creativedreams
Weaver
- Nov 15, 2009
- 1,165
- 28
- 71
- Thread starter
- #101
Sibel D. Edmonds Witness before the 9/11 Commission. Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI.
Letter to 9/11 Commission 8/1/04 : "I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations."
"My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up."
Journalist: I'm asking you-- I mean, clearly, where does the evidence point on 9/11?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, that is the whole point. They are not letting out all the evidence. ...
Journalist: But even if they cut evidence out of reports, we have the clear evidence of Thermite in the buildings, we have clear evidence of C.I.A. insider trading, NORAD standing down, U.S. troops already massed in central Asia, Bush having the launch order two days before to attack Afghanistan. I mean, Sibel, when you put all that together-- I'm asking you personally-- where does all the evidence point?
Sibel Edmonds: The evidence points to a massive government cover-up. ...
Journalist: Sibel, what I'm asking you is, in your gut, do you think 9/11 to some extent is an inside job?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, as I am telling you, I'm trying to tell you is, I have all the evidence of cover-up. Now, who were the people behind this? And why? And how? We don't have a definite answer. As I said, we can come up with theories, we can come up with speculation, but they do not--I mean, in my opinion, they are not facts. But also what government has been giving us, again, I don't consider those a total--you know-- total truth or fact either.
Journalist: Would you be surprised?
Sibel Edmonds: No. I wouldn't.
Journalist: You wouldn't be surprised if elements or criminal elements or private contractors were involved in 9/11?
Sibel Edmonds: No, I wouldn't be surprised.
Journalist: So you wouldn't be surprised like many others, because of the evidence and the cover-up you've seen, if 9/11 was an inside job?
Sibel Edmonds: At this point, I'd have to say no, I wouldn't be surprised.
Journalist: Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes.
Letter to 9/11 Commission 8/1/04 : "I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations."
"My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up."
Journalist: I'm asking you-- I mean, clearly, where does the evidence point on 9/11?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, that is the whole point. They are not letting out all the evidence. ...
Journalist: But even if they cut evidence out of reports, we have the clear evidence of Thermite in the buildings, we have clear evidence of C.I.A. insider trading, NORAD standing down, U.S. troops already massed in central Asia, Bush having the launch order two days before to attack Afghanistan. I mean, Sibel, when you put all that together-- I'm asking you personally-- where does all the evidence point?
Sibel Edmonds: The evidence points to a massive government cover-up. ...
Journalist: Sibel, what I'm asking you is, in your gut, do you think 9/11 to some extent is an inside job?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, as I am telling you, I'm trying to tell you is, I have all the evidence of cover-up. Now, who were the people behind this? And why? And how? We don't have a definite answer. As I said, we can come up with theories, we can come up with speculation, but they do not--I mean, in my opinion, they are not facts. But also what government has been giving us, again, I don't consider those a total--you know-- total truth or fact either.
Journalist: Would you be surprised?
Sibel Edmonds: No. I wouldn't.
Journalist: You wouldn't be surprised if elements or criminal elements or private contractors were involved in 9/11?
Sibel Edmonds: No, I wouldn't be surprised.
Journalist: So you wouldn't be surprised like many others, because of the evidence and the cover-up you've seen, if 9/11 was an inside job?
Sibel Edmonds: At this point, I'd have to say no, I wouldn't be surprised.
Journalist: Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?
Sibel Edmonds: Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes.