Red Flag – Saudi Government Suspects Protected at Every Turn

Soon after the September 11th attacks, the US government actively tried to minimize and oppress information relating to a possible role in the attacks by Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the 9-11 Commission cleared Saudi Arabia of any role in the terrorist attacks despite many anomalies including the fact that 15 of the 19 high jackers were actually from Saudi Arabia.

In December 2002 Congress released its’ Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the 9-11 terrorist attacks. When released, this document contained 28 pages of redacted information that allegedly pointed to foreign state-sponsorship of the attacks, specifically Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to ascertain the contents of the censored 28-pages of the report.

Victims family members asked President Bush why he refused to release this information and got no answer.

Years earlier, in August 2002, victim family members publically announced a $1 trillion lawsuit against alleged Saudi bank rollers of Osama Bin Laden. This lawsuit has been stalled and defeated at every turn. In November 2002, the lawsuit became even bigger and costlier at $15 trillion dollars as more than three-dozen new defendants were added, including members of the Saudi Royal Family.  Interestingly, three members of the Saudi royal family have since been given legal immunity from prosecution.  Attorneys for the victims’ families told the Staten Island Advance in 2006, that it could be “another several years before the lawsuit goes to trial. ”

In July of 2003 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland was interviewed by Frank Sesno of PBS. In that interview, he stated: “You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section.”

The 2008 book “The Commission”, by New York Times reporter Philip Shennon revealed that 9/11 Commission Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow blocked other 9/11 commissioners who were working on the Saudi connections from accessing the 28-page redacted section.

In August 2003, an anonymous official told New Republic magazine that the 28-page redacted section outlines “connections between the hijacking plot and the very top levels of the Saudi royal family.”In September of 2004, a month after the official close of the 9/11 Commission, Senator Bob Graham accused the White House of covering-up the involvement of Saudi government officials in the 9/11 plot.

Despite attempts by family members to get this information made public and promises from the Obama administration to do so, the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry into 9-11 remain secret and are likely to remain so. In May of 2010, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan refused to give the victims’ families’ lawsuit a hearing. Her argument was that US foreign policy would be interfered with if the lawsuit was allowed to go ahead.

Secrecy continues to cloud the possible role of Saudi Arabia in the events of September 11th. Despite calls from members of Congress, victims family members, and even one of the 9-11 Commissioners to dig deeper into the role of Saudi Arabia, no such inquiry has yet to take place. Why would the US government and the 9-11 Commission protect Saudi Arabia?

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below.

Red Flag – 9/11 Commission Ignores Pakistan’s Money Connection

Despite the 9-11 Commission’s mandate to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, many key points were omitted from the final report. One of these important omissions attempted to cover up the role of Pakistan and whether or not Pakistani intelligence helped to fund the 9-11 attacks.

Ties between Washington DC and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI have been documented in media reports before and after the September 11th attacks. In March 2001, Pakistani regional expert and member of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Selig Harrisson, said “the CIA still has close links with the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.” Just one day before the attacks, a Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad reported that the head of the ISI was meeting with unspecified members of the Pentagon, National Security Council, and CIA Director George Tenet.

On May 18th, 2002 the Washington Post reported that:

“On the morning of Sept. 11, Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.”

Specific details of that meeting have still not been released and may never have been recorded.

In 2001, various media outlets (CNN, Fox News, ABC, and AP) reported that $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the 9-11 lead hijacker. A “senior law enforcement source” told CNN that the paymaster was believed to be Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was working for the Pakistani ISI at the time.

Several media outlets reported in 2002 that the US government believed Saeed Sheikh to be an asset of the ISI, and that senior ISI officers knew him well.  Also reported was the allegation by Indian intelligence that General Mahmud Ahmed ordered the wire transfer and that Indian intelligence claimed they had assisted the FBI during the investigation. Various mainstream Indian papers reported this in 2001 along with a mainstream Pakistani newspaper.  In the West – the Wall Street Journal and Agence France Press picked up on the story in October.

On October 7th 2001, Mahmud Ahmed was fired from his role at the ISI. The official explanation was because he was too close to the Taliban. This claim has been met with criticism by some analysts given the fact that there were several pro-Taliban officers that kept their jobs.

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Family Steering Committee asked the Commissioners to investigate the ISI connection. However, the commission did little to “follow the money” and the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of these allegations. Furthermore, the commission made the absurd statement that the question of who financed the terrorist attacks was “of little practical significance” [and that it had] “seen no evidence that any foreign government–or foreign government official–supplied any funding.”

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below.

Red Flag – The Bush administration opposed a 9/11 Commission

The Bush administration fought hard against the creation of an independent commission to investigate September 11th.  The families who fought for the creation of such a commission, wanted full accountability concerning the event that led to the deaths of their loved ones.  Yet, the Bush administration resisted this.  Why?

On the January 29th, 2002 – CNN reported,

“President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11”.

Daschle told reporters that an investigation,

“…would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism”.

On May 23rd 2002, CBS reported that,

“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.”

The excuses for the opposition to the Commission often given were alleged fears of national security compromises and claims that those involved in the “war on terrorism” would have their jobs hampered.  Yet, clearly national security had already been compromised as a result of the attacks. If there were such failings and if people did not do their jobs, then they needed to be held accountable.

In September 2002, under pressure from victims’ family members, CBS reported,

“President Bush told Congress he now supports creation of an independent commission to probe the September eleventh attacks.”

The victims’ families “fought the Bush administration tooth and nail for a commission to investigate the September 11th terrorist attacks — and won”.  Yet, why did they even have to fight them for an investigation in the first place?

In total, the Bush administration fought off an investigation for 441 days before the mandate was finally passed into law on November 27, 2002.

During the 9/11 Commission hearings – the Family Steering Committee requested Commissioners to ask Bush and Cheney to,

“explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation”.

Yet, no answer is forthcoming.

The Bush administration actively opposed any formal investigation into the attacks of September 11th.  If it were not for the determination of victims’ family members and a budding 9-11 Truth Movement, there would have never been any inquiry beyond the heavily redacted Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry from 2002.   Why did President Bush not want the American public to know exactly what happened before, during, and after the September 11th attacks?

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Provocateurs, Shills and Disinfo Agents – Must See Video

At Visibility 9-11, we are dedicated to educating people about the September 11th attacks, which unfortunately includes the dirty topic of COINTELPRO style disruption of all sorts. In 2007, we did our Special Report on what COINTELPRO is and some of the clues to look for when looking at the behavior of others in the 9-11 movement. We are pleased to say that since then, awareness of intentional disruption of the movement has increased greatly and these episodes of the show have been some of our most popular.

We caution anyone from directly accusing anyone of being an agent of the government as this is nearly impossible to prove. It is not our job to ascertain a persons intentions when their behavior is suspect; it doesn’t really matter what their intentions are. The end result is always the same and we must learn to distance ourselves, our websites, and our activism from disruptive and reckless individuals. The work of our movement is too valuable and too serious to not take the COINTELPRO threat seriously; this we must do. The first step is to learn about it and how to spot the behavior that is hurting our activism.

Please watch the video above as a first step. Our COINTELPRO Special Report page will also provide a good starting point in your education.

Visibility 9-11 welcomes back Erik Lawyer the founder of Firefighters for 9-11 Truth

Interview by John Bursill.

343 brave New York City Firefighters died on 9/11, this episode of Visibility 9/11 is dedicated to them!

If you have not heard the name Erik Lawyer it is one to remember. Erik is a full time Firefighter and is a new shinning light in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has been impressing all he meets with his simple message demanding a thorough criminal forensic investigation of the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe. He and his fire-fighting comrades want the authorities to do their job and carry out an investigation in accordance with fire scene investigation protocols, that he and all US fire fighters adhere to religiously.

On 9/11 so many things happened for the first time and the one that is of greatest concern to Erik and his group, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth is the near complete destruction of evidence at this fire crime scene and the subsequent monumental cover up and obfuscation of the little remaining evidence.  Independently gathered evidence clearly demonstrates that incendiaries and explosives were used to facilitate the three WTC buildings destruction.  For more information, see the Visibility 9-11 Special Report, Thermite Fingerprint- The Loaded Gun of 9-11.

In this latest interview John and Erik talk about the future plans for Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and their achievements so far and we also talk about the strong bond being formed between “Firefighters for 9/11 Truth” and the highly successful “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. Soon an exciting new video is to be produced by both groups providing an even better and broader video resource for public education than the current “9/11 – Blue Print for Truth”; while still sticking to a careful non-conspiratorial fact based approach.

Visibility 9/11 congratulates Erik and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth for their commitment to truth and justice in the face of personal attack and ridicule. As Erik has demonstrated in his Seattle Fire Station, ignorance is no match for hard evidence. It is a simple truth that all who dare to look at that evidence will concede there is a clear and present danger to the American public and the world if we do not find the real reasons for the three building collapses on 9/11. It is also very reassuring to see another group of professional 9/11 Truth Advocates being careful with what they say and do in the name of 9/11 Truth. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth will always put the victims and the first responders concerns and welfare first!

To assist the suffering first responders a “Firefighters for 9/11 Truth” T’shirt can be bought here: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=530

Related – Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Erik Lawyer, Fire Fighters for 9-11 Truth,  August 2008.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author’s Web site.

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

[Read more…]

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes National Security Whistleblower J. Michael Springmann

This week Visibility 9-11 welcomes former diplomat from the State Department’s Foreign Service J. Michael Springmann. Mr. Springmann served postings in Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in Washington D.C. He is a published author of several articles on national security themes, and is an attorney in private practice in Washington D.C.

Michael has attended several 9/11 Conferences over the years, most notably, the 9/11 Omission hearings on 9/9/2004 chaired by former Representative and current Green Party candidate for President, Cynthia McKinney, as well as the recent conference in Keene, NH.

Included in this important interview is a discussion regarding a new article by Mr. Springmann titled, THE MISTAKE DEPARTMENT: One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster that discusses the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and it’s relationship to 15 of the 19 alleged September 11th hijackers. In it, he says that “the Jeddah Consulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation”, “the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia,” and “these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.”


Direct download: visibility911_springmann.mp3

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Despite the fact that I have retired from producing the podcast, I still receive 4-6000 downloads a month from people who are still finding this information useful.  Current stats show that the podcast has received almost 1.25 million downloads and I still get emails from listeners on a monthly basis thanking me for making this information available.  My goal is to keep these podcasts available long past my time here on earth, however, I need your help.  Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.