Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A Systematic Pattern of Obstruction in the Investigation of the 9/11 Hijacke

Expand Messages
  • LeaNder
    ... wrote: One tiny little detail got my attention. Maybe I should contact the author of the documentary. Remember Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Now,
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
      --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
      <smcbride2@y...> wrote:

      One tiny little detail got my attention. Maybe I should contact the
      author of the documentary. Remember Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Now, I know
      I joked about people looking for easy similarities between people on
      photographs. But they showed a photograph of someone only mentioned in
      passing as Khan's Al Qaeda connection. He definitely looked like KSM,
      but they called him, no idea how to transcribe it: Hafis Hamid Said.
      (this was a 2005 production) They only mentioned the name once so this
      is a vague spelling attempt. Barlow was stopped in 92.

      http://khalid-sheik-mohammed.biography.ms/

      "He had a small role in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. He
      learned in 1991 or 1992 that his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, was planning to
      launch a bombing attack inside the United States. Mohammed gave Yousef
      advice and assistance over the phone, and kept track of Yousef's
      progress. On November 3, 1992, he gave a wire transfer of $660 to
      Yousef's co-conspirator, Mohammed Salameh , to help complete the
      bombing operation. Because of this, U.S. authorities began to
      investigate Mohammed after the bombing was carried out."

      So if KSM already surfaced during the investigations of Richard Barlow
      before the first WTC bombing, maybe you should include Richard Barlow
      in this list? Didn't already then the services have their hands in
      the pot via informants?

      This does not help us much, since obviously we are all wiser in hindsight.

      The bigger question is how can we ever resolve the double standard,
      that in our societies it doesn't matter what you make your money with,
      as long as you don't get caught. And this brings us back to the elites
      from a different angle. If you are well connected you can pull strings
      to cover up anything that would surface otherwise. This seems to be
      the way the world works.

      I am desperately waiting for a dissertation, that takes a closer look
      at the development and discussions surrounding machiavellian thought
      over the centuries.

      -b




      > With regard to the 9/11 angle on this material below: we have
      *seven* people within the U.S. government who have reported what now
      seems to have been a systematic campaign to block investigations into
      al-Qaida and the alleged 9/11 hijackers before 9/11:
      >
      > Colleen Rowley
      > John O'Neill
      > Michael Springmann
      > Richard Clarke
      > Robert Wright
      > Sibel Edmonds
      > Tony Schaeffer
      >
      > This naturally raises the suspicion: was a faction within the
      government cultivating and protecting Mohamed Atta and his associates
      so that they could play their assigned roles as patsies on 9/11? Is
      this why they blocked the investigations? If not, what were their
      reasons? Why haven't these important questions been answered?
      >
      > We also have Paul Wolfowitz expressing little interest in pursuing
      al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden *after* 9/11 -- this is enormously
      suspicious. (Of course, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden.)
      >
      > And we have a disgusting and pathetic mainstream media which,
      contrary to all normal and realistic expectations, have shown no
      interest whatever in digging up the biographical details of the
      supposed perps behind what is probably the most monstrous criminal act
      ever committed on American soil against Americans: few or no major
      articles, books, TV documentaries, etc.
      > Everything around the alleged hijackers is apparently highly
      radioactive, taboo -- don't go there, don't talk about it, don't
      investigate it.
      >
      > The situation reeks to high heavens. The situation reeks of an
      inside job and a false flag op.
      >
      >
      > LeaNder <l.l.hahn@w...> wrote:
      > --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Sean McBride"
      > <smcbride2@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Sean,
      >
      > the German public TV channel phoenix had a documentary about Abdul
      > Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani father of the atom bomb, and his networks.
      > http://www.phoenix.de/das_vierte_szenario/2005/09/29/0/38973.4,12.htm
      >
      > Here is an US article on the topic: Cheney + Pakistan = Iraq
      >
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAS20050809&articleId=823
      >
      > The really strange part of the story is that the US intelligence knows
      > for quite some time now, that Khan passed on blueprints to Iran. Or do
      > you think the disgruntled former administration employee, whose life
      > was destroyed is used as a propaganda tool by now? (Barlow's infos are
      > pre 1992, the date he was pushed out of his office. Had the crazies
      > in the basement more influence then, as you think?)
      > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.2274.IS:. It seems
      unlikely.
      >
      > The Khan network was on the radar of Pullach (BND German intelligence
      > headquarters) too. They showed documents, listing a group of people.
      > Four people were mentioned (Netherlands (Henk Slebos), Germany (?)...
      > not so sure UK and Swizz guys (?), partly former fellow student. By
      > now in three cases their sons have taken over. They helped to get the
      > things needed to create the Pakistani bomb.
      >
      > Do you know the Barlow story?:
      >
      http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Richard+M.+Barlow%22&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=
      > According to him Iran has the blue prints for quite a long time by
      > now. So we have to wonder, why is this the central issue by now???
      >
      > And in Barlow we again have one of these people that seems to work too
      > professionally and gets destroyed, when he does resist the drinking of
      > the "cool aid" (was it called like that?) This seems to be a recurring
      > pattern. Who was the latest to surface with a "stained character"?
      >
      > -b
      > Somehow the fact that in all these contexts we find different national
      > intelligence services watching the same people, makes me wonder if it
      > is possible at all, that the by far biggest service had no pre 9-11
      > knowledge Hard to believe.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > [The same nation which has been behind the trillion-dollar fiasco in
      > Iraq is now demanding that the United States attack Iran, on its own
      > behalf. Right. Americans can't wait to get involved in yet another
      > war for Israel, considering that the current one in Iraq has been so
      > successful.]
      > >
      > > [Why can't Israel fight its own wars? Why does it demand that
      > others fight its wars for it? What is *WRONG* with Israel? How does
      > it manage to misread so radically the attitudes of others? And why
      > would any Jew in the Diaspora, and especially in the United States,
      > want to be associated with this mindset and behavior?]
      > >
      > > [Hey, Israel, if you're so hot to attack Iran, then why don't you do
      > it yourself, and stop demanding that Americans make more sacrifices
      > for you.]
      > >
      > > [The tone of this "request," by the way, comes close to sounding
      > like extortion -- do it or else.]
      > >
      > > [There is no mention here, of course, of Israel giving up its own
      > huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.]
      > >
      > > [In stories like this, it is exceedingly easy to envision the entire
      > Zionist project coming to the worst possible end. Israel's ugly
      > conflicts with its neighbors and with the world at large -- including
      > with the United States -- continue to escalate towards a climax which
      > may resemble the mythical Armageddon.]
      > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050929-114709-2065r
      > >
      > >
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > The Washington Times
      > > www.washingtontimes.com
      > >
      > >
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goals
      > > By David R. Sands
      > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES
      > > Published September 30, 2005
      > >
      > >
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's
      > nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional
      > diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across
      > the political spectrum warned yesterday.
      > > As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act
      > unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
      > > Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat
      > of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National
      > Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting
      > Washington this week.
      > > "They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their
      > programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.
      > > Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs
      > and Defense Committee, said the best hope was for the United States
      > and other major powers to make it clear to Iranian leaders now there
      > was "no chance they will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."
      > > "Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it,"
      > said Mr. Steinitz.
      > > Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party
      > in the Knesset, added that Israel "will not live under the threat of
      > an Iranian nuclear bomb."
      > > "We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel
      > should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution
      > but to act unilaterally" against Iran, he said.
      > > Mr. Steinitz, a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
      > ruling Likud Party, stopped just short of a direct threat to bomb
      > suspect Iranian nuclear sites.
      > > Mr. Steinitz said Israeli officials estimate that Tehran
      > is only two to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb and
      > that time was running out for the world to act.
      > > "We see an Iranian bomb as a devastating, existential
      > threat to Israel, to the entire Middle East, to all Western interests
      > in the region," he said.
      > > "Despite all the different circumstances, we see
      > similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated
      > the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world
      > will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."
      > > The Bush administration has led the diplomatic campaign to
      > pressure Iran, claiming the Islamic regime for two decades has
      > secretly pursued a nuclear arsenal. The board of the U.N.'s nuclear
      > watchdog agency in Vienna over the weekend concluded Iran had violated
      > international pledges on its nuclear programs and said the matter
      > could be referred to the U.N. Security Council.
      > > Iranian officials harshly condemned the resolution and
      > insist the country has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program
      > to meet its energy needs.
      > > Israel has acted unilaterally before to halt a nuclear
      > program by a hostile neighbor, bombing Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981.
      > Widely condemned at the time, the surprise raid is now credited with
      > dealing a major setback to Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.
      > > Mr. Eldad said Israelis across the political spectrum see
      > Iran as the country's most serious threat and one that cannot be
      ignored.
      > > But he added that unilateral action by Israel was the
      > "worst possible scenario," likely to inflame opinion throughout the
      > Muslim world.
      > > "If we have to do it, we'll do it," he said with a shrug.
      > "If the United States and the world community do it, there is a chance
      > the issue can be contained. If Israel has to do it alone, there is no
      > chance the conflict can be contained."
      > > Mr. Lapid said he was sensitive to criticism that Israel
      > was trying to push Washington into a potentially armed conflict with
      > Iran that many Americans now oppose.
      > > "Our mission is to point out the dangers we see, to
      > ourselves and to our friends," he said. "Avoiding speaking the truth
      > does not mean you can then avoid facing the consequences of those
      > facts," he said.
      > > The lawmakers met with their U.S. counterparts, as well as
      > with senior administration officials, saying they highlighted the
      > Iranian danger in all their meetings.
      > > Asked if he thought the message got through, Mr. Steinitz
      > said, "I did not get the feeling we were talking to the walls."
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights
      > reserved.
      > >
      > >
      >
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Return to the article
      > > Click Here For Commercial Reprints and Permissions
      > > Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
      >
      > Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at
      http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > SPONSORED LINKS
      > Business intelligence Competitive intelligence Market intelligence
      Emotional intelligence Military intelligence Critical thinking
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      > Visit your group "political-research" on the web.
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
    • Sean McBride
      The FBI had direct control of the World Trade Center bombers through Emad Salem. There is a pattern of suspicious events, beginning with the Lavon Affair in
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
        The FBI had direct control of the World Trade Center bombers through Emad Salem.
         
        There is a pattern of suspicious events, beginning with the Lavon Affair in the 1950s, which are clearly designed to ignite a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam on behalf of Israel.  That is the framework from which to best understand all the weird anomalies and unanswered questions about 9/11.
         
        The neocons have been pushing this agenda for quite a few decades now, in the pages of Commentary and elsewhere.  It is not an accident that the neocons in the Bush administration who were in the forefront of trying to exploit 9/11 -- for *ISRAEL* -- have been in the forefront of trying to fan the flames of conflict between the West and Islam for a very long time.
         
        Do you have any more info on Richard Barlow?  Any links?  Was his investigation deliberately obstructed?


        LeaNder <l.l.hahn@...> wrote:
        --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
        <smcbride2@y...> wrote:

        One tiny little detail got my attention. Maybe I should contact the
        author of the documentary. Remember Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Now, I know
        I joked about people looking for easy similarities between people on
        photographs. But they showed a photograph of someone only mentioned in
        passing as Khan's Al Qaeda connection. He definitely looked like KSM,
        but they called him, no idea how to transcribe it: Hafis Hamid Said.
        (this was a 2005 production) They only mentioned the name once so this
        is a vague spelling attempt. Barlow was stopped in 92.

        http://khalid-sheik-mohammed.biography.ms/

        "He had a small role in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. He
        learned in 1991 or 1992 that his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, was planning to
        launch a bombing attack inside the United States. Mohammed gave Yousef
        advice and assistance over the phone, and kept track of Yousef's
        progress. On November 3, 1992, he gave a wire transfer of $660 to
        Yousef's co-conspirator, Mohammed Salameh , to help complete the
        bombing operation. Because of this, U.S. authorities began to
        investigate Mohammed after the bombing was carried out."

        So if KSM already surfaced during the investigations of Richard Barlow
        before the first WTC bombing, maybe you should include Richard Barlow
        in this list?  Didn't already then  the services have their hands in
        the pot via informants?

        This does not help us much, since obviously we are all wiser in hindsight.

        The bigger question is how can we ever resolve the double standard,
        that in our societies it doesn't matter what you make your money with,
        as long as you don't get caught. And this brings us back to the elites
        from a different angle. If you are well connected you can pull strings
        to cover up anything that would surface otherwise. This seems to be
        the way the world works.

        I am desperately waiting for a dissertation, that takes a closer look
        at the development and discussions surrounding machiavellian thought
        over the centuries.

        -b
      • LeaNder
        ... investigation deliberately obstructed? ... Well, I won t comment on what feels like a too narrow angle on Israel in world affairs, but I have to admit that
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
          >
          > Do you have any more info on Richard Barlow? Any links? Was his
          investigation deliberately obstructed?
          >
          Well, I won't comment on what feels like a too narrow angle on Israel
          in world affairs, but I have to admit that I didn't even know about
          the Lavon affair, before reading your mails.

          And Khan surfaced lately with connections in South Africa, which had
          more the angle you are looking for.

          Concerning Barlow there is much on the net. What speeks for him is this:

          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.2274.IS:.

          "SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN LOSSES.

          (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of
          any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mr. Richard
          M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico, the sum of $1,100,000 for
          compensation for losses incurred by Mr. Richard M. Barlow relating to
          and a direct consequence of--

          (1) personnel actions taken by the Department of Defense
          affecting Mr. Barlow's employment at the Department (including Mr.
          Barlow's top secret security clearance) during the period of August 4,
          1989, through February 27, 1992; and

          (2) Mr. Barlow's separation from service with the
          Department of Defense on February 27, 1992."



          I sent the globalresearch link already. [They are under attack as
          being antisemites, have you noticed?:

          Cheney + Pakistan = Iraq
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAS20050809&arti\
          cleId=823

          In the documentary they interviewed a couple of other people that
          affirmed his story, like Milton Beardon, former CIA chief in Pakistan,
          UN weapons inspector David Albright, there was also a Sherman Funk,
          about whom I can't find much [seems to be himself a whistleblower
          Inspector General at the State Department:
          http://users.aol.com/beachbt/statscnd.txt%5d

          but there is much more:
          http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=richard+barlow+cia&meta=

          Drinking Kool Aid is nothing really new it seems:

          http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/01/political_intel.html


          Political Intelligence

          News: What happens when U.S. spies get the goods-- and the government
          won't listen?

          By Ken Silverstein & David Isenberg

          January/February 2002 Issue

          In 1989, an intelligence analyst working for then-Secretary of Defense
          Dick Cheney issued a startling report. After reviewing classified
          information from field agents, he had determined that Pakistan,
          despite official denials, had built a nuclear bomb. "I was not out
          there alone," the analyst, Richard Barlow, recalls. "This was the same
          conclusion that had been reached by many people in the intelligence
          community."

          But Barlow's conclusion was politically inconvenient. A finding that
          Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a
          congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, a key ally in
          the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels fighting a pro-Soviet
          government. It also would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16
          fighter jets to Islamabad.

          Barlow's report was dismissed as alarmist. A few months later, a
          Pentagon official downplayed Pakistan's nuclear capabilities in
          testimony to Congress. When Barlow protested to his superiors, he was
          fired.

          [and it seems there was the usual elaborate smear campaign, that left
          him down and out including a broken marriage]

          Three years later, in 1992, a high-ranking Pakistani official admitted
          that the country had developed the ability to assemble a nuclear
          weapon by 1987. In 1998, Islamabad detonated its first bomb. "This was
          not a failure of intelligence," says Barlow. "The intelligence was in
          the system."

          Barlow's case points to an issue that has largely been overlooked in
          the post-September 11 debate about how to "fix" the nation's spy
          networks: Sometimes, the problem with intelligence is not a lack of
          information, but a failure to use it.

          In the early days of the Vietnam War, a CIA analyst named Sam Adams
          discovered that the United States was seriously underestimating the
          strength of the Vietcong. The agency squelched his findings and he
          left in frustration. During the Reagan years, Melvin Goodman, then a
          top Soviet analyst at the agency, reported that the "Evil Empire" was
          undergoing a severe economic and military decline. Goodman was
          pressured to revise his findings--because, he says, then-CIA director
          William Casey wanted to portray a Soviet Union "that was 10 feet tall"
          in order to justify bigger military budgets. (Reagan's Secretary of
          State, George Shultz, put it more delicately in his memoirs: Reports
          from Casey's CIA, he wrote, were "distorted by strong views about
          policy.")

          At about the same time Barlow issued his warnings about Pakistan, an
          Energy Department analyst named Bryan Siebert was investigating Saddam
          Hussein's nuclear program. His report concluded that "Iraq has a major
          effort under way to produce nuclear weapons," and recommended that the
          National Security Council look into the matter. But the Bush
          administration--which had been supporting Iraq as a counterweight to
          the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran--ignored the report. It was only in
          1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait, that clear-eyed intelligence
          reporting on Iraq came into fashion.

          More recently, the Clinton administration went to great lengths to
          protect Boris Yeltsin, who was viewed as a critical partner in Russia
          after the collapse of the Soviet Union. One former intelligence
          analyst says that Al Gore and his national security adviser, Leon
          Fuerth, would "bury their heads in the sand" if presented with any
          derogatory report about Yeltsin. "Taking unpopular positions means
          that you get bad reviews and don't get promoted," he says. "Some
          analysts simply stop pursuing information because they know that it
          can get them into trouble."

          A different type of political filtering takes place when the CIA
          relies on "liaison relationships" with foreign intelligence agencies,
          whose reports are often colored by the biases of the local elite. One
          notorious example came in Iran in the 1970s, when despite decades of
          cooperation with the secret police, the U.S. government failed to
          grasp the extent of public opposition to the Shah. Less than four
          months before Khomeini's revolution toppled the Iranian monarchy in
          early 1979, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that the Shah was
          "expected to remain actively in power over the next 10 years."

          In Pakistan, the CIA has worked closely with the powerful
          Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) ever since the two
          institutions teamed up in the 1980s to fund and direct the Afghan
          guerrillas. After the Taliban took power in 1996, the CIA relied on
          the Pakistanis for help in monitoring the regime. But the agency
          reportedly got little support or information from its ally in
          Islamabad--probably because isi was also one of the Taliban's primary
          backers. "We have consistently misled ourselves because we don't have
          our own sources of information," warns Burton Hersh, author of The Old
          Boys: The American Elite and the Origins of the CIA. "If we had had
          people working the bazaars in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, we would have
          seen that there is a lot of unhappiness and that even
          upper-middle-class people were thinking about joining up with bin Laden."

          Reforms of U.S. intelligence--whether they involve bigger budgets,
          better recruiting, or more effective spying--won't make much of a
          difference, Hersh and others warn, as long as officials are unwilling
          to hear the bad news.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.