What do Afghanistan, Enron, 9-11, Anthrax and Iraq have in common?

via  News Stories You May Have Missed


A. Lots of Lies and Coverups.

I have spent over 500 hours compiling information from news articles, government documents, and energy trade journals. These papers uncover an energy project that got out of hand. The news articles are sourced, (the headlines I added).

The short story. The largest oil and gas reserves are in Central Asia but are land locked. The US covertly supported and courted the Taliban to get a huge pipeline project through Afghanistan.. Clinton backed out after al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. Bush resumed negotiations, then threatened the Taliban with military action and planned an invasion before 9-11 occurred. Many believe that 9-11 was allowed to happen so no one would question the invasion of Afghanistan and the building of bases. Iraq was planned next. Letting 9-11 happen has been claimed by many people within the FBI and the administration. The pre-planned invasion of Afghansitan and Iraq are not theories, they are facts.

Some News You May Have Missed:

Chevron Wins Huge Contract 1993: A famous contract was signed between Kazakhstan and Chevron in 1993, granting the Chevron a stake in ALL oil and natural gas development there the rich oil resources of the Caspian Basin, which multinational corporations hope to massively exploit in the 21st century.

We need a Pipeline through Afghanistan October 21, 1995: The oil company Unocal signs a contract with Turkmenistan to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Political considerations and pressures allow Unocal to edge out a more experienced Argentinean company for the contract. Henry Kissinger, a Unocal consultant, calls it “the triumph of hope over experience.” [Washington Post, 10/5/98]

Halliburton Involved in Project October 27, 1997: Halliburton, (Dick Cheney CEO) announces a new agreement to provide technical services and drilling for Turkmenistan. “Halliburton has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” A consortium to build a pipeline through Afghanistan is formed. It’s called CentGas, and the two main partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. [Halliburton press release, 10/27/97, CentGas press release, 10/27/97] [DOE/EIA Reports on the Caspian 5/17/00 Page 64]

Taliban Invited Guests to Texas December 4, 1997: Taliban representatives visit Unocal headquarters in Texas and agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. [BBC, 12/4/97, Telegraph, 12/14/97] FTW

Unocal Prepares Crew to Build Pipeline Across Afghanistan December 14, 1997: Unocal hired the University of Nebraska to train 400 Afghani teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters for their pipeline in Afghanistan. 150 students are already attending classes. [Telegraph, 12/14/97]

Need Stability in Afghanistan to get this Pipeline Done February 12, 1998: Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – (later appointed Special Ambassador to Afghanistan) – testifies before the House of Representatives; the trans-Afghani pipeline will not be built until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan. The Caspian basin could produce 20 percent of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010. [House International Relations Committee testimony, 2/12/98]

Afghanistan’s Civil War Delays Pipeline March 1998 Unocal announced a delay in finalizing the pipeline project due to Afghanistan’s continuing civil war

Cheney Drooling over Opportunities June 23, 1998: Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton, a Dallas-based oil services giant, states: “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It’s almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight.” [Cato Institute Library, Chicago Tribune, 8/10/00]. Cheney sits on Kazakstan’s Oil Advisory Board, a sounding board for the country’s president. Between 1992 and 1999, the Pentagon paid Halliburtons BRS division more than $1.2 billion for its work in trouble spots around the globe. Dick Cheney helped broker the Chevron-Kazakhstan deal when he sat on the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board in the mid-’90s (Amarillo Globe-News, June 13, 1998)

Pipeline Delays Cause Big Problems for Enron June 1998 (B): “Failure of Enron’s flagship project” is an inability to get the natural gas out of the region. “Uzbekistan is extremely concerned at the growing strength of the Taliban and potential impact on stability in Uzbekistan, making future cooperation on a pipeline project which benefits the Taliban unlikely.” A $12 billion pipeline through China is being considered.. [Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, 10/12/98]

Bin Laden Makes Threats The State Department received information on June 12 that bin Laden was threatening “some type of terrorist action in the next several weeks”. [International News Electronic Telegraph]

al-Qaeda Blamed for Attacks US Embassies August 7, 1998: Terrorists bomb the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The attack is blamed on al-Qaeda. [PBS Frontline, 2001]

Taliban Finally Secure Pipeline Route August 9, 1998: Taliban control 90% of Afghanistan, including the entire pipeline route. CentGas partners are Unocal and Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia, Hyundai of South Korea, two Japanese companies, a Pakistani conglomerate and the Turkmen government.” The pipeline cannot be financed unless the government is officially recognized. “Diplomatic sources said the Taliban’s offensive was well prepared and deliberately scheduled two months ahead of the next UN meeting” to decide if the Taliban should be recognized. [Telegraph, 8/13/98]

Clinton Bombs Afghanistan Aug. 20, 1998 Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks (75-80) on Afghanistan and Sudan targets.

Pipeline on Hold August 22, 1998, Unocal suspended construction plans due to continuing civil war in Afghanistan. Unocal stressed that the pipeline project would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan. While the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan, as well as the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan, have continued discussions on the route, there does not seem to be any near-term likelihood that it will be built. (DOE/EIA Reports on the Caspian 5/17/00 Page 64)

Pipeline Deal Dead December 5, 1998: US gives up on putting a pipeline through Afghanistan after al-Qaeda attacks US embassy. Unocal withdraws from the CentGas and closes three of its four offices in Central Asia. A concern that Clinton will lose support among women voters for upholding the Taliban also plays a role in the cancellation. [New York Times, 12/5/98]

al-Qaeda Was Spying On Pipeline Negotiations Late 1998 (B): An e-mail memo on a computer seized by the FBI during the investigation of 1998 African embassy bombings revealed that Osama bin Laden’s group had detailed knowledge of negotiations that were taking place between Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, the American government and business leaders over plans for a U.S. oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan. Jean-Charles Brisard – June 5, 2002

Pipeline Project Resumes Without US Companies (I Don’t Think So) April 30, 1999, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Turkmenistan reactivated the gas pipeline project excluding (Unocal) US interests http://www.afghanonlineforum.com/news/1999/april/apr30b1999.htm

US Says: Taliban Bad July 4, 1999: The US government finally issues an executive order prohibiting commercial transactions with the Taliban. [Executive Order, 7/4/99]

Those Towers Are Coming Down. July 14, 1999 A government informant records a conversation between some illegal arms dealers and Pakistani ISI agents held within view of the WTC. An ISI agent points to the WTC and says, “Those towers are coming down.” He later makes other references to an attack on the WTC. The informant passes these warnings on to Senator Bob Graham and others, but later claims “The complaints were ordered sanitized by the highest levels of government.” Senator Graham admits being “concerned” about this warning before 9/11, but apparently the warning is not passed on. [cooperativeresearch.org]

The U.N. Says Taliban Bad Oct. 15, 1999 The UN Security Council imposed sanctions on the Taliban (Resolution 1267), demanding that the Taliban “turn over the terrorist Usama Bin Laden without further delay…” http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/99101507.htm

Iran Says Put Pipeline in Our Yard December 20, 1999: “Iran has stirred up the fighting in order to make sure an international oil pipeline [goes] through its territory and not through Afghanistan.” [BBC, 12/20/99]

Bush Sr. Meets Bin Laden Sr. January 2000: Former President George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He had also met with them in 1998, but it’s not known if he met with them after this. Bush denied this meeting took place until a thank you note was found confirming it. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01] FTW

FBI Blunders March 2000 – An FBI agent, reportedly angry over a glitch in Carnivore (snooping system) that has somehow mixed innocent non-targeted emails with those belonging to Al Qaeda, destroys all of the FBI’s Denver-based intercepts of bin Laden’s colleagues in a terrorist investigation. [Source: The Washington Post, May 29, 2002]

Department of Energy Report on Situation April 27, 2000 Afghanistan A MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) has been signed to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan (and perhaps India) via Afghanistan. The proposed pipeline would also pass from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan en route to a Pakistani port on the Arabian Sea. However, the ongoing civil war has prevented the projects from going forward. The pipelines may not attract the necessary financing without a peace settlement and international recognition of the government in Afghanistan. Although the Taliban control 95% of Afghan territory, only the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia had recognized the Taliban government as of late 1998. Afghan support for Osama bin Laden, and the recent U.S. bombing raids on his suspected strongholds in Afghanistan, also have reduced the likelihood for international financing of the project.” (DOE/EIA Reports on the Caspian 5/17/00)

Shadow Government Prepares: July 12-13, 2000 While public media were assuring the credulous public of a “soft landing” for the U.S. economy, the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) held a second conference at its headquarters on the East Side of Manhattan, entitled “The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control and Impact”. It includes a testgame regarding a possible terrorist attack.

“…a scenario of a global financial meltdown, run as a war-game simulation. The four teams covered

1) monetary-financial, which dealt with the functions of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors;

2) economic and trade, which dealt with the functions of the U.S. Treasury Department;

3) regulatory matters; and

4) national security” (former CIA director James Woolsey played the role of Secretary of Defense).

al-Qaeda Attacks USS Cole October 12, 2000: The USS Cole is bombed by al-Qaeda terrorists. 17 US soldiers are killed. [ABC News, 10/13/00] Oil prices rise sharply, as well as escalating violence between Palestinians and Israeli security forces. (WSJ)

Clinton Backs Out on Covert Support for Afghanistan. Tells Industry “You’re on Your Own”

Chevron Buys Texaco October 15, 2000 Chevron agrees to purchase Texaco for $35.1 billion in stock. The deal would create the fourth largest oil and gas company in the world. (Wall Street Journal) Russia Buys Getty November 3, 2000 Russia’s Lukoil announces that it will purchase Getty Petroleum Marketing of the United States for $71 million. Lukoil eventually intends to switch Getty’s 1,300 retail outlets in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic states to the Lukoil brand name. (DJ)


Enron Corp Jet Flies Bush To Inauguration –January 20, 2001 George W. Bush is sworn into office as the President of the United States. Later in the day, the Senate votes to confirm Spencer Abraham as the new Secretary of Energy. (WP) Enron and chairman Kenneth Lay both contribute $100,000 to inaugural committees. George H. W. Bush is flown to the inauguration in an Enron corporate jet. (“Key Dates in Enron Case”, [www.newsday.com] [www.mostnewyork.com/2002-02-03/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City]

Negotiations with Taliban Resume Upon taking office, the Bush administration immediately engaged in active negotiations with Taliban representatives with meetings in Washington, DC, Berlin, and Islamabad. During this time the Taliban government hired Laila Helms, niece of former CIA director Richard Helms, as their go-between in negotiations with the US government.

The Enron Administration January 21, 2001: Numerous figures in Bush’s administration are directly connected to the oil industry. Over 50 of Bush’s new staff are later shown to have worked for Enron. [Salon, 11/30/01]

Planning For Major War and World Domination? February 6, 2001 CFR Council on Foreign Relations Meeting

“The Future of America’s Unipolar Order”

Speaker: David P. Calleo Prof. of European Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced Intl. Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Speaker: Henry R. Nau Prof. of Political Science and Intl. Affairs, Elliott School of Intl Affairs, George Washington University

Speaker: G. John Ikenberry Author, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars; Peter F. Krogh Professor of Global Justice, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Presider: Angela E. Stent Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of State


Hand Over Osama: March 2001: A Taliban envoy meets with US officials in Washington and discusses turning bin Laden over. But the US wants to be handed bin Laden directly, and the Taliban want to turn him over for trial in some third country. About 20 more meetings on giving up bin Laden take place up till 9/11, all fruitless. [cooperativeresearch.org]

James Baker says Invade Iraq for the Oil April 2001 A report by former US Secretary of State James Baker entitled “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century” is submitted to V.P. Cheney. The report says the “central dilemma” for the US administration is that “the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience.” It argues that “the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma,” and that one of the “consequences” of this is a “need for military intervention” to secure its oil supply. It argues that Iraq needs to be overthrown so the US can control its oil. [Sunday Herald, 10/5/02

Enrons National Energy Policy May 7, 2001: Cheney’s energy task force adopts many 17 Enron proposals. (“Key Dates in Enron Case”, http://www.newsday.com/ny-g1enro0117.graphic?coll=ny-top-headlines )

Shadow Government’s Last Practice June 22-23, 2001, the same crew (see May 2000 re: the Johns Hopkins Center, in collaboration with the ANSER Institute for Homeland Defense, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Oklahoma Memorial Institute for the Study of Terrorism organised their last big scenario before Sep11th. They called it DARK WINTER. It was about a possible Smallpox attack. Jerome Hauer participated as well, this time “playing” the director of the FBI. The whole list is still mirrored at: http://www.hopkins-biodefense.org/participants.html http://www.mipt.org/darkwinter06222001.htmlhttp://www.homelanddefense.org/darkwinter/index.cfm Among the other participants once again: James Woolsey, ex-CIA director Hon. Sam Nunn George Terwilliger etc. Observing, among many others, Thomas Inglesby, at that time Senior Fellow Johns Hopkins Institute On July 14th, 2001 the testimony on DARK WINTER was released: http://www.csis.org/press/ma_2001_0723.htm

FBI Agent Accuses White House of Blocking Terrorism Investigation July 2001 (B): John O’Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O’Neill says:”The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds:”All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O’Neill also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open. [CNN, 1/8/02, CNN, 1/9/02, Irish Times, 11/19/01, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, released 11/11/01

Warns US about Impending Terrorist Attack

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies warn that al-Qaeda is in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The report states there is “an acute awareness” that the attack is “a very serious threat.” In early August, the British add that the attack will involve multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush’s briefing on August 6. [copperativeresearch.org]

US Plans Invasion of Afghanistan July 21, 2001: US officials (Simons, Inderfurth and Coldren) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin. [Salon, 8/16/02] Taliban representatives boycotted this meeting due to worsening tensions. Pakistani ISI relays information to the Taliban. [Guardian, 9/22/01] At the meeting, former US State Department official Lee Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 9/26/01] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October 2001 at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says “it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” [BBC, 9/18/01]

US Threatens Afghanistan with Carpet Bombs One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs” – an invasion – or “carpets of gold” – the pipeline. [Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, released 11/11/01] Niaz Naik says Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. [Salon, 8/16/02] According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader.

Taliban Offers Osama, US Refuses The Taliban offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. [Village Voice}

US Continues Secret Meetings with Taliban August 2, 2001: Christina Rocca, (Director of Asian Affairs, State Department), secretly meets the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, in a last ditch attempt to secure a pipeline deal. Rocca was previously in charge of contacts with Islamic guerrilla groups at the CIA, and oversaw the delivery of Stinger missiles to Afghan mujaheddin in the 1980’s. [Irish Times, 11/19/01, Salon, 2/8/02, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, released 11/11/01 (the link is an excerpt containing Chapter 1)] FTW

Taliban Visits Washington The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. [The Blacklisted Journalist 4/1/02]

Russia Warns US of al-Qaeda Terrorist Plans to Attack US August 2001 – Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. [Source: MSNBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001]

President Receives Warning of Attack with Planes August 6th, 2001 President Bush receives a 11.5 page report including a warning about an “attack with planes”. A shorter memo goes to Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Condoleeza Rice, Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. Bob Graham, GOP Rep. Porter Goss, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo read to him is titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”, and the entire 11 page memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. The contents have never been made public. The existence of this memo is kept secret until May 2002. Vice President Cheney later calls the memo just a “rehash” containing nothing new or interesting. But he says Congress and the public should not see it, “because it contains the most sensitive sources and methods. It’s the family jewels.” [CBS News; CNN MSNBC] [cooperativeresearch.org]

FBI Receives Warnings of Impending Attacks August/September 2001 – According to a detailed 13-page memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Colleen Rowley, FBI headquarters ignores urgent, direct warnings from French intelligence services about pending attacks. In addition, a single Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in Washington expends extra effort to thwart the field office’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, in one case rewriting Rowley’s affidavit for a search warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop. Rowley’s memo uses terms like “deliberately sabotage,” “block,” “integrity,” “omitted,” “downplayed,” “glossed over,” “mis-characterize,” “improper political reasons, “deliberately thwarting,” “deliberately further undercut,” “suppressed,” and “not completely honest.” These are not terms describing negligent acts but rather, deliberate acts. FBI field agents desperately attempt to get action, but to no avail. One agent speculates that bin Laden might be planning to crash airliners into the WTC, while Rowley ironically noted that the SSA who had committed these deliberate actions had actually been promoted after Sept. 11. [Source: Associated Press, May 21, 2002]

Frustrated FBI Agent Quits: August 22, 2001: Counter-terrorism expert John O’Neill, “committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists,” quits the FBI because of the recent power play against him led by Tom Pickard, interim director of the FBI, and because of repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda. O’Neill never hears the CIA warning about hijackers Alhazmi and Almihdhar sent out just one day later nor Ken Williams’ flight school memo, nor of Walid Arkeh’s warning, nor about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, nor is he at a June meeting when the CIA revealed some of what it knew about Alhazmi and Almihdhar. [The next day he begins a new job as head of security at the WTC. He dies in the 9/11 attack, one day after moving into his office inside the WTC.]

Massive Troop Buildup in MiddleEast, September 1 thru 10, 2001 25,000 British troops and the largest British Armada since the Falkland Islands War, part of Operation “”Essential Harvest,”” are pre-positioned in Oman, the closest point on the Arabian Peninsula to Pakistan. At the same time two U.S. carrier battle groups arrive on station in the Gulf of Arabia just off the Pakistani coast. Also at the same time, some 17,000 U.S. troops join more than 23,000 NATO troops in Egypt for Operation “”Bright Star.”” All of these forces are in place before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. [Sources: The Guardian, CNN, FOX, The Observer, International Law Professor Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois.]

Feds Raid Crashes 500 Islamic Websites Sept. 5, 2001 – 80 FBI, Secret Service, INS, Customs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, IRS, and Commerce Department officials raid InfoCom in Texas.” InfoCom hosts many websites for Middle Eastern clients, located across the street from the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization with alleged connections to terrorist groups. InfoCom’s vice president of marketing, Ghassan Elashi, is also the chairman of the Holy Land Foundation. [Source: The Guardian, Sept. 10, 2001, http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,549590,00.html%5D

Is Jeb Bush Preparing Florida for Terrorist Attack? Sept. 7, 2001 – Florida Governor Jeb Bush signs a two-year emergency executive order (01-261) making new provisions for the Florida National Guard to assist law enforcement and emergency-management personnel in the event of large civil disturbances, disaster or acts of terrorism. [Source: State of Florida website listing of Governor’s executive orders]

More Advanced Knowledge?  Airline Stocks – Place Your Bets Sept. 6-7, 2001 – Put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) totaling 4,744 are purchased on United Air Lines stock, as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the United puts are purchased through Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard. [Source: The Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), http://www.ict.org.il/, Sept. 21, 2001 (Note:The ICT article on possible terrorist insider trading appeared eight days *after* the 9/11 attacks.); The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2001] Deutsche Bank and the Terror Money Trail,” Bank Handling terrorist funds for Al-Qaeda. October 9, 2001, stating that 10 accounts linked to Al Qaeda had been found at the bank, holding $1 million. [CNN] No other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those experienced by United and American. The put option purchases on both airlines were 600 percent above normal. This at a time when Reuters (Sept. 10) issues a business report stating, “Airline stocks may be poised to take off.”

Afghanistan Invasions Plans on Bushes Desk September 9, 2001: A “game plan to remove al-Qaeda from the face of the Earth” is placed on Bush’s desk for his signature. The plan deals with all aspects of a war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to a military invasion in Afghanistan. According to NBC News reporter Jim Miklaszewski, the “directive outlines essentially the same war plan … put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans ‘off the shelf.'” Bush was expected to sign it but still hadn’t done so by 9/11. Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, has stated, “You show me one reporter, one commentator, one member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before September 11 and I’ll buy you dinner in the best restaurant in New York City.” In July 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair will state: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.” [Cooperativeresearch.org]

White House Had Advanced Knowledge of Anthrax Attack September 10, 2001: Jerome “Jerry” Hauer, started to work for the NIH under Tommy Thompson on September 10, 2001 as an adviser on national security. On September 11th, he told the White House to take Cipro, the antibiotic that works against the anthrax virus, without bothering to reveal his warning to the American nation. Hauer seems to specialize in the art of holding down several different jobs at the same time. While he started to work for the NIH in September 2001, he remained a Managing Director at Kroll Associates – the official security and bodyguard company for all American presidents since World War II http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org

9-11 Attack with Planes Happens September 11, 2001 (G): The 9/11 attack: four planes are hijacked, two crash into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. At least 3,000 people are killed. A more detailed timeline focusing on the hours of this attack appears on a separate page. John O’Neill, WTC security chief, and former deputy director of the FBI, where he headed investigation of the al-Qaeda network, was killed in those buildings on that day. O’Neill claimed in the book “Forbidden Truth”, that Dale Watson sabotaged him and leaked information about him to the New York Times. Therefore he was discouraged but many people also speculated that O’Neill was silenced or bribed with this new job in the Towers. If this is true, they silenced him forever, because O’ Neill died in the Towers and President Bush never took notice.

Take Your Time Sept. 11, 2001 – For 50 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred. [Source: CNN; ABC; MSNBC; Los Angeles Times; The New York Times; http://www.tenc.net]

Why was the distribution of Cipro to White House staff on Sept. 11 classified for such a long time (AP)

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our : number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” George W. Bush. September 13, 2001

“We Had Nothing to Do With It!” said Unocal ! Sept 14, 2001 UNOCAL issued the following statement:

“The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan [via western Afghanistan]. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban.”

Dust off the Plans for Afghanistan Sept 15, 2001 CIA Director Tenet briefs Bush with a military plan to conquer Afghanistan that was developed before 9/11 (mostly in May 2001), and is nearly exactly the same as the plan eventually used to conquer Afghanistan. In contrast, the Defense Department is caught relatively unprepared and has to defer to the CIA plans. Tenet then divulges a top secret document called the “Worldwide Attack Matrix,” which describes covert operations against al-Qaeda in 80 countries that are either underway or now recommended. The actions range from routine propaganda to lethal covert action [cooperativeresearch.org]

I Had Nothing to Do with It says Bin Laden ? September 16th, 2001 Bin Laden denied again that he was involved in the Sep11th attack. He faxed a statement to Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/17/article17.shtml

September 28, 2001 Bin Laden in an interview with Ummat: “…I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States..” He confirmed this statement in 3 other magazines including to AFP:


US Attacks Afghanistan October 7, 2001: Military operations with aerial bombardment began in Afghanistan. Air raids by the United States and its coalition partner, Great Britain, begin against Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, after the Taliban refuse to hand over alleged terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden and his associates. The raids are intended to “…disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime,” according to U.S. President George Bush. (Reuters)

FBI & CDC Order Destruction of Ames Strain Anthrax – Same Day It’s Mailed to Senators October 9, 2001: Real anthrax (later confirmed to be Ames, Iowa strain) letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy were being mailed in Trenton NJ on October 9

Oct 8 -9 , 2001: The Ames, Iowa strain of anthrax, determined to be the one mailed from Trenton to Florida and Washington’s capitol, had been suspiciously selected for destruction.(49,50) Iowa State officials suddenly confessed that they were ordered by CDC and FBI officials to destroy all of the remaining Ames, Iowa anthrax strain on or about October 8-9. The FBI allows the original batch of the Ames strain of anthrax to be destroyed, making tracing the anthrax type more difficult.[New York Times, 11/9/01South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/01] Orders to destroy that particular strain were issued by FBI and CDC officials. This strongly suggests a conspiracy at the highest levels of the federal government. Incriminating is the fact that this one strain, of more than 1,000 anthrax strains available, had been used in various labs for decades. Allegedly by mistake, these two agencies-the FBI and CDC-simultaneously urged/approved the strain’s destruction. http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html

Proposed Patriot Act Threat to Liberty October 9, 2001: Senator Feingold (D) blocks an attempt to rush the USA Patriot Act to a vote with little debate and no opportunity for amendments. Feingold criticizes the bill as a threat to liberty. [AP, 10/10/01] One day earlier, in the story “Cracks in Bipartisanship Start to Show,” the Washington Post reports, “Congress has lost some of the shock-induced unity with which it first responded to the [9/11] attacks.” [Washington Post, 10/8/01] Also on October 9, identical anthrax letters are postmarked in Trenton, New Jersey, with lethal doses to Senators Daschle and Leahy. Inside both letters are the words: “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/01]

Links to hijackers (not Iraq) October 9, 2001: Top sources confirmed that Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad lost his job because of the “evidence” India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahmud. Indian inputs, including Sheikh’s mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.” The Times of India

Pipeline Project Revived (Again?) October 9, 2001 (B): US Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain meets with the Pakistani oil minister. She is briefed on the gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan, to Pakistan, which appears to be revived “in view of recent geopolitical developments.” [Frontier Post, 10/10/01] FTW

Congress Nervous October 10, 2001 CONGRESSIONAL MEETING (one month after Sept 11)


Mr. Gilman: ” I am–concerned about the likelihood that the current effort against terrorism and the Taliban is attracting hitchhikers, thus we will be asked to overlook problems in democracy and human rights and the like among our allies no matter how impor-tant or unimportant their contribution.” (hours of discussion followed about the geopolitical situation effect on oil and gas pipelines and how to solve it. )

US to Control Central Asia Oil and Gas October 15, 2001 (C): Russian government sees the upcoming US conquest of Afghanistan as attempt by the US to replace Russia as the dominant political force in Central Asia, with the control of oil as a prominent motive: “While the bombardment of Afghanistan outwardly appears to hinge on issues of fundamentalism and American retribution, below the surface, lurks the prize of the energy-rich Caspian basin into which oil majors have invested billions of dollars. Ultimately, this war will set the boundaries of US and Russian influence in Central Asia – and determine the future of oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea.” [Moscow Times, 10/15/01]

Senator Receives Anthrax Letter October 15, 2001: Senator Daschle’s office opens the letter mailed October 9, containing a lethal dose of anthrax. Senator Leahy’s similar letter is misrouted to Virginia on October 12, and isn’t discovered until November 17. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/8/01] The BBC says “Bush has pointed the finger at Osama bin Laden” for the anthrax attacks. Bush states, “There may be some possible link. We have no hard data yet, but it’s clear that Mr. Bin Laden is an evil man.” [BBC, 10/16/01]

Senate & Congress Closed For Anthrax October 16-17, 2001: 28 congressional staffers test positive for anthrax. The Senate office buildings are shut down, followed by the House of Representatives. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 12/8/01]

Enron Shreds Papers Oct. 23, 2001: Arthur Andersen’s, David B. Duncan, orders the destruction of documents. Two weeks later a desperate e-mail says “Stop the shredding.” A day before that, Andersen had received a federal subpoena for the documents… Duncan called an urgent meeting on Oct. 23 to organize an “expedited effort” to destroy documents, Andersen said, a few days after he learned that the SEC had requested information. The SEC sent a letter to Enron on Oct. 17 asking for information after the company reported hundreds of millions of dollars in third-quarter losses. The fact that Andersen employees destroyed documents after learning of the SEC inquiry “is more than just unethical. It could be criminal as well,”

Anthrax Scares Congress Into Passing Patriot Act without Reading It October 24, 2001: The House of Representatives passes the final version of the USA Patriot Act and other previously unpopular Bush projects: Alaska oil drilling, $25 billion in tax cuts for corporations, taps into Social Security funds and cuts in education. [CNN, 10/25/01] Republican Congressman Ron Paul states: “It’s my understanding the bill wasn’t printed before the vote – at least I couldn’t get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote.” It is later found that only two copies of the bill were made available in the hours before its passage, and most House members admit they voted for the Act without actually reading it first. [Insight, 11/9/01] Two days later, the Senate passes the final version of the USA Patriot Act. Anthrax targets Senators Daschle and Leahy now support the bill. Bush signs it into law the same day. [Fox News, 10/26/01Were the anthrax attacks a deliberate plot to help pass the USA Patriot Act, and whip up public support?

New Scientist writes, that the anthrax bacteria is likely to be US military strain October 24, 2001


Government Controlled Newspapers Promote Iraq Anthrax Connection October 26, 2001: On the 26th of October The Daily Telegraph tried to promote the Iraq-October-anthrax theory: On the board of Daily Telegraph is Henry Kissinger, ex-CIA-Director James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, former Admiral David Jeremiah, Dan Quayle, former US-ministers James Schlesinger and Harold Brown. On 26th of October Daily Telegraph tried to promote the Iraq-October-anthrax theory: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F10%2F26%2Fwirq26.xml

Would We Have Invaded Saudi Arabia if Osama had been there? October 29, 2001 Taliban demanded more than the $100 million a year in rent for the pipeline route in the form of the construction of roads, water supplies, telephone lines, and electricity power lines, as well as a tap in the pipeline to provide oil and gas for Afghanistan, Unocal balked, and finally dropped its plans after the East Africa embassy bombings. The US Energy Information Agency says, “Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan.”

If the Taliban is overthrown, terrorism may take a major blow, but in doing so, the primary stumbling block to the Caspian-Pakistan pipeline will also be removed. In the Middle East, where oil has always dominated political decisions, this is the rationale for the US-led strike against Afghanistan. The question is asked, if bin Laden were still in Saudi Arabia, would the same punishment be given that country?

The President Seals His Records, and Bill Clinton’s and Dad’s October 31, 2001: The Bush White House drafted an unprecedented executive order sealing presidential records including those of prior administrations.

November 1, 2001: Bush signs Executive Order 13233 restricting public access to papers of former presidents.

Meeting on How to Control Public Opinion and Conceal the Truth November 6th, 2001 Jerome Hauer participated in the “Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism” at the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). Participants there included James J. Zogby (President of the Arab American Institute and Central Asian Enterprise Fund), Newton L. Gingrich (Chief Executive Officer, The Gingrich Group), Harold Brown (former secretary of defense and counselor at CSIS: the Center for Strategic and International Studies), Henry A. Kissinger (Senior Fellow in National Security and European Affairs), Richard C. Holbrooke (Counselor, CFR and Vice Chairman of Perseus, LLC) and Philip A. Odeen (Executive Vice President, Washington Operations of TRW, Inc. and CEO of Reynolds + Reynolds, Dayton).

Their agenda, eight weeks after the attack of Sept. 11, was strange indeed:


“….Release a White Paper explaining our goals and rationale for the war in Afghanistan, and outlining the evidence that the al-Qa’eda network was responsible for the 9/11 attacks….

…Disseminate stories of particular victims to convey the range of people killed in the 9/11 attacks-stress range of religions, races, income levels, etc…

…counteract myth that Mossad was behind the attacks by showing Jews killed, etc…

…Routinely monitor the regional press in real time to enable prompt responses…”

We’re Hostages to Oil says CIA ex November 8, 2001: Larry Johnson, former CIA officer with close links to serving intelligence officials said “We’re hostage to oil, that’s as simple as you can put it. We have let the economic considerations take precedence,”. BBC News

Enron Goes Bankrupt December 2, 2001: Enron files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York for 14 affiliated entities, including Enron, Enron North America, Enron Energy Services, Enron Transportation Services, Enron Broadband Services, and Enron Metals & Commodity Corporation. Enron was formerly the world’s largest electricity and natural gas trading company, and the seventh-largest publicly-traded energy company in the world. Enron also files a $10 billion lawsuit against Dynegy, alleging breach of contract, in connection with Dynegy’s November 28 termination of its proposed merger with Enron. (DJ)

Drug Lord will Help US in Afghanistan Dec. 4, 2001 – Convicted drug lord and opium kingpin Ayub Afridi is recruited by the U.S. government to help establish control in Afghanistan by unifying various Pashtun warlords. The former opium smuggler who was one of the CIA’s leading assets in the war against the Russians is released from prison in order to do this. [Source: The Asia Times Online, Dec. 4, 2001]

Congressman Suspicious of Cheney December 4, 2001 Rep. Waxman wrote the Vice President asking that he disclose details about contacts between his energy task force and Enron Corp., in light of the company’s recent financial collapse and press reports suggesting that Enron had extensive dealings with the task force.

New Leader of Afghanistan worked for Unocal December 22, 2001: Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his transitional government takes power in Afghanistan. It was revealed a few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal, as well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban. [Le Monde, 12/13/01, CNN, 12/22/01] FTW (Hamid) Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency’s interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources. [The Blacklisted Journalist 4/1/02]

Bush Appoints another Unocal Man as Special Envoy to Afghanistan January 1, 2002: President Bush appoints Zalamy Khalilzad as a special envoy to Afghanistan. [BBC, 1/1/02] Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal, also wrote op-eds in the Washington Post in 1997 supporting the Taliban regime, back when Unocal was hoping to work with the Taliban. FTW Now the US envoy is a former Unocal employee consulting with a prime minister who is a former Unocal employee (see December 22, 2001) in a country where Unocal might build gas and oil pipelines (see May 13, 2002).

“Don’t believe anything
until it’s been officially denied” 

I Don’t Know these Guys, Bush about Enron Jan 10, 2002: Bush’s first big lie about Enrongate. (“Dallas Morning News: Lay gave more to Bush –President had said Enron chief was Richards supporter”) In distancing himself from Enron, President Bush said that CEO Kenneth Lay “was a supporter” of Democrat Ann Richards in his first race for Texas governor in 1994. But records and interviews with people involved in the Richards campaign show that he was a far bigger Bush supporter. http://www.dallasnews.com

Cheney Still Hiding Energy Policy Notes Jan 17, 2002: The White House again refuses to turn over documents demanded by Congress as part of an inquiry into workings of the administration’s energy task force, including records of a meeting that Vice President Dick Cheney had with Ken Lay. (“Congress Rebuffed on Energy Documents”, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/18/business/18BUSH.html )

Should We tell the People? January 22, 2002 Four senior Senators urged GAO to continue investigating the energy task force, saying that “Americans have the right to know how the Administration’s energy policy was developed.” The letter was signed by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman, Commerce Committee Chairman Ernest F. Hollings, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin, who is also chairman of the Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee, and Byron L. Dorgan, chairman of the Commerce Committee’s consumer affairs subcommittee

Pipeline Still International Project #1 January 23, 2002: recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country’s oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline… U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan….guarding pipeline construction … Karzai’s ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are..why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate. (Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

Sue the Government January 23, 2002 Reps. Waxman and Dingell sent a letter urging GAO to proceed with a lawsuit as a result of the Administration’s continued refusal to cooperate with its investigation. Ken Lay resigns as Enron chairman and CEO of Enron. He remains on the Board of Directors.

Bush Running Enron?  January 25, 2002-Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Curtis Hebert, Jr.–says Ken Lay, CEO of Enron-the largest contributor to George Walker Bush-made improper demands. Lay threatened that–Bush would fire Hebert unless he obeyed, Hebert refused. Bush fired Hebert in August 2001. Hebert says Bush also let Lay interview him and other candidates for FERC chairman in the first place! In a nutshell: Enron gave Bush millions to sponsor his rise from a losing candidate for the US House to the “leader of the free world.” In return, Bush gave Enron “hire and fire” authority over the FERC, and performed other favors in return for money. This directly and personally ties Bush to the Enrongate scandal in all its illegality–Enron and accountants at Anderson have been destroying evidence by the box load. We must know what Bush did, and why he did it. Other top GOP officials like VP Dick Cheney, White House advisor Karl Rove, House Leader Dick Armey and Sen. Phil Gramm also helped Enron plunder and evade regulation. They helped Enron rip off consumers, investors and employees.

Cheney Still Hiding Energy Policy Notes Jan. 27, 2002: Cheney once again refuses to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy.

Please Don’t Investigate 9-11 – Bush Says to Dashle Jan. 29, 2002 CNN reported: “President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of 9/11/01. Democrats privately question why the White House fears a broader investigation to determine culpability.

I Don’t Know these Guys, Cheney about Enron Feb 1, 2002: U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan orders Cheney’s energy task force to explain why handing over information about its meetings to Judicial Watch would violate the Constitution. (“Court Orders Cheney to Explain Constitutional Claim”, Directly contradicting a statement by Ken Lay, Cheney claims he never saw the memo Lay says he used to brief Cheney on 17 April 2001. Mary Matalin, counsel to Cheney, labels as “ridiculous” Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) statement that the memo provides the “smoking gun” linking Lay to White House energy policy. In a telephone interview, Matalin describes as “absurd” a statement by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), that Lay had been able to discuss energy policy http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020201/pl/enron_energy_cheney_dc_1.html )

Enron Whistleblower Feb. 5, 2002: Whistleblower Robin Hosea, an accountant with Enron’s employee benefits department from August 2000 until she was laid off in December, tells a press conference that she discovered items that were outside her department’s scope and without its approval being paid from the benefits accounts, items that were suspicious monthly payments to outside consultants. When she questioned her superiors about it, she was told, “that it was a payment to friends of executives, and to leave it.” She personally saw four of these checks, one totaling $20,000. Hosea saw thousands of such entries in the accounting system that totaled about $15 million at the end of 2000. She says now she is receiving regular telephone threats. “I believe the wording has become ‘This is Robin’s daily warning’.”[ http://www.cbsnews.com AP news]

Pipeline Revived Says Unocal/CIA Leader of Afghanistan Feb. 8, 2002: Afghanistan’s interim leader Hamid Karzai says he and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have agreed to revive a plan for a trans-Afghan gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. A consortium led by Unocal had originally aimed to build the $1.9 billion, 1,400-km (875-mile) pipeline to run from gas-rich Turkmenistan via northern Afghanistan. But in August 1998 Unocal halted development of the project after U.S. forces fired missiles at guerrilla camps in Afghanistan in the wake of bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa. (“Pakistan, Afghan leaders agree to revive pipeline”, http://www.afgha.com/article.php?sid=12243&mode=thread&order=0 )

New Afghan Leader (ex Unocal CIA man) will Cooperate with Pipeline Project February 9, 2002: Pakistani President Musharraf and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai announce their agreement to “cooperate in all spheres of activity” including the proposed Central Asian ( the ex-US Unocal, CIA, Enron) pipeline, which they call “in the interest of both countries.” [Irish Times, 2/9/02] FTW Hamid Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency’s interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources. . [The Blacklisted Journalist 4/1/02]

Military Bases built along Pipeline Construction Route February 14, 2002: The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv astutely notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created [in the Afghan war], one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests… If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02] FTW

The Shadow Government March 1, 2002: Some even think ..ex-CIA director Woolsey.. is also member of the so-called shadow government, “to ensure survival of federal rule after catastrophic attack”, the existence of which was confirmed by Bush on March 1st, 2002. http://www.msnbc.com/news/717680.asp?cp1=1 Woolsey is a master strategist. It is well known that he wanted a war against the Taliban for years, but was even more interested in a war against Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress, the exiled group that opposes Saddam Hussein, said in October 2001 that it held meetings in London with Mr Woolsey. Administration sources have said his trip was funded and approved by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Defense secretary. But Woolsey made no comment about the exact nature of his brief. He told The Telegraph: “I was in London and that’s it.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F10%2F26%2Fwirq26.xml

on Osama bin Laden “I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”George W. Bush. March 13, 2002

Anthrax Confirmed US Military May 2, 2002: After extensive testing, the DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 is deciphered, and it confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from USAMRIID. Furthermore, analysis of genetic drift determines that the attacker’s anthrax was not separated from the source anthrax at USAMRIID for many generations. It suggests that USAMRIID or USAMRIID samples given to Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah and/or Porton Downs in Britain are the most likely sources of the anthrax used in the attacks. [New Scientist, 5/2/02]

Pipeline news May 13, 2002: The BBC reports that Afghanistan is about to close a deal for construction of the $2 billion gas pipeline to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. “Work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck” at a summit scheduled for the end of the month. Afghan leader Hamid Karzai (who formerly worked for Unocal) calls Unocal the “lead company” in building the pipeline. [BBC, 5/13/02] FTW The Los Angeles Times comments, “To some here, it looked like the fix was in for Unocal when President Bush named a former Unocal consultant, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan late last year.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/30/02]

FBI Agent Says Administration Let 9-11 Happen – Hidden Agenda May 19, 2002 – Former FBI Agent Tyrone Powers, now a professor at Anne Arundel Community College states on radio station KISS 98.7 that he has credible evidence suggesting that the Bush Administration did in fact allow the Sept. 11 attacks to further a hidden agenda. [Source: http://www.indymedia.org – May 20, 2002]

FBI Dragging Feet : Something to Hide? May 21-24, 2002: A New York Times editorial says it’s time to “light a fire under the FBI in its investigation of the anthrax case. Experts in the bioterror field are already buzzing about a handful of individuals who had the ability, access and motive to send the anthrax.” [New York Times, 5/24/02] Similarly, the Guardian suggests that the FBI investigation is moving deliberately slow because the federal authorities have something to hide, stating “there is surely a point after which incompetence becomes an insufficient explanation for failure.” [Guardian, 5/21/02]

Another FBI Agent Blows a Whistle May 24, 2002: Agent: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request, John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press, “An FBI whistle-blower alleges FBI headquarters rewrote Minnesota agents’ pre-Sept. 11 request for surveillance and search warrants for terrorism defendant Zacarias Moussaoui and removed important information before rejecting them, government officials said Friday. “Agent Coleen Rowley wrote that the Minnesota agents became so frustrated by roadblocks erected by terrorism supervisors in Washington that they began to joke that FBI headquarters was becoming an ‘unwitting accomplice’ to Osama bin Laden’s efforts to attack the United States, the officials said.”

And Yet Another FBI Agent told to SHUT UP May 30, 2002: FBI agent Wright spoke out again at a press conference in Washington, D.C. in May. He accused the FBI of intentionally thwarting investigations of known terrorists. But instead of making national news, Wright’s story was downplayed in the media. More disturbingly the FBI tried to block his new book, “Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission”. Why? Wright also said, in tears, live on C-Span, that he was threatened by John Ashcroft for months to shut up his mouth. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020529/dcw021_1.html Wright said throughout his six-year posting in counter-terrorism, he was involved in probes of Hamas and Hezbollah. His most successful ‘get’ netted $1.4 million in terrorist money in 1998, money that he said today was linked to Saudi businessman and financier Yassin Kadi, who was identified late last year as a close associate of Usama Bin Laden http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54070,00.html+FBI+%22Robert+Wright%22&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

Afghanistan Signs Agreement On Pipeline May 30, 2002 (B): Afghanistan’s interim leader, Hamid Karzai, Turkmenistan’s President Niyazov, and Pakistani President Musharraf meet in Islamabad and sign a memorandum of understanding on the trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project. [Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, 6/8/02, Dawn, 5/31/02] Unocal, the US-energy firm and former Centgas consortium leader, was still in the lead attempting to win the $ 2 bn trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline. Chairman Afghan interim authority Hamid Karzai and Turkmen president Saparmyrat Niyazov met earlier this month in Ashgabat to discuss the pipeline project. Under the tripartite agreement, Afghanistan would ensure security to the pipeline passing through its territory against a royalty which would be calculated later. The sources said that the pipeline has full backing of the Bush administration and some more US companies were expected to join the consortium in a bid to block entry of Argentinean Bridas or Russian Gazprom in the mega oil and gas pipeline projects.

Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan had constituted a working group in 1998 for quarterly expert meetings to pursue the pipeline project but these meetings were discontinued in late 2000 due to widening gap between Taliban and US authorities. Energy experts have been indicating US eyes on Caspian Sea reserves of $ 5 t with companies owned by Bush senior and vice president Dick Chenny showing keen interest. The United States is also expecting investment from US-based energy firms through Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to reactivate over $ 2 bn Turkmenistan to Pakistan gas pipeline. Informed sources in the energy sector said that the two sides have started initial consultations to materialize benefits arising out of the removal of economic sanctions on Pakistan in the post Sept. 11 situation that allowed OPIC and US Ex-Im Bank to finance private sector projects. The Turkmen-Pakistan pipeline will be around 1,464 km long from Daulatabad gas field in Turkmenistan to Multan in Pakistan. It is extendible to India with additional cost of around $ 600 mm. Pakistan is estimated to face gas shortfall of around 500 mm cfpd from the next 5-6 years. The shortfall was imminent in view of the fact that the mega import pipeline project will take at least two years to complete if construction has been started. Pakistan has been pursuing four-import projects from Iran, Qatar, Turkmenistan and UAE. Though Iran-Pak-India Trans gas pipeline project has now become the front runner, the supply is primarily meant for India. So far none of the parties have been able to muster sufficient support from the financial sector to construct $ 2 bn worth of each project mainly because of American factor, sources said.

Source: [The DAWN Group of Newspapers]

al Qaeda’s NYC Bank Still Won’t Open Doors June 12, 2002 : A skyscraper next to Ground Zero believed to contain bodies of people who died on September 11 has still not been entered or searched because the bank which owns it will not let rescue workers inside…Deutsche Bank maintains that a mould which has infested its walls and ventilation system could be a health hazard, embroiling the company in potential liability lawsuits worth millions of dollars…”It’s very disturbing that anyone would prevent the firefighters from bringing loved ones home to their families,” said Marian Fontana, who lost her firefighter husband David on September 11. End excerpt. Coincidentally, this is the same bank that has been implicated in pre 9-11 insider trading (Guardian UK)

US wanted 9-11 to Happen???? July 2, 2002 – Motions from Zacarias Moussaoui are unsealed in federal court, indicating that Moussaoui wants to testify before both a grand jury and Congress about the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui claims to have information showing that the U.S. government wanted the attacks to happen. [Source: The Washington Post, July 3, 2002]

White House Methodically Preparing for Iraq Campaign. Aug. 16, 2002 – A Knight Ridder story discloses that members of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s staff have created a special planning unit for an invasion of Iraq. The unit is composed primarily of civilians and was spearheaded by conservative members of Rumsfeld’s staff, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The story was headlined, “White House Methodically Preparing for Iraq Campaign.” [Source: Knight Ridder Newspapers,http://www.truthout.org/docs 02/08.17B.wh.prep.irq.p.htm]

Iraq has no WMD September 16, 2002 Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri sends a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan indicating that Iraq will accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors “without conditions.” The following day, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says, “All the reasons for an attack have been eliminated,” though White House spokesman Scott McClellan describes the move as “a tactical step” to avoid strong U.N. Security Council action, going on to say, “As such, it is a tactic that will fail.” On September 19, Foreign Minister Sabri asserts that Iraq is free of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. (Reuters)

Russia and US Comrades in Oil and Gas September 27 2002 Chevron Texaco top managers meet with Russia’s energy minister Igor Yusufov has met with the Board of Directors of the Chevron Texaco corporation and its Chairman and Managing Director David O’Reilly, the ministry’s press service said on Friday, –as a prelude to the Russian-US energy summit-in Houston in October. Yusufov stressed Russian and US presidents play a major role in promoting Russian-US cooperation in the energy sphere. Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush announced in May 2002 that the two countries were starting a new energy dialogue. The minister highly evaluates the activity Chevron Texaco is conducting in Russia, pointing, first of all, to the successful implementation of the Caspian pipeline consortium project. [Pravda]

CIA Says Iraq is Not a Treat to US October 10 , 2002: CIA Director George Tenet has become the unlikely source of embarrassment to President George W Bush, undermining Mr Bush’s warning of catastrophic threats from Saddam Hussein and exposing disagreements within the intelligence world about the nature of the danger. BBC

Senate/Congress Gives War Power to the President October 11, 2002: The U.S. Senate votes to give President George Bush the authority to use force, if necessary, to persuade Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to abandon programs for the development of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a similar measure the previous day. This moves the focus of debate to the U.N. Security Council. (Reuters)

Cheney Loses Battle Must Show Energy Policy Notes October 17, 2002: Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club again win a ruling against Vice President Cheney (see July 12, 2002), and a judge demands that Cheney turn over documents relating to his Energy Task Force. These documents could shed light on the government’s connections to Enron, the Dabhol power plant in India, and pipeline interests across Afghanistan. But Cheney is expected to appeal, further delaying the release of these documents (see also July 12, 2002). [Reuters, 10/17/02]

(CHENEYS ENERGY TASK FORCE NOTES LAST SEEN AT [http/www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/search.asp]

Anyone care now?

Trans Afghan Pipeline In Advanced Stage November 11, 2002 The six-member Russian delegation arrived early Monday morning in a low-profile special plane and left for Moscow in the afternoon after holding talks with petroleum minister Usman Aminuddin and signing of the MoU. Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan remained short of signing a tripartite agreement late last month in Ashkabad to start construction of trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline from Ashkabad to Pakistan’s under-construction Gwadar port. But officials here said that non-signing of that tripartite agreement had nothing to do with Gazprom’s MoU. They said the trans-Afghanistan pipeline project was in an advanced stage and could not be linked with the Iranian gas under any circumstances. (c) The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2002 http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/12/top9.htm

Let’s Keep 9-11 Details Secret For 20 or 30 Years December 11, 2002(C): In discussing the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9/11 (see December 11, 2002(B)), Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), the committee chairman, says he is “surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [9/11] terrorists in the United States. … To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing – although that was part of it – by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down … It will become public at some point when it’s turned over to the archives, but that’s 20 or 30 years from now.” [PBS Newshour, 12/11/02]

Head of 9-11 Investigation Steps Down Ties to Pipeline Project December 13, 2002: Henry Kissinger resigns as head of the new 9/11 investigation [CNN, 12/13/02, ABC, 12/13/02, copy of resignation letter] Two days earlier, the Bush Administration argued that Kissinger was not required to disclose his private business clients. [New York Times, 12/12/02] However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger resigns rather than reveal his clients. [MSNBC, 12/13/02, Seattle Times, 12/14/02] It is reported that Kissinger is (or has been) a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation [Washington Post, 10/5/98, Salon, 12/3/02] Kissinger claimed he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia, such as ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish engineering firm, and Boeing Corp., pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. A Boeing spokesman said its “longstanding” relationship with Kissinger involved advice on deals in East Asia, not Saudi Arabia. Boeing sold $7.2 billion worth of aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1995. [Newsweek, 12/23/02] In addition, it is difficult for Kissinger to travel outside the US. Investigative judges in Spain, France, Chile and Argentina seek to question him in several legal actions related to his possible involvement in war crimes particularly in Latin America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Chile and East Timor. [BBC, 4/18/02, Village Voice, 8/15-21/01, Chicago Tribune, 12/1/02] In a surprising break from usual procedures regarding high-profile presidential appointments, White House lawyers never vetted Kissinger for conflicts of interest. [Newsweek, 11/23/02]

Pipeline Moving Ahead Dec 25, 2002 Trans-Afghan pipeline project moving forward, faces risks Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf and Turkmenistan’s Suparmurat Niyazov – are scheduled to gather December 26-27 in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat — the 1,500-kilometer-long pipeline, stretching from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, would cost upwards of $2 billion to build, and would be capable of transporting about 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually. The trans-Afghan pipeline is crucial for the future of the Turkmenistan gas market — ADB and World Bank are expected to provide the bulk of the financing for the Trans-Afghan pipeline project — The US Agency for International Development (USAID), the international aid agency of the US State Department, is playing a role in the pipeline project, as well. [12/26/02 Daily Times – Pakistan]

Pipeline Agreement Signed, Unocal Denies Interest December 27, 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan sign an agreement for the building of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, a US$3.2 billion project that has been delayed for many years. [BBC, 12/27/02, CNN, 12/26/02] A study by the Asian Development Bank stated that the pipeline would move natural gas from Turkmenistan’s huge Dauletabad-Donmez fields to the Pakistani port city of Gwadar. The pipeline was originally launched in 1997, but was abandoned when a consortium led by UNOCAL withdrew over fears of being seen as supporting the Taliban and because the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999. The Afghan, Pakistani and Turkmen leaders relaunched the project in May 2002. UNOCAL has denied it is interested in returning to Afghanistan. Skeptics say the project would require an indefinite foreign military presence in Afghanistan. [CNN, 12/26/02, BBC, 5/30/02]

Another Head of 9-11 Investigation Has Ties to Unocal Pipeline Project and Osama’s Family December 27, 2002 New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama’s Brother in Law UNOCAL’s partner in the Cent-Gas trans-Afghan pipeline consortium, the Saudi Company Delta Oil is owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans which allegedly have ties to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Powerful financier Khalid bin Mahfouz’ younger sister is married to Osama bin Laden,. (US Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Federal News Service, 3 Sept. 1998) Bin Mahfouz is suspected to have funnelled millions of dollars to the Al Qaeda network.(See Tom Flocco, Scoop.co.nz 28 Aug. 2002)

Now, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, the man chosen by President Bush to lead the 9/11 commission also has business ties with bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi. Thomas Kean is a director (and shareholder) of Amerada Hess Corporation –Hess-Delta (joint venture). Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia owned by the bin Mahfouz and Al-Amoudi clans. Delta-Hess “was established in 1998 for the development and exploration of oil fields in the Caspian region…In Azerbaijan Delta Hess is involved in the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli PSA (2.72%) and the Garabaghli-Kursangi PSA (20%). It is also an equity holder in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline”: Delta- Hess, which… is registered in the Cayman Islands says the terms of the alliance–are subject to confidentiality clauses. ‘There’s no reason why this should be public information,’ a Hess spokesman says.” (Energy Compass, 15 Nov. 2002)

Thomas Kean is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, together with another prominent member of the board of directors of Amerada Hess, former Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady: Delta Oil Ltd. of Saudi Arabia –which is a partner in the Hess-Delta Alliance–is in part controlled by Khalid bin Mafhouz, Osama’s brother in law.

Thomas Kean also heads the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate Khalid’s brother in law, Osama bin Laden. Dr. Kissinger had a conflict of interest and resigned. The vice chairman of the Commission, former Sen. George Mitchell of Maine, resigned for the same reason. (See Xymphora, 19 Dec 2002 ) Corporate media applauds Thomas Kean without acknowledging his Saudi business connections, Thomas Kean is heralded as “a man of extraordinary integrity, decency and intellect.” In the words of the Baltimore Sun: “he lacks obvious conflicts of interest” (26 Dec.2002).

Thomas Kean also sits as co-chairman of the Homeland Security Project (HSP) under the auspices of the Century Foundation. In this capacity, Kean has played a key role in the draft recommendations of the Century Foundation, which laid the groundwork of the Office of Homeland Security legislation.

Delta officials (involved in the UNOCAL trans-Afghan pipeline consortium) played a key role in negotiations with the Taliban. Enron, (whose former CEO, Ken Lay, had close connections to the Bush family) had been contracted to undertake feasibility studies for the Unocal-Delta consortium. Enron Corporation had also been entrusted –in liaison with Delta– with pipeline negotiations with the Taliban government

Links between Bush and Mahfouz found in the Carlyle Group an investment firm managed by a board on which former president George Bush himself sat. George W. Bush personally held shares in Carlyle group, (Caterair company, between 1990-94). Carlyle today ranks as a leading contributor to Bush’s electoral campaign. On Carlyle’s advisory board is found the name of Sami Baarma, director of the Pakistani financial establishment Prime Commercial Bank that is based in Lahore and owned by Mahfouz. In the wake of 9/11, Khalid bin Mahfouz (Osama’s brother in law) was carefully exempted from the Treasury investigations which led to the freezing of the financial assets of some 150 Saudi businesses, charities and individuals: “The US Treasury has frozen the assets of 150 Saudi individuals, companies and charities suspected of financing terrorism. It has named Blessed Relief, a Saudi “charity” as a front organisation providing funds to Osama bin Laden. “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to Bin Laden through Blessed Relief,” the agency said. One rich Saudi patriarch under suspicion is Khaled bin Mahfouz, owner of the National Commercial Bank, banker to the Saudi royal family,

Thomas Kean –in contrast to Dr. Henry Kissinger– was selected to head the 9/11 Commission because he was “close to the families of the 9/11 victims, an important credential to the White House, which was coming under increasing criticism from those families” (Scripps Howard News Service, 17 December 2002)

The $1 trillion lawsuit filed last August by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks , lists two of Thomas Kean’s business partners in the Hess-Delta joint-venture, among the accused: Khalid Bin Mahfouz (Osama’s brother in law), and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi. Both individuals have been tagged in the lawsuit as alleged “financiers” of Al Qaeda. Now, how will Thomas Kean deal with that in the context of the 9/11 Commission?


It’s time to ask some questions of congress?

Why did the White House staff get Cipro on September 11th (a month before Anthrax attacks) and congress didn’t’t get any until after they signed the Patriot Act without reading it first in October 2001 during an Anthrax attack.

Who ordered both the FBI and the CDC to arrange the destruction of the strain of Anthrax that was in the letters mailed to Senators Leahy and Daschle on the same day the letters were postmarked.

Suggestion: When researching use multiple unrelated sources. Trade journals, Official websites such as DOE, Congress, Law Firms (Akins Gump Strauss and Hauer) , Newspapers from many different countries around the world. The truth will eventually reveal itself. The role of the pipeline in our so called battle with terrorism may not be on TV (yet) but it is one of the biggest stories of the decade.

I urge you to call, FAX, write, e-mail, barrage congress, the media and everyone you know with . After spending all this time studying I believe we are in a much greater danger of loosing our freedom and liberty to corporate greed. The anthrax attack was domestic and the timing indicates it was used to intimate congress into passing the patriot act without reading it. I have since talked with a congressman and confirmed this. Our only hope of not losing our country is to take it back by getting involved with politics on any level we can, including monitoring the elections and not letting it become totally electronic with no way to confirm votes and recount. Get involved in any way your can. If we do nothing we deserve whatever happens to us.

We the people. Government is supposed to be us. It has turned into them, not us. The wealthiest people in the world running global multinational corporations are now running our country using our elected leaders as puppets. They no longer respond to us the people. Greed is in charge and we need to stand up and say no.

Right now only the wealthy or those that take large contributions can afford buy the media coverage needed to get elected.

We have been lied to about Afghanistan and Iraq. The Anthrax attack was an inside job to push the patriot act through.

It’s time the truth came out.


24mis007.jpg (24395 bytes)Home Page www.heartson.com The September 11th Attack on America – The Energy Connection

If They Had Advanced Knowledge, Why Did September 11th Still Happen?

September 11th 2001 – Follow the Money

9/11 Insider Trading,  Who Tried to Profit?

Was the 9/11 Commission a White Wash?

Domestic Spying – Hack Attacks & Secret Searches
A Real Case of Domestic Spying in Grantham, New Hampshire

Anthrax & the Patriot Act 

The News Stories You May Have Missed

Anthrax Research Time Line     My Complete 9/11 Timeline

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (Geo Orwell)
And now some truth (and helpful info)

John Heartson is a former engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering, currently working as a carpenter and songwriter in Vermont. His curiosity and detailed investigation into events surrounding 9/11 and anthrax made him the target of domestic spying,  unconstitutional searches of his home and a threat to his life in 2004.   

The Osama bin Laden Myth

Posted By Paul Craig Roberts On November 26, 2012 @ 4:29 am In Articles & Columns | Comments Disabled

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged “mastermind” of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden’s sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden’s refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled “Osama bin Laden’s interview denying responsibility for 9/11.” Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden’s denial, concludes that “we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions.” In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.

The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american “free press,” a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO puppet states, Israel’s Mossad, and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control, and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over “the great satan” that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda’s ranks. Yet the alleged “mastermind” denied all responsibility.

I remember decades ago when a terrorist attack occurred in Europe, whether real or an Operation Gladio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [1] false flag attack, innumerable organizations would claim credit. Perhaps this was the CIA’s way of diverting attention from itself, but it illustrates that every intelligence service understands the value to an organization of claiming credit for a successful attack.Although bin Laden denied responsibility, in 2011 some al Qaeda leaders, realizing the prestige value of the 9/11 attack, claimed credit for the attack and criticized Iranian President Ahmadinejad for questioning the official US story.

Although only a few Americans are aware of the September 28, 2001 interview in which bin Laden states his non-involvement with the 9/11 attacks, many Americans have seen post-2001 videos in which a person alleged to be bin Laden takes credit for the attacks. There are two problems with these videos. Experts have examined them and found them to be fakes, and all of the videos appeared after bin Laden was reported by the Pakistan Observer, the Egyptian press, and Fox News to have died in mid-December, 2001, from lung disease.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html [2] See also http://www.legitgov.org/News-Bin-Ladens-Death-and-Funeral-December-2001 [3]

Bin Laden also suffered from kidney disease. According to a CBS news report on January 28, 2002, Osama bin Laden was hospitalized for dialysis treatment in the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11. http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-was-osama-on-september-11-2001/3194 [4]

Obviously, a man suffering from terminal lung and kidney disease did not survive for another decade to be murdered by a US Navy SEAL team in Abbottabad. A Pakistani TV interview with the neighbor of the alleged “bin Laden compound” exposed the assassination hoax. This sensational interview also went unreported by america’s “free press.” I had the interview translated, and it is available here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/pakistan-tv-report-contradicts-us-claim-of-bin-laden-s-death/25915 [5] See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13329078 [6]

Shortly after the alleged assassination 30 members of the SEAL unit died in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan, and now we learn that not a single one of the thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, witnessed bin Laden’s alleged burial at sea from that ship. The press reports with a straight face that for unexplained reasons it was kept secret from the ship’s sailors. This is supposed to be the explanation of the sailors’ emails reporting to family and friends that they witnessed no burial at sea. Some speculate that the SEALs were bumped off before their questions to one another, “Were you on that raid?,” reached outside the unit. Apparently, it doesn’t strike the media or the public as strange that the US government captured and killed the terror mastermind without interrogating him and without keeping any evidence or presenting any witnesses to support the assassination claim.

Adolf Hitler claimed that communists burned down the Reichstag and that Polish troops had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. With 9/11 americans experienced Washington’s version of these grand lies. An omniscient bin Laden dying from terminal illnesses in distant Afghanistan defeated the American National Security State and drove his attack through the walls of the Pentagon itself, requiring for our defense a “war on terror” that destroyed US civil liberties and financially ruined the country in order to prevent the triumph of a man who died of natural causes in December 2001.

On May 9, 2011, Professor Michel Chossudovsky republished the September 28, 2001, Osama bin Laden interview in Global Research.

Interview with Osama bin Laden. Osama Denies his Involvement in 9/11
By Global Research
Global Research, May 09, 2011
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview-with-osama-bin-laden-denies-his-involvement-in-9-11/24697 [7]

Global Research Editor’s Note
We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.
Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview. It is our hope that the text of this interview, published barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 9, 2011

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

Ummat (in Urdu), Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1 and 7. http://ummatpublication.com/2012/11/25/ [8]

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received.

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people.
 It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Order Directly from Global Research

America’s “War on Terrorism” [9]
by Michel

Copyright © 2012 Global Research

New Voice For Elmo

” Emails among senior U.S. military officials reveal that no sailors watched Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson and traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the ceremony. The emails, obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, are heavily blacked out, but are the first public disclosure of information about the al-Qaida’s leader’s death. By Associated Press,  Published: NOVEMBER 21, 5:00 PM ET   Aa   WASHINGTON — Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no sailors watched Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson and traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the ceremony. The emails, obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, are heavily blacked out, but are the first public disclosure of government information about the al-Qaida leader’s death. The emails were released Wednesday by the Defense Department. Bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011, by a Navy SEAL team that assaulted his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. One email stamped secret and sent on May 2 by a senior Navy officer briefly describes how bin Laden’s body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet, and then placed in a weighted bag According to another message from the Vinson’s public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship’s leadership was informed of the burial. “Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was followed,” the May 2 email from Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette reads. “The deceased’s body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body slid into the sea.” The email also included a cryptic reference to the intense secrecy surrounding the mission. “The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of the emphasis placed on operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation,” Gaouette’s message reads. Recipients of the email included Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. James Mattis, the top officer at U.S. Central Command. Mullen retired from the military in September 2011. Earlier, Gaouette, then the deputy commander of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, and another officer used code words to discuss whether the helicopters carrying the SEALs and bin Laden’s body had arrived on the Vinson. “Any news on the package for us?” he asked Rear Adm. Samuel Perez, commander of the carrier strike group that included the Vinson. “FEDEX delivered the package,” Perez responded. “Both trucks are safely enroute home base.” Although the Obama administration has pledged to be the most transparent in American history, it is keeping a tight hold on materials related to the bin Laden raid. In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden’s body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden’s body on the Vinson. The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden’s body if he were killed. The Defense Department also refused to confirm or deny the existence of helicopter maintenance logs and reports about the performance of military gear used in the raid. One of the stealth helicopters that carried the SEALs to Abbottabad crashed during the mission and its wreckage was left behind. People who lived near bin Laden’s compound took photos of the disabled chopper. The AP is appealing the Defense Department’s decision. The CIA, which ran the bin Laden raid and has special legal authority to keep information from ever being made public, has not responded to AP’s request for records about the mission.

Richard Nixon’s Greatest Cover-Up: His Ties to the Assassination of President Kennedy

President Nixon with Bebe Rebozo (left) and J. Edgar Hoover (center)
at the “Florida White House”. Credit: National Archives.


by Don Fulsom



Seared into the memories of all Americans who lived through the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is exactly where they were on November 22, 1963. Yet private citizen Richard Nixon, who — believe it or not — was in Dallas, could not recall this fact in a post-assassination interview with the FBI. 

The interview dealt with an apparently false claim by Marina Oswald that her husband —alleged Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald — had targeted Nixon for death during an earlier trip to Dallas. A Feb. 28, 1964 FBI report on the interview said Nixon “advised that the only time he was in Dallas, Texas, during 1963 was two days prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

While Nixon eventually came clean regarding his whereabouts on that fateful day, he seemed touchy whenever the matter was raised. For example, in a 1992 interview with CNN’s Larry King, Nixon interjected he was in Dallas “In the morning!” when King cited the presumed geographical coincidence. Nixon left Dallas on a flight to New York several hours before Kennedy’s noontime arrival at Love Field.

Not only did Nixon misremember where he was on November 22nd, he made at least two conflicting statements about how he first learned his archrival had been shot. In a 1964 Reader’s Digest article, he recalled hailing a cab after his Dallas-New York flight: “We were waiting for a light to change when a manran over from the street corner and said that the President had just been shot in Dallas.” In November of 1973, however, Nixon said in Esquire that his cabbie “missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway…a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas.”

In yet another curious twist, a November 22nd wire service photo of Nixon indicates he might even have learned of the shooting before his cab ride. In the photo, a glum-looking Nixon, hat in lap, is sitting in what appears to be an airline terminal. The caption on the United Press International photo reads: “Shocked Richard Nixon, the former vice president who lost the presidential election to President Kennedy in 1960, is shown Friday after he arrived at Idlewild Airport in New York following a flight from Dallas, Tex., where he had been on a business trip.”

In the 1992 King interview, Nixon maintained he’d never had any interest in digging into the JFK assassination: “I don’t see a useful purpose in getting into that and I don’t think it’s frankly useful for the Kennedy family to constantly raise that up again.”

Nixon’s professed disinterest doesn’t ring true, however, for it came from one of our snoopiest chief executives — a politician who just relished investigations, spying, secrets, and conspiracies. As Nixon aide John Ehrlichman once observed: “He was a conspiracy buff. He liked intrigue, and he liked secret maneuverings of the FBI, and he liked to hear about what the CIA did, and so on. He just couldn’t leave that stuff alone.”

As for Nixon’s stated compassion for the Kennedys, let’s not forget that he deeply despised them. So much so that, as president, he ordered chief White House spy E. Howard Hunt to forge diplomatic cables to make it look like President Kennedy ordered the murder of South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem. He sent another spy, Anthony Ulasewicz, to Chappaquiddick, Mass., to investigate the 1969 crash of a car driven by Edward Kennedy that killed the senator’s female companion. He placed Sen. Kennedy under a 24-hour-a-day Secret Service surveillance in an effort, in Nixon’s phrase, “to catch him in the sack with one of his babes.” And Nixon pressed aides to plant a false story in the press linking Sen. Kennedy to the 1972 assassination attempt against Alabama Gov. George Wallace.

What did Nixon do in Dallas? He arrived on Nov. 20 to attend a board meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company, one of his law clients. Dallas reporter Jim Marrs says Nixon and actress Joan Crawford, a Pepsi heiress, “made comments to the effect that they, unlike the president, didn’t need Secret Service protection, and they intimated the nation was upset with Kennedy’s policies. It has been suggested that this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy’s critical decision not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on Nov. 22.”

When adviser Stephen Hess saw Nixon that same afternoon at the former vice president’s New York apartment, he said Nixon was “pretty shook up.” Hess later portrayed his boss to political reporter Jules Witcover as unusually defensive about his pre-assassination comments in Dallas: “He had the morning paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it … It was his way of saying, ‘Look, I didn’t fuel this thing.'”

What Nixon apparently failed to tell Hess was that the major story from his meeting with reporters in Dallas was certain to fuel the anger of some Texans toward Kennedy. The headline in the Dallas Morning Newson November 22 said: “Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson.” Vice President Lyndon Johnson was, of course, a Texan.

On the morning after the assassination, Nixon convened a meeting of Republican leaders at his New York apartment. Those assembled were “already assessing how this event would affect or recreate the possibilities of Nixon running for president,” according to Hess.

Boasting that he was the mastermind of a Mob/CIA plot to kill President Kennedy, Chicago godfather Sam Giancana told relatives he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 to supervise that plot. Giancana claimed that both “Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson knew about the whole damn thing”— adding that he had met with both future presidents in Dallas “immediately prior to the assassination.”

Giancana’s half-bother Chuck and nephew Sam claimed in their 1992 book Double Cross that the Mafia don had a long, warm, and mutually rewarding relationship with Nixon that dated back to the 1940s. In those times, Giancana was helping Chicago Syndicate boss Anthony Accardo consolidate the city’s rackets and gambling operations, and Nixon was a freshman congressman from California. In recounting for his relatives a big favor the congressman did for Giancana back then, the gangster established a direct link between Nixon and a Chicago hoodlum who later moved to Texas and went on to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald: “Nixon’s done me some favors, all right, got us some highway contracts, worked with the unions and overseas. And we’ve helped him and his CIA buddies out, too. Shit, he even helped my guy in Texas, (Jack) Ruby, get out of testifying in front of Congress back in forty-seven … By sayin’ Ruby worked for him.”

A 1947 memo, found in 1975 by a scholar going through a pile of recently released FBI documents, supports Giancana’s contention. In the memo, addressed to a congressional committee investigating organized crime, an FBI assistant states: “It is my sworn testimony that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago … is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California. It is requested Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in the aforementioned hearings.” (Later in 1947, Rubenstein moved to Dallas and shortened his last name.) The FBI subsequently called the memo a fake, but the reference service Facts on File considers it authentic.

Undercover work for the young Congressman Nixon would have been in keeping with Ruby’s history as a police tipster and government informant. In 1950, Ruby gave closed-door testimony to Estes Kefauver’s special Senate committee investigating organized crime. Committee staffer Luis Kutner later described Ruby as “a syndicate lieutenant who had been sent to Dallas to serve as a liaison for Chicago mobsters.” In exchange for Ruby’s testimony, the FBI is said to have eased up on its probe of organized crime in Dallas. In 1959, Ruby became an informant for the FBI.

Ruby’s old Chicago boss, Giancana, was murdered in his home in Oak Park, Ill., in 1975 — shortly before he was to have appeared before a Senate committee investigating assassinations. Seven .22-caliber bullets were blasted into his mouth and neck, Mob symbolism for “talks too much.”

Giancana had never been adept at keeping secrets. When Mob/CIA hit teams were planning to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 1960 — an operation reportedly overseen by Vice President Richard Nixon—Giancana’s loose lips allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to discover the plans.

Lee Harvey Oswald was at his Dallas job as an order-filler at the Texas School Book Depository on Nov. 22. Shortly after shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, Oswald fled the crime scene. Later that afternoon, a policeman trying to arrest Oswald was shot to death. After a struggle with the armed Oswald in a movie theater, police apprehended him and charged him with the murders of both President Kennedy and the policeman.

In 1964, a presidential commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren concluded that Oswald — firing a rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the depository — was Kennedy’s sole assassin. The commission portrayed Oswald as a ”discontented” loner whose “avowed commitment to Marxism and Communism” might have contributed to his deed. But the Warren Commission had not looked carefully at the alleged assassin’s ties to the Syndicate. In New Orleans — where Oswald spent significant portions of his life — Oswald’s uncle and substitute father was Charles “Dutz” Murret, an important bookie in godfather Carlos Marcello’s gambling apparatus. Oswald’s mother, Marguerite, dated members of Marcello’s gang. Oswald friend David Ferrie worked for Marcello; had alleged ties to the CIA; and, in 1967, was named by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as a key JFK assassination plotter.

The exact route of the presidential motorcade was announced far in advance of the event — a practice the Secret Service halted in the wake of the JFK assassination.

Just two days before President Kennedy’s murder, suspicious activity caught the eyes of two Dallas policemen on routine patrol in Dealey Plaza. The officers observed several men with rifles standing behind the picket fence on the plaza’s grassy knoll. The riflemen were participating in mock target practice —aiming their guns over the fence in the direction of the street. By the time the patrolmen reached the area, however, the unidentified men had vanished.

Realizing the significance of this information in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Dallas police forwarded it to the FBI. But an FBI report on the incident, dated Nov. 26 1963, apparently was not turned over to the Warren Commission. This report — clearly pointing to a conspiracy — was finally made public in 1978 in response to a Freedom of Information request.

In 1979, a House committee differed with the commission’s finding that Oswald acted alone. After a two-year study, the panel indicated there were at least two shooters, declared that Kennedy “was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy,” and it fingered the Mafia as having the “motive, means, and opportunity.” Two top committee staffers — Robert Blakey and Richard Billings — later wrote of their conviction that “Oswald was acting in behalf of members of the Mob, who wanted relief from the pressure of the Kennedy administration’s war on crime led by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.”

The two investigators flatly asserted that the president of the Mob-dominated Teamsters union, Jimmy Hoffa — along with Mob bosses Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana — planned and carried out the president’s slaying. They said both Oswald and Ruby were Mafia-connected, and that Ruby silenced Oswald on orders from the Mob. In a recent book, former Mafia consigliere Bill Bonanno — the son of legendary New York godfather Joe Bonanno — also maintains that Hoffa, Marcello, Trafficante, and Giancana were involved in the JFK assassination.

In 2001, a scientific study supported the conclusion first propounded by the House committee in 1979: that sounds heard on police recordings from Dealey Plaza are consistent with a shot being fired from the famed grassy knoll — bolstering the panel’s finding that Kennedy’s murder probably resulted from a plot.

Jack Ruby was a busy man in Dallas on Nov. 22. Only hours before Kennedy’s arrival, the debt-ridden striptease club operator met with Mafia paymaster Paul Jones. Shortly after Kennedy was shot, Ruby showed up at Parkland Hospital, where the president had been taken — though he later denied being there at that critical time. Minutes after Kennedy was pronounced dead, Ruby phoned Alex Gruber — an associate of one of Jimmy Hoffa’s top officials, and a man with known connections to hoodlums who worked for racketeer Mickey Cohen. Ruby and Gruber had met 10 days earlier in Dallas. When he was arrested for killing Oswald two days later, Ruby had $2,000 on his person and authorities found $10,000 in his apartment.

On the evening of the 22nd, Ruby was hanging around on the same floor of the police station where Oswald was being questioned. He even attended the midnight police station press conference at which Oswald was trotted out briefly for the world to see. Ruby corrected the district attorney when he told reporters that Oswald belonged to the Free Cuba Committee, an anti-Castro outfit. Ruby pointed out that the D.A. had meant Fair Play for Cuba, a pro-Castro group.

Like Oswald, Ruby could well have been under the control of the Mob, especially of Marcello — whose territory extended to Dallas, and whose take from underworld activities in Louisiana alone at the time was put at $1 billion-a-year. Ruby had lifelong connections to the Mafia and was involved in slot machines and bookmaking operations under Marcello’s command. In 1959, Ruby reportedly visited Mob boss Santos Trafficante in a Cuban prison. After Oswald’s murder, Ruby’s brother approached one of Jimmy Hoffa’s lawyers to represent Ruby.

More than a dozen people claim to have seen Ruby and Oswald together during the four months prior to the Kennedy assassination. In 1994, Dallas reporters Ray and Mary La Fontaine claimed that, shortly after Oswald’s arrest on Nov. 22, he told a cellmate that he and Ruby attended a meeting in a local hotel just days earlier.

CIA agent E. Howard Hunt — Richard Nixon’s top confederate in past and future undercover operations — may also have been in Dallas the day President Kennedy was killed. During a 1985 trial in Miami, CIA operative Morita Lorenz testified that, on Nov. 21, at a Dallas motel, she saw Hunt pay money to another agency operative — Hunt pal and future Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis. She maintained that, shortly after Hunt left, Jack Ruby showed up. Lorenz returned to her home in Miami that same night, but said Sturgis later told her what she had missed in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963: “We killed the president that day.”

The testimony came in a suit brought by Hunt against the right-wing newsletter Spotlight for printing a 1978 article titled, “CIA to Admit Hunt Involvement in Kennedy Slaying.” The jury ruled in favor of the newsletter.

At one time, Lorenz was Fidel Castro’s girlfriend. In 1959, Hunt and Sturgis had recruited her into the CIA with the goal of killing the Cuban leader. At the trial, Lorenz identified Hunt as Sturgis’s CIA paymaster. She said that, on Nov. 21, Hunt gave Sturgis an envelope of cash at the Dallas motel after she and Sturgis arrived there to take part in what she was told was a “confidential” operation.

In a deposition for the Miami trial, a reporter testified he had once seen an internal CIA memo, dated 1966, which said: “Some day we will have to explain Hunt’s presence in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.” That reporter — Joseph Trento — had co-authored a 1978 article for the Wilmington News Journal headlined: “Was Hunt in Dallas the Day JFK Died?” His piece contained speculation by “some CIA sources” that “Hunt thought he was assigned by higher-ups to arrange the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.”

In 1975, a JFK assassination researcher in Texas received from an anonymous source a copy of a brief handwritten Nov. 8, 1963 note to a “Mr. Hunt” purportedly from Oswald. The writer asked for “information concerding [sic] my position. I am asking only for information. I am asking that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.” Three handwriting experts found that the writing was that of Oswald. “Concerning” was also misspelled in a letter Oswald was known to have written in 1961.

That the note was meant for E. Howard Hunt makes sense. Oswald and Hunt once worked out of the same office building in New Orleans. On behalf of the CIA, Hunt had set up a dummy organization called “The Cuban Revolutionary Council” at 544 Camp Street — the same address Oswald put on pro-Castro leaflets he handed out. The same building also housed the detective agency of former FBI agent Guy Banister — who was associated with the CIA, the Mafia, Cuban exile leaders, and suspected JFK assassination plotter David Ferrie.

Ex-CIA agent Victor Marchetti has linked Hunt and Sturgis with Ferrie. Sturgis has claimed: that he knew Oswald; that documents existed at the CIA detailing the role of Ruby in the Kennedy killing; and that Oswald and Ruby once met in a hotel in New Orleans.

Though he was not in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, Jimmy Hoffa played an important role in President Kennedy’s murder, according to longtime Hoffa and Mob lawyer Frank Ragano, who detailed Hoffa’s alleged involvement in 1994. Ragano said he carried a message from the Teamster’s boss to a July 24, 1963 meeting with Marcello and Trafficante in New Orleans. The message: Hoffa “wants you to do a little favor for him. You won’t believe this, but he wants you to kill John Kennedy. He wants you to get rid of the president right away.”

Ragano said the facial expressions of the two Mob bosses “were icy. Their reticence was a signal that this was an uncomfortable subject, one they were unwilling to discuss.” But Ragano said Trafficante, on his deathbed in 1987, confessed that he and Marcello did, indeed, follow through on Hoffa’s “favor.” Ragano quoted the ailing Mob chief as saying: “Who would have thought that someday he would be president and he would name his goddam brother attorney general? Goddam Bobby. I think Carlos fucked up in getting rid of Giovanni (John in Italian) — maybe it should have been Bobby.”

Jimmy Hoffa hated John and Robert Kennedy as much as Richard Nixon did. Robert Kennedy had been trying to put Hoffa in jail since 1956, when he was staff counsel for a Senate probe into the Mob’s influence on the labor movement. In 1960, Robert Kennedy said, “No group better fits the prototype of the old Al Capone syndicate than Jimmy Hoffa and some of his lieutenants.”

In the 1960 presidential election, Hoffa and his two million-member union backed Vice President Nixon against Sen. John Kennedy. Edward Partin, a Louisiana Teamster official and later government informant, eventually revealed that Hoffa met with Marcello to secretly fund the Nixon campaign — saying, “I was right there, listening to the conversation. Marcello had a suitcase filled with $500,000 cash which was going to Nixon … (Another half-million dollar contribution) was coming from Mob boys in New Jersey and Florida.” The Hoffa-Marcello meeting took place in New Orleans on Sept. 26, 1960, and has been verified by William Sullivan, a former top FBI official.

Nixon lost the 1960 election, and Hoffa — thanks to Attorney General Robert Kennedy — soon wound up in prison for jury tampering and looting the union’s pension funds of almost $2 million. But the Nixon-Hoffa connection was strong enough to last at least until Dec. 23, 1971—when, as president, Nixon gave Hoffa an executive grant of clemency, allowing Hoffa to serve just five years of a 13-year prison term.

Nixon apparently sprung Hoffa in exchange for a big underworld payoff.

A recently released FBI memo backs up an earlier claim by an FBI informant that James P. (“Junior”) Hoffa — current head of the Teamsters — and racketeer Allen Dorfman delivered $300,000 in a black valise to a Nixon bagman at a Washington hotel to secure the elder Hoffa’s release from the pen.

Breaking from clemency custom, Nixon did not consult the judge who had sentenced Hoffa. Nor did he pay any mind to the U.S. Parole Board — which had been warned by the Justice Department that Hoffa was Mob-connected. At the time, The New York Times called the clemency a “pivotal element in the strange love affair between the (Nixon) administration and the two-million-member truck union…” Former Mafia bigwig Joe Bonanno recently described Nixon’s clemency for Hoffa as “a gesture — if ever there was one, of the national power (the Mob) once enjoyed.”

President Nixon did put one restriction on Hoffa’s freedom: He could never again, directly or indirectly, manage any union. The restriction — a favor to Hoffa’s successor, Frank Fitzsimmons — was reputedly bought by a $500,000 contribution to the Nixon campaign by New Jersey Teamster leader Anthony Provenzano.

In July 1975, Hoffa vanished in a Detroit suburb and his body has never been found. Many federal and local investigators believe he was shot to death after being lured to a meeting with Provenzano. They speculate that Hoffa’s body was taken away by truck, stuffed into a fifty-gallon drum — then crushed and smelted.

Newly released FBI documents show that, in 1978, federal investigators sought to force Nixon and Fitzsimmons to testify about events surrounding Hoffa’s disappearance. The investigators had concluded that such testimony offered the last, best chance of solving the Hoffa mystery. But they accused top Justice Department officials of derailing their efforts to call the ex-president and the Teamster boss before a Detroit grand jury.

The records also reveal that FBI agents suspected the Nixon White House of soliciting $1 million from the Teamsters to pay hush money to the Watergate burglars. In fact, in early 1973 — when the Watergate cover-up was coming apart at the seams — aide John Dean told the president that $1 million might be needed to keep the burglary team silent. Nixon responded, “We could get that … you could get a million dollars. You could get it in cash, I know where it could be gotten.” When Dean observed that money laundering “is the type of thing Mafia people can do,” Nixon calmly answered: “Maybe it takes a gang to do that.”

In August 1974, Nixon became the first president forced to quit the office. He did so as Congress prepared to impeach and expel him for a wide range of illegal activities and abuses of constitutional power he directed or concealed during the Watergate scandal. Forty Nixon administration officials were indicted or jailed. The president was named by a grand jury as an unindicted co-conspirator. In what smacked of a sweetheart deal, one month after he stepped down, Nixon’s handpicked successor — President Gerald Ford — granted him a complete pardon for all the presidential crimes he might have committed.

After spending more than a year brooding in self-exile at his walled estate in San Clemente, Calif., the very first post-resignation invitation Nixon accepted was from his Teamsters buddies. On Oct. 9, 1975, he played golf at a Mob-owned California resort with Fitzsimmons and other top Teamsters. Among those who attended a post-golf game party for Nixon were Anthony Provenzano, Allen Dorfman, and the union’s executive secretary, Murray (“Dusty”) Miller.

A convicted Mafia killer, Provenzano went on to become a prime suspect in Hoffa’s disappearance. In the two months before President Kennedy’s assassination, Jack Ruby was in telephone contact with Murray Miller, and with Barney Baker — who was once described by Robert Kennedy as “Hoffa’s ambassador of violence.” Ruby was also in touch with key figures from the Marcello, Trafficante, and Giancana crime families.

Documents that came to light in 2007 show that, shortly after the president’s murder, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy’s right-hand man Walter Sheridan – dispatched by RFK on a secret investigative mission to Dallas – quickly reported back that Jimmy Hoffa associate Allen Dorfman had paid off Jack Ruby in Chicago. A witness to that payoff – reportedly of $7,000 in 100 dollar bills stuffed into a manila envelope – says it occurred on the weekend of Oct. 27th 1963.

James P. “Junior” Hoffa has said, “I think my dad knew Jack Ruby, but from what I understand, he (Ruby) was the kind of guy everybody knew. So what?” JFK assassination authority Anthony Summers reasons, however, that — given Hoffa’s record of threats against the lives of both John and Robert Kennedy — “the potential significance of such a connection is immense.”

Mob experts connect Richard Nixon to Carlos Marcello — and to Jimmy Hoffa — through Nixon’s earliest campaign manager and longest-serving adviser, Murray Chotiner. And they tie Nixon to Santos Trafficante through Nixon’s best friend, Florida banker Bebe Rebozo. Mickey Cohen — one of the most notorious mobsters in Los Angeles — admitted rounding up underworld money for two early Nixon campaigns.

Charles Colson — Nixon’s presidential emissary to the Teamsters — once raised the theory that Mafia bosses “owned” Rebozo and had gotten “their hooks into Nixon early.” By the 1960s, FBI agents keeping tabs on the Mob had identified Rebozo as a “non-member associate of organized crime figures,” it is now known. An off-the-books military probe conducted in the waning days of the Nixon presidency found “strong indications of a history of Nixon connections with money from organized crime,” the chief investigator later revealed.

In an unpublicized presidential move, Nixon ordered the Justice Department to stop using the words “Mafia” and “Cosa Nostra” to describe the multi-billion dollar national crime syndicate. The president was roundly applauded when he boasted about his order at a private 1971 Oval Office meeting with some 40 members of the Supreme Council of the Sons of Italy. The group’s Supreme Venerable, Americo Cortese, thanked Nixon for his moral leadership — declaring, “You are our terrestrial god.”

The Nixon administration intervened on the side of Mafia figures in at least 20 trials. And it denied an FBI request to continue an electronic surveillance operation that was starting to penetrate Mob/Teamsters connections.

During the Nixon years, pressure from Washington eased off on Sam Giancana. And long-standing deportation proceedings against CIA-connected mobster Johnny Roselli were dropped. Without going into specifics, government lawyers explained in court that Roselli had performed “valuable services to the national security.” A Giancana henchman, Roselli was an important contact man in the Mob/CIA assassination plots against Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Roselli and Jack Ruby are reported to have met in hotels in Miami during the months before the JFK assassination. Years later, Roselli told columnist Jack Anderson: “When Oswald was picked up, the underworld conspirators feared he would crack and disclose information that might lead to them. This almost certainly would have brought a massive U.S. crackdown on the Mafia. So Jack Ruby was ordered to eliminate Oswald . . .”

In the mid-‘70s, as congressional committees probed the Mob and the CIA, Roselli was dismembered, squeezed into an oil drum, and tossed off the Florida coast; Giancana was gunned down in his kitchen; and Jimmy Hoffa disappeared.

Back in the Eisenhower years, Vice President Richard Nixon and CIA agent E. Howard Hunt were principal secret planners of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that failed so miserably when it was later launched by President Kennedy. Some historians are convinced Nixon was a prime mover in an associated — and also ill-fated — plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. For example, onetime Nixon aide Roger Morris says Nixon “had been an avid supporter of the Eisenhower administration’s covert operations to overthrow Castro, including the alliance with organized crime to assassinate the Cuban leader.” For his part, Hunt has readily admitted his role in efforts to murder Castro.

For the “executive action” mission, potential assassins were recruited from Mafia ranks, so that if any of their activities were disclosed, organized crime could be blamed.

Nixon confidant Robert Maheu fronted for the CIA on the Mob plots. A high-end private eye (and ex-FBI undercover operative) who functioned in the shadowy realm between U.S. intelligence services and the national criminal syndicate, Maheu had performed previous “dirty tricks” for both Nixon and Giancana. Hoffa had also been a client of Maheu, who would eventually become the top aide to Mob-and CIA-connected billionaire and Nixon financial angel Howard Hughes.

The hit on Castro was to have been carried out at the same time as the secret Nixon-Hunt plan for the invasion by CIA-trained exiles. The invasion was a military debacle when later ordered by President Kennedy — who publicly accepted full responsibility for the April 17, 1961 landing in which 1,500 exiles were quickly overwhelmed by some 20,000 Cuban troops. Convinced, however, that the CIA set him up, Kennedy fired CIA chief Allen Dulles — an old Nixon friend — and swore he’d dismantle the agency.

Nixon, Hunt, and many CIA and Cuban exile leaders pinned almost complete blame for the military catastrophe on Kennedy for not providing adequate air cover. At the time, Nixon told a reporter it was “near criminal” for Kennedy to have canceled the air cover. Privately, he must have been just as upset that Castro had not been bumped off. In one of his many books, Hunt later accused the president of “a failure of nerves.”

Nixon’s secret Mafia buddies, already enraged by Kennedy’s anti-crime crusade in this country, were furious that their lucrative gambling casinos — shuttered by Castro — would not be returning to Cuba.

In the immediate aftermath of his brother’s murder, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy suspected the Mafia – as well as the CIA and the Cuban exiles. And he soon became consumed by a desire to track down, expose and punish the plotters during what he hoped would be his own time in the White House, according to David Talbot in Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, published in 2007. Talbot says RFK’s quest began on the very afternoon of the assassination in Dallas:

(Bobby) frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill – his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. – and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day – a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist.

Through fresh interviews, newly released documents and gripping words, Talbot makes a compelling case that Bobby’s reluctance to publicly discuss his brother’s death was a ruse. To family members, however, Bobby confided, “JFK had been killed by a powerful plot that grew out of one of the government’s secret anti-Castro operations. There was nothing they could do at that point, Bobby added, since they were facing a formidable enemy and they no longer controlled the government.”

E. Howard Hunt, of course, went on to become President Nixon’s chief dirty trickster and secret intelligence operative. In 1972, five Hunt-recruited former CIA men — all veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion planning — were caught by police while burglarizing Democratic headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington. Fearing that Hunt’s role would soon be learned — and the burglary traced back to the White House —Nixon immediately set out to blackmail g an FBI investigation of the break-in. He had his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, tell CIA Director Richard Helms that Hunt, if apprehended, might spill the beans about a major CIA secret. On one of the original Watergate tapes, the president rehearsed Haldeman on exactly what to tell the intelligence chief: “Hunt knows too damned much … If this gets out that this is all involved … it would make the CIA look bad, it’s going to make Hunt look bad, and it’s likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing … which we think would be very unfortunate for both the CIA and the country … and for American foreign policy.”

In a generally overlooked revelation in a post-Watergate book, Haldeman said: “It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination. (Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first entered the White House. Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)” Haldeman added that the CIA pulled off a “fantastic cover-up” that “literally erased any connection between the Kennedy assassination and the CIA.”

On a White House tape made public in the 1990s, Haldeman fingered Nixon as the source of his information that the CIA had reason to fear Hunt’s possible disclosure of “Bay of Pigs” secrets. The newest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions — segments deemed by government censors as too sensitive for public scrutiny. “National Security” is cited. Not surprisingly, such deletions often occur during discussions involving the Bay of Pigs, E. Howard Hunt, and John F. Kennedy.

One of the most tantalizing nuggets about Nixon’s possible inside knowledge of JFK assassination secrets was buried on a White House tape until 2002. On the tape, recorded in May of 1972, the president confided to two top aides that the Warren Commission pulled off “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.” Unfortunately, he did not elaborate. But the context in which Nixon raised the matter shows just how low he could stoop in efforts to assassinate the character of his political adversaries.

The Republican president made the “hoax” observation in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt against White House hopeful George Wallace, a longtime Democratic governor of Alabama. The attempt left Wallace paralyzed below the waist. Nixon blurted out his comments about the falsity of the Warren findings in the middle of a conversation in which he repeatedly directed two of his most ruthless aides, Bob Haldeman and Chuck Colson, to carry out a monumental dirty trick. He urged them to plant a false news story linking the would-be Wallace assassin — Arthur Bremer — to two other Democrats, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. George McGovern —possible Nixon opponents in that year’s fall elections. “Screw the record,” the president orders on at one point. “Just say he was a supporter of that nut (it isn’t clear which of the two senators he is referring to). And put it out. Just say we have an authenticated report.”

As well as helping to perpetuate the Kennedy assassination “hoax” by turning down Haldeman’s proposal for a new JFK probe, Nixon had a major hand in perpetrating it. In November of 1964, on the eve of the official release of the Warren Report, private citizen Nixon went public in support of the panel’s coming findings. In a piece for Reader’s Digest, he portrayed Oswald as the sole assassin. And Nixon implied that Castro — “a hero in the warped mind” of Oswald — was the real culprit.

Why did Nixon declare his belief in Oswald’s guilt just before publication of the commission’s report? Was he acting in league with his old buddies at the CIA and the FBI — as well as in the best interests of the Mob — to give advance support to what they knew would be the report’s lone-killer conclusion? And why did Nixon stress Castro’s alleged hold over Oswald’s thinking? Was he trying to ramp up enthusiasm for further efforts to topple the Cuban leader?


In an apparent slip of the lip that got little attention at the time, a Watergate-stressed President Nixon himself suggested there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. In the summer of 1973, the president publicly raised the assassination issue to divert attention from recent disclosures of a widespread government wiretapping operation. He claimed that Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, had authorized a larger number of wiretaps than his own administration. “But I don’t criticize it,” he declared, adding, “if he had ten more and — as a result of wiretaps — had been able to discover the Oswald Plan, it would have been worth it.”

Whoops! The president apparently didn’t realize his reference to “the Oswald Plan” didn’t square with the government’s official lone-killer finding. For if Lee Harvey Oswald had been solely responsible for the assassination, then there would not have been anyone for Oswald to conspire with about his “plan” — on a bugged telephone, or otherwise. Was Nixon inadvertently revealing his knowledge that Mob leaders (Robert Kennedy’s main wiretap targets) had a role in President Kennedy’s slaying? Was such a belief based on information acquired as a result of Nixon’s own solid ties to organized crime and the Mafia-infested Teamsters union?

In the late 1970s, the House assassinations committee studied FBI electronic surveillance of the Mob over several months just before and after the JFK assassination. It found what Mob expert Ron Goldfarb has described as “expressions of outrage and betrayal and comments about ‘wacking out Kennedy.'”

That’s because the Syndicate’s tentacles had briefly entangled John F. Kennedy too. In crucial ways, the Mafia had helped the Massachusetts senator gain the presidency in 1960 — in exchange for a go-easy attitude toward the Mob by the future Kennedy administration. Instead of keeping his end of the bargain, however, President Kennedy started waging war on the Mafia — and the godfathers went crazy with rage.


Of all the illegal activities undertaken by President Nixon’s secret agents E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, one stands out as particularly sordid — the planned assassination of newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, Nixon’s arch foe in the media. Nixon-era stories by Anderson about mobster Johnny Roselli (the Mafia’s liaison with the CIA) and various Mob/CIA plots infuriated the president and led to White House discussions about the columnist’s murder.

The plot against Anderson came to light in 1975 when The Washington Post reported that — “according to reliable sources” — Hunt told associates after the Watergate break-in that he was ordered to kill the columnist in December 1971 or January 1972. The plan allegedly involved the use of poison obtained from a CIA physician. The Post reported that the assassination order came from a “senior official in the Nixon White House,” and that it was “canceled at the last minute . . . “

In an affidavit about a key meeting on the matter with his White House boss, Hunt said Charles Colson “seemed more than usually agitated, and I formed the impression that he had just come from a meeting with President Nixon.”

Liddy admitted that he and Hunt had “examined all the alternatives and very quickly came to the conclusion the only way you’re going to be able to stop (Anderson) is to kill him . . . And that was the recommendation.” Shortly after the Watergate break-in in 1972, Liddy offered to be assassinated himself, if that would help the cover-up. He told White House counsel John Dean: “This is my fault … And if somebody wants to shoot me on a street corner, I’m prepared to have that done.” In a 1980 legal case, Liddy testified that there even came a time during the Nixon presidency “when I felt I might well receive” instructions to kill E. Howard Hunt — adding, “I was prepared, should I receive those orders, to carry them out immediately.”

An ends-justify-the-means operator, Richard Nixon ran a pro-Mafia administration that carried out an ambitious criminal agenda of its own — one that even countenanced murder. Wouldn’t his Mob connections have at least provided Nixon with inside dope —if not advance knowledge — about the murder of his archrival? Is that why Nixon — a major beneficiary of President Kennedy’s assassination — concealed his knowledge of what really happened in Dallas on that tragic November day 40 years ago? Is that why, as president, he turned down a new JFK assassination inquiry — even while secretly dismissing the Warren Report as a fraud? After all, it was not in Nixon’s best interests — nor in those of his chief patrons, Jimmy Hoffa and the Mob — to have the public learn the truth.

If President Nixon knew that the government’s official 1964 conclusions about John F. Kennedy’s murder were faked, didn’t he at least have the responsibility to set the record straight? Did his failure to do so make him placidly complicit in that crime too?

Watergate may not have been Nixon’s biggest cover-up after all.



A Timeline of Nixon’s Ties to the Kennedy Assassination

Nov. 1946: Nixon wins a House seat with financial help from Meyer Lansky and other Mob leaders. Nixon’s campaign manager, Murray Chotnier, has top Mafia figures as legal clients—as well as ties to New Orleans Mafia chief Carlos Marcello and Mob-connected Teamsters official James Hoffa.

1947: Congressman Nixon intervenes to get Jack Ruby excused from testifying before a congressional committee investigating the Mafia, according to an FBI memo discovered in the 1970s.

1947: Nixon strongly backs legislation establishing the Central Intelligence Agency. Around this time, Nixon meets CIA agent E. Howard Hunt.

1950: The Senate Kefauver committee staff learns that Ruby was “a syndicate lieutenant who had been sent to Dallas to serve as a liaison for Chicago mobsters,” a former committee staffer later discloses.

Nov. 1950: Nixon is elected to the Senate from California after suggesting his opponent was a communist sympathizer.

Nov. 1952: As Dwight Eisenhower’s running mate, Senator Nixon is elected vice president— despite a scandal over a secret slush fund put together by wealthy California backers.

Nov. 1956: Eisenhower is re-elected president with Nixon as his vice president.

1959-1960: Vice President Nixon and CIA agent E. Howard Hunt are key figures in secret CIA efforts to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Nixon reportedly is the chief mover behind an associated CIA/Mob plan to murder Castro. Hunt later admitted his role in Castro assassination plots.

Summer of 1960: The CIA asks Nixon crony Robert Maheu—a former FBI agent with Mob contacts—to find mobsters who might be able to pull off a hit on Castro.

Nov. 1960: Sen. John F. Kennedy defeats Nixon in a 1960 presidential cliff-hanger; after his January 1961 inauguration, the new president goes ahead with secret Nixon-Hunt plans for a CIA-backed invasion of Cuba.

April 1961: The amphibious invasion at the Bay of Pigs is a monumental failure; Nixon, CIA, and Cuban exile leaders blame Kennedy for withholding planned U-S air cover. Kennedy privately blames the CIA and threatens to dismantle the agency.

Nov. 1961: Kennedy fires Nixon buddy Allen Dulles as CIA chief.

Nov. 1962: Nixon is defeated for governor of California after a secret $205,000 “loan” from Mob-linked billionaire Howard Hughes to Nixon’s brother becomes a major issue; Nixon soon moves to New York and becomes a corporate lawyer.

1962-63: Angered by CIA incompetence during the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy moves to limit the agency’s power.

Summer of 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA- and Mob-linked David Ferrie are seen together in Clinton, La., the House assassinations committee later learns in testimony from numerous witnesses.

July 23, 1963: Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa tells his lawyer, Frank Ragano, “Something has to be done. The time has come for your friend (Santos Trafficante) and Carlos (Marcello) to get rid of him, kill that son-of-a-bitch John Kennedy.”

Nov. 8: Oswald allegedly writes a note to a “Mr. Hunt” asking for “information.”

Nov. 21: CIA agent Hunt is spotted in Dallas at the same CIA “safe house” also visited that day by Jack Ruby and Frank Sturgis, according to testimony in a 1985 court case.

Nov. 21: Ostensibly in Dallas to attend a Pepsi Cola convention, Nixon asks the city to give President Kennedy a respectful welcome.

Nov. 21: Chicago Mob boss Sam Giancana meets with Nixon in Dallas to discuss the planned Kennedy assassination, Giancana later tells relatives.

Nov. 22: Nixon leaves Dallas, apparently before Kennedy’s arrival.

Nov. 22: President Kennedy is murdered in Dallas.


Nov. 24: Ruby kills Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police jail.

1963: Nixon recommends Congressman Gerald Ford for the Warren Commission.

1964: Nixon lies to the FBI about being in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

1964: Ford convinces the commission to alter a key finding—making its preposterous “single bullet” assassination theory slightly more believable, documents released in 1997 show. The theory held that one of the bullets struck Kennedy in the back, came out his neck, and then somehow critically wounded Texas Governor John Connally. Ford’s change placed the back wound higher in Kennedy’s body.

1964: Nixon and Ford write articles in advance of Warren Commission Report endorsing its anticipated conclusion that Oswald alone was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination.

Sept. 1964: The Warren Report finds that Oswald—firing from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository—was President Kennedy’ sole assassin.

Nov. 1968: In a squeaker, Nixon is elected president with big support from the Teamsters union and the Mob.

1971: After a Mob payoff of at least $300,000, Nixon grants clemency to Hoffa—who had been jailed for jury tampering in 1967.

June 1971: Former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt secretly joins the Nixon White House as the president’s chief spy.

May 1972: Nixon confides to two top aides that the Warren Report was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated,” a White House tape released in 2002 reveals.

June 17, 1972: A group of burglars working for Nixon’s re-election is caught by Washington, D.C. police while breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex. Hunt and former FBI official G. Gordon Liddy are soon identified as the group’s supervisors.

June 23, 1972: To gain CIA help in the Watergate cover-up, Nixon tries to blackmail CIA chief Richard Helms over the secrets that Hunt might blab regarding CIA’s links to “the Bay of Pigs”—which top Nixon aide Bob Haldeman later reveals to be Nixon/CIA code for the JFK assassination.

Nov. 1972: In a landslide, Nixon is re-elected president with the help of a reported $1 million Teamsters’ contribution.

May 1973: Haldeman reminds Nixon that he—Nixon himself—had informed him that the CIA was hiding big “Bay of Pigs” secrets—though this was not disclosed until 1996, when the National Archives released a new batch of Watergate tapes. Sections of numerous Nixon conversations dealing with “the Bay of Pigs,” President Kennedy, and E. Howard Hunt are deleted for “National Security” reasons.

1973: Nixon picks Congressman Ford to succeed the disgraced Spiro Agnew as his new vice president.

August 1974: Nixon is forced to resign the presidency over the Watergate scandal.

September 1974: President Ford grants Nixon a pre-emptive pardon for all crimes he might have committed.

Flashbulb Memory


Portions of this essay originally appeared in Greenberg, D.L. (2004). “President Bush’s False ‘Flashbulb’ Memory of 9/11/01.” Applied Cognitive Psychology. Copyright John Wiley & Sons Limited. Reproduced with permission.

illustration copyright 2005 by Pat Linse

Flashbulb Memories

by Daniel Greenburg

On arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city. The cab had no radio on. As fate would have it, the cabby missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway, somewhere in Astoria, Queens, I think. We were stopped for a red light when a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was… She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas. We drove the rest of the way in silence.

— Richard Nixon’s memory of the Kennedy assassination1

Although I was but four and a half years old when [the President] died, I distinctly remember the day when I found on our two white gate posts American flags companioned with black. I tumbled down on the harsh gravel walk in my eager rush into the house to inquire what they were “there for.” To my amazement I found my father in tears, something that I had never seen before, having assumed, as all children do, that grown-up people never cried. The two flags, my father’s tears, and his impressive statement that the greatest man in the world had died constituted my initiation…[into] a world lying quite outside the two white gate posts.

— Jane Addams’s memory of the Lincoln assassination2

MOST OF US CAN TELL STORIES LIKE THESE. Shocking events seem to etch themselves in our minds; we recall them with a clarity and emotional intensity that few other memories can match. We remember more than just the basic facts of the event; we know our personal stories as well — where we were, who told us, and what we were doing when we heard the news. Even trivial details seem to fix themselves in our memories: on the day of the Kennedy assassination, for example, Julia Child remembers that she and her husband were eating fish soup. Some people notice strange and compelling coincidences: Arthur Sulzberger was discussing presidential security when Kennedy’s death was announced; Billy Graham had a sense of foreboding a week before; Bob Hope had just received a signed photograph of himself with Kennedy, which was sitting atop the television on which he heard the news. All of these features are unusual and intriguing, but the long life of these memories stands out above all else. Few of us can remember what we did on the day before a shocking event; as for the day itself, we feel that we can see it in our minds, that we can remember it as though it were yesterday, and we feel that that we cannot possibly forget it.

The vividness and apparent durability of these memories has fascinated psychologists for over a century. In 1899, a psychologist named F. W. Colegrove investigated people’s 34-year old memories of the Lincoln assassination. He found that over two-thirds of the people he interviewed could remember what they had been doing when they heard the news, a result he considered a testament to “the abiding character of vivid experiences.”3 Decades later, when Roger Brown and James Kulik of Harvard University studed memories of shocking events of the 1960s and 1970s they proposed the term “flashbulb memory” to capture what they described as “the primary, ‘live’ quality [of the memories] that is … very like a photograph.” 4 As Brown and Kulik noted, the metaphor is not perfect, as some details are not preserved, but on the whole it aptly describes the strength and clarity of the memories as well as the rapidity with which they are originally stored.

We may have flashbulb memories for private events as well, such as a first kiss or the birth of a child, but the most compelling flashbulbs — the ones that we find ourselves relating over and over — tend to involve shocking historic events. Thus, people have reported flashbulb memories for many occasions, including the Lincoln assassination, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the attempted assassination of President Reagan, the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, the Challenger explosion — and, most recently, the September 11th attacks.5

The Strange Case of the President’s Memory

Shortly after 9/11, one particular person’s memories attracted the attention of the Internet’s conspiracy theorists. That person was President George W. Bush, and the controversy arose over apparent changes in his story. The fuss began on December 4, 2001, when the President told a crowd of people how he heard the news about the attacks:

I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card — actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on, and I use[d] to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.” But I was whisked off there — I didn’t have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, “A second plane has hit the tower. America’s under attack.”6

Just over two weeks later, on December 20, the President told a different story during an interview with the Washington Post:

Bush remembers senior adviser Karl Rove bringing him the news, saying it appeared to be an accident involving a small, twin-engine plane. In fact it was American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 out of Boston’s Logan International Airport. Based on what he was told, Bush assumed it was an accident. “This is pilot error,” the president recalled saying. “It’s unbelievable that somebody would do this.” Conferring with Andrew H. Card Jr., his White House chief of staff, Bush said, “The guy must have had a heart attack”… At 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, also a Boeing 767, smashed into the South Tower of the trade center. Bush was seated on a stool in the classroom when Card whispered the news: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.”7

Then on January 5, 2002, the President’s story changed again:

I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff — well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or — anyway, I’m sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, “America is under attack.”8

Clearly, something is wrong here. In the second memory, the President claims that Karl Rove told him about the first crash, but in the first and third memories, he claims that he saw the news on television. Stranger still, the first and third memories seem impossible: there was no footage of the first plane, at least not at that hour of the morning.9 What could the explanation be? Conspiracy theorists had plenty of suggestions. Sites across the Web erupted with accusations of dishonesty and calls for impeachment. “Bush slip reveals total 9/11 complicity,” screamed freeworldalliance.com:

Complicit factions of the U.S. federal government, including virtually ALL upper-level members of the BushMob, actually FILMED their own attack on New York’s World Trade Center — and Bush has admitted that he WATCHED IT!!!! And there is only one POSSIBLE way such footage COULD have existed: the perpetrators of the WTC attack HAD THEIR OWN CAMERAS IN PLACE TO FILM IT [emphasis in the original].10

The website bushwatch.com took a somewhat more moderate view, noting that “the most benign conclusion, then, is that Bush was not telling the truth when he told Jordan that he saw the first plane hit the first tower prior to his going into the classroom.”11 Even the Guardian, a British newspaper, found Bush’s statements worthy of comment, noting that “the story that he was watching TV contradicts reports from correspondents at the time that he got the news in a phone call.”12

What are we to make of this? Are we obliged to believe that the President is smart enough to carry out a horrific conspiracy to attack America, but dumb enough to reveal it — twice? Should we instead believe that the President lied about what happened — twice but not three times — even though he had much to lose and nothing to gain from such a lie? Or should we believe something else entirely?

Fortunately, scientific studies of memory can offer a more benign explanation. We don’t need to posit irrational lies or a massive conspiracy imperfectly hidden from the eyes of everyday citizens. Instead, we need only consider the frailties of human memory.

The False Memory Phenomenon

All of us know that our memory can fail us — we forget the location of our car keys, the name of our second-grade teacher, or the kind of drink we had with lunch three days ago. But memory can betray us in another way, too: we may also experience false memories — putative “memories” for events that never took place. While forgetting is easy to notice, false memories are much harder to detect because they can seem just like normal memories. Nevertheless, over the last century, hundreds of studies have shown just how common false memories can be.

Consider one of the most straightforward demonstrations of false memory — originally proposed by James Deese — which has been used in introductory psychology classrooms as well as experimental research. An experimenter reads a list of about a dozen words (“bed, rest, awake, tired, dream,” etc.), all of which are related to one particular word, known as the lure (in this case, “sleep”). The listeners are then asked to recall as many words as they can. In one sense, people perform quite well — they can remember most of the words on the list. Yet in one particular way, they perform quite poorly: many people falsely recall hearing the lure, even though the experimenter never read it. This is not just a vague impression or a guess; people will often express great confidence in their memory of the lure, saying that they can “hear” the experimenter’s voice in their minds, or that they remember exactly when in the list it was presented. (In fact, their confidence can be so strong as to be unshakable. When I first watched an instructor try this on her class, a few students simply refused to believe that she never read the lure, instead asserting that she must be lying!)

In another classic experiment, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer showed people a videotape of a car accident. They then asked participants a series of questions about what they had seen. One of the questions had two forms: half of the participants estimated how fast the cars had been going when they hit each other; the other half estimated how fast the cars were going when they smashed. This simple one-word difference produced a startling effect: while most people got the question right, participants who received the “smashed” question were more likely to claim that they had seen broken glass, even though there was no broken glass in the original video. In short, our memory of an event can be altered by the way in which someone asks us about it — a problem that proves particularly vexing to police officers and lawyers.

In some cases, people can even have entirely fictitious memories for full-fledged, specific events. In one study, Ira Hyman and Joel Pentland of Western Washington University tried to “implant” a false memory in the minds of their participants. They started by obtaining a list of childhood events from each participant’s parents, and then interviewed each participant about the memories that his or her parents had provided. They also asked each participant about one fictitious memory — a memory of spilling a punchbowl on a bride during a wedding reception — but told participants that all memories, including the punchbowl memory, had been provided by the participant’s parents. If they didn’t “recall” the punchbowl memory during the original interview (and most participants didn’t) they were asked to think about the event or to visualize it in their minds as best they could. When tested several days later, almost 25% of the participants in the experiment claimed to have some memory of spilling the punchbowl. These people didn’t just remember that the experimenter had told them about it, nor did they just claim that they knew that it happened. Rather, they claimed to have a detailed memory of the event itself — and some of them even elaborated on the memory, providing details that the experimenter had never mentioned. This straightforward experimental design — which simply involves asking people to imagine an event they’d never experienced — was enough to create a false memory. Overall, somewhere between 15 to 25% of adults can be induced to create false memories in this way.13 A similar phenomenon may explain False Memory Syndrome, in which fictitious memories of sexual abuse are inadvertently implanted in patients’ minds by therapists who use guided-visualization and other suggestive techniques.14

False Flashbulb Memories

This research provides important and comprehensive demonstrations of the ease with which we can be induced to remember events that never happened. Skeptics, however, might argue that each of these studies leaves out a vital component of the flashbulb memory experience.15 After all, most people find word lists rather dull, while flashbulb memories record some of the most shocking and horrifying events of our lives. Videotapes of car accidents may be more exciting, but they still lack the immediacy and emotional impact of a surprising historic event. As for full-blown false memories of the sort that Hyman and colleagues created, they generally arise after substantial coaxing by an experimenter or a therapist; flashbulb memories need no such help, as they seem fixed in our minds from the start. Moreover, we know that the original flashbulb experience really happened — we know that we heard about the news somehow. Can memories like these really be wrong?

As a matter of fact, yes. The flashbulb metaphor and our own intuition suggest that these memories are accurate and permanent, but experiment after experiment shows that they too can mutate over time. For example, Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch developed a questionnaire to assess the consistency of memories for the space shuttle Challenger disaster. The questionnaire asked people to remember the basic facts of their experience, such as where they were, what they were doing, how they heard the news, and so on. They first tested people 24 hours after the explosion; 2.5 years later, some of the participants filled out the questionnaire again. Overall, people performed quite poorly — the average score was just under 3 out of a possible 7. Other studies of Challenger memories yielded similar results: one study by Michael McCloskey and colleagues found that 25% of participants gave at least one inconsistent response after a 9-month delay; John Bohannon and Victoria Symons found that after a 3-year delay, 33% of participants told inconsistent stories. Memories for September 11th also suffer from inconsistencies: studies by Peter Lee and Norman Brown as well as Marilyn Smith and colleagues showed that on average, only 65% of memory details remained consistent between the first test and the second. In fact, Neisser himself has a false memory for the announcement of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He has always remembered that he was listening to a baseball game on the radio when it was interrupted by an announcement of the Pearl Harbor attack — but the attack occurred on December 7, 1941, and no baseball is played in December. Thus, numerous studies have shown that people experience false flashbulb memories for a wide variety of events.

In spite of all this, people feel quite confident in their memories for shocking events. Neisser and Harsch showed their participants the stories they had written during the first session. Even when their stories had changed considerably, people still expressed surprise at the difference and didn’t revert to their first memory:

No one who had given an incorrect account in the interview even pretended that they now recalled what was stated on the original record. On the contrary, they kept saying “I mean, like I told you, I have no recollection of it at all” or “I still think of it as the other way around.” As far as we can tell, the original memories are just gone.16

In a recent study, Jennifer Talarico and David Rubin, two of my colleagues at Duke University, conducted a detailed examination of this phenomenon. On September 12, 2001, they asked people to provide two memories: one for September 11th and another for an everyday event that happened a few days before the attacks. When they tested the participants a second time (1, 6, or 32 weeks later), they found that both memories contained a similar number of inaccuracies. Nevertheless, confidence in the everyday memory declined over time, while confidence in flashbulb memories remained high. While we may think that our flashbulb memories are as permanent as a photograph, they decay just as quickly as memories for everyday events.17

But can the inconsistencies be as substantial as those in the President’s stories? In fact, they can. Consider the stories told by one of the people in Neisser and Harsch’s study:

Memory 1 (24 hours after the event): I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started talking about it. … Then after class I went to my room and watched the TV program talking about it…

Memory 2 (2.5 years later): When I first heard about the explosion I was sitting in my freshman dorm room with my roommate and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash…18

This person’s memories, along with the memories of nine other people in the study, changed in the same way. They originally remembered hearing the news from another person, but later came to remember that they saw it on TV — exactly the change that happened between President Bush’s second and third recollections. There are even more examples: In a study by Hans Crombag and colleagues, 60% of participants reported seeing footage of the crash of an El Al jet in Amsterdam, even though no such footage exists. And, in Kathy Pezdek’s study of memories for September 11th, 73% of participants made precisely the mistake that the President made, claiming to have seen the footage of the first plane crash on September 11th itself.19

The scientific evidence is clear. People frequently experience false flashbulb memories. Further, people can experience false flashbulb memories for nonexistent footage of a plane crash. This kind of memory error is not just possible, but commonplace.

The Source of False Memories

What makes these memories change over time? We can’t know for certain, because we don’t know how the person really heard about the event and we don’t know for certain what he or she experienced between the first test and the second. Still, studies of everyday memory offer some insights. For example, Bill Brewer of the University of Illinois showed that people make similar errors with everyday memories, not just flashbulbs. In one of his studies, he asked people to record daily events in diaries; in a later test, he asked them to relate what had happened to them at a particular point in time. When he checked their answers against the diaries, he found that people often responded with a fairly accurate story about something that happened at a completely different time — a mistake he called the “wrong time slice” error. As Neisser showed, John Dean suffered from a similar problem during his Watergate testimony; while his memory for conversations often seemed quite vivid and detailed, later reviews of the Watergate tapes showed that he tended to combine statements from separate conversations that had occurred on different days.

In the case of flashbulb memories, we can safely assume that Neisser and Harsch’s participants, Pezdek’s participants, and George W. Bush himself all saw footage of the event on television, since it was shown again and again in the weeks and months following the attacks. Then, when they were asked to tell their story again, they did just what the people in Brewer’s study did: they accurately remembered what they saw, but misjudged when they first saw it.

Why do people falsely recall that time slice instead of the correct one? Part of the answer lies in the power of a picture. Flashbulb events generally involve strong and vivid images, which is what led Brown and Kulik to propose the flashbulb metaphor in the first place. We have known for millennia that images like these are highly memorable, which is why many memoryimprovement techniques make use of them; it makes sense, then, that people would remember these images particularly clearly. Moreover, a strong mental image affects judgments about memory. For example, when people retrieve a mental image, they generally feel more confident that the memory is accurate. If you’re wondering whether you turned off the stove, you’re likely to conclude that you did if you can conjure up a mental picture of yourself doing it. But while images affect confidence in memory, they can also be misleading. They can bring about memory errors precisely because they are easy to generate, easy to modify, and easy to remember. When people reflect on an event that they have not seen, for example, they may imagine how it must have looked. These images are memorable as well, and can easily be mistaken for real memories — which is just what happened in Hyman and Pentland’s study. In other words, it comes as no surprise that people remember visual images more than anything else — but it also comes as no surprise that these images can be modified, fabricated, or attributed to the wrong time.

The organization of the memory may also play a role. People often relate memories in the form of stories, giving them a logical flow as well as a beginning, middle, and end. Gaps in the story can be reconstructed based on ascript, a general idea of what usually happens in such a situation. Neisser and Harsch, for example, propose that the participants in the Challenger study retrieved a vivid visual image, and knew it was quite reasonable that they would have heard about the explosion from TV; then, over time, they developed the erroneous belief that the TV had been the source of the news.

These phenomena provide a simple, uncontroversial explanation of the President Bush’s changing story. In particular, they show how Memory 2 can be related to the implausible Memories 1 and 3. According to Memory 2, his advisor Karl Rove told the President about the first crash, but, as in many such situations, the early information was inaccurate. The President was not told that it was an attack involving a passenger jet, but rather that it was a small twinengine plane — a surprising and disturbing event, to be sure, but not on the level of a national emergency, and nowhere near as shocking as what was to come. In any case, the President, like most Americans, presumably saw the footage many times in the subsequent months, including footage of the first crash when it became available. Then, when the President tried to remember how he heard about the first attack, he did just what so many other people have done, retrieving information from the wrong time slice and recalling a vivid, memorable visual image instead of the more mundane statements of Karl Rove.

The President may also have worked this image into a complete narrative. According to one report, footage of the aftermath of the first crash (but not the crash itself) was shown at the school, as people sought out televisions to find out what was going on. In other words, the President may have seen the end of this sequence of events, but not the beginning. After seeing the footage of the crash, he may have incorporated it into the video he saw at the school, completing the story by adding cause to effect. In the few seconds or so it took him to formulate an answer to the question, this story may have seemed reasonable enough; there was footage, after all; people do tend to learn these things from TV; and he was watching TV that morning. It is worth noting that the President sounded a bit tentative when relating Memories 1 and 3: both times, he started by discussing the second attack, only to interrupt himself and talk about the first; when he does talk about the first crash, he backtracked, making statements like “the TV was obviously on.” Such hesitations and revisions create the impression that the President was reasoning it out — perhaps reconstructing it — as he went along.

The President’s shifting memory does differ in one important respect from the memories of Neisser and Harsch’s participants. In that study, memory errors were irreversible once they had been established. Even when participants were confronted with their original memories — which they themselves had written down — they did not change their stories; they did not suddenly remember the event as they originally had. The President’s memory does not fit this pattern, though: he first reported an implausible memory, then switched to a plausible one, then changed back to the implausible version. (The disparity in delay intervals may account for this difference: the President’s recollections all took place within the space of a month, but Neisser and Harsch’s participants were retested after three years.)

That aside, we should give the President some credit: although his memory of the first crash changed from one point to the next, his memory of the second was quite consistent. On all three occasions, he remembered that he was sitting in the classroom when Andy Card walked in and told him about it (a memory perhaps bolstered by a widely-published photograph of Card whispering in the President’s ear). Moreover, his memory of Card’s statement remained the same from one point in time to the next, with the President using almost the same words every time.

All of the available scientific evidence suggests that we don’t need to resort to any wild conspiracy theories. Instead, the studies on false memory suggest that a simple and commonplace mistake best explains the changes and implausibilities in the President Bush’s story. And they suggest that our own memories — no matter how vivid and realistic they may seem — must be regarded with skepticism too.

  1. Berendt, J. 1973. “Where Were You?” Esquire. November.
  2. Addams, J. 1992. From J. K. Conway (Ed.), Written by herself. New York: Vintage, 506–525.
  3. Colegrove, F. W. 1899. American Journal of Psychology, 10, 255.
  4. Brown, R. and J. Kulik. 1977. Cognition, 5, 74.
  5. Of course, the phenomenon is not limited to the United States. Many UK residents experienced flashbulb memories of the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, the Hillsborough football disaster, and the death of Princess Diana; Scandinavians often have flashbulbs of the assassinations of Olaf Palme and Anna Lindh; and residents of Turkey have flashbulbs of the death of Atatürk or the major earthquake in 1999.
  6. “President Holds Town Meeting.”2001. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html.
  7. Balz, D. and B. Woodward. 2002. The Washington Post, January 27, A1, A11.
  8. “President Holds Town Hall Forum.” 2002. www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html.
  9. Later on, it turned out that a camera crew had accidentally caught the first impact into the World Trade Center on tape while filming an unrelated program. As best I can determine, this footage was not made available until September 12th. There is nothing to suggest that it was broadcast “live” in time for the President to see it early that morning.
  10. “Bush Slip Reveals Total 9/11 Complicity.” 2001. www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash/pre_2002/newsflash1100.htm
  11. “Politex’s Bush Watch for Bush Lies.” 2001. www.bushnews.com/bushlies.june.htm
  12. Engel, M. 2001. The Guardian. December. www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,612354,00.html.
  13. There are far too many studies on false memory to discuss here; for a review, see: Bjorklund, D. (Ed.) 2000. False Memory Creation in Children and Adults. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. For more on False Memory Syndrome, see Skeptic Vol. 2, No. 3, 58–61 and Skeptic Vol. 3, No. 4, 36–41.
  15. This assertion should not be construed as a slight against the experimenters; it would obviously be unethical to replicate the horror of flashbulb memory experiences in the laboratory.
  16. Neisser, U., and Harsch, N. 1992. From U. Neisser and D. Winograd (Eds.), Affect and Accuracy in Recall. New York: Cambridge University Press, 21.
  17. A few research projects have documented strikingly consistent flashbulb memories, including a study of the Thatcher resignation by Conway and colleagues as well as a study of Turkish memories for September 11th by Tekcan and colleagues. On the whole, though, most studies show that flashbulb memories accumulate errors over time — far more errors than one would expect, given how confident people claim to be.
  18. Neisser and Harsch, op. cit., 9.
  19. For more studies of flashbulbs, see: Conway, Martin. 1995. Flashbulb Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nixon’s Changing Story : Where He Was 11/22/63

Fletcher Prouty Commentary – Sept

This article is from “People and the PURSUIT of the Truth” for June, 1978

This is the way the Warren Commission began. They had been appointed at the end of November. By the time of this January 27, 1964 meeting, they had seen and beard tons of FBI and Secret Service “opinions” and “findings.” They were overwhelmed then, even as they started overwhelmed. This was exactly the way it ended. Kennedy was dead. Oswald was dead. The FBI and the Secret Service had “solved” the case. The Warren Commission was going to have to put its collective signatures on the verdict.

That is exactly what they did and not a bit more. That verdict, effectively dictated to them between November 30. 1963 and January 27, 1964 is still the vastest coverup of this century.

Nixon’s Three Stories of Where He Was on November 22, 1963

In the first place, strange things which could scarcely all be coincidence happened even before JFK was killed. On the morning of November 22, 1963, the day Kennedy was killed the New York Times carried an item on a back page, It was datelined Dallas. And it said that ex-Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had made a speech in Dallas before a group of businessmen,

Not only did the Times carry that story on the very day JFK died, but Nixon was in Dallas the day Kennedy died, and it is very possible that he was still in Dallas at the moment Kennedy died. Despite all other reports to the contrary. And of course the thing that makes this so very important is that Nixon and others have for some reason tried to conceal that fact for more than twelve years.

By itself, this would not be important. Being in Dallas on November 22nd. 1963 does not make just anyone. for example, Nixon, a murderer; but the record of Nixon’s visit to Dallas has been deliberately obscured. Let’s pick three “official” versions of Nixon’s actions that day and see how they compare and then what the differences may signify.

Story One

Not long after Kennedy was shot, Nixon wrote an unusually long article for the Reader’s Digest. It appeared in the November 1964 issue under the strange title, “Cuba, Castro, and John F Kennedy.” Prepared as it was by Nixon or for his signature and prepared for the massive worldwide audience of the August Reader’s Digest, we are asked to believe that this is the factual account of what took place. Nixon says

“I urged, in a statement to the press [ Dallas on November 21 that the President and the vice-president be shown the respect to which their office entitled them.”

Nixon added,

“I boarded a plane in Dallas on the morning of November 22 to New York. We arrived on schedule at 12:56. I hailed a cab. We were waiting for a light to change when a man ran over from the street corner and said that the President had just been shot in Dallas. This is the way that I learned the news.”

Story Two

Now let’s look at another Nixon account of the same day The November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon quote;

“I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [ in Dallas ]and left on Friday morning. November 22, from Love Field. Dallas, on a flight back to New York , . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway . . . a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,”

Story Three

Now let’s look at the “official” account from “The Day Kennedy was Shot, by Jim Bishop:”

“At Idlewild Airport now JFK Airport) in New York , reporters and photographers had been waiting for the American Airlines plane among (the passengers) was Nixon. As he got off the plane he thought that he would give ‘the boys’ basically the same interview he had granted in Dallas . Nixon posed for a few pictures . . . got into a taxi-cab was barely out of the airport when one of the reporters got the message: The President has been shot in Dallas.”


Now let’s compare these. Nixon was in Dallas on November 22. The versions agree that he took some plane out in the morning Bishop says it was American Airlines and that it went into Idlewild. Nixon says that it landed precisely at 12:56 nearly one half-hour after Kennedy had been shot. Certainly the crew would have heard over their radio that the president had been shot and would have told their passengers. Then Bishop says reporters and photographers were there. Certainly they too would have known about Kennedy’s murder by then. Everyone else in the world did. Bishop says the photographers took pictures. Where are they?

Nixon says he traveled to New York from Dallas with a friend. Who? And what is his story?

Nixon says he got in a cab, presumably well after 12:56. What cabbie in New York City would have not known the news by then? And then Nixon tells a strange story. The first time a man ran out to the cab with the news, and the second time the cab was “lost” and a woman ran out screaming and crying the news. These different accounts do not hold water.

With all of this very contrived series of accounts it looks as though someone has been fabricating a cover-up of Nixon’s actions that day. Why?

The True Story

Actually, Nixon was in Dallas when JFK was shot. On April 2nd 1975 a young man was listening to a talk at his school when he heard the lecturer tell about the Esquire account of Nixon’s trip to Dallas, and how and when Nixon had learned about JFK’s death. That young man then told the lecturer, “My father was an executive for the Pepsi Cola Company, and he was in Dallas on November 22nd 1963 at that convention. He has told me that Nixon was there in Dallas at the convention when the announcement was heard that JFK had been killed, Nixon left later that afternoon,”

This young man is the son of Mr. Harvey Russel of the Pepsi Cola Company. When Mr. Russel was informed of his son’s account, he agreed that his son’s story was true. Mr. Russel confirmed that Nixon was attending that meeting at the time the shots were fired. He added Nixon was there representing the Pepsi Cola Company’s law firm Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al. The Dallas newspapers stated that Nixon was attending a board meeting.

Mr. Russel confirmed that the session Nixon was attending broke up when the assassination news came through. Nixon then returned to his hotel and later in the afternoon had been driven to the Dallas airport by a Mr. Deluca, also a Pepsi Cola official.

These surprising series of events and the manner in which they unfolded after all these years underscore that there was something unusual about Nixon’s visit to Dallas. Telephone calls to Deluca and again to Russel did little more than highlight their growing concern over the inadvertent disclosure of this story.

Why Louis Freeh Should Be Investigated For 9/11


By Kevin Ryan

In the summer of 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Robert Wright, a counterterrorism expert from the Chicago office, made some startling claims about the Bureau in a written statement outlining the difficulties he had doing his job.  Three months before 9/11, he wrote: “The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad.  Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States.”[1]

Revelations since 9/11 have confirmed Wright’s claims.  FBI management did little or nothing to stop terrorism in the decade before 9/11 and, in some cases, appeared to have supported terrorists.  This is more disturbing considering that the power of the FBI over terrorism investigations was supreme.  In 1998, the FBI’s strategic plan stated that terrorist activities fell “almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FBI” and that “the FBI has no higher priority than to combat terrorism.”[2]

A number of people are suspect in these failures, including the leaders of the FBI’s counterterrorism programs.  But at the time of Wright’s written complaint, which was not shared with the public until May 2002, the man most responsible was Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993 to 2001.

Agent Wright was not FBI leadership’s only detractor, and not the only one to criticize Freeh.  The public advocacy law firm Judicial Watch, which prosecutes government abuse and corruption, rejoiced at the news of Freeh’s May 2001 resignation.[3]  Judicial Watch pointed to a “legacy of corruption” at the FBI under Freeh, listing the espionage scandal at Los Alamos National Laboratories, as well as “Filegate, Waco, the Ruby Ridge cover-up, the Olympic bombing frame-up of Richard Jewell, [and] falsification of evidence concerning the Oklahoma City bombing.”[4]

Judicial Watch said that Director Freeh believed he was above the law.  The group went on to say that Freeh was “a man so corrupt he destroyed the office he led, and a man so cowardly he refuses to face the music for the illegalities he has allegedly committed.”[5]  To this was added a claim that the FBI under Freeh was being directed by sinister yet unknown forces.  ”In case after case throughout the 1990′s, the FBI seems to have tailored its investigative efforts to fit somebody’s pre-arranged script. The question is, who wrote that script — and why?”

Freeh became FBI Director on July 19, 1993, just five months after the first WTC bombing, three months after the Waco siege, and one day before the alleged suicide of Hillary Clinton’s former Rose Law Firm associate, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.  Freeh’s predecessor was William Sessions.

Prior to his appointment by President Clinton, Freeh was a federal judge.  He had been selected for that position by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.  Before that, Freeh had been an Assistant District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an FBI field agent.

Freeh was involved with U.S. counter-terrorism efforts for many years prior to his appointment as FBI Director in 1993.  As an FBI agent he worked for the New York Field Office, which led the FBI’s counterterrorism effort.  It was later the lead field office for Bin Laden investigations and was the first to establish a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) of state and federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel.  Freeh worked there for seven years until he was promoted to Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1981.  Throughout the 1980s, Freeh worked with or for U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City on 9/11.

Although Clinton was a Democrat, after his appointment as FBI Director Freeh immediately began forming alliances with Republicans in Congress. This apparently caused difficulty between the FBI and Clinton’s White House.  Freeh also developed a secret relationship with his former supporter, former President George H. W. Bush. He used that relationship to communicate with the Saudi royal family without Clinton’s knowledge.[6]

Ignoring or facilitating domestic terrorism

Just five months before Freeh’s appointment as FBI Director, the World Trade Center (WTC) was bombed in an attack that killed six people and wounded a thousand others.  It was blamed on a Pakistani-Kuwaiti by the name of Ramzi Yousef, along with about half a dozen others.  However, as the New York Times reported, it was clear that the FBI was somehow involved as well.

“Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.”[7]

The 1993 WTC bombing was a terrorist operation that had been infiltrated by the FBI but the role that the FBI played in trying to prevent that operation, or allow it to go forward, has never been revealed.  What has been revealed is that forensic data was falsified and “conclusions were altered to help the government’s case.”[8]  These facts were revealed by Frederick Whitehurst, the chemist and supervisory special agent in charge of the FBI’s crime lab who became a whistleblower.  The altered conclusions that Whitehurst described were made under the leadership of Louis Freeh.

A similar case occurred in April 1995, when the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (OKC) was bombed, killing 168 people including 19 children.  Investigators have since learned that the FBI played a role in that bombing as well.  Reasons that the OKC bombing was suspicious include the fact that there were secondary explosives found in the building that were not reported as part of the official account.  And as with the events of 9/11, the FBI immediately confiscated, and refused to release, security videos that would have revealed what actually happened.[9]

Freeh’s colleague and personal friend, Larry Potts, was the FBI supervisor who was responsible for the tragedies at Ruby Ridge in 1992, and Waco in 1993.  Potts was then given responsibility for investigating the Oklahoma City bombing.[10]  Later it was claimed by one of the convicted conspirators that lead bomber Timothy McVeigh was actually acting under the direction of Potts.[11]  As an apparent reward for Potts’ performance, in May 1995 Freeh promoted him to be his number two man as Deputy Director of the FBI.  Two months later, Freeh removed Potts from that position due to public outrage at the appointment.

On the FBI links to the OKC bombing, author Peter Dale Scott wrote — “One such case of a penetrated operation “gone wrong” in 1993 might be attributed to confusion, bureaucratic incompetence, or the problems of determining when sufficient evidence had been gathered to justify arrests. A repeated catastrophe two years later raises the question whether the lethal outcome was not intended.”[12].

The result of the OKC bombing in governmental terms was the passage of a new anti–terrorism law in April 1996.  This was a bill that would be mirrored by the USA Patriot Act six years later, and it was described as representing an assault on civil liberties.  The Houston Chronicle called the bill a “frightening” and “grievous” attack on domestic freedoms. But Louis Freeh supported it.

Because many Congressional representatives opposed the bill, it was passed only after having been watered down.  In Freeh’s words, it had been “stripped… of just about every meaningful provision.”[13]  Freeh’s call for this legislation to be more restrictive of civil liberties must be considered with the fact that his agency was accused of facilitating the event that precipitated the legislation.

One of the obstacles often cited as a root cause for the FBI not doing its anti-terrorism job effectively was “the Wall.”  This was a set of procedures that restricted the flow of information between law enforcement officers pursuing criminal investigations and officers pursuing intelligence information via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  The procedures, set out in a 1995 memo from deputy attorney general (and future 9/11 Commissioner) Jamie Gorelick, were seemingly intended to prevent the loss of evidence, due to technicalities, that might be obtained via a FISA warrant.[14]  Because such losses were never actually experienced, later claims about “the Wall” appear to be weak excuses to explain why information was not shared or actions were not taken.

In July 1996, TWA Flight 800 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean just after taking off from JFK Airport in New York, killing all 230 people on board.  Freeh later claimed that “No one knew what brought it down.”[15]  Curiously, the FBI took over the investigation despite the fact that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had priority over the investigation as established by law.  FBI agents then blocked attempts by the NTSB to interview witnesses.[16]

One month after the explosion, chemists at the FBI crime laboratory in Washington found traces of PETN, an explosive component of bombs and surface-to-air missiles, in the wreckage.[17]  Despite this, in November 1997, the FBI closed its investigation and announced that “No evidence has been found which would indicate that a criminal act was the cause of the tragedy of TWA flight 800.”[18]

This reversal of findings was led by Freeh and Jamie Gorelick.  After meeting with Freeh and Gorelick, James Kallstrom, the agent in charge of the New York office where the TWA 800 investigation was being handled, produced several unlikely explanations for the detection of the PETN.  Although none of these hypotheses was probable, the FBI was able to convince the media to change the story.[19]

Louis Freeh was leading the FBI during the investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, at the time of the OKC bombing, and at the time of the crash of TWA Flight 800.  All of these events suggest the facilitation, or cover-up, of terrorist acts by the FBI.  However, these were not the only indications that Louis Freeh was leading an agency that facilitated terrorism.

Ignoring or facilitating “Islamic” terrorism

Before leaving his position in the summer of 2001, Freeh was responsible for overseeing more than a dozen failures related to “Islamic” terrorism and the alleged 9/11 hijackers.  Here are the first nine.

  1. Between 1989 and 1998, Ali Mohamed was an FBI informant. He was also a U.S. Army Special Forces sergeant and al Qaeda’s primary trainer.[20]  According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Mohamed “trained most of al Qaeda’s top leadership – including Bin Laden and Zawahiri – and most of al Qaeda’s top trainers. He gave some training to persons who would later carry out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”[21]  Mohamed had been an FBI informant, since at least 1992, and was previously a CIA “contract agent.”  In a move indicative of U.S. oversight, he transitioned directly from the U.S. Special Forces to fighting and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.[22]  When he was arrested in 1998, Mohamed was allowed to plea bargain and, to this day, he has never been brought to trial.
  2. In early 1995, Freeh was behind the cancelation of a raid on a suspected terrorist-financing organization.  Recent legislation had enabled plans for the raid and prosecution of The Holy Land Foundation in Arlington, Texas, a suspected terrorist financing operation.  But Freeh stopped the raid using the dubious excuse that it would alienate Arabs in the United States.[23]  Holy Land was finally raided just after 9/11 and, years later, it was convicted of providing material support to a terrorist organization.[24]
  3. In May 1995, FBI agents wrote a memo about what they had learned in their interrogation of Abdul Hakim Murad, a Kuwaiti who allegedly helped bomb the WTC in 1993.  Murad told the FBI about another plan to hijack multiple airliners in Asia and crash them into buildings in the U.S., including the WTC.  Inexplicably, the FBI memo omitted all of the details the agents had learned about this plot, called Operation Bojinka.[25]  In 1996, Murad was convicted of crimes related to Bojinka yet, as author Peter Lance wrote, the FBI seemed to be “go out of its way to avoid even a hint of the plot that was ultimately carried out on 9/11.”[26]
  4. Gregory Scarpa Jr was an organized crime figure who, when imprisoned for an unrelated crime in 1996, was located in a cell between Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad.  Working undercover for the FBI, Scarpa was able to gain significant information about an active al Qaeda cell in New York City, and a “treasure trove of al Qaeda plans.”  After working closely with Scarpa to gain the intelligence, Freeh and his subordinates ended up calling the whole thing a “hoax” and buried the information. [27]
  5. On May 15, 1998, an FBI pilot sent his supervisor in the Oklahoma City FBI office a memo, warning that he had observed “large numbers of Middle Eastern males receiving flight training at Oklahoma airports in recent months.”  The memo went on to suggest that these people were planning terrorist activities.  It was sent to the Bureau’s Weapons of Mass Destruction unit but no action was ever taken.[28]
  6. In September 1999, FBI agents showed up at Airman Flight School in Norman, OK, to investigate the school’s training of Ihab Ali Nawawi. A suspect in the 1998 embassy bombings who was allegedly the personal pilot of Osama bin Laden, Nawawi had been arrested in Orlando four months before.[29]  He has been in U.S. custody ever since but has never been brought to trial.  Despite the investigation of Nawawi and the 1998 warning from an OKC FBI pilot, the FBI apparently never thought to keep a closer eye on Airman Flight School.  Zacarias Moussaoui and several alleged 9/11 hijackers trained or were seen at the school in 2000 and 2001.
  7. In October 1999, Hani El-Sayegh, a suspect in the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing, was deported from a prison in Atlanta to Saudi Arabia.  This was the result of an agreement between Freeh and Prince Naif, Saudi Arabia’s interior minister. After his deportation, El-Sayegh was reportedly tortured as FBI agents watched and submitted questions to his Saudi interrogators. David Vine from theWashington Post remarked — “Such practices are sharply at odds with Freeh’s oft-stated message about the FBI’s need to respect human dignity and the tenets of democracy while fighting crime.”[30]  Another problem with this incident was that the U.S. had control over a suspect in the 1996 terrorist murder of 19 U.S. servicemen and yet, instead of bringing that suspect to trial, they sent him back to Saudi Arabia. A reporter from Time magazine expressed the problem this way: “Run that one by again: The United States doesn’t want to try a man suspected of a bomb attack that killed Americans—and they’re sending him home?!”[31]  It is presumed that El-Sayegh was ultimately executed by the Saudis.[32]
  8. In April 2000, a Pakistani from England named Niaz Khan told the FBI that he was recruited by al Qaeda, trained in Pakistan to hijack planes and sent to the U.S. for a terror mission, as were several pilots.  Khan said that he told the FBI, about a year before 9/11, that al Qaeda planned to hijack airliners in the United States.[33]  The FBI confirmed that Khan passed two polygraphs. Yet FBI headquarters supposedly didn‘t believe Khan and sent him home to London.
  9. When two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, came to the U.S. in January 2000, they immediately met with Omar Al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi government spy and an employee of a Saudi aviation company.  Al-Bayoumi, who had been the subject of an FBI investigation in 1998 and 1999, became a very good friend to the two alleged hijackers, setting them up in an apartment and paying their rent.[34]  Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi then moved in with a long-time FBI asset, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been working closely with the Bureau on terrorism cases since 1994.  Apparently the FBI was not able to make a timely connection between its suspect Al-Bayoumi or its informant Shaikh and the two alleged 9/11 hijackers they supported for two years prior to 9/11.  In 2003, the FBI gave Shaikh $100,000 and closed his contract.[35]

From these nine incidents, we know that FBI management under Freeh was not working to prevent “Islamic” terrorism in the years before 9/11.  These examples also suggest that the FBI was suppressing and ignoring information about terrorism, perhaps for the purpose of protecting or co-opting the related terrorist networks.  As for al Qaeda, author Lawrence Wright wrote that, in the late 1990s, “Director Freeh repeatedly stressed in White House meetings that al Qaeda posed no domestic threat. Bin Laden didn’t even make the FBI’s most wanted list until June 1999,” nearly a year after the embassy bombings.[36]

Robert Hanssen, a veteran FBI counterintelligence agent, was arrested for espionage in February 2001.[37]  Freeh claimed the CIA and FBI worked very well together to catch Hanssen.  Apparently there was no difficulty, of the type later cited by the 9/11 Commission, that prevented collaboration between the two agencies.

It was claimed that Hanssen, while betraying his country for financial gain, sold a special software program called PROMIS to the Russians.  William Hamilton, the president of Inslaw, the company that manufactured PROMIS, said that the Russians then sold the program to Osama bin Laden and that it might have played a part in facilitating the 9/11 attacks.[38]  This claim was also reported by The Washington Times and it was said that the software would have given Bin Laden the ability to monitor US efforts to track him down and also the ability to monitor electronic-banking transactions, enabling money-laundering operations.[39]

PROMIS had a history going back over two decades.  In the 1980s, Oliver North of Iran-Contra fame had used the software to create lists of national security threats in conjunction with the secretive Continuity of Government (COG) program.  In an interesting coincidence, before his death British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” was not really a terrorist group but a database of international Mujahideen and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis.[40]

The Justice Department oversight committee on the use of PROMIS included Rudy Giuliani and, therefore presumably, Louis Freeh.  The lawyer for Inslaw, in its legal dealings with the Justice Department, was Roderick M. Hills, who would shortly thereafter be Frank Carlucci’s boss at Sears World Trade.

Investigator Michael Ruppert and his colleagues have proposed that software programs evolving from PROMIS were used on 9/11 to disable the U.S. air defenses.  This hypothesis involves Mitre Corporation and its contractor PTech, which were known to be operating at the Pentagon on projects that affected the operability of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) systems.[41]  It is not clear how a database program might have evolved into an executable aviation control program, but there are other reasons to consider PTech.

After 9/11, the FBI did not report known links between PTech and its Saudi investor Yassin al Qadi to the U.S. Customs Department investigation into terrorist financing.  This concealment was despite PTech having contracts with many U.S. agencies controlling sensitive information, including the FBI, and Al-Qadi being declared a terrorist financier.  It is also known that PTech director Yaqub Mirza had contacts at high levels within the FBI.[42]

Working for the Bush Administration

The month before Hanssen’s arrest, George W. Bush was inaugurated as President. The only cabinet-level figure to be retained from the outgoing Clinton administration was CIA Director George Tenet, who was said to be a long-time friend of George H. W. Bush. But Freeh stayed on as well until his unexpected resignation in May that year.  Freeh did not give specific reasons for leaving at the time and he remained in the position until June 25.

Having been FBI Director for eight years, Freeh had put most of the FBI’s leadership in place.  This included his deputy as of 1999, Thomas Pickard, who would go on to be acting director of the FBI from June to September 2001.  It also included Dale Watson, head of the FBI’s counterterrorism program as of 1999, and the people in his organization.  Watson had worked with Freeh in the New York FBI office years before and had worked on the investigations into the U.S. embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole.  Between FBI assignments, in 1996 and 1997, Watson had been the Deputy Chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.

Working for Watson in the FBI’s counterterrorism division was Michel Rolince, the head of the International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS).  Under Rolince were the heads of the Usama Bin laden Unit (UBLU) and the Radical Fundamentalism Unit (RFU).

Three major FBI failures relating to “Islamic” terrorism occurred during the early months of 2001.

  1. The first was on March 7, 2001 when, during trial proceedings for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, FBI agent Stephen Gaudin read aloud in court a phone number that had been used by the alleged al Qaeda plotters to plan and execute the embassy attacks.[43]  This was the phone number of the “Yemen Hub,” which doubled as the home phone of Ahmed Al-Hada, the father-in-law of alleged 9/11 hijacker Khalid Al-Mihdhar.  According to U.S. officials, the same phone was purportedly used for planning theUSS Cole bombing and, later, the 9/11 attacks.  The phone number was also published in the British weekly the Observer, just five weeks before 9/11.  As author Kevin Fenton wrote: “Any of the Observer’s readers could have called the number and asked for a message to be forwarded to Osama bin Laden.”[44]  This widely reported FBI gaffe should have alerted al Qaeda to U.S. knowledge of its secret Yemen operations center while also ensuring that anyone listening would know the exact al Qaeda phone number being monitored by U.S. intelligence. Despite this major tip-off, al Qaeda continued to use the phone to plan the 9/11 attacks, until “only weeks before 9/11.”[45]  Why did the Bureau not work to intercept the calls made in the months and weeks before 9/11 and use them to help stop the attacks?
  2. The FBI had Mohamed Atta and one of his colleagues under surveillance in early 2001, according to an FBI informant.  The informant later said he was a “million percent positive” that the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped if the FBI had gone after Atta at the time.  Instead, FBI handlers steered the informant away from Atta.[46]
  3. Several FBI agents, including Dina Corsi, Margaret Gillespie, Doug Miller and Mark Rossini, were involved in a concerted attempt to hide information about Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi from other intelligence officers who almost certainly would have captured the suspects.  These acts of inexplicable secrecy included not sharing cables on the subject, not sharing photographs of the suspects, misrepresenting “the Wall” restrictions, and misrepresenting comments from the National Security Law Unit.[47]

The FBI agents noted in the last example were all assigned as liaisons to the CIA’s Alec Station unit, focused on Osama Bin Laden.  It is interesting that neither Richard Blee, the head of that unit at the time, nor Rodney Middelton, the head of the FBI’s UBLU, were ever interviewed by independent journalists about these critical issues.  Middleton left the FBI the day before 9/11, and Blee went on to be named CIA station chief in Kabul as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan began.

Between April and September 2001, several major changes occurred in the FBI’s counterterrorism program.  In May, the head of the RFU was replaced by Dave Frasca, who would go on to be a central character in the obstruction of opportunities to identify and capture the alleged hijackers.  At the same time, Louis Freeh announced his resignation despite not having another job.

Freeh left the FBI on June 25, 2001 with nowhere to go.  It was said that he approached acting New Jersey Governor Donald DiFrancesco and offered to serve, without salary, as the state’s anti-terrorism “czar”.  This would have brought Freeh close to the 9/11 attacks in NYC but it didn’t happen.  Instead, Freeh was apparently doing nothing for the three months before 9/11, or at least doing nothing that we know about. Freeh then took a job as director, counsel, and ethics officer at credit card issuer MBNA.

The final three 9/11-related failures that can be attributed to Freeh, through the subordinates he put in place, are as follows.  If any of these had been handled appropriately, the alleged 9/11 hijackers would have been caught and their alleged plans foiled.

  1. On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI counterterrorism agent Ken Williams sent FBI headquarters what is called the “Phoenix Memo,” warning that Osama bin Laden was sending students to U.S. flight schools.  Williams listed cases of suspected Arab extremists training in Arizona flight schools and urged the FBI to search for such cases in other cities.  The FBI failed to respond to the memo at all and it was dismissed as speculative.  As 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey would later point out about the memo – “had it gotten into the works at the—up to the highest possible level, at the very least, 19 guys wouldn‘t have gotten onto these airplanes with room to spare.”[48]
  2. In mid-August 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota.  The FBI agents who made the arrest called Moussaoui a “suspected airline suicide attacker.”  The agents requested permission to search Moussaoui’s belongings, including his laptop computer, but they were denied that permission.  A week later the FBI supervisor in Minneapolis, trying to get the attention of those at FBI headquarters, said he was trying to make sure that Moussaoui — “did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center.”[49]  Still, FBI headquarters denied the field agents’ requests.  In May 2002, one of the agents, Coleen Rowley, described this obstruction.  She wrote that FBI headquarters personnel –  …continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis’ by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.  In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!  Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities. When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA’s Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval!”[50]
  3. Finally, on August 23, 2001, less than three weeks before 9/11, the CIA formally told the FBI that Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi might be in the United States.  But even though the two alleged hijackers had their names listed in the San Diego phone book and had been living with an FBI informant, the Bureau supposedly could not find them.

FBI agent Robert Fuller, only recently transferred to UBLU, claimed to take the August information and use it to search databases looking for Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi but he claims to have found nothing.  Fuller had another JTTF officer help him to search a database run by Choicepoint, the company known for purging Florida voters in the 2000 presidential election.[51]  The Justice Department IG report says Fuller did an NCIC criminal history check, credit checks, and a motor vehicle records search.  But the 9/11 Commission Report clearly contradicted this, saying “Searches of readily available databases could have unearthed the drivers licenses, the car registration, and the telephone listing” all of which were in Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi’s names.[52]

Later it was noted that “the hijackers had contact with 14 people known to the FBI because of counterterror investigations prior to 9/11.”[53]  This was known to the 9/11 Commission as the staff director for 9/11 Commission made a clear statement about how close the FBI was to catching the alleged hijackers.  “Rather than the hijackers being invisible to the FBI, they were, in fact, right in the middle of the FBI‘s counterterrorism coverage,” said Eleanor Hill.  “And yet, the FBI didn‘t detect them.”[54]

All of this certainly seems to suggest that FBI headquarters and Director Freeh had sufficient information to track and capture the alleged 9/11 hijackers.  Freeh’s close association with the Saudis is also troubling considering the role of suspected Saudi spy Al-Bayoumi.  The company Al-Bayoumi worked for, Dalla Al-Baraka, was owned by Saleh Abdullah Kamel, an alleged member of the “Golden Chain” financiers of Osama bin Laden. And the wife of Freeh’s friend Prince Bandar was reported to have sent funding to the alleged hijackers through Al-Bayoumi’s wife.[55]

In his resignation speech, Freeh praised the integrity of George W. Bush and dedication of Dick Cheney.  “President Bush has brought great honor and integrity to the Oval Office.  It was equally an honor to be appointed by his father to serve as a federal judge.  I also wish to thank Vice President Dick Cheney for conducting an effective transition process and for his dedication to duty in serving the Nation,” said Freeh.[56]

Going on, Freeh thanked his colleagues at the CIA and emphasized how well the two agencies had worked together.  “Through the leadership of Director George Tenet, we have forged an unprecedented relationship with the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency in the counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism arenas,” he claimed.  “This, in turn, has enabled us to place greater emphasis on counter-intelligence [and] counter-terrorism.”[57]

These remarks are in direct contradiction to the 9/11 Commission Report, which placed blame for the failure to track down and capture the alleged hijackers on two root causes.  The first was that, although the “system was blinking red,” the intelligence communities were not working well together, partly because of “the Wall” of procedures that supposedly prevented adequate information sharing between the agencies.  The second presumed root cause was that the information needed to stop the attacks did not rise high enough within the FBI and CIA to ensure action would be taken.  Neither of these excuses is believable, given the examples already reviewed.

At the end of Freeh’s tenure as director, the FBI was under severe criticism from all directions.  Patrick J. Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee whose office would a few months later be one of the targets of the anthrax attacks, said, “There are some very, very serious management problems at the FBI.”[58]  Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, said, “It’s hard to believe the situation has deteriorated and disintegrated the way it has. How did this great agency fall so far so fast? The FBI has been starved for leadership.”[59]

Nine days after Freeh announced his retirement, the FBI told Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys that it had failed to give them about 3,000 pages of documents related to the OKC bombing investigation.  “Self-righteous and sanctimonious, Freeh never admitted a personal mistake. He never pointed out his own role in the McVeigh debacle.”[60]

If there is nothing to hide, why hide it?

Testifying before the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry in October 2002, Freeh said: “I am aware of nothing that to me demonstrates that the FBI and the intelligence community had the type of information or tactical intelligence which could have prevented September 11th. In terms of the FBI’s capability to identify, investigate and prevent the nineteen hijackers from carrying out their attacks, the facts so far on the public record do not support the conclusion that these tragic events could have been prevented by the FBI and intelligence community acting by themselves.”[61]

This assessment contradicts that of FBI agent Robert Wright, whose written warning prior to 9/11 was ignored.  Wright later stated that:  “September the 11th is a direct result of the incompetence of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit. No doubt about that.  Absolutely no doubt about that. You can’t know the things I know and not go public.” Agent Wright was prohibited by the U.S. Justice Department from telling all he knew about the pre-9/11 FBI failures.  But he added: “There’s so much more. God, there’s so much more. A lot more.”[62]

Why did the FBI, if it had nothing to hide, go into full-blown cover-up mode immediately after the attacks?  For example, FBI agents confiscated all of the surveillance videos which would have shown what happened at the Pentagon.[63]  The Bureau harassed witnesses in Florida who suggested that the allege hijackers were not the devout Muslims the official account made them out to be.[64]  In Pennsylvania, FBI agents took control of the United 93 crash site and intentionally ignored eyewitness testimony that contradicted the official account.[65]  At the WTC debris collection site, FBI agents were caught stealing evidence.[66]

The FBI also went to great lengths to avoid cooperating with the Joint Congressional Inquiry.  For example, the Bureau refused to allow the interviewing or deposing of Abdussatar Shaikh, the FBI informant who had lived with alleged hijackers Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi.[67]  Through the FBI’s maneuvering, Shaikh was never required to testify.  The FBI also tried to prevent the testimony of Shaikh’s FBI handler, which occurred only secretly at a later date.

The protection of Abdusttar Shaikh by the FBI makes no sense considering that the Bureau encouraged the torture of other suspects, like Hani El-Sayegh.  Alleged al Qaeda associate Abu Zubaydah, who was later found to have nothing to do with al Qaeda, had already been tortured many times to gain information related to 9/11 while Shaikh was allowed to negotiate his entire removal from the 9/11 investigation.[68]

The FBI also failed to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission.  According to author Philip Shenon, the FBI was “as uncooperative with the 9/11 Commission as it had been in the Congressional investigation” and was “painfully slow to meet the Commission’s initial request for documents and interviews.”[69]

The only reasonable explanation for FBI management’s behavior in the decade before 9/11 and in the ensuing investigations is that they were somehow complicit in the attacks. But why would Freeh and the FBI want to support the activities of alleged terrorists?

We know that the accused 19 hijackers could not have accomplished most of what needs explaining about 9/11.  They could not have disabled the U.S. air defenses for two hours, they could not have made the U.S. chain of command fail to respond appropriately, and they could not have caused the destruction of the three tall buildings at the WTC.  However, the myth of al Qaeda was a necessary part of the official account and was able to provide a grain of truth in an otherwise unbelievable story.

In 2006, Freeh joined George Tenet on the board of a company that had been flagged, but never investigated, for 9/11 insider trading.[70]  He also became the personal attorney for Saudi Prince Bandar who, as stated before, was implicated through his wife in financing of the alleged hijackers.  Recently he has been trotted out to pass judgment on the late coach Joe Paterno.  But he is in no position to pass judgment on others.

Under Louis Freeh, the FBI failed miserably at preventing terrorism when preventing terrorism was the FBI’s primary goal.  Moreover, the actions of FBI management suggest that it was facilitating and covering-up acts of terrorism throughout the time that Freeh was the Bureau’s director.  Fifteen examples have been cited here from the time of Freeh’s tenure and three other examples were given from the time just after he left, when it was unclear why he left or what he was doing.  Add to these examples the fact that the FBI took extraordinary measures to hide evidence related to the 9/11 attacks and it becomes startling clear that Mr. Freeh should be a prime suspect in any honest investigation.

[1] Wikipedia page for Robert Wright Jr, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright,_Jr.

[2] Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Former FBI Director, before the Joint Intelligence Committees, October 8, 2002,http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/100802freeh.pdf

[3] News Release, JUDICIAL WATCH REJOICES AT RESIGNATION OF FBI DIRECTOR LOUIS FREEH, May 3, 2001,http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_921.shtml

[4] Ibid

[5] Judicial Watch press release, U.S. Supremes Rule in Favor of JW, http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2003/0203b.shtml

[6] Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to Terror: Edwin P. Wilson and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network, Carroll & Graf, 2005, p 351

[7] Ralph Blumenthal, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” New York Times, October 28, 1993

[8] Pierre Thomas and Mike Mills, FBI Crime Laboratory Being Probed, The Washington Post, September 14, 1995

[9] See the film A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995, http://www.anoblelie.com/

[10] Stephen Labaton, Man in the Background at the F.B.I. Now Draws Some Unwelcome Attention, The New York Times, May 28, 1995

[11] Geoffrey Fattah, Nichols says bombing was FBI op, Deseret News, February 22, 2007

[12] Peter Dale Scott, Systemic Destabilization in Recent American History: 9/11, the JFK Assassination, and the Oklahoma City Bombing as a Strategy of Tension, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, September, 2012

[13] Alasdair Scott Roberts, The Collapse of Fortress Bush: The Crisis of Authority in American Government, NYU Press, 2008, p 35

[14] April 1995 memo from Jamie Gorelick outlining the “Wall” procedures,http://old.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

[15] Louis J. Freeh, My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror, MacMillan, 2006

[16] James T. McKenna, Report Cites Obstacles To Witness Interview, Aviation Week and Space Technology, December 15, 1997

[17] Don Van Natta Jr, Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800, The New York Times, August 23, 1996

[18] CNN, FBI: No criminal evidence behind TWA 800 crash, November 18, 1997

[19] Peter Lance, Triple Cross: How bin Laden’s Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI – and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him, Harper Collins Publishers, 2006

[20] Peter Lance, Triple Cross

[21] Patrick Fitzgerald, Testimony before 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004, http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12.htm

[22] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, University of California Press, 2007, p 152-160

[23] Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, Simon and Schuster, 2004

[24] Department of Justice news release, Federal Jury in Dallas Convicts Holy Land Foundation and Its Leaders for Providing Material Support to Hamas Terrorist Organization, November 24, 2008

[25] Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI–the Untold Story, Harper Collins, 2003

[26] Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge

[27] Peter Lance, Greg Scarpa Jr. A Mafia wiseguy uncovers a treasure trove of al Qaeda intel, http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=682

[28] Greg B. Smith, Panel told bureau rejected flight school warnings, new York Daily News, September 25, 2002

[29] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile for Ihab Ali NAwawi

[30] The Washington Post, Fbi’s Uneasy Role: Work In Lands With Brutal Police, October 29, 2000

[31] Tony Karon, The Curious Case of Hani al-Sayegh, TIME, Oct. 05, 1999

[32] Wikipedia page for Hani El-Sayegh

[33] Transcript of Hardball Special Edition, MSNBC, July 24, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5486840/

[34] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile for Omar Al-Bayoumi

[35] U.S. Justice Department office of Inspector General’s Inquiry into 9/11, http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf

[36] Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006, p 296

[37] FBI website, Veteran FBI Agent Arrested and Charged with Espionage, February 21, 2001

[38] Jerry Seper, Osama access to state secrets helped 9/11, Computer Crime Research Center, http://www.crime-research.org/news/2003/01/Mess0801.htm

[39] Jerry Seper, Osama access to state secrets helped 9/11

[40] Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda: The Database, Centre for Research on Globalization, May 12, 2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database/24738

[41] Jamey Hecht, PTech, 9/11, and USA-Saudi Terror – Part I, From The Wilderness Publications, 2005,http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml

[42] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile for PTech Inc., http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ptech_inc.

[43] United States v. Usama bin Laden et al., transcript of day 14, March 7, 2001, accessed at Cryptome, http://cryptome.org/usa-v-ubl-14.htm

[44] Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI officials helped enable 9/11 and evaded government investigations, Trine Day, 2011, p 220

[45] Transcript of Hardball Special Edition, MSNBC, July 24, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5486840/

[46] Brian Ross and Vic Walter, FBI Informant Says Agents Missed Chance to Stop 9/11 Ringleader Mohammed Atta, ABC News, September 10, 2009

[47] Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots

[48] Transcript of Hardball Special Edition, MSNBC, July 24, 2004

[49] The Associated Press, FBI official made pre-9/11 comment linking Moussaoui, World Trade Center, 2005, accessed at:http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-24-moussaoui_x.htm

[50] Coleen Rowley’s Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, May 21, 2002

[51] U.S. Justice Department office of Inspector General’s Inquiry into 9/11,

[52] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p 539

[53] Transcript of Hardball Special Edition, MSNBC, July 24, 2004

[54] Transcript of Hardball Special Edition, MSNBC, July 24, 2004

[55] Julian Borger, Mystery men link Saudi intelligence to Sept 11 hijackers, The Guardian, November 24, 2002

[57] CNN, Text of Freeh’s statement

[58] David Johnston, Senators Angered After F.B.I. Says Weapons Are Missing The New York Times, July 18, 2001

[59] Ibid

[60] Ronald Kessler, The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI, St. Martin’s Press, July 2002

[61] Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Former FBI Director, before the Joint Intelligence Committees, October 8, 2002,

[62] Brian Ross and Vic Walter, Called Off the Trail?: FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told, ‘Let Sleeping Dogs Lie’, ABC News, December 19, 2002

[63] 911Research.wtc7.net, Pentagon Attack Footage, http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

[64] Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida, MadCow Press, 2004

[65] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, 11:30 p.m. September 11, 2001: FBI Uninterested in Flight 93 Witness’s Evidence,http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1130fbiuninterested#a1130fbiuninterested

[66] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, February 11, 2010, 911Review.com,http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

[67] James Risen, THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE INQUIRY; Congress Seeks F.B.I. Data On Informer; F.B.I. Resists, The New York Times, October 06, 2002

[68] Kevin R. Ryan, Abu Zubaydah Poses a Real Threat to Al Qaeda, DigWithin.net, October 15, 2012

[69] Philip Shenon, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, Hachette Book Group, 2008

[70] Kevin R. Ryan, Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11, Foreign Policy Journal, November 18, 2010,http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/