Summer 2001: FBI Knew Skyscrapers Blueprints Sent to ME Countries

[RedSock]

Let's try this again.

***********

From the WotIsItGood4 blog:
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-911-skyscraper-blueprints-and.html

Sibel Edmonds: "I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries..."


----

Interesting.

Paul, have you found any news stories that might touch on this?

[Lithos]

1. Thanks!

:hi:

L-

[paulthompson]

2. I thought...

...that I'd replied to this already, yesterday. Where did my reply go?

[lukery]

3. paul said...

yeah - the post disappeared for some reason... i happened to grab some of it...

paul - you quoted your piece from the timeline, and then said ""There's more about this I wish I could say based on what I've heard from her, but I shouldn't say anything without her permission. Let's just say there are more details that make this more important than it may first seem, esp. what skyscrapers specifically are being referred to.""

i replied and asked whether you had any comments about the fact that these blueprints etc were being sent out in jul/aug - which seems kinda late in the process.

[lukery]

4. from the original post

fyi - from the original post, i also pointed to two other posts of mine on the same issue (im lukery from wotisitgood4)
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/02/sibel-911-blueprints-and-building.html
and
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-criminals.html

[RedSock]

5. it was deleted

The link I used for the Edmonds interview is on DU's no-no list, so it got pulled.

You can still get to the entire interview through the wotisitgood4 link.

[paulthompson]

6. Whaaat?

Isn't the interview that you linked to from antiwar.com? What the heck is wrong with antiwar.com? That seems like a perfectly fine site to me.

Anyway, this is my entry on the matter:

Before September 11, 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds later makes some allegations of serious FBI misconduct, but the specifics of these allegations have generally remained publicly unknown due to a gag order placed on her. However, in a public August 2004 letter, she alleges that some time before 9/11, an unnamed FBI field agent discovers foreign documentation revealing “certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also reveal(s) certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery.” The document is in a foreign language and apparently the agent isn't given an adequate translation of it before 9/11. Approximately one month after 9/11, the agent will suspect the original translation is insuffient and will ask the FBI Washington Field Office to retranslate it. The significant information mentioned above is finally revealed, but FBI translation unit supervisor Mike Feghali decides not to send this information back to the field agent. Instead, Feghali sends a note stating that the translation was reviewed and the original translation was accurate. The field agent never receives the accurate translation. This is all according to Edmonds' letter. She claims Feghali “has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and (engaged) in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department...” While the mainstream media hasn't yet reported on this incident, in January 2005 an internal government report will determine that most of Edmonds' allegations have been verified and none of them could be refuted. (Edmonds Letter, 8/2/04)

And my comment, as Lukery luckily saved:

There's more about this I wish I could say based on what I've heard from her, but I shouldn't say anything without her permission. Let's just say there are more details that make this more important than it may first seem, esp. what skyscrapers specifically are being referred to.

[lukery]

7. antiwar.com

you are correct paul - that is totally bizarre that antiwar.com has been blackballed

did you have any comment about the july/august timing?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedSock]

9. why was my message deleted?

All I did was post the DU moderator's reason for pulling the previous thread.

The rules are not private, are they? Why was that wrong?

[Lithos]

10. You are not allowed to post moderator/admin correspondence

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Do not publicly post correspondence you receive from moderators and administrators, and do not share it with other members of this message board.

[RedSock]

11. okay

I didn't feel like what you sent was technically correspondence (we weren't having a discussion), but okay. (I also felt I was better off alerting others to the reason by using the mod's exact words rather than rewriting the explanation myself.)

Thanks for explaining.

[greyl]

12. The fabricated stories and anti-semitism bother some people. nt

[Tim Howells]

14. Examples please ...

Did you know that Justin Raimondo is Jewish?

Tim Howells

[greyl]

15. Why don't you start a new thread about it? nt

[Tim Howells]

13. Thanks - I missed that one.

If Sibel Edmonds is going to speak out now, should we be forming
a human wall around her house or something?

Tim Howells


PS sure is weird about DU banning Anti-War.com. I've run into
that problem myself - they say that anti-war is anti-semitic.
But then again ... it's weird that DU has banned US as well!

[paulthompson]

16. Huh?

Anti-semetic? Fabricated stories? Are we talking about the same website? Are people confusing sites here, perhaps?

Is there somewhere DU has a list of sites they ban and reasons why? And what do you mean "DU has banned US as well?" Are you talking about CCR? That's not banned (at least I don't think so!). I post links to it all the time.

As for Lukery's question, no the timing didn't surprise me. I think Sibel told me it took place in August 2001, if I recall correctly.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

18. Have you seen the Israel/Palestine forum here?

I guess not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=124

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

20. I think it would be better to let this thread stay on topic. nt

[cascadiance]

21. It would be better to focus on the authors at antiwar.com...

that are publishing those questionable stories there. I wouldn't mind those being banned, but banning all of antiwar.com seems a bit excessive. I get the feeling that anti-war.com perhaps at times is a bit looser in who it allows to publish for them than other news sites, but then again, that's how we get some stories that simply are being muzzled every place else. And some of those stories need to be discussed. I have no trouble with perhaps making a requirement that any story link from anti-war.com is coupled with a qualifier that some stories this site publishes might not have the strict journalistic rules that others do, and that one should "read them at their own risk", or something to that effect.

But there are many stories by folks like Chris Deliso or Scott Horton at anti-war.com that really need to be looked at and are some excellent pieces. As a matter of fact I believe one of the main organizations like Reuters or UPI not too long ago released a correction that made sure to identify material they lifted from Deliso to be accredited appropriately. If the mainstream news sources use anti-war.com published material for their content, then it seems like there should be some room for us to point to them at times. I certainly will not point to something that is anti-semitic, but if it is critical about AIPAC or something like that in a constructive way, I really think that is something that we should be able to read!

It's kind of a pain at times trying to find another site that has the same story posted on anti-war.com so as not to get it pulled.

[Tim Howells]

28. Yet again, WHAT questionable stories are you talking about? (NT)

[greyl]

37. search "raimondo" and "fabricated" nt

[Tim Howells]

38. Oh come on - you have nothing - just admit it.

I did the search - The only hit accusing Raimondo of "fabrication"
is using the term loosely to say the least. Steve Plaut says he's
a "conspiracy theorist" that great catch-all for anyone who touches
on sensitive political issues. No specific accusations of
fabrication whatsoever. I also checked out Wikipedia - nothing
there either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Raimondo

Tim Howells

[greyl]

39. Your search is not inclusive.

and I'm being nice...

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

41. it's true, then

I can have a positive effect on the world...

[cascadiance]

42. I personally don't know of any problematic articles...

I was just giving deference to others here that say there are some, since I can't claim to be reading a large enough cross section of articles from this site to assess whether they do or not. I was merely saying that I think it is unfair to those that are decent writers on that site to be lumped with those that *might* be bad, and restrict us from good content as a result. As I noted, I've not seen any specific articles that I deem a problem, but I'm not claiming to know that there aren't any that might be questionable.

I do have a problem with banning content just because there are people trying to give a closer look to what's going on with the AIPAC organization or other things that might give *some* Israelis a black eye. I certainly don't think all Israelis are bad folk. I know many that I have called good friends in the past. Just like I have many Turkish friends from the past, having lived there for five years in my younger days. Though I'll also be the first in line to say that there are a lot of bad apples in power in Turkish society that also need to be examined more closely too. The same can be said for our government too.

I would hope that those characterizing articles as being anti-semitic are being objective about this and not calling articles that are just critical of certain questionable activities by Israelis anti-semitic as opposed to other articles that use things like ethnic slurs, etc. to make unsubstantive points, which I would have a problem with. Using the former logic is like saying we're anti-American if we question our government's role in Iraq too. That's simply wrong. Especially on a site like this which should be entertaining a lot of ideas to question what is happening out there.

[lukery]

22. august

paul - i figured that the blueprints and other buildings would probably be integral to the 911 plan - therefore i thought it was odd they were sending out this important info just weeks before the attack - almost as an afterthought

[paulthompson]

23. Good point

I can't say I know what things like this mean. However, if I were a guessing man, I would guess blueprints had been sent long before and this was some kind of last minute clarification. If you read 1000 Years of Revenge by Peter Lance, he discovered a guy, I think his name was Refai, who worked in some New York City government job all through the 1990s (I forget his exact job) and had access to all kinds of blueprints and other things. In fact, if I recall correctly, at one point he got accused of stealing stuff like that. At the same time, he was a radical militant type, and Lance even found pictures of him as one of the handlers for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheikh" who was an al-Qaeda leader and key figure in the first WTC bombing. Security in the US was generally so poor prior to 9/11 (and probably still lousy now) that I imagine most any organized group, be it al-Qaeda, or some intelligence agency, or whatever, could get their hands on skyscraper blueprints if they really wanted them. Why, just last night I read an article on how the headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security even isn't secure. So I don't find this kind of thing surprising.

I think the most interesting thing about Sibel Edmonds' blueprint story is the deliberate lying, mistranslation, and coverup to the FBI agent who wanted the information about it.

[lukery]

24. explosives?

the other question is why 'the terrorists' wanted blueprints and building composites - by all accounts the WTC was designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane, and also, the pilots apparently could hardly fly - therefore it's difficult to imagine they would want the blueprints & composites for the purposes of trying a pinpoint hit on the 'weakest link'

i therefore wonder why they wanted them? the only thing i can think of is to plant explosives which would support the 'explosives' theory - altho there may be other reasons?

i agree that just about anyone could probably have got the blueprints - and they did in fact, and sibel apparently heard the details of people getting them - someone that was already a target of the FBI, and someone who apparently had a mole inside the FBI translation unit...

[mirandapriestly]

25. It almost sounds like mis/disinfo -

I mean, the "terrorists" getting blueprints to the wtc - it's just "too easy".

[lukery]

26. "too easy".

mirandapriestly - i agree, in part - except that:
a) this information was ignored by the media and 911comm
b) it doesnt fit into the narrative of unsophisticated cave-dwellers flying planes into buildings

[mirandapriestly]

30. yes, overall I agree, but

the sound of "terrorists" receiving blueprints is just so comical, (kind of like the official story).

[lukery]

34. comical

yeah - exactly - that's why i wonder who was sending & receiving the blueprints

[greyl]

27. One would need a lot more than the blueprints

to plant explosives in a building.

"it's difficult to imagine they would want the blueprints & composites for the purposes of trying a pinpoint hit on the 'weakest link'"

It's not difficult for me to imagine that.

[mirandapriestly]

31. so do you think

the planners of 9-11 thought that they could bring the towers down by hitting them with a plane? is that why they needed the "weakest link"? Or do you think that they planned that the fuel fire would weaken the columns?

[greyl]

33. there is no reason to believe that they believed the towers would collapse

[lukery]

36. decided to LIHOP

a coomentor over at my place hypothesized that there was an original alqaeda plan to hit the buildings with planes, and some USG insiders learnt of the plan and decided to LIHOP but to also give it a helping hand - by planting explosives (which required the blueprints)

that argument has some strengths and weaknesses - but for one reason or other, it appears that some people needed the blueprints in august

[lukery]

35. weakest link

greyl - "It's not difficult for me to imagine that."

i agree - but i meant that in the context that the pilots apparently couldnt fly very well AND the fact that this transfer of blueprints et al occured in the weeks prior to the attack.

if we consider the 'perfect plan' - we'd assume that they'd try to determine what sort of damage they could do in advance, and they'd plan to explot the weekness by hitting it with planes. it seems like a weird afterthought

[Kevin Fenton]

29. WTC design

It is not entirely true that the WTC was designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane. The designers expressed the belief, based on a couple of back-of-the-envelope calculations, that it would withstand the impact. There's certainly no trace of any complicated calculations - I think the investigation maybe found a piece of paper with some numbers jotted down, but that's it.

As for the pilots, I really doubt Hani boarded, but Al Qaeda says their skills were better than the FBI claim - Binalshibh might well know more about their training than the US authorities.

Osama did actually say that they had worked it out (although this was the "fat Osama") and it's perfectly logical for them to want to take a look at the blueprints and not take the designers' at their word. Just because the blueprints didn't help them very much, doesn't mean they shouldn't have wanted them in the first place.

[greyl]

32. The "fat Osama" people wimped out here

when it came to producing evidence.

Your "fat osama" is a myth.