FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

Len,

Another source of the "collect call" accepted in Ted Olson's office by DOJ employee Keyton, here:

This statement was taken by an FBI agent over the phone to the residence of Ms. Keyton...only

hours after the incident:

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-F...lynn-keyton.pdf

...Keyton was working in Ted Olson's office this morning....At approx. 9:00am, she received a series

of approx. six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect

call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator.

A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and

try your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an'

emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical....

Ms. Keyton should have testified to the 9/11 Commission, and the billing record of the accept collect call...on the DOJ's telephone billing record, should have been provided to the 9/11 Commission and entered in evidence in the Moussaoui trial....if a collect call as described, actually took place. The DOJ had nearly 3 years to find and provide the billing record, more than four years in the instance of the Moussaoui trial....

The other document I described details how airfone calls are paid for by credit card.....

Maybe another reader here can post a screen shot....

We're going around in circles basically your demanding proof of something that was disputed during the trial or society at large except by some the 5 - 10% of the population who thinks there was an "inside job", people who are unlike to change their minds no matter what evidence was produced. It was not even among the numerous questions raised by the Family Steering Committee.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FSCstmtQs.html

Despite me asking you several times you have answered my questions about what you think happened to Barbara Olson and what role you think her husband played.

[Evan Burton]

1. American Airlines says THERE WERE NO SEATBACK PHONES ON FLIGHT 77.

As Len has pointed out, this is incorrect. They were in the process of removing them, but the aircraft documentations shows that they were neither removed nor deactivated on 9-11.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...moking-gun.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...39/c3801015.htm

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=35569

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...one-update.html

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-831093.html

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=273...p;postcount=378

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=278...p;postcount=416

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones

2. Cellphone calls from Flight 77 were impossible.

That's not correct. I've used them myself a number of times. Also:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=393...mp;postcount=38

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wir..._final_contact/

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

[Guest Tom Scully]

Evan,

Wouldn't a forthright 9/11 Commission investigation have included a 2003 interview with Ms. keyton and a documented

attempt to produce "collect call" acceptance billing charges on the DOJ offices telephone records, and billing and receipt of payment records for the company "a live operator" worked for, especially since this is a record of her statment allegedly taken by the FBI within 12 hours of the time of her acceptance of the collect call? Wouldn't the gaping discrepancy between Ted Olson's description of his wife's calm demeanor, vs. Ms. Keyton's description of "hysterical" been examined?

Wouldn't a fairer prosecution of Moussaoui in 2006 have either withdrawn the weak evidence of an unconnected and 4 unidentified calls, or provided proof of Ms. Keyton's statement to the FBI and made her recite her testimony in court?

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-F...lynn-keyton.pdf or

http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/Team7_Box1...llNotes302s.pdf (page 9)

...Keyton was working in Ted Olson's office this morning....At approx. 9:00am, she received a series

of approx. six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect

call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator.

A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and

try your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an'

emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical....

Len presses me to offer a theory or opinion. This is not my story....it is the government's version of events and I point out that it does not stand up to closer scrutiny, and I reasonably furnish examples why I think this, and opinion with examples of why Ted Olson is a compromised witness because of connected and general statements and his background....yet the entire "hijackers armed with box cutters" version of events came from his statements and ended up burned into the near universal impression of what happened on 9/11......

Edited May 2, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

Peter posted the following to the nanothermite paper thread:

Where was Osam binLaden on 9/11?

September 11, 2008

"Going after bin Laden" has served, over the last five years, to sustain the legend of the "world's most wanted terrorist", who "haunts Americans and millions of others around the world."

Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly claimed that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remain unknown: "It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay".

In November 2001, US B-52 bombers carpet bombed a network of caves in the Tora Bora mountains of eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and his followers were allegedly hiding. These caves were described as "Osama's last stronghold".

CIA "intelligence analysts" subsequently concluded that Osama had escaped from his Tora Bora cave in the first week of December 2001. And in January 2002, the Pentagon launched a Worldwide search for Osama and his top lieutenants, beyond the borders of Afghanistan. This operation, referred to by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a "hot pursuit", was carried out with the support of the "international community" and America's European allies. US intelligence authorities confirmed, in this regard, that

"while al Qaeda has been significantly shattered, ... the most wanted man - bin Laden himself remains one step ahead of the United States, with the core of his worldwide terror network still in place. (Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, January 20, 2002)

For the last five years, the US military and intelligence apparatus (at considerable expense to US taxpayers) has been "searching for Osama".

A CIA unit with a multimillion dollar budget was set up, with a mandate to find Osama. This unit was apparently disbanded in 2005. "Intelligence experts agree", he is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan, but "we cannot find him":

"Most intelligence analysts are convinced that Osama bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Lately, it has been said that he's probably in the vicinity of the a 7700m Hindu Kush peak Tirich Mir in the tribal Chitral area of northwest Pakistan." Hobart Mercury (Australia), September 9, 2006)

President Bush has repeatedly promised to "smoke him out" of his cave, capture him dead or alive, if necessary through ground assaults or missile strikes. According to a recent statement by president Bush, Osama is hiding in a remote area of Pakistan which "is extremely mountainous and very inaccessible, ... with high mountains between 9,000 to 15,000 feet high....". We cannot get him, because, according to the president, there is no communications infrastructure, which would enable us to effectively go after him. (quoted in Balochistan Times, 23 April 2006)

The pursuit of Osama has become a highly ritualized process which feeds the news chain on a daily basis. It is not only part of the media disinformation campaign, it also provides a justification for the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of numerous "suspects", "enemy combatants" and "accomplices", who allegedly might be aware of Osama's whereabouts. And that information is of course vital to "the security of Americans".

The search for Osama serves both military and political objectives. The Democrats and Republicans compete in their resolve to weed out "islamic terrorism".

The Path to 9/11, a five-hour ABC series on "the search for Osama" --which makes its debut on the 10th and 11th of September to marks the fifth anniversary of the attacks-- casually accuses Bill Clinton of having been "too busy with the Monica Lewinsky scandal to fight terrorism." The message of the movie is that the Democrats neglected the "war on terrorism".

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the "Islamic terror" network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Where was Osama on Septembers 11?

There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.

On September 10. 2001, "Enemy Number One" was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan, as confirmed by a report of Dan Rather, CBS News. (See our October 2003 article on this issue)

He could have been arrested at short notice which would have "saved us a lot of trouble", but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as George W's speeches in the course of the last five years.

According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was hospitalized in Rawalpindi. one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, 2001.

"Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters.

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

(...)

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan's President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am -- don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.

(END VIDEOTAPE) END

(CBS News, 28 January 2002 emphasis added, the complete transcript of CBS report sis contained in annex to this article)

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose". Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health. (CBS News, 28 January 2002)

The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in our understanding of 9/11.

It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They suggest that the US had been deliberately misled by Pakistani intelligence officials. They fail to ask the question:

Why does the US administration state that they cannot find Osama?

If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious. The administration is lying. Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were known.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's ally, he was either still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred or had been released from the hospital within the last hours before the attacks.

In other words, Osama's whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden. These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office.

He could have been arrested at short notice on September 10th, 2001. But then we would not have been privileged to five years of Osama related media stories. The Bush administration desperately needs the fiction of an "outside enemy of America".

Known and documented Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda is a construct of the US intelligence apparatus. His essential function is to give a face to the "war on terrorism". The image must be vivid.

According to the White house, "The greatest threat to us is this ideology of violent extremism, and its greatest public proponent is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden remains the number one target, in terms of our efforts, but he's not the only target." Recent Statement of White House Assistant for Homeland Security Frances Townsend, 5 September 2006).

The national security doctrine rests on the fiction of Islamic terrorists, led by Osama who are portrayed as a "threat to the civilized World". In the words of President Bush, "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? We are on the offensive. We will not rest. We will not retreat. And we will not withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed." (quoted by CNN, September 5, 2006)

The "hot pursuit" of Osama in the rugged mountainous areas of Pakistan must continue, because without Osama, referred to ad nauseam in news reports and official statements, the fragile legitimacy of the Bush administration collapses like a deck of cards.

Moreover, the search for Osama protects the real architects of the 911 attacks. While there is no evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 911 attacks, as revealed by nuerous studies and documents, there is mounting evidence of complicity and coverup at the highest levels of the State, Military and intelligence apparatus.

The continued arrest of alleged 911 accomplices and suspects has nothing to do with "national security". It creates the illusion that Arabs and Muslims are behind the terror plots, while shunting the conduct of a real criminal investigation into the 911 attacks. And what were dealing with is the criminalization of the upper echelons of State.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=3194

[Len Colby]

There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.

On September 10. 2001, "Enemy Number One" was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi,

One of course doesn't follow from the other. Even IF the CBS report were accurate knowing where someone was one day doesn't mean you knew where they were the next let alone years later. The report was based on the undocumented claims of an unnamed "medical worker " and unnamed "Pakistan intelligence sources"

courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan

The biggest hole in Chossudovsky's speculating is that he failed to provide any evidence the Pakistan military was "America's indefectible ally". Only months before they were selling nuclear technology to North Korea and Libya, and until recently provided (or perhaps still provide) assistance to terrorists attacking India, another US ally, it had close ties to the taliban until 9/11 which it only releuctantly gave up under a great deal of pressure from the US.

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the "Islamic terror" network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Something else he failed to document. Yes the US supported the Mujuhadeen fighting to liberate there country from the Soviets and there puppets 1978 - 1989 and more recently to anti-Taliban factions. Did this aid flow to al Qaeda, bin Laden or operations outside Afganistan or Pakistan? I haven't seen any evidence that is the case.

[Len Colby]

Like I said we're going in circles there was no reason for prosecutor in the Moussoui case to examine this because it was not disputed, not important to the case and a conviction was obtained with out it. Similarly there was no reason for the 9/11 Commission to look into this because other that a small number of CTists no one was questioning this. I'm not even sure they were questioning it when the commission was preparing its report.

[Evan Burton]

Tom,

I'm not clear on what the problems are. Could you summarise them for me?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Tom,

I'm not clear on what the problems are. Could you summarise them for me?

This is as brief and concise a summary as I can present. Quotes of Ted Olson's and two of his staff are posted in a number

of prior posts on this thread, including in linked FBI investigation interviews, and in posted news reports. They have to compete with this:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

57.The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe...

The FBI and DOJ apparently took Ted Olson's account of receiving two phone calls from his wife, and what he said she told him during the calls, at face value. Olson's assistant, a Ms. Keyton, told the FBI:

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-F...lynn-keyton.pdf

....There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator.

A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and

try your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an'

emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical....

As the 9/11 Commission noted, the FBI and DOJ failed to produce any records specific to the call Ms. Keyton said she "accepted the charges for", or any record specific to the other call Ted Olson claims to have received.

As it happens, Ted Olson is the only source of the scenario of 9/11 airline hijackers using "cardboard" or "box" cutters as their primary assault weapon to effect the hijackings.

Olson also told the FBI that his wife's voice was calm during the conversations...Ms. Keyton contradicted this.

[Peter McKenna]

There is evidence that the whereabouts of Osama are known to the Bush Administration.

On September 10. 2001, "Enemy Number One" was in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi,

One of course doesn't follow from the other. Even IF the CBS report were accurate knowing where someone was one day doesn't mean you knew where they were the next let alone years later. The report was based on the undocumented claims of an unnamed "medical worker " and unnamed "Pakistan intelligence sources"

courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan

The biggest hole in Chossudovsky's speculating is that he failed to provide any evidence the Pakistan military was "America's indefectible ally". Only months before they were selling nuclear technology to North Korea and Libya, and until recently provided (or perhaps still provide) assistance to terrorists attacking India, another US ally, it had close ties to the taliban until 9/11 which it only releuctantly gave up under a great deal of pressure from the US.

The fact of the matter is that every single administration, since Jimmy Carter have supported and financed the "Islamic terror" network, created during the Carter administration at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, 12 September 2001). al Qaeda is a instrument of US intelligence: a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Something else he failed to document. Yes the US supported the Mujuhadeen fighting to liberate there country from the Soviets and there puppets 1978 - 1989 and more recently to anti-Taliban factions. Did this aid flow to al Qaeda, bin Laden or operations outside Afganistan or Pakistan? I haven't seen any evidence that is the case.

Since the thread has split I would like to reply here also, if you will;

The report that Bin Laden was being treated in a Pakistani Hospital, on 9/10/01, with dialysis was the result of a vague and in-substantive rumor from the Pakistani ISI. When the Pakistani government was interviewed they denied knowledge of this event.

"Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records." Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.”

Even if Bin Laden were treated at a Pakistani hospital, there is no proof either that the treatment was performed with the knowledge of the Pakistani Government or the Pakistani ISI, only the suggestion that it was discovered after the fact by the Pakistani ISI.

Even then, how does this prove Rumsfeld knew of this incident, and subsequently lied? That is what you and the article you have pasted in suggest isn't it, Peter?

Al Queda’s responsibility for the WTC attacks has been established in several venues, with the US media present.

During his military Tribunal, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed confessed as having been the operational commander of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, et al, under the direction of Sheikh Usama Bin Laden and Dr. Aymen Al-Zawahiri, having been reponsible for the execution of the 9/11 Operation,“from A to Z”. Bin Laden's physical presence during the actual attacks, in any specific location, was therefore irrelevant, as to, was whether Rumsfeld or US intelligence had specific knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts prior to 9/11. Rumsfeld's statements concerning Bin Laden's whereabouts concerned his post- 9/11 whereabouts. Prior to 9/11 Bin Laden was suspected of complicity in terrorist operations but AFAIK there was no evidence prior to 9/11 of his involvement.

Of course, Bin Laden's location prior to 9/11 is irrelevant. The suggestion that knowledge of his whereabouts on 9/10/01 may have been known by the Pakistani ISI doesn't prove anything, especially Rumsfeld's knowledge of Bin Laden's whereabouts post 9/11. Your post suggests that Bin Laden's location on 9/10 provides implicit proof as to his status as patsy.

Several involved persons, esp. Khalid Muhammed, et al, corroborate that Bin Laden was not in the operational loop for the 9/11 attacks.

I believe I have read the 9/11 "truth" movement state that the 9/11 commission had not investigated whether explosives had been used in WTC destruction. In the 9/11 commission report it was stated:

"Passengers on three flights reported the hijackers' claim of having a bomb.

The FBI told us they found no trace of explosives at the crash sites." (from the 9/11 commision report)

Unless the Commission report is disputed in fact, the FBI had investigated the crash sites for evidence of explosives, finding none. Hasn't the "truth" movement stated that no such investigation took place? Or was the claim that no investigation for nan-thermite took place (an obvious oversight on the part of the FBI).

Another relevant question would be; Why, if the government had materminded the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, would they lie about the whereabouts of their chief patsy, Usama Bin Laden, on the days leading up to 9/11?

Following the assasination of JFK, it seems that all sorts of trivial information concerning Oswald's whereabouts prior to that day were known to authorities.

If, as you posit, the 9/11 attack was a creature of the Government, why would they lie about Bin Laden? Shouldn't they have known all that was relevant to Bin Laden leading up to 9/11? Or do you posit the government was so inept that they 'set up' Bin Laden without knowing anything concerning his whereabouts and actions prior to 9/11?

Edited May 3, 2009 by Peter McKenna

[Evan Burton]

Yet another example - as if any more were needed - that PFFFFFFT and their ringleader Rob Balsamo (AKA John Doh!, Capt'n King Air, JDX) are the last people you want to rely upon for aviation related information:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=468...amp;postcount=1

[William Kelly]

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve – Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command. Former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. Fellow, Center for Advanced Defense Studies. 23-year military intelligence career.

Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee 2/15/06: Regarding the Able Danger project - "... basic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools ... resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. ...

After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a "preconceived" conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were "urban legend". http://www.abledan

Interview Fox News 8/24/05: "Why did this operation, which was created in '99 to target Al Qaeda globally, offensively, why was that turned off in the Spring of 2001, four months before we were attacked? I can't answer that, either. I can tell you I was ordered out of the operation directly by a two-star general. But I don't know what the bigger picture was of why you'd want to stop an operation going after the very target who attacked us, in advance, why you'd want to turn it off." at 3:00 into the video at http://video.google.com

Editor's note: The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar. http://www.foxnews.com. See also Rep. Curt Weldon , Louis Freeh, Capt. Scott J. Phillpott , Major Erik Kleinsmith, and James D. Smith.

Bio: http://www.c4ads.org/anthony.shaffer

Above one of several hundred such on: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Peter,

I think Able Danger is extremely important but Weldon, whose daughter owns a PR company that got contracts from USSR friends of Weldon, set off some investigations that led to his losing the election.

Weldon is now out of the picture, and Able Danger and the Information Dominant Command are out of business, hopefully operations picked up by other USA intelligence agencies, but they really went after Shaffer, the Whistleblower.

I think he was represented by former COPA and Lesar protege Mark Zaid.

Shaffer's record indicates he was stationed at Fort Dix, NJ, which is in my hood, and I've been trying to find out what happened there.

The idea of using massive computers to run vasts amounts of open source data about suspected terrorists and assassins is a good idea, and should be applied to the JFK assassination.

BK

[William Kelly]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_...HNsawNwcmludA--

White House aide resigns over NYC flyover

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The White House official who authorized a $328,835 photo-op of Air Force One soaring above New York City resigned Friday just weeks after the flyover sparked panicked workers to rush into the streets and flashbacks to Sept. 11. Louis Caldera said the controversy had "made it impossible for me to effectively lead the White House Military Office," which is responsible for presidential aircraft.

"Moreover, it has become a distraction in the important work you are doing as president," Caldera wrote in his resignation letter to President Barack Obama.

An internal White House investigation found missed messages and portrayed an out-of-the-loop Caldera, clearly the administration's fall guy.

The former Army secretary in the Clinton administration said he didn't know Air Force One would fly at 1,000 feet during the April 27 photo shoot that had been planned for weeks. He also failed to read an e-mail message describing the operation and seemed unaware of the potential for public fear, the report said.

Without an advance public notice the morning of April 27, the sight of the huge passenger jet and an F-16 fighter plane flying near the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan's financial district terrified New Yorkers, reminding them of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in which jets brought down the two towers of the World Trade Center.

Last month, Obama called the White House embarrassment a "mistake" and vowed it would not be repeated. Obama had no statement Friday; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president had accepted Caldera's resignation.

Caldera's office approved the photo-op, which cost $35,000 in fuel alone for the plane and two jet fighter escorts. The Air Force estimated the photo shoot cost taxpayers $328,835.

White House officials said the purpose of the flight was to update the official photo of the plane, known as Air Force One when the president is aboard. In releasing its report and the resignation letter, the White House also released a photo of the blue-and-white plane high above the Statue of Liberty, with New Jersey in the background.

The White House report, which did not address officials' conduct outside the White House, portrayed Caldera as deaf to concerns. After the flight, Caldera met with top administration officials and was asked if the White House had been notified. "The director responded yes, someone had mentioned it to him," according to the report.

Later in the meeting, a White House official presented Caldera a letter accepting responsibility. He made some edits and took responsibility because he thought it was the "stand-up thing to do."

The White House report also indicated the operation was packed with potential opportunities for administration officials to call it off.

Deputy military director George Mulligan said he first told Caldera about the proposed photo shoot on April 20 — a week before it was scheduled to take place. The same aide also said Caldera should notify deputy chief of staff Jim Messina because it was an unusual move.

Caldera told officials he didn't recall the conversation. Ultimately, Caldera didn't tell Messina or Gibbs. "When asked why he failed to do so, he did not offer a coherent explanation," according to the report.

Caldera also told officials that he didn't read an e-mail detailing the flyover plans until it was over. Mulligan, Caldera's second-in-command, sent him an e-mail message on April 24 advising him again to tell Messina and Gibbs about the photo shoot.

Caldera said he hadn't seen the e-mail because he has two official accounts. He also said he was suffering from severe muscle aches and had been prescribed pain medication.

The FAA told local officials in advance of the flight, but asked them not to disclose it to the public. The White House report says that ultimately statements about the flight were prepared for the FAA's New York regional office and for the Air Force in Washington to release if anyone called to ask about the flight.

The report said Mulligan believed "the breakdown was the lack of public notification." Col. Scott Turner, head of the White House military office's presidential airlift group, said "the FAA had taken the lead on public affairs and coordination," according to the report.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown declined to comment.

Friday's release is hardly the end of the matter for the White House. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a review at the Pentagon; the Air Force is conducting its own review as well.

In a May 5 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Gates apologized for the incident, saying "we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission."

McCain posted the letter on his Web site Friday.

"I am concerned that this highly public and visible mission did not include an appropriate review and approval by senior Air Force and (Department of Defense) officials," Gates wrote.

Gibbs said Obama has ordered a review of how the White House Military Office is set up, and how it reports to the White House and the Air Force.

That review, to be conducted by Messina and Gates, will also offer recommendations to Obama designed to ensure that such an incident will not happen again, Gibbs said.

When Obama appointed Caldera to the job during the presidential transition, the then president-elect said: "I know he'll bring to the White House the same dedication and integrity that have earned him the highest praise in every post."

Caldera's resignation takes effect May 22, but he is done at the White House Military Office. He said he will use the two weeks of his employment to complete the necessary steps to leave the White House.

___

Associated Press Writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.

[Jack White]

I note that obstructionists continue to misrepresent (lie?) about my position on the WTC. I note

that I have been classified as a NO-PLANER, whatever that is.

That is not my position at all. My position is that the two IDENTIFIED "HIJACKED" PLANES did

not strike the twin towers. Does that make me a no-planer?

SOMETHING did strike the twin towers. I do not know what it was. I suspect from study of all

the evidence that whatever it was came from ultra secret weaponry and scenarios provided

at the highest level. Does NOT KNOWING what struck the towers make me a no-planer?

Jack

[William Kelly]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_...HNsawNwcmludA--

White House aide resigns over NYC flyover

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The White House official who authorized a $328,835 photo-op of Air Force One soaring above New York City resigned Friday just weeks after the flyover sparked panicked workers to rush into the streets and flashbacks to Sept. 11. Louis Caldera said the controversy had "made it impossible for me to effectively lead the White House Military Office," which is responsible for presidential aircraft.

"Moreover, it has become a distraction in the important work you are doing as president," Caldera wrote in his resignation letter to President Barack Obama.

An internal White House investigation found missed messages and portrayed an out-of-the-loop Caldera, clearly the administration's fall guy.

The former Army secretary in the Clinton administration said he didn't know Air Force One would fly at 1,000 feet during the April 27 photo shoot that had been planned for weeks. He also failed to read an e-mail message describing the operation and seemed unaware of the potential for public fear, the report said.

Without an advance public notice the morning of April 27, the sight of the huge passenger jet and an F-16 fighter plane flying near the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan's financial district terrified New Yorkers, reminding them of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in which jets brought down the two towers of the World Trade Center.

Last month, Obama called the White House embarrassment a "mistake" and vowed it would not be repeated. Obama had no statement Friday; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president had accepted Caldera's resignation.

Caldera's office approved the photo-op, which cost $35,000 in fuel alone for the plane and two jet fighter escorts. The Air Force estimated the photo shoot cost taxpayers $328,835.

White House officials said the purpose of the flight was to update the official photo of the plane, known as Air Force One when the president is aboard. In releasing its report and the resignation letter, the White House also released a photo of the blue-and-white plane high above the Statue of Liberty, with New Jersey in the background.

The White House report, which did not address officials' conduct outside the White House, portrayed Caldera as deaf to concerns. After the flight, Caldera met with top administration officials and was asked if the White House had been notified. "The director responded yes, someone had mentioned it to him," according to the report.

Later in the meeting, a White House official presented Caldera a letter accepting responsibility. He made some edits and took responsibility because he thought it was the "stand-up thing to do."

The White House report also indicated the operation was packed with potential opportunities for administration officials to call it off.

Deputy military director George Mulligan said he first told Caldera about the proposed photo shoot on April 20 — a week before it was scheduled to take place. The same aide also said Caldera should notify deputy chief of staff Jim Messina because it was an unusual move.

Caldera told officials he didn't recall the conversation. Ultimately, Caldera didn't tell Messina or Gibbs. "When asked why he failed to do so, he did not offer a coherent explanation," according to the report.

Caldera also told officials that he didn't read an e-mail detailing the flyover plans until it was over. Mulligan, Caldera's second-in-command, sent him an e-mail message on April 24 advising him again to tell Messina and Gibbs about the photo shoot.

Caldera said he hadn't seen the e-mail because he has two official accounts. He also said he was suffering from severe muscle aches and had been prescribed pain medication.

The FAA told local officials in advance of the flight, but asked them not to disclose it to the public. The White House report says that ultimately statements about the flight were prepared for the FAA's New York regional office and for the Air Force in Washington to release if anyone called to ask about the flight.

The report said Mulligan believed "the breakdown was the lack of public notification." Col. Scott Turner, head of the White House military office's presidential airlift group, said "the FAA had taken the lead on public affairs and coordination," according to the report.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown declined to comment.

Friday's release is hardly the end of the matter for the White House. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a review at the Pentagon; the Air Force is conducting its own review as well.

In a May 5 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Gates apologized for the incident, saying "we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission."

McCain posted the letter on his Web site Friday.

"I am concerned that this highly public and visible mission did not include an appropriate review and approval by senior Air Force and (Department of Defense) officials," Gates wrote.

Gibbs said Obama has ordered a review of how the White House Military Office is set up, and how it reports to the White House and the Air Force.

That review, to be conducted by Messina and Gates, will also offer recommendations to Obama designed to ensure that such an incident will not happen again, Gibbs said.

When Obama appointed Caldera to the job during the presidential transition, the then president-elect said: "I know he'll bring to the White House the same dedication and integrity that have earned him the highest praise in every post."

Caldera's resignation takes effect May 22, but he is done at the White House Military Office. He said he will use the two weeks of his employment to complete the necessary steps to leave the White House.

___

Associated Press Writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.

There is something 'wrong' with this 'picture'. Fine he was forced to resign, but it doesn't explain - even BEGIN to explain the secrecy imposed on several agencies; the motive for the 'photo op'; why it had to be where it was and why the hell they wouldn't inform everyone before hand.....I smell a rat and this resignation is to hide the smell......IMO

Yea, Peter, it does smell fishy.

Why did Caldera resign with a letter to McCain? I thought Obama won the election?

So the official White House investigation of the incident is over, and the appointed civilian head of the Military Office, and former Clinton appointee, has resigned. This investigation was limited to activity within the White House.

And now there's going to be two more investigations, one by the Air Force and one by Gates with a report due to the President on the operations of the White House Military Office.

With the head of the Military Office missing a critical email instruction to be sure to tell Obama's assistants because he had two official email addresses and was on pain killers?

Hopefully this investigation will also include the White House Communications Agency, which seems to be above any official oversight at all.

BK

[Jack White]

I note that obstructionists continue to misrepresent (lie?) about my position on the WTC. I note

that I have been classified as a NO-PLANER, whatever that is.

That is not my position at all. My position is that the two IDENTIFIED "HIJACKED" PLANES did

not strike the twin towers. Does that make me a no-planer?

SOMETHING did strike the twin towers. I do not know what it was. I suspect from study of all

the evidence that whatever it was came from ultra secret weaponry and scenarios provided

at the highest level. Does NOT KNOWING what struck the towers make me a no-planer?

Jack

Don't let the provocators provoke. This is one of their main techniques - to try to marginalize people by putting them into 'boxes' they label as insane - that don't even describe the person's real position and wouldn't be insane even if they did. There are several features that lend one to question if the planes that hit the WTC were the same ones that took-off from the various airports as civilian flights that day. It is inconclusive, but again puts the offcial fairytale version further in doubt. There are also indications those who planned the controlled demo knew where the planes would hit - again pointing toward either radio controlled planes and more likely robot planes with no one inside as possibilities. Anyone who finds such things fancifull has not studied the events of Dallas, which was also a magic show a bit beyond the state of the art thought to exist in 1963. 

Exactly.

Jack