32% spent more, 5% spent less
• Rent, the biggie: 32% spent more, 9% spent less.

These categories are household essentials. They’re on top of the priority list. And in order to meet the requirements of these items, consumers are cutting back where they can. Gallup found that “the increasing cost of essential items is further constraining family budgets already hit hard by the Great Recession and still reeling from a stagnant economy.” Hence, the less essential the expense, the more it got cut. Here is the bottom of the list, which explains part of the recent retail woes:

• Retirement savings: 18% spent more, 17% spent less.
• Leisure activities: 28% spent more, 31% spent less
• Clothing: 25% spent more, 30% spent less
• Consumer electronics: 20% spent more, 31% spent less
• Travel: 26% spent more, 38% spent less
• Dining out: 26% spent more, 38% spent less

Then there are summer travel plans, so future spending. They show just how bifurcated the economy has become. On the positive side of the ledger, 69% of American plan to travel this summer, the highest since 2006, and far more than the 52% in 2009 during the depth of the Great Recession. And those travelers intend to spend more on transportation, food, lodging, and entertainment than last year, as Gallup put it, “further pressuring their already-strained budgets.”

But about one-third plan to spend only one night or less away from home. So not exactly a long vacation. And 36% are planning to travel less than last year, even worse than in the terrible year of 2010, when 33% were cutting back from the already terrible year 2009.

And what about “escape velocity” in consumer spending? Despite what Wall Street economists and other hype mongers have been predicting for five years in a row, Gallop soberly puts slams the lid on those speculations:

Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and who cut discretionary spending in order to pay for essentials, form a large part of the middle class. But there are others who don’t have these problems, who are doing well. A dichotomy that shows up in “dining out.”

“Dining out” made the bottom of the list: 38% of the people cut back, while only 26% spent more on it. The restaurant industry should be groaning in pain.

But someone must be eating out. The Restaurant Performance Index (RPI) for May,released on June 30, rose again, “driven by stronger sales and traffic levels and an increasingly optimistic outlook among restaurant operators.” May was the third month in a row that the Current Situation Index was above 100, and therefore in expansion mode.

Smell of conundrum? Nope. But a sign of America’s dual-track society. The 26% of consumer who spent more on dining out might well belong to that group whose median household income exceeds $50k a year. They feel flush and their confidence has soared to post-recession highs. But the confidence of consumers making less than $50k a year has barely moved up from the recession bottom. And the gap between the two is at a record high. Read…. This Chart Truly Depicts What’s Wrong With the ‘Recovery’ in America

Posted Yesterday, 12:29 AM

===

Tory child abuse whistleblower: 'Margaret Thatcher knew all about underage sex ring among ministers'

Former activist Anthony Gilberthorpe says he sent Thatcher a 40-page dossier in 1989 accusing Cabinet members of abusing underage boys

• Tory child abuse whistleblower: 'I supplied underage rent boys for Margaret Thatcher's cabinet ministers'

dallasnews

"When the car is going down [Houston] street, that window is in the frame of the shot," says filmmaker Tom Jennings, executive producer of The Lost JFK Tapes: The Assassination. "I saw what looks to me like someone moving up there, and I believe it is Lee Harvey Oswald."

In 1964, the FBI examined the Hughes film and was unable to find a clear image in the window. But later technological improvements refined the frames.

"A 1993 computer enhancement of the original film for a PBS/Frontline program, Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, found a moving object in the window as President Kennedy's car passed underneath," says Gary Mack, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. "The movement suggests an object turning from its left to its right or right to left as one looks at the film. The Sixth Floor Museum acquired the original Hughes film in 2002 and video blowups of the window seem to confirm the PBS/Frontline findings."

Forgotten footage

In 1995, Jennings was rooting through the archives of the Sixth Floor Museum researching a piece on Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald. "Tape after tape, I kept seeing images I'd never seen before, and I told Gary [Mack], 'We should do a documentary with just these images.' But there's been so much done on this topic that everyone I talked with thought they'd seen it all."

It was a highlight reel that he showed to National Geographic Channel senior vice president Michael Cascio that got him a green light. "It got the reaction I hoped it would have," Jennings says. "He kept saying, 'I've never seen that before, I've never seen that before.' "

"It documents an important period in a way we feel has not been done," Cascio said before a private screening Tuesday at the Sixth Floor Museum.

The Lost JFK Tapes represents an addition to the lay assassination oeuvre because Jennings consciously avoids running the bases of well-worn sources. In his film, there is no Walter Cronkite, no Pulitzer-winning photo of Ruby shooting Oswald and no Zapruder film. There is also no contemporary narration, only the voices of the era.

"It's as if you had a remote control in 1963 and went from channel to channel," Jennings says. "That's how this plays."

Another view

There is an amazingly well-restored copy of Orville Nix's home movie that captured the shooting from the south side of Dealey Plaza. The frantic foot flailing of Secret Service agent Clint Hill as he tries to climb aboard the limousine without getting hit by a pursuing Cadillac shows him within a nanosecond of falling.

"Clint Hill came very close to being the third casualty of the assassination," says Mack.

A Houston Street sequence from the Hughes film is slowed to clearly illuminate President Kennedy leaning in to hear something Jackie is saying - probably the final words between the president and first lady.

And the clip of two bewildered boys west of the triple underpass waving enthusiastically as the blood-soaked Lincoln speeds past them is one of dozens of poignant moments.

Conspiracy hounds will dissect B reel news footage of Jack Ruby loitering with reporters Saturday night in a hallway near Oswald's interrogation room, the night before he shot him. Was Ruby stalking Oswald or was he merely a cop groupie?