Donald Rumsfeld and the Demolition of WTC 7

 by Kevin Ryan

When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), he claimed that he had never heard of it. This was despite the unprecedented destruction of that 47-story building and its relationship to the events of 9/11 that shaped Rumsfeld’s career. Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.

The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.

Several of Rumsfeld and Cheney’s colleagues had access to, or personal knowledge of, WTC 7. Secret Service agent Carl Truscott, who was in charge of the Presidential Protection Division on 9/11, knew the building well because he had worked at the Secret Service’s New York field office located there. Furthermore, Tenet’s CIA secretly operated a “false front of another federal organization” from within WTC 7.  That false front might have been related to the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense, or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), all of which were listed as tenants of WTC 7. The SEC lost many important documents when the building was destroyed, including much of what was needed to effectively prosecute Enron and WorldCom.

In any event, it is clear that covert operatives had access to WTC 7. Through the Secret Service, the DOD, and a secret office of the CIA, the building provided access to many such people. Additionally, electronic security for the WTC complex was contracted out to Stratesec, a security company operated by military arms logistician and Iran-Contra suspect, Barry McDaniel. Wirt Walker, the son of a CIA employee who was flagged by the SEC for suspected 9/11 insider trading, was McDaniel’s boss at Stratesec.

Amazingly, explosives and terrorism were planned topics of discussion at WTC 7 on the day of the attacks. There was a meeting scheduled at WTC 7 for the morning of 9/11 that included explosive disposal units from the U.S. military. The Demolition Ordnance Disposal Team from the Army’s Fort Monmouth just happened to be invited there that morning to meet with the building’s owner, Larry Silverstein. They were “reportedly planning to hold a meeting at 7 World Trade Center to discuss terrorism prevention efforts.” The meeting was set for eight o’clock in the morning on 9/11 but was canceled with the excuse that one of Silverstein’s executives could not make it.

Richard Spanard, an Army captain and commander of Fort Monmouth’s explosive disposal unit, was at WTC 7 to attend the meeting. He was “enjoying breakfast at a deli 50 feet from the World Trade Center twin towers when the first plane hit. General hysteria inundated the deli. Spanard decided that he and the three soldiers with him should move to number 7 World Trade Center, where they had a scheduled meeting.” Building 7 was “full of people in the midst of evacuating. A second explosion was heard, and people began mobbing the three escalators in a state of panic. Spanard and the now five soldiers with him began yelling for everyone to remain calm.”

In yet another “eerie quirk of fate,” Fort Monmouth personnel were preparing for an exercise called Timely Alert II on the day of 9/11. This was a disaster drill focused on response to a terrorist attack and included law enforcement agencies and emergency personnel. The drill simply changed to an actual response as the attacks began.

Fort Monmouth, located in New Jersey just 49 miles away from the WTC complex, was home to several units of the Army Materiel Command (AMC). Coincidentally, Stratesec’s Barry McDaniel had led AMC a decade earlier. McDaniel had an interesting past and, after 9/11, became business partners with one of Dick Cheney’s closest colleagues.

The Fort Monmouth response on 9/11 included the explosives unit and the Army’s Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM). As the drill was converted to an actual response, teams of CECOM experts were deployed to locate cell phone transmissions in the pile at Ground Zero. The remainder of the base’s explosive ordnance company was there by the afternoon of 9/11 and stayed for three days in order to, among other things, help “authorities” look for any possible explosives in the debris.

The explosive disposal/terrorism meeting was not just a request of Larry Silverstein, however, but was actually organized by the Secret Service field office. The U.S. Navy’s explosive ordnance disposal Mobile Unit 6 had also been invited to WTC 7 that morning, again at the request of the Secret Service. As they arrived, the planes began to strike the towers.

Considering all of this, Rumsfeld’s claim that he had never heard of WTC 7 is not believable. It does not reconcile with the facts about the positions he held and those of his colleagues and subordinates. It certainly doesn’t reconcile with the fact that Rudy Giuliani gave Rumsfeld a personal tour of Ground Zero just two months after the attacks. Surely Rumsfeld noticed the huge pile of still-smoking rubble that was once the building where Giuliani’s 23rd-floor emergency bunker was housed. They were photographed standing right across the street from it.

Rumsfeld was the chairman of the advisory board for a company that occupied nearly the entirety of WTC 7. On 9/11 he led the DOD—another tenant of the building. Explosive disposal units from both the Army and the Navy (DOD entities) were scheduled to meet in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11, ostensibly to discuss terrorism. A DOD-sponsored terrorism exercise was scheduled for that morning in the same area. Moreover, Rumsfeld’s long-time business associate Peter Janson ran AMEC Construction, a company hired to clean-up the debris at the WTC complex (after having renovated the exact area where Flight 77 was said to have hit the Pentagon).

And as stated above, Rumsfeld had been a paid consultant to CIA director George Tenet in the three years prior to 9/11. Immediately after WTC 7 was destroyed, the CIA ordered the immediate area around the building to be surrounded by FBI agents. According to theNew York Times, the CIA then “dispatched a special team to scour the rubble.” Reportedly this was to retrieve secret documents. But was the CIA, in conjunction with (or posing as) the Secret Service, also coordinating the military’s ordnance disposal units in their search for explosives in the debris?

Rumsfeld’s comments should be considered in light of the fact that he was among the leaders of a concerted plan to lie about Iraq’s WMDs. Similarly, there has been a pattern of lying about WTC 7 by government officials. The official report on the destruction of the building is patently and provably false and followed a long string of false explanations. When government scientists finally admitted that WTC 7 was in free-fall, indicating that they had previously lied about that fact, even their body language revealed the deception.

When we remember 9/11, we should remember that those crimes initiated and continue to drive the devastating “War on Terror.” We should also remember that war is based on deception and the official account of 9/11 is a prime example. We see the lies about 9/11 everyday as they are still being told, like the one readily seen in the form of a 47-story building experiencing free fall and nearly every statement made about it by government officials since that time.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/donald-rumsfeld-demolition-wtc-7.html

 

Don’t Be Fooled By ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Smears

by Andrew Kreig

CNN and Newsweek recently launched dubious tirades against what they called “conspiracy theories.”

Dag HammarskjoldMeanwhile, the Wall Street Journal published U.N. Considers Reopening Probe into 1961 Crash that Killed Dag Hammarskjöld, a report that broached the possibility that the United States may have been involved in the death of the secretary-general, who is shown in a file photo.

As a way to understand such varied messages, I urge readers to evaluate evidence with an open mind — and regard with special suspicion those commentators who slant their coverage with the loaded smear words “conspiracy theory” without citing specific evidence.

No one has time to investigate everything without preconceptions. For efficiency, we rely in part on slanted commentary by our favorite sources. But if the stakes are high and we want to be honest we should admit (at least to ourselves) that our preliminary conclusions should be subject to change based on new data.

My suggestions follow the spirit of the Justice Integrity Project’s JFK Assassination “Readers Guide” last fall. That 11-part series began with a catalog of books, archives, reports and videos. Then it proceeded to assess various theories of President Kennedy’s 1963 murder.

By now, we know from declassified documents that the CIA undertook a massive secret campaign to smear critics of the Warren Commission with the label “conspiracy theorist.”

The campaign used members of mainstream media friendly to the CIA, for example, to discredit New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, shown below. Garrison was prosecuting New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw in what Garrison alleged was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Shaw, an OSS liaison to high-ranking British officials during World War II, founded a major regional trade mart in New Orleans shortly after the war. Garrison alleged that Shaw met with rightist opponents of JFK to plan the death.

Jim GarrisonA 50-page CIA memo, known as “CIA Dispatch 1035-960,” instructed agents to contact their media contacts and disparage those, like Garrison, criticizing the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. The 1967 document is here in the original, and here in reformatted text of its summary.

Minutes of CIA meeting that same year indicated fear that Garrison would win a conviction.

But a jury promptly acquitted Shaw following more than a dozen deaths (including suicide) of potential witnesses and an intense smear campaign against Garrison by the national media. NBC News hired former high-ranking Justice Department official Walter Sheridan, who had been an early recruit to the super-secret NSA in the 1950s. Publicly an investigative reporter, Sheridan was involved also in operational efforts to undermine Garrison.

More generally, Operation Mockingbird was the CIA’s secret program to plant stories in the nation’s most prestigious news outlets.

“With this [CIA] memo and the CIA’s influence in the media,” author Peter Janney wrote in a guest column on our site last fall, “the concept of ‘conspiracy theorist’ was engendered and infused into our political lexicon and became what it is today: a term to smear, denounce, ridicule, and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services.”

Janney, whose late father Wistar Janney had been a high-ranking CIA executive, continued: “People who want to pretend that conspiracies don’t exist — when in fact they are among the most commonmodus operandi of significant historical change throughout the world and in our country — become furious when their naive illusion is challenged.”

After that background, let’s look at more recent uses of the term by the mainstream media to discredit those who suggest government complicity in notorious events.

CNN, Newsweek Lash Out Against Government Critics

Last week, CNN’s Jake Tapper engaged in little more than name-calling in his segment ‘Truthers’ to protest 9/11 Museum. Tapper brought in a like-minded guest, Salon columnist Emily Bazelon, who relied on the same kind of seat-of-the-pants speculation to denounce protesters.

Another example of selective analysis was a Newsweek cover story May 15, The Plots to Destroy America, written by Kurt Eichenwald. Oddly, Newsweek’s sensationalistic title itself implied a conspiracy — that the diverse government critics on the right and left whom the magazine attacked intended to “destroy” the nation with their “plots.”

I recognized the pattern. Three years ago, I hosted author Jonathan Kay on my weekly public affair radio show, Washington Update. Kay, a Canadian newspaper editor and law school graduate, had authored Among the Truthers, a 340-page book. Upon reading it, however, I saw that it raised alarm and mocked critics of 9/11 official accounts but did not analyze their arguments.

Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein White House Photo

Similarly, Eichenwald cited as authority a handful of establishment “experts” who mocked those who criticize government or other establishment institutions.

Among the experts the Newsweek author repeatedly quoted was Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor, author of the recent book Conspiracy Theories, and a former high-ranking Obama administration official. During the Obama first term, Sunstein in effect oversaw all federal regulation at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

A White House photo shows Sunstein with his wife, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, when Vice President Joe Biden swore her into office last summer. Her appointment followed her high-level work in national security at the White House and State Department during Obama’s first term. As noted in my book, Presidential Puppetry, she is a leading proponent for regime change and military intervention globally on the grounds of humanitarian principles.

Also last summer, Obama appointed Sunstein along with four others to the president’s review commission for a response to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations of massive illegal spying on the American public.

Eichenwald glosses over this heavy national security background and the rhetoric needed to foster public support for global interventions.

Even more relevant is that Eichenwald failed to note that Sunstein co-authored in 2008 what has become a notorious paper advocating propaganda techniques.

In the paper “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein advocated that the government secretly hire academics and journalists to thwart the dissemination of what federal authorities might regard as dangerous beliefs held by millions of voters, such as suggestion that officials were complicit in 9/11 or a cover-up.

Sunstein’s own proposal sounds, in other words, like the kind of plot government critics most fear as a violation of constitutional rights by an Orwellian, Big Brother state.

Yet Eichenwald argued that “not a scintilla of evidence” exists for the theories he disparaged. He called them “unsubstantiated nonsense.” But he failed, like most with his mind-set, to refute the best arguments of his targets.

Instead, he repeatedly cited well-credential experts, who applauded government officials for the most part and trivialized the concerns of complainers.

Such elitist, slanted reporting by Newsweek and CNN suggests why their audiences are plunging and the outlets find themselves focused on half-truths important to someone, but not audiences. The Internet provides alternative news sources.

In 2010, the Washington Post sold Newsweek for just $1 and assumption of debts. The Post announced that it wanted to place the publication into the hands of a like-minded publisher. This was Sidney Harman, the husband of Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), a Harvard Law grad and prominent advocate of the intelligence-military complex. Newsweek, much like CNN, retains only a shell of its former clout and has twice been sold since Sidney Harman died.

Joe LauriaThat said, most of us still rely heavily on the mainstream media to complement our information from other sources.

A striking example last week was a bold, exclusive report by Joe Lauria, the Wall Street Journal’s United Nations correspondent.

Lauria (shown in a file photo) drew on his years on the beat to report for the Journal that the United Nations may reactivate on the basis of new evidence its dormant inquiry on whether its late leader, Hammarskjöld, was intentionally killed during his 1961 peace-keeping mission.

As a former stringer for the Journal for two years earlier in my career, I can imagine how much research the reporter must have produced before such a story would make it into print. His achievement is especially striking at a Murdoch-owned paper, whose owner is better known for benefiting from high-level intrigues than exposing them.

And what if the United Nations proceeds — and finds that the secretary-general died from foul play?

For one thing, that would not be good news for those who deny conspiracies. But they would surely find a way to avoid in-depth reporting.

Contact the author Andrew Kreig

Cross-posted with additional reference materials at Justice Integrity Project (www.justice-intergrity.org)

 

 

Ukraine’s Disinformation Battle: Little Green Men, Hamsters And The Fog Of War

 

 

Pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk, Eastern Ukraine

Fighting is flaring in the Eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, after government troops assaulted separatist rebels who’d taken over the city’s airport. Here’s our musing over a confusing situation reeking of disinformation and propaganda, ripe for the manipulating.

There has always been a gap in how media on both sides of the former Iron Curtain have reported world events, and it’s growing as the crisis in Ukraine escalates. It has become increasingly difficult to obtain reliable information from any side—west, east, or further east—about what is going on in Eastern Ukraine. We don’t even know who is fighting whom.

Now both sides and their respective media are accusing each other of using mercenaries to commit atrocities, Americans in the Russian version and Chechens in the American one. Ukrainian media have now reported the involvement of the feared Ukrainian ultranationalist Right Sector militants in battles in East Ukraine, something that Russia has claimed for a long time. That’s another ostensible threat to Russian-speaking Ukrainians that Moscow can use to bolster its justification for invading Crimea in the first place.

Capture

As we’ve shown before, there’s nothing like disinformation to start a war or spur one forward. That’s the risk now in Eastern Ukraine.

In March, when Crimea voted for independence under the watchful eye of the Russian military, Russian media reported that most Ukrainian forces in the peninsula had switched allegiance to the pro-Russian side, while most Western media focused on those who wouldn’t surrender.

Russian media trumpeted the unconstitutional nature of the revolutionary authorities in Kiev, while Western media focused on the unconstitutional nature of “people’s” mayors, parliaments and election commissions in Crimea and later in Eastern Ukraine. Both accounts were factually correct but the biases were on full display.

“Little Green Men” vs “Liberal Hamsters”

A month later, however, much of the coverage of Ukraine had already devolved into a media spectacle of “little green men” vs. “liberal hamsters.” A journalist for the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda complained at a televised Q & A session with Vladimir Putin that “a heterogeneous mesh of liberal hamsters” is trying to insult Russian soldiers by calling them “little green men.”

Russia’s propaganda machine has frequently tripped over itself—for example, by whitewashing the fact that Russian forces were involved in Crimea, only to be contradicted later by Putin. But Western media have also been guilty of gross lapses of responsibility.

***

There was the awkward case when somebody—we still don’t know who—distributed fliers outside an East Ukrainian synagogue in the name of the newly-formed separatist authorities, urging Jews to pay a fee and register themselves and their properties or lose their citizenship.

Most of the mainstream Western media—with some notable exceptions—jumped on the story immediately, goaded by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US embassy in Ukraine. Subsequently, however, the man whose signature was supposedly on the document condemned it and claimed it was a fake, the Ukrainian Jewish authorities distanced themselves from the story and the whole thing unraveled as a dubious “provocation.”

U.S. State Department Accused of Photo Hoax

Then there was the case when the New York Times and other leading Western media were forced to half-heartedly knock down a report about a series of photos which allegedly showed the same Russian special forces soldiers in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014. These pictures supposedly proved that Russia was lying about not interfering militarily in its neighbor’s turmoil—until it turned out that one of the key pictures was a hoax and many of the others were questionable, to say the least.

New York Times graphic showing alleged Russian soldiers

The New York Times pointed a finger at the U.S. Department of State, which had supplied the photographs, and the State Department turned up the lame excuse that they had given the Times a “draft version” of their briefing packet. Oops. Not to mention that when the Times’ reporters started looking more carefully on the ground, they found little trace of any actual Russians.

Some Western media outlets have acknowledged the mistakes and misbehavior of their governments in Ukraine. And Russian media have acknowledged the Kremlin’s dark interference in its neighbor. Yet, the fog of war continues to thicken over brutal violence in OdessaMariupol, Donetsk and elsewhere.

Who is Shooting at Whom?

While Russia has started to pull its army from the Ukrainian border, new factions have sprung up in Eastern Ukraine, and in some of the bloodiest battles to date it has become increasingly difficult to tell who is fighting on what side and who is shooting at whom.

While powerful propaganda machines fill the public space with smoke and mirrors, one of the few facts that can be positively established in Eastern Ukraine is that the body count is steadily growing: a testament of just how easy it is for self-interested foreign powers to start, either intentionally or recklessly, a civil war in the heart of Europe.

 

THUMBNAIL: Pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk

MAP: New Russia

GRAPHIC: Russian Soldiers or Not?

– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/05/27/ukraines-disinformation-battle-little-green-men-hamsters-and-the-fog-of-war/#sthash.vWriBMIT.dpuf

THE 9/11 ATTACKS, “KEEPING THE LID ON THE LIE”: MEDIA RESPONSE TO THE GROWING INFLUENCE OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT

 by spookyweather

It is impossible to keep the lid on a lie forever – especially a major deception carried out in full view of witnesses and cameras.

The last article in the Media Response series was published in February 2010, when public broadcasters in eight countries were reporting doubts about the official 9/11 story, and nine corporate media reviews had explored the issue during the previous year.[1]

Since then, the mainstream media has forged ahead on the subject.  In the past six months alone, 20 stories in major papers have covered the September-December 2013 ReThink911 campaign – including Time Magazine, the NYT, the Ottawa Citizen, and BBC News Magazine.

As time passes our memories of 9/11 becomes less painful and more open to public discussion.

There is increasing skepticism in both the social and corporate media about the credibility of 9/11 as the foundation for the continuing global war on terror.

Last year, President Obama was prevented from waging – on grounds of state terrorism –war with Syria.

As of March 2014, seven congressmen, backed by impacted  9/11 families, are calling for the release of a secret 2002 congressional study that implicates Saudi Arabia in financing the alleged hijackers.

Establishing the truth about 9/11 is a fundamental necessity for the achievement of peace between East and West.

The horrendous visual images of airliners careening into the tallest buildings in America were seared into the collective world brain on 9/11.

This collective human experience has been so powerful and haunting that no equally powerful and pervasive experience has emerged to show that the Twin Towers were not brought down by Muslim hijackers run by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.

Yet the weakness and falsity of the official story has been amply demonstrated by more than a decade of peer-reviewed research and scholarship, as shown by the 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel’s evidence-based Consensus Points and reading list.[2]

And people suspect this.  A 2011 poll shows that 42% of Canadians believe US government information about 9/11 has been intentionally hidden from the public.[3]

The tale of 19 hijackers is viewed more and more as a construct – and the “reality” that it created, as a contrived perception.

If there is one force with the power to reverse this perception, it is the dynamic ReThink911 campaign, which has taken hold strongly in the US and Canada and has plans to expand into Britain and other countries.

The ReThink911 Campaign

The ReThink911 organization spearheads its campaign with the Achilles heel of the 9/11 perception – the sudden collapse, later in the day, of the 47-storey steel skyscraper World Trade Center 7, which stood adjacent to the Twin Towers.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-attacks-keeping-the-lid-on-the-lie-media-response-to-the-growing-influence-of-the-911-truth-movement/5373217

 

Are Loose Lips Sinking Accused Boston Bomber’s Right To A Fair Trial?

 

 

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in an FBI handout photo.

Accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s lawyers have asked the judge in the case to determine if a flood of leaks and public comments by law enforcement officers are prejudicing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Since the case is related to what’s been called the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, the stakes of the trial are as high as they are emotional. But how much of what we know about the bombing comes from leaks to the media instead of the normal public channels surrounding a criminal case?

Tsarnaev’s lawyers in a May 2 motion argue that the media has been made privy to secret grand jury testimony not yet revealed to them by prosecutors, and want the judge to probe those leaks in a hearing.

The Still-Unanswered Questions

Starting the week after the Boston Marathon bombing, WhoWhatWhy has been investigating and questioning the public narrative put forward by the authorities about the attack.

Our exclusive reporting has shown you serious inconsistencies in the official story, and highlighted law enforcement’s heavy reliance on the testimony of a single witness to pin the blame on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his dead brother, Tamerlan. We’ve told you about the FBI’s rough handling of people connected to the Tsarnaevs, and the agency’s later admission that it had been monitoring the two.

Indeed, much of what is publicly known about the case emanates from anonymous sources, from Dzhokhar’s leaked “boat confession” to Tamerlan’s alleged admission of guilt to a carjacking victim known only as “Danny.”

Here’s our by-no-means-exhaustive list of some of the anonymous leaks that have helped steer the narrative from the start, to help you decide for yourself if the terrorism aspect of the case is trumping the constitutional right to a fair trial:

April 21: As we previously reported, someone in law enforcement leaked a copy of a Cambridge police report to the Wall Street Journal that describes the carjacking victim’s initial testimony to police.

April 22: ABC affiliate WCVB reported that an unnamed law enforcement official told them that Middlesex County investigators are checking leads to see if Tamerlan was involved in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass., on the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. This anonymous official, without having to present evidence, associated Tamerlan Tsarnaev with the slayings.

April 23: Within days of the bombing, anonymous law enforcement officials told CNN that the brothers acted alone and were self-radicalized by the internet.

On the same date, CNN reports that an anonymous law enforcement official said that the brothers bought fireworks from a store in New Hampshire prior to the bombing. They were quick to point out that the amount of gunpowder purchased was not enough to make a bomb, but the idea that the Tsarnaevs had been playing with explosives was further cemented in the public debate.

May 10: The triple murder association surfaces yet again in an ABC News report citing an unidentified law enforcement official that spoke of “mounting evidence” of the brothers’ involvement. The official was careful to hedge, cautioning that it was too early to consider an indictment against Dzhokhar until definitive DNA testing was complete.

May 16: Former FBI spokesman John Miller, now a CBS reporter, describes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s written “boat admission,” citing an unnamed source in the FBI. The message described by Miller amounts to a full confession to the bombing and paints Dzhokhar as a warrior in a jihad against America.

July 18: Massachusetts State Police photographer Sgt. Sean Murphy leaks photos to Boston Magazine showing a battered and bruised Dzhokhar leaving the boat in Watertown. Murphy was angry about a Rolling Stone cover photograph that he felt glamorized the alleged terrorist. As a result of the unauthorized leak, Murphy was relieved of duty.

Feb 28, 2014: The prosecution publicly claimed that Dzhokhar made a “compromising statement” while talking to his sister in jail. His meetings and telephone calls are monitored by the FBI. The story was widely disseminated by the press before the defense team was able to respond.

April 9, 2014: The Los Angeles Times reports that Tamerlan tried to change his first name to that of a now-dead Islamic militant from the Caucasus region. It cites a leaked Department of Homeland Security document.

April 13, 2014: The FBI now claims that a media threat to publicize pictures of the suspect—leaked by one of their own agents—forced them to release the photos earlier than planned.

April 17, 2014: ABC News reports that it was given a photograph of the message Dzhokhar allegedly scrawled on the inside of the boat prior to his capture, in which he admits his guilt. The source once again is unidentified.

– See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/05/15/are-loose-lips-sinking-accused-boston-bombers-right-to-a-fair-trial/#sthash.bKfRhTau.dpuf

FBI publicly releases a few more pages about Sarasota Saudis; 80,000 pages given to judge

 

By Dan Christensen and Anthony Summers, BrowardBulldog.org 

The Justice Department late Friday made public four new, heavily censored documents confirming that by 2002 the FBI had found “many connections” between 9/11 terrorist figures and the Florida family of “an allegedly wealthy international businessman” with ties to the Saudi Royal family.

“On or about 8/27/01 his family fled their house in Sarasota leaving behind valuable items in a manner indicating they left quickly without prior preparation,” says an FBI “case narrative” written on April 16, 2002.

The name of the international businessman, Esam Ghazzawi, is blanked out in the narrative. Ghazzawi’s name, however, is included on another page – an FBI form that accompanied a letter acquired by FBI agents in Tampa as “evidence” in July 2002. Details about the letter were not released.

The release of Ghazzawi’s name is the first time the government has confirmed Ghazzawi’s involvement in the FBI investigation that lasted until at least 2004, yet was never disclosed to the 9/11 Commission or congressional investigators.

Ghazzawi, adviser to a senior Saudi prince, owned the upscale south Sarasota home where his daughter, Anoud, and her husband, Abdulaziz al-Hijji lived prior to 9/11. Law enforcement sources have said that after 9/11 investigators found evidence – telephone records and photographs of license tags and security gate log books – showing that hijack pilot Mohamed Atta, former Broward resident and fugitive al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah and other terror suspects had visited the home. The home is about 10 miles from the Venice airport, where Atta and the two other hijack pilots trained.

The four pages were released amid ongoing Freedom of Information litigation brought by BrowardBulldog.org after the FBI declined to release any records about the matter.

In April, Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch ordered the FBI to conduct a thorough search of its records to identify documents about the once secret probe. The judge said the Justice Department had failed to convince him that the FBI’s prior searches had been adequate.

With Friday’s release, a total of 39 pages have been released since the lawsuit was filed in September 2012. That includes four pages that were completely censored.

The FBI withheld certain information from the just-released documents, saying disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or reveal techniques and procedures of law enforcement

The four pages released Friday were all declassified shortly before their release.

FBI records chief David M. Hardy said in a declaration under oath that the Bureau has processed the Tampa field office’s complete “sub file” on 9/11 and is in the process of turning it over to the judge as ordered. Hardy said the files consists of 80,266 pages which was divided into 411 “individual documents section” that were burned onto three CDs in a searchable format.

The documents, and parallel hard copies, were provided for Judge Zloch’s private inspection. He will then decide whether any of those documents are releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.

Dan Christensen is the editor of Broward Bulldog. Anthony Summers is co-author with Robbyn Swan of “The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden,” published by Ballantine Books, which was a Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2012.