BOSTON UPDATE: Is Officer Collier’s Killer Still at Large?

Is Officer Sean Collier’s Killer Still at Large?

Is it possible that, in the rush to paint Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as cold-blooded killers, the FBI is ignoring evidence that someone else could have killed MIT Police Officer Sean Collier?

It is said that the first casualty in war is the truth, and the “war on terror” isn’t exempt.

There are plenty of examples of U.S. government agencies exploiting “the fog of war” to gain a propaganda edge or rally public opinion against whoever happens to be in the crosshairs. Whether it’s immediately pinning the downing of Malaysia air MH17 on Russia, or whether it’s implicating Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in a chemical weapons attack, the ploy works the same way every time: immediately, loudly and repeatedly blame the enemy and ignore all contradictory evidence.

That’s the kind of environment the government has been trying to create through a campaign of leaks, since before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s arrest and indictment on 30 charges including Collier’s murder. Judge George O’Toole Jr. this week rejected a defense motion to move the trial out of Boston on the grounds that too many potential jurors had made up their minds. He also delayed the trial’s start until Jan. 5.

With that in mind, it’s worth taking a moment to review some lingering questions surrounding the death of Sean Collier. It’s safe to assume that federal investigators aren’t pushing too hard to uncover an alternative scenario to that unfortunate event, especially now that their evidence will soon be on display at trial.

***

Why is the death of Officer Collier so important? Partly because, as Boston’s police commissioner Edward Davis said, “It was his death that ultimately led to the apprehension. The report of the shot officer led to all those resources being poured in.”

But there is a more important reason: Collier’s murder was linked to the emotionally charged Boston Marathon bombing—based on the assertions of anonymous carjacking victim “Danny.” He claimed the elder Tsarnaev told him they were responsible for both the bombing and the officer’s murder. (For lingering questions about the veracity of “Danny’s” testimony, click here and here.)

Again, it bears repeating that the Tsarnaev brothers very likely were somehow involved in the violence that erupted in and around Boston that week. But did they kill Sean Collier?

We do know that they did not rob a 7-Eleven store. What makes this significant is the fact that the police claimed they did—even after they had conclusive evidence, on film, that someone else had done it. So why should we necessarily believe what they say about who shot Collier?

A False Accusation Backfires

On the night of April 18, 2013, three days after the bombing, a 7-Eleven store was robbed at around 10:30 p.m.  Within minutes, an officer responded and, according to the police report below, got a description of the suspect from the clerk, and viewed the surveillance video himself. He can then be heard broadcasting that very description over the police scanner, which was repeated multiple times over the next half-hour or so:

Once again, that’s a Hispanic male, black coat, a black cowboy hat and jeans.

7-Eleven Robbery Report

 

Minutes later, reports surfaced of an MIT police officer being shot not far from the 7-Eleven. First responders to that scene thought that whoever held up the 7-Eleven at gunpoint also shot Collier. There was a message sent out soon after the shooting to be on the lookout for:

Hispanic male, possibly wearing a cowboy hat, he was last seen on Vassar Street in Cambridge, six rounds were fired and he is currently armed.

Seen on Vassar Street? That’s where Sean Collier was shot.

Around midnight, Cambridge police received a report of a carjacking that ultimately led to the shootout in neighboring Watertown, Tamerlan’s death, and Dzhokhar’s escape.

***

After the dust settled in Watertown in the early morning hours of April 19, Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Timothy Alben told reporters at a press conference that the Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated all of the violence that occurred in Cambridge and Watertown that night, including the robbery of the 7-Eleven.

During that same press conference he made reference to the photo of Dzhokhar wearing a hoodie, widely circulated by law enforcement, claiming it had been taken by a security camera at the 7-Eleven. Numerous news outlets reported the series of events as exactly that: The brothers committed a robbery at 7-Eleven, shot Officer Collier, hijacked an SUV, and then engaged police in a shootout in Watertown.

But there was one glaring problem with Alben’s account, and 7-Eleven’s director of corporate communications picked up on it. She pointed out to reporters later that day what law enforcement already knew: the security video clearly shows the 7-Eleven suspect’s face—and it looks nothing like either Tsarnaev. In addition, she said the photo of Dzhokhar was not even taken at a 7-Eleven store.

Okay, so they didn’t rob the 7-Eleven. We were told it was just a coincidence; the brothers just happened to be at the convenience store around the time of the robbery, again, according to Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Timothy Alben.

How Did Police Get It So Wrong?

But how did Alben get it so wrong, even though the Cambridge police were in possession of an eyewitness description and a photograph of the real suspect in the robbery? And why did he continue to place Dzhokhar at that same store even though he had been informed that it was a different store?

Robert Haas, the Cambridge police commissioner, can be seen standing behind Alben as he misrepresented evidence from Cambridge during the press conference. Why didn’t he speak up?

And if the 7-Eleven executive had not come forward with the facts, would the police have continued to falsely accuse the Tsarnaevs of the robbery?

In any case, law enforcement insists the Tsarnaevs shot and killed Officer Collier—it was caught on camera. Only in this case, it wasn’t. The security video at MIT does not show the faces of the two assailants, according to three different law enforcement officials.

***

Then there were the early reports that Officer Collier was responding to a disturbance when he was shot. Later, we were told that that report was erroneous. Instead, he was simply sitting in his cruiser watching for people to make illegal turns.

Now, in what appears to be the final iteration, we’re being told that he was positioned where he was in order to keep an eye out for the 7-Eleven suspect, as revealed in a Harvard white paper titled “Why Was Boston Strong?”

Why the effort to hide this simple fact initially?  Did it become clear to law enforcement that connecting Collier shooting in any way to the 7-Eleven robbery might raise some troubling questions?

And another thing: the carjacking took place in the Boston neighborhood of Allston across the river from Cambridge. But it  was originally reported to have occurred at Third Street in Cambridge by the Middlesex County DA, the Cambridge police Commissioner, and the chief of MIT Police. That’s just a couple blocks away from where Collier was shot—and is smack dab in the center of those three law-enforcement officials’ precinct.

How could they possibly get that wrong?
A Clairvoyant FBI?

In a strange twist, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed that there were “multiple teams of FBI employees” conducting surveillance in and around Central Square around the time this all went down. The 7-Eleven in question happens to be right in the middle of Central Square. The Tsarnaev brothers just happened to pass through that same area, as we learned from Superintendent Alben.

Also, thanks to that Harvard white paper, Cambridge Police discovered “a group of law enforcement officials in a car with out-of-state plates were staking out a location thought to be connected to the assailants [emphasis added].”

Wait, what? Connected to the assailants? How did the FBI know what was connected to the assailants?

Even stranger, the local Boston Fox affiliate discovered that FBI was also conducting surveillance on MIT students then thought to be connected with the bombing.

Doesn’t it seem odd that both the robbery and the shooting took place in areas where FBI surveillance teams were operating—without the knowledge of local law enforcement? Talk about a coincidence.

The Gun

The gun Tamerlan Tsarnaev left in the street after the shootout in Watertown was a P95 Ruger 9mm with an obliterated serial number. It was allegedly given to them by their friend Stephen Silva who was recently arrested for heroin dealing and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

Officially, there is no evidence that that was the gun used to shoot Collier. However, off the record, law enforcement is telling the media—and therefore the public—that the weapon is one and the same. Either it is the gun, or it isn’t. Why be coy about it?

So, law-enforcement blamed the 7-Eleven robbery on the Tsarnaevs for as long as they could, despite eyewitness description and surveillance photos of a very different suspect. They also blame the shooting of Sean Collier on the Tsarnaev brothers, despite the fact that the security camera does not identify the suspects, and there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting that we know of.

The suspect in the armed robbery of the 7-Eleven is still at large, which begs the question: Is Officer Sean Collier’s murderer also still at large?  (For more on these mysteries, go here, here, here,  and here.)

And with all this uncertainty, why is law enforcement working so hard to pin everything on these two brothers? Could it have something to do with the FBI’s very reluctant admission, forced by the Russians, that it knew who the Tsarnaevs were long ago because the Russians warned them about Tamerlan Tsarnaev—and that the Bureau even interacted with the now dead elder brother?

There is, it seems, much more to this important story that has essentially slipped from the headlines

 

Correction: The original story misidentified Allston as a suburb of Boston when it is fact a neighborhood of Boston. We have fixed the error.

- See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/09/26/boston-update-is-officer-colliers-killer-still-at-large/#sthash.bBzOVA3z.dpuf

Saudi Connections To ISIS? Nah, Can’t Be True After 9/11…

Getting payback (or is it blowback?) in Iraq and Syria

Now that the U.S. is back at it in Iraq against a new foe, there’s suddenly renewed focus on evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11.

More specifically, questions are now being asked about whether the U.S. government’s suppression of what it learned about Saudi Arabia during the 9/11 investigations contributed directly to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Former Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired the official 9/11 inquiry, told Counterpunch that “the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the U.S.—and in particular their support for ISIS.”

Though it’s now well-known that there was some Saudi involvement in 9/11, WhoWhatWhy was the first news organization to uncover the fact that a Saudi in Florida, who hosted the hijackers, worked directly for the Saudi prince in charge of aviation. We also pointed out that there was no hurry to dig deeper into the story by the mainstream media.

The direct contacts we established are a crucial part of the story. So too is the FBI’s reluctant admission that it knew about—and covered up—“many connections” between a Saudi family and the hijackers. Then there’s also the information contained in 28 pages redacted from the congressional report on 9/11, a part of the puzzle getting a new look in the New Yorker thanks to the ISIS news peg.

***

What all this leads us to ask is this: Why is the U.S. once again plunging into a fight that is at least partially of its own making? (That’s to say nothing of the contribution of America’s failed policy in Iraq to the current fiasco.) ISIS is yet another example of a militant group that grew into a threat in large part due to the support of an ostensible ally.

In this latest case, said ally is going to be hosting training camps for moderate Syrian rebels, who are supposed to be some of the boots-on-the-ground against ISIS. This couldn’t possibly be a bad idea, could it?

That Saudi Arabia has a role, either tacit or implicit, in funneling money to Islamic militants is no secret to anyone, least of all the United States government. Hilary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, was explicit in her request to put greater pressure on the Saudi government to knock off its loose approach to jihadi financing.

“Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources,” Clinton wrote in a Dec. 30, 2009 cable obtained by WikiLeaks.

Haven’t we seen this before? An ally that, for its own foreign policy or domestic political reasons, supports (or turns a blind eye to homegrown support for) groups that fight directly against the United States? You could start with Pakistan’s nurturing of al Qaeda and the Taliban, which began with the CIA’s backing of Afghan mujahideen who counted Osama bin Laden among their benefactors.

A BAD REMAKE

This latest episode of the U.S. vs Jihadis show is clearly a repeat, like a ham-handed Hollywood remake of a beloved TV series from an earlier time. At least the recurring characters are familiar.

Now, it looks like it’s the Saudis again—at a minimum, by way of a laissez-faire attitude toward fundraising on its soil—as well as rich Qataris and Kuwaitis. Official Washington, the powerful interests behind the scenes and the think-tanks allied to them would tell you otherwise, although there is some dissent.

So the cycle of post-9/11 warfare continues, with minimal official scrutiny of the history of how it started. Any guesses as to why it keeps going with no end in sight?

- See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/09/20/saudi-connections-to-isis-nah-cant-be-true-after-911/#sthash.KrjOy5KY.dpuf

Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception -Corbett • 09/25/2014

.
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-944-graeme-macqueen-reveals-the-anthrax-deception/

Interview 944 – Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception
Corbett • 09/25/2014

Podcast: Play in new window http://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=12357-podcast |

In his new book “The 2001 Anthrax Deception,” Dr. Graeme MacQueen, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, lays out the case for a domestic conspiracy in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the US. In this conversation, James and Graeme discuss the context in which these attacks happened, the way they were portrayed by the government and the mainstream media, their ultimate effect, and the voluminous evidence that disproves the FBI’s assertion that the attacks were the work of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

Visit the book’s website: http://www.claritypress.com/MacQueen.html

The 1993 WTC Bombing Damage Myth

It is often said that the 1993 WTC bombing was under the north tower and threatened to take the tower down. This is a myth.

The fact is that the bomb was in the parking garage under the Vista Hotel (WTC3) and did only superficial damage to the tower structure.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/02/nyregion/crisis-twin-towers-repairs-damage-world-trade-center-called-limited.html?scp=17…

Popular Mechanics (July 1993) shows a diagram of the damage, which was outside the footprint of the North tower.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pOMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=popular+mechanics+1993+world+trade&source=bl&ots=rJppu41…

As you can see, the bomb damaged the refrigeration plant on the B5 level, which was outside the perimeter wall of the North tower.

Take a look at the strength of the tower during construction. How could this small bomb affect its overall integrity?

The Smoking Guns of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

by WashingtonsBlog

Must-Read:  “The 2001 Anthrax Deception”

Professor Graeme MacQueen has written a must-read book on the anthrax attacks on America: The 2001 Anthrax Deception.

Even those of us who have paid close attention to – and written broadly on – the 2001 anthrax attacks will learn stunning new information.

For example, we learned the following eye-opening facts from the book:

  • There was a set of 3 letters sent around the same time as the initial anthrax mailings, which attempted to frame the Russians for the anthrax attacks, and which warned of further attacks.  These letters could not have been sent by Dr. Bruce Ivins (the scientist the FBI blamed for the attacks), nor could they have been “copycat” letters
  • Less than 3 months before the anthrax attack, the government carried out a simulated exercise called “Dark Winter”, where: a lethal germ had been aerosolized then released; anonymous letters threatened anthrax attacks; Iraq and Al Qaeda are blamed for the attacks; and preparations are made for the drastic reduction of civil liberties in the United States, including martial law
  • The National Academy of Sciences found that the anthrax mailed to Congressmen and the media could have come from a different source altogether than the flask maintained by Ivins
  • The Department of Justice argued in a lawsuit that the anthrax used in the attacks was of a completely different nature (dried, aerosolized, and specially treated to act as a lethal weapon) than maintained by Dr. Ivins (a standard liquid solution):
  • PBS’ Frontline, ProPublica and McClatchy newspaper all found that Dr. Ivins was doing valid and important work during the timeframes when the FBI claims that he “went missing”
  • There is reason to suspect that the same people who carried out 9/11 also carried out the anthrax attacks

We’re not the only people who have already spent countless hours researching the anthrax attacks who MacQueen’s work enlightening.

For example, Meryl Nass, M.D. – consultant on the prevention and mitigation of bioterrorism for the Director of National Intelligence and the World Bank, and an expert on anthrax vaccines – writes:

Finally, a book has come out that explodes the FBI’s anthrax letters case. Not only is there no evidence linking Army scientist Bruce Ivins to the crime–it turns out his famous flask of anthrax was never proven to be related to the attack spores! MacQueen peeks behind the curtain, showing that nothing about the anthrax letters case is as it seems.

And Dr. Francis A. Boyle – author of the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, and a Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign – notes:

Professor MacQueen provides yet another piece of the puzzle connecting the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to the immediately following anthrax attacks of October 2001 that were indisputably conducted by Agents of the United States government.

We agree with Denis J. Halliday – UN Assistant Secretary-General from 1994-98 – who says:

This deeply troubling book should be read by all thinking Americans.

Why are the ASCE Journals being dishonest and misleading concerning how the WTC Towers collapsed?

 Tony Szamboti

As shown in an earlier post by Richard Johns, there is a new letter on the Journal of 911 Studies which describes dishonest and unethical behavior by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and its parent organization, the ASCE Journals and their Board of Governors, regarding their refusal to correct a clearly dishonest and fraudulent paper they published concerning the collapse of the WTC Towers in January 2011.

The letter can be found here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

This stonewalling behavior is similar to that observed of the NIST Director when confronted earlier this year with evidence that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features from its analysis which would have made impossible the collapse initiation hypothesis presented in the report. See the December 2013 letter by attorney William Pepper to the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General on this issue here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Unfortunately, it seems clear that the previously respected institutions of NIST and the ASCE Journals are involved in a cover-up to prevent the truth of what actually occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 from being revealed. This cover-up is obviously intended to prevent a real investigation, which would take seriously the statements made by firefighters and others about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings before and during the collapses, and would investigate those who had access to the interiors of those buildings, such as contractors, maintenance workers, etc. to determine how charges could have been planted and to test the steel for evidence of explosive residue. Neither of these things were ever done by any official investigation to date.

Whatever one thinks of the current situation in Iraq, with ISIS, one should remember that had Iraq not been invaded, and its government replaced and army disbanded by the Bush administration, there would be no ISIS. It is known that the Bush administration used fraudulent means to justify its invasion of Iraq and this was only possible with the fear generated by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and most prominently what happened in NYC on that day. It is thus imperative to find out just who was involved in those events, since science has shown that the aircraft impacts and fires were not responsible for the complete failures and collapses of the three high rise buildings in NYC on that day.

New Letter at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

 by Richard Johns

A new letter by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns has just been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The letter shows how difficult it can be to publish simple engineering facts about 9/11 in a top engineering journal, especially one that has previously supported the fire-induced progressive collapse view. Critics of the official accounts of 9/11 have often been dismissed on the grounds that, if they had valid points to make, they could publish their work in top scientific journals. Our letter is a useful case study on this question. A paper published in the Journal of Engineering mechanics contained obvious errors, such as data concerning WTC1 that contradicted the NIST reports. However, our discussion paper correcting these errors was eventually declined for being “out of scope” for the journal, after being under review for more than 2 years.

Our letter includes a brief timeline of events, a summary of our correspondence with the journal, and the various appeals we made. It also includes the two versions of the discussion paper we wrote, and a link to the article we criticized, so that engineers can judge the technical issues for themselves.

The letter may be viewed at: http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf