FBI Translator Submitted Report Entitled "Kamikaze Pilots" to Bureau 5 Months Before 9/11 Warning of Al Qaeda Attacks on U.S. Cities

→ Washington’s Blog

According to newly-declassified documents (and see this),
an FBI translator filed a report with the Bureau entitled "Kamikaze
Pilots", warning of an al-Qaeda plot to attack America in a suicide
mission involving planes within the near future.

As Sibel Edmonds (herself a former FBI translator) wrote last month:

The memorandum [prepared by the 9/11 Commission], after establishing [Former FBI translator Behrooz Sarshar's] credibility and vaguely referring to his documented and witnessed testimony regarding specific tip(s) provided to the FBI in April and June 2001 regarding planned imminent "Kamikaze Pilots" attacks targeting major cities in the United States, leaves out the entire testimony. This testimony was also entirely left out of the Commission's final report released in July 2004.

Behrooz Sarshar worked as a GS 12 language specialist with Top Secret Clearance at the FBI Washington Field Office. After leaving the FBI in 2002, he provided his testimony on "Kamikaze Pilots" to several Congressional offices and investigators, including staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee's leading Democrat at the time, Senator Patrick Leahy, and the Justice Department's Inspector General Office. The congressional sources familiar with Mr. Sarshar's case and briefing found him and his report credible:

A former Grassley investigator says he found Sarshar credible, too. "We thought he was a pretty credible guy," said former Senate Judiciary Committee investigator Kris Kolesnik.

In April and June of 2001 a long-term FBI informant told two FBI agents from the Washington field office that his sources in Afghanistan had provided him with information regarding a terrorist plot to attack the US in a suicide mission involving airplanes. Mr. Sarshar acted as an interpreter at both meetings after which the case agents filed a report (on 302 Forms) with their squad supervisor.....

***

The 9/11 Commissioners had initially refused to interview Mr. Sarshar. He was one of several witnesses from the intelligence and law enforcement organizations with relevant testimonies and reports who were denied access to the commission (the ones that we know of). It was only after pressure from members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and memorandums from the congressional offices that the commission reluctantly agreed to interview Mr. Sarshar. However, his entire testimony was omitted from their final report. According to a Chicago Tribune investigative reporter even FBI Director Mueller appeared baffled by the Commission's lack of inquiry into this particular case:

FBI Director Robert Mueller, who expected to be asked about the case during an appearance before the commission in April, was surprised when the commissioners never raised the question, according to aides.

***

During my short tenure with the Bureau, I was briefed about this case by not only Mr. Sarshar but other firsthand witnesses, and I saw the actual 302 forms filed with the unit's squad supervisor (FBI language specialists get to keep a copy of their reports/forms).

***

I believe not only the families of the September 11^th attacks but every American has the right to know about this case. They need to know that this significant report was completely censored by a quasi commission, that this is one of many cases that were omitted from this staged and rehearsed show to pacify the public's need to know, and that there never was any real investigation into this horrific event used in reshaping not only our country, but the entire world.

Sibel Edmonds herself has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups.

Edmonds says that the government was provided with information about the planned attacks, including the fact that the attacks would be carried out using airplanes ("I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes"), and some information about date ranges and targets.

But two FBI translators' claims cannot possibly discredit the claims of the Bush administration that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable, right?

Corroborating Evidence

In fact, according to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

In 1994, the government received information that international terrorists "had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks" (see also this article).

According to the New York Times, "The F.B.I. had been aware for several years that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network were training pilots in the United States ...."

In 1998, U.S. officials received reports concerning a "Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, areas." Officials received reports that al Qaeda was trying to establish an operative cell in the United States and that bin Laden was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training in conjunction with his plans to strike U.S. domestic targets.

Indeed, the report concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center".

A 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council warned that fanatics loyal to bin Laden might try to hijack a jetliner and fly it into the Pentagon.

There were extraordinarily high terrorist attack threat levels in the summer of 2001, involving threats of attack within the U.S., and the U.S. government knew there were Al-Qaeda cells within the U.S. (or watch the video here).

In July 2001, a briefing prepared for senior government officials warned of "a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning.".

Shortly afterwards, the Attorney General stopped flying commercial aircraft within the United States based on a threat assessment by the FBI.

FBI agents recommended to FBI headquarters, in July 2001, an urgent nationwide review of flight schools regarding terrorism, and mentioned Bin Laden by name.

2 months before 9/11, intelligence services believed that Bin Laden intended to crash airplanes into the G8 Summit in order to kill President Bush and other world leaders. Condoleezza Rice was very focused on this threat to President Bush.

A pre-9/11 National Intelligence Estimate was entitled "Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly", and was apparently about Islamic people taking classes at U.S. flight schools.

The Federal Aviation Administration “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon,” and in 2001 it distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking.

President Bush was told in August 2001 that supporters of Bin Laden planned an attack within the U.S. with explosives and that they wanted to hijack airplanes.

A month before 9/11, the CIA sent a message to the Federal Aviation Administration warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner".

"Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States [in August 2001] that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

According to National Public Radio, the former CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected".

U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes, and that information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies.

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on".

And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks".

On September 6, 2001, Condoleezza Rice was warned that a terrorist attack inside the United States was imminent.

Also on September 6th, author Salman Rushdie was banned by US authorities from taking internal US flights; the FAA told his publisher the reason was that it had “intelligence of something about to happen”.

The National Security Agency and the FBI were both independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind's phone calls. (The NSA claims that it did not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11).

Newsweek stated "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns" (pay-per-view; cached version of article here).

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza was told by whistleblowers that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

The Military Had Drilled for Attacks Such as 9/11

Indeed, the military had actually drilled for aerial attacks with planes.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.

And the military had conducted numerous drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures; this article concerning a May 2001 exercise of a plane crashing into the Pentagon (see also this article and this one); and this article about yet another drill of a plane hitting the Pentagon from August 2001.

The military had also run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings (first paragraph), so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe.

See this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11 (excuse the music and subtitles).

There are literally hundreds of further examples of facts which tend to show that 9/11 was foreseeable (see this timeline for additional information).

If It Wasn't Foreseeable Before, It Was Then ...

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn't foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney - the man in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN article and this essay) - as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

But What Do High-Level Officials Say?

In addition to the former CIA director and other credible witnesses discussed above, many high-level officials have gone on record raising questions concerning the foreseeability of the attacks:

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland said "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted" (he also said, when he resigned from the 9/11 Commission: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".)

The former head of the Department of Homeland Security (then a top justice department terrorism prosecutor) said "As of Sept. 10th, each of us knew everything we needed to know to tell us there was a possibility of what happened on Sept. 11th . . . We knew the World Trade Center was a target . . . We knew an airplane could be used as a weapon."

Then-ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the joint intelligence committee that investigated 9/11 stated "They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it"

Then-current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was "not surprised there was an attack ...."

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand." See this, this and this.

Former White House counsel John Dean stated "It seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted . . . After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it [Dean is echoing the questions asked by Watergate prosecutors]. And the portrait that results is devastating."

A British member of Parliament said "It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks . . . . It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with airplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House.'"

A 24-year Air Force veteran and former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism".

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time".

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence".

The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility.

Obviously, given the above, terrorists crashing planes into buildings was foreseeable.

Comments

[Zero Govt]

well the persecution of Assange is hilarious... it's exposing the corrupt link between Sweden and the good ol' USA. Even the Swedish public didn't realise how in-bed their Govt was with Americas secret services... that is educating people no end at the totalitarian stink behind the scenes, a humdinger of unforseen consequences of political actions 

[williambanzai7]

In the rare instance when our government gives a straight answer, it is not actually their intention to do so. They are motivated by other factors unrelated to speaking the truth.

I can't remember the last time we got a straight answer on anything of great importance.

[falak pema]

In the 50's the USA purported the 'domino effect' theory to justify intervention in mid-east and southeast asia, around the rim of the enemy empire : USSR/Com.China. They succeeded against the USSR which imploded under its own criminal military industrial complex cost. They wedded China subsequently and we now see where this has taken the USA...having given the keys of the West under Clinton/Bush/Obama to autocratic, market driven new China. All that's left are the chickens to come home to roost in all those US satrapies which fell under their influence, through surrogate crony governments, as a result of domino 'fast fixing' by the CIA. Now we see the 'reverse domino theory' unfurling into the heartland of the oil patch. The prize possession of US Empire, which was what this whole 'red conspiracy theory', now relabeled 'green conspiracy theory' has been all about. If this trend goes on, matures alarmingly,  the powers that be in Washington will have to coin a new theory for the dominoes : 'the democratic cabal of developing countries'...Can't have that!!

Brave new world.

[falak pema]

Torquemada on the Potomac. That's better than Heinz ketchup for generating red colored slush on your plate. Maybe he bought more into his own brand of Ketchup called Halliburton as a result of whipping his neck around on that fatal day...whip your broker for not buying fast enuff...

[onarga74]

Another addition to Georges scrapbook...isn't it a bit beyond comprehension that this stuff get buried and we're now being told to be afraid of a teacher and a fireman in Wisconsin because they were on Glen Becks blackboard? He told us about them, that they are very bad people, and that they were going to take over the whole world next Tuesday.

[flattrader]

Yes, be very afraid of the teacher and fireman, but ignore the fact that the WI governor lied about the entire budget crisis.

Ignore the fact that he called a special session of the legislature right after taking office in January to give away $140M in corporate tax cuts to his corporate masters.

7:23pm Read Brendan Fischer's new report on the budget crisis:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker alleges that dismantling public sector collective bargaining rights is made necessary by a $3.6 billion deficit in the next budget, and a $137 million shortfall this year. Setting aside the fact that the ability to negotiate shifts, seniority, benefits and conditions of employment would have a negligible impact on the deficit, and looking beyond Walker’s deceptive claim that the alternative to union-busting is to kick 200,000 children off Medicaid (called “false” by Politifact), how deep is the state’s economic crisis?

Representative Mark Pocan (D- Madison) has looked more closely at the numbers and writes that the $3.6 billion deficit is bogus. The alleged deficit is based on $3.9 billion in new agency requests for the 2011-2013 budget, a 7.2% spending increase. However, these are merely requests, not dollars actually allocated or spent, and Pocan writes that the legislature never votes to grant 100% of agency requests: “I don’t think there is a member in the legislature that would vote for [the requested budget increase]. In fact, I asked [Legislative Fiscal Bureau] Director [Robert] Lang when was the last time we gave agencies exactly what they requested and was told he couldn’t think of one and he’s been here decades.”

For example, the state’s non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau reports that the difference between the amount requestedfor the 2009-2011 budget and the amount actually allocated was almost $3.5 billion, a sum nearly identical to Walker’s alleged “deficit” for the next budget cycle. State agencies had requested a 9.7% increase but were actually granted a reduction of 2.6%.

For this year's budget, any shortfalls are a direct result of Walker's policies. The Fiscal Bureau told legislators in January that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million. The $137 million deficit Walker uses as an excuse to crush collective bargaining results from the tax cuts and incentives Walker has pushed through since taking office; this includes the loss of $48 million in revenue from private health savings account taxation, a move lauded by the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby (who spent nearly $1 million on Walker's campaign).

[Windemup]

Amerika, It's time you stood up and took your country back. More and more you look like fools to us living outside your country. You need to deal with this else your country will continue to slide into oblivion. People need to be tried for treason, murder, theft, and fraud. Failure to do so will see the history books pronounce sentence on your legacy for not doing what needed to be done to rid the world of the mugs and thieves that are taking your freedoms and liberty.

[takinthehighway]

Trust me, my friend, work is in progress on that very aim. Groups such as the Southern National Congress are striving towards a peaceful decoupling from the entities which desire to ensnare and enslave us.

One does not devour the elephant in one gulp.

Deo vindice.

[More Critical T...]

Not just that, but notice this detail:

So even if 9/11 wasn't foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney - the man in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN articlethis essay) - as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon. and

If you apply just a little bit of critical thinking you'll get the picture:

Dick Cheney, as a seasoned and cynical military man, instantly knew that this was his big moment. The big event he's been waiting for, for decades: to Change America Forever.

As such he did not want to do that he should have done: to order the shoot-down of a civilian passenger plane. Instead he waited a few minutes until the plane hit the Pentagon.

The liaison officer who was with him knew this as well and testified about it - but what is his word worth, against the testimony of the Vice President's? Cheney knew to have only one person around himself.

Yes, this story tells us that Dick Cheney is a cold-blooded murderer who is willing to sacrifice just about anything for the 'greater good'.

(If this does not fit into your world view then deal with it but don't junk me for telling the truth.)

[palmereldritch]

Courtesy of We Are Change:

Confrontation of Cheney at CPAC about the ordered stand down of the AF protecting the Pentagon on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctr9rA4d88c

Watch the final moments as indictments mix with the pathetic bleating praise of a programmed drone to create an ironic backdrop to (or the reason for?) the smug demonic grin Cheney delivers just as the elevator doors close to whisk him away from facing the truth.

Sick creep.

[BigDuke6]

For once i agree with the MC idiot.

And why should all this info and testimony be ignored - obvious? No?

Because the whole thing was organised for the purpose of going to war.

Who by? I don't know but it must be at a very high level. 

[LowProfile]

For once i agree with the MC idiot.

Don't worry, it won't happen much...  This is one of the few issues that doesn't require non-critical thinking or adhering to partisan ideology (like global warming does).