Few words from a window = a 911 key

[Steven Gaal]

#####################################################oooo=

Colby uses Lance.LANCE IS ON YOUR (Colby team) TEAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes,Lance can get things right+ but ye old stopped clock correct two times day.

LANCE WRONG ,Ali Mohamed double ,triple,quadruple,quintuple

agent ...didnt you read first post is this thread ???? .....ZAWAHIRI Anglo/American spook....if so,everything you have said about 911 is 100% pure bunk.

(see very bottom of post for further insight into mythbuster 911 man Colby)

#################################+ooo+#########################=

COLBY ABOUT WHO GAVE Bin Laden Family diplomatic passports....."the SAUDI goverment". Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency,

resigned Aug.31,2001. He said then ,"I have been a friend of GHWB for 30 years." GEE ,QUI BONO Bush family re 911 ? ITS CALLED THE SECRET TEAM.

---------------ooo------------------------------

In the late 1930s GHWB father Prescott Bush travelled

with Allen Dulles to the Middle East and had meetings with the the Saudi Family...GEE maybe thats why Saudi Prince Bandar considered part of

Bush famiy.........called BANDAR BUSH !!!

PASSPORTS from Saudi goverment ??? LOL !!!!! Head of Saudi Intell 30 year friend of GHWB...passports !! LOL !!! QUE BONO ($$) 911 Bush family.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o

----------------------------oooo--------------------- link BANDAR and additional article on Bandar below.

http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/bandar.htm

-------------------------oo------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO Louis Freeh = Secret Team IMHO

--------------------------------------------oo+-- two LA Times reporters on Bandar "Bush" ++++++++++++

--------------oooo-------------oooo-----------

$2 billion from an British arms manufacturer to Saudi Arabia’s then-U.S. ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has come under scrutiny. Louis Freeh defends Bandar on ‘Frontline.’

By Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer

April 7, 2009

Reporting from Washington — Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh says $2 billion that flowed from a British arms manufacturer to U.S. bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., was not a bribe, but was instead part of a complex barter involving the exchange of Saudi oil for British fighter jets.

The transfer of funds to accounts at Riggs Bank [money-laundering, CIA/terror financing; "Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans...were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith."] in Washington, D.C.], has come under scrutiny as the Justice Department continues an international corruption investigation involving British arms manufacturer BAE Systems. Freeh, who is now a lawyer and consultant for Bandar, made his comments to the Public Broadcasting Service for a “Frontline” documentary to be broadcast this evening. Bandar is now a national security advisor to the Saudi king. He has denied any wrongdoing, as have other Saudi officials.

Freeh said that a 1985 treaty between Britain and Saudi Arabia allowed the trade of oil for weapons. BAE signed an $86-billion contract with the Saudis under the provisions of the treaty, and the funds that flowed between Britain and the Bandar-controlled bank accounts in the U.S. may have come from the sale of Saudi oil under the terms of the contract. As part of the deal, BAE also supplied an Airbus 340 plane, which for years has been used by Bandar.

U.S. government officials said the investigation was being conducted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has jurisdiction over business executives making bribes but not the government officials receiving them. As a result, someone like Bandar would not be the target of the Department’s investigation, but his role helping to manage the Riggs Bank accounts has made him central to the inquiry.

Bandar was among the longest-running Saudi ambassadors to the United States, serving from 1983 to 2005.

In a statement issued to The Times, Freeh’s consulting firm, Freeh Group International, dismissed the bribery allegations, saying that “not only have both these reckless allegations not been proved in any court or fair factual forum, but neither has been the subject of any charge or official government accusation.”

Freeh was FBI director from 1993 to 2001 and became known for his tough approach to white-collar crime and terrorism.

BAE confirmed that it is the subject of ongoing investigations, saying in a statement:

“BAE Systems’ view is that the interests of the company as well as of all its stakeholders, including the general public, are best served by allowing these investigations to run their course. The company is working with regulators towards that end, with a view to achieving resolution of the ongoing investigations.”

The British government has halted its own corruption investigation into the BAE contract. At the time it terminated the probe, there were published allegations that the Saudis were threatening to stop cooperating on counter-terrorism matters if the investigation continued. In the statement issued Monday, Freeh’s office said that “the claim that Prince Bandar attempted to interfere” with the British investigation is “refuted by the facts.”

Richard Clarke, a top counter-terrorism advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, and others said they have concerns about Freeh’s defense of Bandar.

“Someone who characterizes himself as a U.S. patriot and national security advocate ought not to be on the side of someone blackmailing people not to investigate crimes by threatening to withdraw a nation’s cooperation against terrorists,” Clarke said.

In his “Frontline” interview, Freeh emphatically tells correspondent Lowell Bergman that Bandar did not accept a bribe, either in the form of $2 billion in funds flowing to Riggs Bank or in the use of the aircraft supplied by BAE.

Freeh says that the Airbus — painted in the colors of Bandar’s favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys — is in fact owned by the Saudi Air Force. If members of the Saudi royal family agree to allow Bandar to accept an airplane or anything else, “what was personal or not personal is really none of the business of the United States,” he says.

Actually, that question was important to a former FBI supervisory agent who oversaw the financial investigation into the Saudi government’s accounts at Riggs. Dennis Lormel said Bandar controlled at least 20 accounts at the bank and that government and personal expenditures were intermingled.

The FBI found that significant funds were used by Bandar and his family for personal travel, for his mansions and for some parties, Lormel said. “What’s personal and not personal?” Lormel asked, especially when the Saudi royal family essentially is the government. He said the FBI would ask Saudi officials, “Was this personal money? Where was the money going?” and that the Saudis’ answers were evasive.

Lormel said he had the “utmost regard” for Freeh’s integrity but thought it was nonetheless a mistake for him to represent someone who reportedly helped shut down the British investigation into BAE.

In the “Frontline” interview, Freeh strikes a politically controversial note by contending that the BAE deal was structured partly to avoid congressional restrictions on sale of U.S. parts to the Saudi military.

“U.S. arms could be purchased through BAE in a way that did not deal with the objection of the U.S. Congress to the selling of American equipment to the Saudis,” Freeh says. He does not elaborate.

BAE has sold planes with American-made components to the Saudis. U.S. law requires congressional review before such deals are completed. Congressional arms experts said that as far as they knew all such sales to the Saudis by BAE were reviewed and that they could not explain Freeh’s comment.

###########################################################

########################o#############o####################

##########################################################

>>>>>>>Why didnt we work on numerous "pre" 911 warnings ??

>>>>>>>Answer......Secret Team see below

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oooo------------------------------

#################################################++##################################################################

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

By Paul Thompson

DISCLAIMER: The analytical articles published on this website were written and published by “project managers” of certain investigative projects hosted by the History Commons website. Therefore, any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to History Commons. For questions concerning an article, please contact the author(s) directly.

New documentary, 9/11 Press for Truth, based on the Complete 911 Timeline.

View Trailer | Purchase 9/11 Press for Truth DVD

The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9-11 is now finished, but the findings that have been released fail to mention any warnings from foreign governments. The US mainstream media also has paid little attention to warnings from foreign governments.

Yet there were so many warnings—from both our friends and enemies alike—often specifically suggesting the targets or method of attack. In at least one case, the warnings actually mentioned hijackers by name. This type of communication between intelligence agencies normally occurs in secret, so one can only wonder what additional warnings or details were provided to us that have never been made public.

No US publication has ever put all the various foreign government warnings in one place; even Internet skeptics of Bush have paid scant attention to this issue. Here, for the first time, is such a list of warnings.

First, General Warnings

In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]

In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02]

An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

Warnings the Attack Will Come from the Air

Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air.

In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic.

In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]

Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [izvestia, 9/12/02]

Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

What Did Israel Know?

But the most remarkable warnings of all come from Israel. The issue of Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11 is highly controversial. The story is too complicated to go into detail here, but a number of respected publications (for instance, Fox News, 12/12/01, Forward, 3/15/02, ABC News, 6/21/02, Salon, 5/7/02, Ha’aretz, 5/14/02, Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, AP, 3/5/02, AP, 3/9/02, Cox News, 3/5/02, Guardian, 3/6/02, Independent, 3/6/02, New York Post, 3/6/02, Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02) have written about an Israeli “art student” spy ring operating in the US for several years before 9/11. The name “art student” is used because most of these scores of spies were posing as college art students. There have been suggestions that some of these Israeli spies lived close to some of the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, a US Drug Enforcement Administration report from before 9/11 noted that Israeli spies were living in the retirement community of Hollywood, Florida at 4220 Sheridan Street, which turned out to be only a few hundred feet from lead hijacker Mohamed Atta’s residence at 3389 Sheridan Street (see the DEA report, 6/01). Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least ten of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. [salon, 5/7/02] In fact, Forward, the most widely circulated publication in the US targeting the Jewish audience, has admitted the spy ring existed, and that its purpose was to track Muslim terrorists operating in the US. [Forward, 3/15/02]

Some have claimed that the existence of this spy ring shows that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, an argument that is beyond the scope of this essay. But if the mainstream media is to be believed, Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target” [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an “echo” of Israel’s. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same 19 names as the actual hijackers, or if the number is a coincidence. However, the four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots). From them, there were many connections to the others. The CIA had already been monitoring three of them overseas the year before, and two, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were put on a watch list the same day the Mossad gave this warning. [AFP, 9/22/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01, Observer, 9/30/01, New York Times, 9/21/02]

Such detailed warnings of exact names fit in well with the reports that Israeli spies were tracking the hijackers for months before 9/11. Yet, as Jane’s Intelligence Digest put it, “It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks…” [Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02] The spy ring story did get a little coverage in the US, but more recent stories claiming that Israel knew the exact names of at least some of the hijackers hasn’t been reported here at all. Perhaps the story is too controversial for the US media to touch?

Conspicuous in Their Absence

So many countries warned the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Yet the two countries in the best position to know about the 9/11 plot—Saudi Arabia and Pakistan—apparently didn’t give any warning at all.

The ties between wealthy Saudi figures and al-Qaeda are many, and too complicated to go into here. But it is interesting to notice that, while discussing the resignation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency, the Wall Street Journal has speculated that the Saudi Arabian government may have had foreknowledge of 9/11: “The timing of Turki’s removal—August 31—and his Taliban connection raise the question: Did the Saudi regime know that bin Laden was planning his attack against the US? The current view among Saudi-watchers is that this is doubtful, but that the House of Saud might have heard rumors that something was planned, though they did not know what or when.”

An interesting and possibly significant detail is that Prince Sultan, the defense minister, was due to visit Japan in early September, but canceled his trip for no apparent reason two days before his planned departure. [Wall Street Journal, 10/22/01] In fact, that same Prince Sultan appears to have rejected a chance to warn the US. In August 2001, a military associate of a Middle Eastern prince passed information to former CIA agent Robert Baer about a “spectacular terrorist operation” to take place shortly. He also gave Baer a computer record of around 600 secret al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. But when Baer tried to give this information to Prince Sultan, he was rebuffed. Baer gave the information to the CIA as well, making this apparently yet another ignored warning. [Financial Times, 1/12/02, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism,Robert Baer, 2/02, pp. 270-271, Breakdown: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Bill Gertz, pp. 55-58]

The story of Pakistan’s direct involvement in 9/11 is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. One example will suffice. The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2001 that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence, ordered $100,000 be given to Mohamed Atta in the US. The Journal further noted that the FBI had confirmed this information. [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] So perhaps it’s not surprising that Pakistan wouldn’t warn the US what its intelligence chief was up to. But again, this information did reach the US through other means. On July 14, 1999, Randy Glass, a thief turned government informant, was wiretapping a meeting in New York City in which he was trying to sell military equipment to some Pakistanis as part of a sting operation. During the meeting, a Pakistani intelligence agent pointed to the World Trade Center and said to Glass, “Those towers are coming down.” Glass recorded this on tape, and passed this and other disturbing evidence to his local congressperson, senator, and others. Senator Bob Graham has admitted his office received such a warning from Glass before 9/11. [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02]

What Defenses?

From this list, one can see there were many warnings specifying the type of attack, a general timeframe, and the location as either New York City or the World Trade Center. And this list only includes warnings from foreign governments, and excludes warnings from the US itself: its own communications intercepts, individuals with foreknowledge, suggestions from similar attacks, and the knowledge of American intelligence agents on the track of al-Qaeda. We know that US intelligence was suffering “warning fatigue” from so many notifications of an upcoming al-Qaeda attack. One would think that, based on these warnings, the US would have dramatically increased its security. One would be wrong.

But in fact, while the US recently had over 100 fighters defending the US, the number was reduced in 1997 to save money. By 9/11 there were supposedly only 14 fighters protecting the entire US, and most of those were focused on drug interdiction. Of the 14, only four were in the greater vicinity of New York or Washington. Supposedly, on 9/11 there was not a single plane on alert within 100 miles of either city. With so many warnings suggesting an imminent attack would come from the air and/or target important, symbolic buildings, why weren’t New York, Washington and other probable target areas defended with fighters or antiaircraft batteries? There was an antiaircraft battery permanently stationed on top of the White House, but inexplicably it wasn’t used to shoot down Flight 77, which flew low over the White House before making a sharp turn and hitting the Pentagon. [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] The US government has not claimed it improved ground security before 9/11 at places like the Pentagon and World Trade Center either.

In case there was a failure of imagination, Italy had just set an example two months before 9/11 on how to respond to a terrorist threat: After receiving a warning that a summit of world leaders in the city of Genoa would be targeted by al-Qaeda, they conspicuously defended the city with increased police, antiaircraft batteries, and constantly flying fighter jets. Apparently the press coverage of the defenses caused al-Qaeda to cancel the attack. President Bush could hardly have failed to notice, since he took the unusual step of sleeping on board a US aircraft carrier during the summit. [bBC, 7/18/01, CNN, 7/18/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01]

Conclusion

One single warning should have been enough to take precautions, but with so many warnings coming in, how can inaction be explained as mere incompetence? Yes, it is often difficult to know which terrorist threats are real, and what information to trust. But if the US couldn’t take seriously warnings from close allies like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and so on, then what were they waiting for? What would they have taken seriously? And where is the outrage, the investigation? As can be seen with the recent Congressional inquiry, the typical US government response has been to ignore these foreign government warnings altogether, or to say they were lies. On October 17, 2002, CIA Director Tenet claimed that the only warnings “where there was a geographic context, either explicit or implicit, appeared to point abroad, especially to the Middle East.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] On May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated to the press: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” She added that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/02] On June 7, 2002, President Bush stated, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02]

Either the Bush Administration is lying, or most of America’s close allies are. So why hasn’t Congress investigated these foreign intelligence claims? Why hasn’t a single mainstream media article connected all these dots, or given these warnings the coverage they deserve? Either some people within the US government knew the 9/11 attack would happen and did nothing, or some people within the US government failed to heed advice from a dozen foreign governments and properly defend the US from attack. Perhaps both. These people should be removed from office on the grounds of gross incompetence, or face the legal consequences of aiding and abetting terrorism. It seems clear that there are people who fear an investigation, and that that is why these dots are left unconnected.

Ultimately, we are all in grave danger if these same officials continue to be in charge of protecting us from terrorist attacks.

##############################OOOOOOOO#######################################################

+++++++++++++++++++++++ooooooooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++

##################### COLBY is not IMHO a reliable source.....why ?? please below.##################oooo############++++

CHARLES DRAGO 2008 post

* As Jan Klimkowski has explained:

On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to.

Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic: http://www.jod911.com/

The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers".

But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement."

Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote:

"As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10872&st=60

In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine".

So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

#####################################################oooo=

Colby uses Lance.LANCE IS ON YOUR (Colby team) TEAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes,Lance can get things right+ but ye old stopped clock correct two times day.

LANCE WRONG ,Ali Mohamed double ,triple,quadruple,quintuple

agent ...didnt you read first post is this thread ???? .....ZAWAHIRI Anglo/American spook....if so,everything you have said about 911 is 100% pure bunk.

(see very bottom of post for further insight into mythbuster 911 man Colby)

Get back to us when actually have evidence that “LANCE WRONG [sic] ,Ali Mohamed double ,triple,quadruple,quintuple agent .” which in your parlance seems to mean you think he was really working for the “secret team”. So Peter Lance - a renowned journalist with a Masters from Columbia who has won 5 Emmys, written 3 book about Al Qaeda for which he interviewed dozens (if not hundreds) of people and reviewed numerous documents - is akin to an “old stopped clock” but Steve Gaal the nurse’s aide knows much more about the subject.

As for Zawahiri you failed to produce any evidence he as an “Anglo/American spook” and you know it that’s why you changed the subject.

#################################+ooo+#########################=

COLBY ABOUT WHO GAVE Bin Laden Family diplomatic passports....."the SAUDI goverment". Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency,

resigned Aug.31,2001. He said then ,"I have been a friend of GHWB for 30 years." GEE ,QUI BONO Bush family re 911 ? ITS CALLED THE SECRET TEAM.

---------------ooo------------------------------

In the late 1930s GWHB father Prescott Bush travelled

with Allen Dulles to the Middle East and had meetings with the the Saudi Family...GEE maybe thats why Saudi Prince Bandar considered part of

Bush famiy.........called BANDAR BUSH !!!

PASSPORTS from Saudi goverment ??? LOL !!!!! Head of Saudi Intell 30 year friend of GHWB...passports !! LOL !!! QUE BONO ($$) 911 Bush family.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o

OK so

- 9/11 was carried out by a group headed by OBL,

- several members of his very extensive family, none of whom have been tied to the attacks or AQ got diplomatic passports from the Saudi government,

- Bush is friendly the Saudi ambassador to the US and other members of the ruling family

therefore Bush as “in on” 9/11 – your “logic” is impeccable!

----------------------------oooo--------------------- link BANDAR and additional article on Bandar below.

http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/bandar.htm

He makes some good points, but the article does NOT back you theories.

-------------------------oo------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO Louis Freeh = Secret Team IMHO

--------------------------------------------oo+-- two LA Times reporters on Bandar "Bush" ++++++++++++

--------------oooo-------------oooo-----------

$2 billion from an British arms manufacturer to Saudi Arabia’s then-U.S. ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has come under scrutiny. Louis Freeh defends Bandar on ‘Frontline.’

By Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer

April 7, 2009

Reporting from Washington — Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh says $2 billion that flowed from a British arms manufacturer to U.S. bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., was not a bribe, but was instead part of a complex barter involving the exchange of Saudi oil for British fighter jets.

[…]

I’m not interested enough to look into this but it has nothing to do with 9/11

>>>>>>>Why didnt we work on numerous "pre" 911 warnings ??

>>>>>>>Answer......Secret Team see below

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oooo------------------------------

#################################################++##################################################################

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

By Paul Thompson

DISCLAIMER: The analytical articles published on this website were written and published by “project managers” of certain investigative projects hosted by the History Commons website. Therefore, any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to History Commons. For questions concerning an article, please contact the author(s) directly.

Tell us which these warning you think was specific enough to have been acted upon, but before you do so go to the cited sources and see if they are reliable and actually support Thompson’s allegations. Then tell us why we should attribute these failures to design rather than accident when history is full of similar failures.

It is interesting that although “Paul Thompson” (apparently a pseudonym), is one of the site’s key editors but it says “any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to History Commons”.

##############################OOOOOOOO#######################################################

+++++++++++++++++++++++ooooooooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++

##################### COLBY is not IMHO a reliable source.....why ?? please below.##################oooo############++++

CHARLES DRAGO 2008 post

* As Jan Klimkowski has explained:

On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to.

Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic:

http://www.jod911.com/

The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers".

But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement."

Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote:

"As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication."

http://educationforu...h...10872&st=60

In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine".

So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

Your desperation is palpable. You can’t prove me wrong so you stoop to a personal attack:

- I am not the author of the page

- Only the densest “casual visitor” might believe a journal with 'Shagster', 'James B'. and 'Debunking911' on its advisory board ‘was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine".’

- See if you can cite examples of when I have posted factually incorrect information

- Show examples of cases when I’ve posted factually incorrect information, they are few and far between. Then show that I knew, or should have known it was incorrect. You won’t be able to do the latter because I have never knowing posted false information. You on the other hand have repeatedly posted false info. I don’t think you do so intentionally, you are too lazy/careless to check your sources.

-See if you can cite any examples of incorrect information the author should have known was false in any of the journal's papers.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Len Colby