Today from the Norman city court clerk I obtained a document confirming that Nicholas E. Berg, who reportedly was decapitated by militants in Iraq, was arrested twice for trespassing on the University of Oklahoma campus during the spring of 2000. Earlier, OU police had reported that he had been sleeping on couches around the campus. He appeared to be living as a vagrant during that period. The OUPD actually contacted him six times.

Today I gave the arrest record to the editor of The Norman Transcript.

Friday, I ascertained that Berg had been an OU employee during academic year 2000-2001. The OU personnel directory for that year listed him as a facilities attendant at the Lloyd Noble arena.

The thought crosses one's mind that Berg might have been the one who bought the 9/11 hijacker's airline ticket from the OU library computer terminal. I have not been able to ascertain whether he was ever an OU library employee. Most likely, he would have been a temp.

Still, there are things about Berg's story which don't add up. Are we to believe that someone would really voluntarily surrender his email password to a stranger he met on the bus? This is apparently the story which Berg told the FBI to account for the fact that the password and Berg's email address were on Moussaoui's computer when they searched it, after 9/11.

If Berg was the one who bought the ticket, then appearing to be a vagrant would have been a way to gain the trust of Al Qaeda, for infiltration purposes. They would be likely to trust someone who appeared to be a misfit and alienated from mainstream American society. Also, it has been reported that Berg had been in possession of anti-Semitic literature. That would be another tactic for gaining the trust of Al Qaeda.

How does a one who was a vagrant in spring 2000 make the transition to independent businessman in Iraq, doing telecommunications work, in 2004? Maybe with the help of funds paid by the CIA to its operatives?

If he bought the plane ticket, then the CIA had a good reason to set him up to be snuffed: dead men tell no tales. The execution also served the propaganda purpose of taking the focus of off American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

See my website for the details about the 9/11 hijacker's airline ticket purchase from the OU library.
taken from:
http://www.jerrypippin.com/Wright_OP.htm

website of Michael P. Wright:
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html

thanks to:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news


+ + + + + + + + + + +

An Investigative Essay
David Boren and George Tenet
Was Their Bungled Sting Operation a Factor in the 9/11 Attack? -- Read This and Decide

Michael Phillip Wright
Norman, Oklahoma
Copyright 2003 (Updated 2004)
All Rights Reserved

"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 defence of incompetence." -- John Loftis, former US federal prosecutor

Introduction

Kathy Ashton's son Tommy was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Eight months after the attack, she asserted that the mass murder of 3,000 Americans was enabled "because many agencies in this country dropped the ball." 1 In the wake of the 9/11 attack, it has became popular to talk about the failure of the nation's intelligence community to "connect the dots" in advance of the catastrophe and take the necessary steps to obstruct the terrorists. The American people, their leaders, and the media need to give serious consideration to the likelihood that within the inner circles of the intelligence world they were indeed connecting dots. The problem was that they were drawing a different picture.

The view presented here is not far-fetched conspiricism. Sting operations are common in law enforcement. We were reminded of this by USA Today (August 13, 2003), with a page-one article about an individual being arrested and accused of attempting to sell a surface-to-air missile to Al Qaeda, for use in the US. In fact, the missile was purchased from him by two FBI agents posing as Al Qaeda terrorists. It was a sting on both sides: the missile and launcher had been sold to the accused by two Russian agents acting in concert with the FBI and pretending to be illegal arms merchants. There was no plot to attack an aircraft with a missile. The entire episode appears to be little more than choreographed public relations stagecraft intended to convince Americans that their government is "doing something" about homeland security. A desperate sucker trying to relieve his financial problems played right into their hands.

Given that I do not have police or subpoena power, I have relied mostly on information gathered from commonly available publications. From careful consideration of the various odd events in the trail of evidence, it appears very likely that former U.S. Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, an adroit political schemer still ambitious for higher office, was working with George Tenet and other CIA inner circle associates trying to conduct a sting operation against Al Qaeda. Always hungry for adoration, glory was Boren's goal. This explains why they allowed the 9/11 plot to advance instead of obstructing it when opportunities were presented. Of course, they failed tragically. One of their big blunders was assuming that hijackers intended to land the aircraft and then engage in negotiations over passenger hostages. Readers are invited to review the evidence discussed in this document and then to give careful consideration to the argument that the bungled sting explanation is the best way to account for the known facts.

CIA Allowed Known Al Qaeda Members to Buy 9/11 Flight Tickets

When viewed as a whole, a large troubling question emerges from the following brief set of facts:

1. In his June 2002 testimony before Congress, CIA boss George Tenet admitted that the agency had been tracking Al Qaeda members Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar since January 2000, when an Al Qaeda meeting was held in Malaysia.

2. according to a consensus of experts hired by National Review, the State Department acted unlawfully in granting visas to 15 of the 19 hijackers; the article mentioned Khalid Almihdhar as one of them; 2

3. In his briefing for the President of August 6, 2001, Tenet highlighted his knowledge of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden's interest in hijacking aircraft.

4. In his testimony, Tenet admitted that the CIA waited until August 23, 2001, to recommend to the FBI and other agencies that Alhazmi and Almihdhar be put on a watchlist.

5. According to the indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, Alhazmi purchased his ticket for American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, on or about August 27, 2001. Khalid Almihdhar bought his ticket for the same flight on August 25.

6. It was disclosed to the 9/11 Commission in January 2004 that the watchlist, called TIPOFF, was not shared with FAA.

Big Questions: Given the CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda's interest in hijacking aircraft, why were these two known Al Qaeda members allowed to purchase airline tickets, after they had been put on a watchlist? Why was the TIPOFF list not shared with FAA?

In view of the compelling evidence available in late August 2001 indicating that at least one airline hijacking was under way for September 11, an intelligence leadership with honest motives could have obstructed the success of that team of hijackers. At the very least, the "defense of incompetence" seems highly suspect with regard to the question of preventing the crash of Flight 77. Could other 9/11 crashes have been prevented by conscientious action from the American intelligence community?

An Airline Ticket for a 9/11 Hijacker Was Purchased from the OU Library Computer

Former Senator David Boren is currently president of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, where I reside. In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. From this encounter she learned that an OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that the person who made the purchase had not been a hijacker. Contrary to expectation, he was a white American male, but he knew he was assisting the hijacking operation.

The librarian's report is consistent with information provided by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding in their book Masterminds of Terror. 3 They wrote that the 9/11 hijackers mostly used the Internet for selecting their airplane seats. Fouda is a reporter for Al-Jazeera and Fielding works for the London Sunday Times.

In October 2002 I assisted Bill Crozier, a fellow OU graduate, in making a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, in order to obtain more details about this incident. The letter requesting details from the FBI began with this sentence:

Under the Freedom of Information Act I request information about a report I heard involving purchase of airline tickets for the 9/11 terrorist hijacking from the public computer terminals in the University of Oklahoma library.

The request also asked FBI to identify the purchaser and to report whether he was taken into custody. The scan of their reply is at the bottom of this article. The FBI letter confirms that the incident happened. Their subject line at the top reads:

PURCHASE OF AIRLINE TICKETS/911 TERRORIST HIJACKING/ PUBLIC COMPUTER TERMINALS

The letter informs us that "the material you requested is located in an investigative file which pertains to a pending investigation." While confirming the event, the FBI did not identify the person who bought the ticket. Their secrecy over this matter inspires a strong suspicion that the purchaser was an infiltrator operating under the CIA's instructions. The most likely explanation indicated by all the evidence compiled for this report is that he was a participant in a failed attempt by the CIA to organize a sting operation against terrorists who later succeeded in the 9/11 attack. Had he not been an infiltrator, he would have been accused of a crime and brought to court in a public proceeding. The concealing of his identity cannot be explained by offering the possibility that he is a fugitive. The names and photos of fugitives are commonly put on wanted posters. If he were a fugitive, why haven't they put out a wanted poster?

An Oklahoma City TV news station broadcast a report about this ticket purchase, but I did not see the broadcast. Several people have told me about it. One of them who saw the broadcast has emailed the Family Steering Committee for the Independent 9/11 Commission and confirmed having seen it. She copied the email to me. Other Oklahomans who saw this broadcast are asked to write and tell me.

According to USA Today, the CIA definitely had infiltrated Al Qaeda. The newspaper reports that "the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur." Those who supervised the purchase of the 9/11 ticket from OU library knew, for at least one flight. Conscientious action by the leadership of the American intelligence community could have saved Flight 93.

KOCO TV News Reported the Airline Ticket Purchase at OU But Later Denied It

In early October 2003 I began to call Oklahoma City TV news stations in order to discover who reported the terrorist airline ticket purchase and to try to obtain a videocassette of the broadcast. At first I reached an editor at KFOR (Channel 4). He said they did not report this.

Then I tried KOCO (Channel 5) and reached a woman named Melissa at the news desk. She confirmed that KOCO reported the event and proudly asserted, "We broke the story." She told me I needed to speak to reporter Terri Watkins about obtaining a videocassette and transferred me to her voice mail, and I left a message requesting it.

Watkins returned the phone call and left a message on my answering machine. She denied that Channel 5 had reported this event. It now appeared very likely that the station had been pressured into covering it up. I needed evidence of this. In Oklahoma, it is legal to record a telephone conversation if only one party to it grants consent. Bearing this in mind, I called again and recorded Melissa confirming it.

OU President David Boren Is the Mentor of George Tenet

David Boren has been president of the University of Oklahoma since 1994, the year of his resignation from the U.S. Senate. He had been Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and in 1987 appointed George Tenet (photo at left) to be its chief of staff. This appointment launched Tenet on the career path which led to his being named CIA director in 1997. Columnist John Curtis discloses the fact that Tenet had no military, criminal justice, or spy experience when Boren gave him his job.

Boren and Tenet Helped Politicize and Corrupt the CIA

In 1991 Boren and Tenet helped politicize and corrupt the analytical division of the CIA by assisting in the process of pushing through the appointment of Robert Gates as director. Details are available in this article by Robert Parry of the Consortium for Independent Journalism. Gates was an anti-Soviet hardliner who earlier had helped the Reagan administration falsify information in its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. Tenet has been totally comfortable with a politicized CIA he and Boren helped create -- one which will slant intelligence to suit political objectives.

Author Bill Gertz on Tenet's Lack of Qualifications

Bill Gertz is the author of Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11. 4 He agrees with John Curtis that Tenet had no background qualifying him for intelligence work. On page 58 he writes that in 1995 Tenet "became deputy director of Central Intelligence despite never having received training as a professional intelligence officer."

Boren and Tenet have remained on very close terms. During the ceremony when he was sworn in, Tenet expressed deep gratitude to Boren. In January 2001 Boren called the newly inaugurated George Bush and persuaded him to keep Tenet as CIA director. Time reported that Tenet and Boren were having a "leisurely breakfast" together in a Washington hotel on the morning of the 9/11 attack. In May 2003, Tenet was the commencement speaker at OU's graduation ceremony.

Boren's Presidential Ambitions

Boren (photo at right) continues to aspire to high national office. His father Lyle, a U.S. Congressman in the 30s and 40s, taught him to have the ambition of growing up to be President of the USA. 5 Boren, a Yale graduate, Rhodes Scholar, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was a U.S. Senator from 1979 until his 1994 resignation, which followed allegations of sexual misconduct. Since leaving the Senate he has continued to act like a politician. During his period of employment at OU he has frequently been on TV during the half-times of football games. Boren was on a PBS broadcast speaking about security matters after the 9/11 attack. Over the years he has hosted numerous political celebrities to give speeches at OU. They typically sing his praises and then collect their generous honoraria. These have included Joe Lieberman, Margaret Thatcher, Colin Powell, and Desmond Tutu. The OU website boasts:

Over the past few years, guests have included Henry Kissinger, five former CIA directors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Colin Powell, former President George Bush, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, the ambassadors of China, Russia, Mexico, Britain, Australia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many others. Several of the sessions have been broadcast live on C-SPAN.

Within the Reform Party there was a committee to draft Boren as its Presidential candidate for 2000. Success in the planning of a sting operation to overwhelm a terrorist hijacking attempt would have been a perfect event in the service of his ambitions for high national office. For more evidence of Boren's presidential ambitions, see the politics1.com website.

The Boren-Rudman Commission: Another Failure

Boren’s resignation from the U.S. Senate in 1994 was a significant blow to his ambitions for higher office. In 1999, his unexplained departure from the co-chairmanship of the National Security Study Group, originally called the Boren-Rudman Commision, was another setback. His replacement was Gary Hart. The Reform Party Committee to draft Boren for President in 2000 never got off the ground. In 2001, Boren was desperate for a chance to put the national spotlight on himself as a man of distinguished achievement.

The Commission had been established by Congress in 1998 and was expected to have a life of two and a half years, during which it was expected to perform "the most comprehensive review of the national security environment, processes, and organizations since the National Security Act of 1947."

Its final report, due in February 2001, was expected to "delineate a national security strategy" and recommend "concomitant changes to the national security apparatus." Viewed from the vantage point of hindsight provided by the 9/11 tragedy, the Commission can be seen as a having failed miserably to accomplish anything to improve the nation’s defense -- another empty exercise in political stagecraft and resume-building.

A Tragic Miscalculation: They Expected a Hostage Situation

On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a CIA briefing, approved by Tenet, and indicating that bin Laden was interested in hijacking aircraft. The report did not prepare the President for the possibility of using American passenger aircraft to destroy buildings and kill thousands of people in the U.S. Eight months later, National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice stated, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center...All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking." By that she meant using airline passengers as hostages. 1

The briefing was also reported by CNN:

At the briefing...Bush received a 1 1/2-page document, which, according to Rice, was an "analytic report" on al-Qaeda. Included was a mention that al-Qaeda might be tempted to hijack airliners, perhaps so that they might use hostages to secure the release of an al-Qaeda leader or sympathizer. Rice was not present but discussed the briefing with Bush immediately after it had ended, as she always does.

The Washington Post reported that Rice and other Bush administration officials said the memo contained no reference to suicide attacks and instead focused on "hijackings in the traditional sense."

Senate Intelligence Committee Report

A September 2002 Senate Intelligence Committee document also indicates that Tenet believed hijackers were going to land the aircraft and negotiate over hostages. The document describes an August 2001 intelligence briefing which incorporated the expectation that Bin Laden "wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of U.S.-held extremists" (p. 23). BBC news reported that Congressional investigator Eleanor Hill stated that officials never looked closely at the potential threat of hijacked airliners flying into buildings.

January 2004 Update

FAA Also Did Not Expect Suicide Missions

In January 2004, USA Today reported that before the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration played down the possibility of suicide hijackings. Their source was a preliminary report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. In July 2001, the FAA issued a warning to air carriers but did not mention suicide hijackings. Instead, it focused on the possibility that some terrorist groups might conceal explosive devices inside luggage.

As early as March 1998, the FAA's Office of Civil Aviation Security had officially considered the possibility of suicide hijackings. An FAA spokesman quoted by Knight-Ridder said that "the assumptions were turned on their head." The news articles did not inform readers about who had intervened to convince the agency to reverse itself. It did state that Bush administration officials have maintained that before the attacks there was no indication terrorists were considering suicide hijackings.

Another news item disclosed that on 9/11 the FAA flagged nine hijackers for their passenger screening; however, the news indicates that they weren't noticed for any reason related to information the FAA might have received from the CIA about the group being terrorists. All five of the hijackers on Flight 77 were flagged but then allowed to board. Since January 2000 the CIA knew, at least, that within this group Al Hazmi and Al Mihdhar were Al Qaeda members and that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking aircraft. Further, according to the Moussaoui indictment, they bought their tickets in late August. Yet the group came to FAA's attention only because they met the agency's criteria for suspicion: (1) paying with cash, or (2) buying a one-way ticket. Their luggage was searched for explosives.




CIA Had Been Tracking Hijackers Since January 2000

On June 3, 2002, the Associated Press reported that the CIA first learned about Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, who later became 9/11 hijackers, because they had attended a meeting in Malaysia in early 2000. The agency did not alert domestic authorities to watch for them until three weeks before the attacks. By then, they were already in the USA. In response to this news, Senator Richard Shelby, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said CIA Director George Tenet "is in denial." He added: "But I believe he is totally wrong."

Reuters reported on June 3 that the CIA knew that one of the terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi, had attended the Malaysia meeting, which was a secret planning session of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. Agents also discovered that Almihdhar had already obtained a multiple-entry visa that allowed him to enter and leave the United States at will.

CIA Did Nothing

The story was originally broken by Newsweek, which said that the CIA did nothing with the information. 6 It neither notified the FBI, which could have tracked the two men, nor the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which could have turned them away at the border. Experts hired by National Review to analyze the visa application forms of the terrorists determined that 15 of the 19 should have been denied visas under the law as it existed at that time. 2

CIA Agent David Edger Arrives as OU Visiting Professor in August 2001

CIA agent David Edger arrived on the OU campus in August 2001 to begin his duties as a visiting professor in the political science department. Up until that month he had responsibility for surveillance of the Al Qaeda cell in Germany, 7 whose membership included Ramzi bin Al-Shibh (photo at right) , paymaster for the Al Qaeda organization, and Mohammed Atta, a hijacker on one of the airliners which crashed into the World Trade Center (WTC). Edger was described by The Norman Transcript as an "expert in intelligence collection, counterintelligence investigations, and political action" [emphasis added]. The newspaper also reports that he has directed espionage and counter-espionage activities. 8 Edger was in Chile in 1973 when the CIA was overthrowing the Allende government. During the month of Edger's arrival in Norman, hijackers bought their 9/11 plane tickets.

Edger (photo at left) is a native Oklahoman whose appointment at OU was arranged by Boren , who also teaches a class in political science. During a speech in Tulsa , Edger expressed his interest in covert action and infiltration. Penetrating and manipulating terrorist cells was listed as a goal of CIA counterintelligence operations in a declassified CIA document approved for release in 1999 [emphasis added]. See page 21 of the document.

Al Qaeda Operative Zacarias Moussaoui Lived in Norman During 2001

Norman is the home of the University of Oklahoma, where David Boren is president. Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui arrived in Norman in February 2001 and was a student at the Airman Flight School until May. As an Airman student he was housed in OU dormitories. He remained in Norman for most of the summer. In August, OU engineering student Hussein Al-Attas drove him to Minnesota, where he enrolled in another flight school. Moussaoui had persuaded Al-Attas to the jihad in Chechnya. 9

According to the LA Weekly before his trip to Minnesota Moussaoui had a meeting with Mohammad Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 plot, in an Oklahoma City motel. Also present was a man who appeared to be Marwin Al-Shehhi, who helped crash a jetliner into the south tower of the WTC.

Did CIA agent Edger, whose responsibility was surveillance over the Hamburg cell of which Atta was a member, know about this meeting? The FBI knew about it but apparently did not treat it as significant. The meeting was confirmed on the O'Reilly show by Larry Johnson, former Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (May 11, 2002).

Moussaoui Jailed in Minnesota

On August 16, Moussaoui was detained in Minnesota under suspicion of immigration violations. He had arrived at a flight school in Eagan on August 13, for simulator training for a Boeing 747. Time reported that he expressed a desire to learn how to fly the aircraft in four or five days and did not want it known that he was a Muslim.10 Oklahoma City's Channel 5 news reported that Moussaoui was jailed in Sherbourne County in mid-August after an instructor at a flight-similar school in Eagan became suspicious when he attempted to pay cash for classes and only had a student pilot's license.

Intelligence Agencies Ignored Opportunity to Disrupt the Plot Before 9/11

In August 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was the key to unraveling the 9/11 plot before it hatched into the worst act of terrorism ever committed against the American people on a single day. No one knew this better than the Al Qaeda leaders themselves. After his arrest, they changed their plans in response to fear that he might talk. Rohan Gunaratna is an expert at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence in Scotland. He writes:11

The arrest of Moussaoui forced bin Laden's organisation to bring forward its operation to strike America's outstanding landmarks. Although Al Qaeda strives to train agents who disclose nothing to their captors, in reality they were well aware of the growing danger to the operation with every day that passed. Moreover Moussaoui was one of the few suspected terrorists who knew about both the Hamburg and the Kuala Lampur cells. With the imminent threat of being compromised, Al Qaeda's cells stepped up their financial, logistical, and administrative preparations within a week of Moussaoui's arrest.

Reporting the proceedings against Moussaoui, USA Today (6/3/02) provided similar information: "Prosecutors have indicated in court that Moussaoui...not only knew about the hijacking plan in advance but also was the key to any hope that U.S. agents had of uncovering and stopping it."

Reporters Fouda and Fielding agree that the arrest of Moussaoui was the event which compelled Al Qaeda to settle upon September 11 as the date of the attack.12 These authors did not know how the other conspirators learned of the arrest. Hussein Al-Attas, Moussaoui's friend from the University of Oklahoma who drove him to Minnesota, is the most likely suspect for having told Al Qaeda about this. As we gave noted, Moussaoui had convinced Al-Attas to join the Jihad in Chechnya. 9

Evidence Found at Time of Moussaoui's Arrest

In September 2001, Oklahoma Daily reporter Ryun Chittum informed readers that Moussaoui was identified by French intelligence as "a high-ranking member of the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden."13

From the indictment, Gunaratna also gives a detailed report of items in Moussaoui's possession when he was arrested: 14

Moussaoui was found in possession of two knives, fighting gloves, shin guards, flight deck videos for a Boeing 747 Model 400, a flight simulator computer programme, software that could be used to review pilot procedures for the Boeing 747 Model 400, notes referring to a handheld GPS receiver and a camcorder, a handheld aviation radio, a notebook listing two German phone numbers and the name of Ahad Sabet, letters from Infocus Tech and a computer disk containing information relating to the aerial dispersal of pesticides.

USA Today reported that Infocus Tech was the front company for Yazid Sufaat, who had sponsored the Malaysia Al-Qaeda meeting in January 2000. Moussaoui also had a crop-dusting manual. In spite of all this evidence, the FBI headquarters told the Minneapolis office that there was not sufficient probable cause to justify a search of his computer when he was in their custody three weeks before 9/11.

The Significance of Moussaoui's Crop-Dusting Manual

There is evidence indicating that the 9/11 hijackers were very interested in using anthrax as a bioterror weapon. Hijacker Ahmed Al Haznawi, who was on United Flight 93, was treated for a lesion which his doctor concluded was consistent with exposure to anthrax. The AP reported that experts at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies studied the incident and concluded that anthrax was the most likely diagnosis for Al Haznawi.

Al Haznawi received the treatment in a Florida clinic three months before the September attack. The Moussaoui indictment states that hijacker Mohammed Atta made inquiries about starting a crop-dusting company in Florida, and that several hijackers attended flight training school in that state. The indictment also says that Moussaoui was making crop-dusting inquiries in June 2001.



We must look for consistency. Where there is want of it we must suspect deception.
-- Sherlock Holmes



Tenet's CIA Influences FBI to Obstruct Search of Computer

Tenet is able to influence the FBI, and in August 2001 did so in such a way as to assist the headquarters in its obstruction of the Moussaoui investigation. Time reported that the CIA at that time described Moussaoui as merely one having "extremist views." 15 Additionally, Tenet's CIA offered the misleading statement that information from the French "didn't say Al Qaeda or anything like that." In striking contrast, FBI agent Coleen Rowley's May 2002 letter to director Robert Mueller emphasized that the French had confirmed Moussaoui's "affiliations with radical fundamentalist groups and activities connected to Osama bin Laden" within five days of his arrest.

On the morning when the leisurely breakfast with his mentor Boren was interrupted by the news of the 9/11 attack, Tenet suddenly found his memory about the true identity of Moussaoui. The Washington Post reported a comment from this breakfast conversation:

"I wonder," Tenet was overheard to say, "if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training." He was referring to Zacarias Moussaoui, who had been detained in August after attracting suspicion when he sought training at a Minnesota flight school.

Moussaoui's case was very much on Tenet's mind. The previous month, the FBI had asked the CIA and the National Security Agency to run phone traces on Moussaoui, already the subject of a five-inch-thick file in the bureau.

Regarding the Minneapolis FBI agents and their August 2001 interest in Moussaoui, CNN reports that the FBI informed the CIA of his arrest, and the CIA ran checks on him while asking foreign intelligence services for information. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern reports more on this history in The Miami Herald :

Tenet's people learned about Moussaoui in a back-door message from the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis enlisting the CIA's help in obtaining information on Moussaoui from French intelligence. The French promptly pointed out Moussaoui's affiliations with radical fundamentalist groups and Osama bin Laden. (The French service had been keeping close tabs on the likes of Moussaoui, having foiled a plan by Algerian terrorists to crash an airplane into the Eiffel Tower in 1994.)

Why did the 5-inch intelligence file seemingly escape the CIA's notice when they were helping FBI headquarters obstruct the Minneapolis agents in their attempt to obtain a warrant to examine Moussaoui's computer?

Oklahoma City's Channel 5 news reported that, in response to the August FBI inquiry about Moussaoui, the CIA "checked its own files and found nothing on him." What appeared to be "on Tenet's mind" that month was the desire to keep the lid on Moussaoui's computer. CNN reported that by the time Moussaoui came to court, the government had been unable to secure evidence of his e-mail record until it was too late to recover it.

Moussaoui: a Balloon To Be Inflated or Deflated

Tenet and other U.S. officials have treated Moussaoui like a balloon who can be inflated or deflated in response to the political agenda of the moment. Tenet presented Moussaoui as merely a "religious extremist" when FBI headquarters was constructing its rational for obstructing the search of his computer three weeks before 9/11. On the morning of the attack, suddenly Tenet remembered "this guy taking pilot training" in Norman.

In his 2002 testimony about Al Qaeda, Tenet contradicted his August 2001 position again. On this occasion he described the Al Qaeda plot as "resilient." This meant that it could go forward "despite several real blows." On this occasion Tenet acknowledged that Moussaoui was an important part of the Al Qaeda team. He described his arrest as the most important setback survived by the terrorist group on its path to the September attack:

Most important, even after 16 August arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui -- currently under indictment for conspiracy to commit terrorism and aircraft piracy, among other charges -- the plan was not aborted. In fact, the hijackers began buying their tickets for 11 September just over a week after Moussaoui's arrest.

French Official Talks About Moussaoui's Membership in GIA

In the fall of 2001, ABC broadcast an interview by Brian Ross with Alexis Debat, a former French defense official. Debat talked about the terrorist plot to hijack an airliner and fly it into the Eiffel Tower. The plot was disrupted by French police and the details were provided to American authorities. Debat also stated that they were aware of Moussaoui's position as a "high-ranking member of GIA," the Groupe Islamique Arme, a terrorist organization.

During the same broadcast, Ross also interviewed Vince Canastero, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence. He was talking about the August 2001 arrest of Moussaoui in Minnesota. He said, "Unfortunately it appears it was a warning sign for the impending September 11 operation that we missed completely." Narrator Ross, quoting Canastero, then added that information gathered by FBI agents in Minnesota never made it to Washington. Canastero continued: "Information that was known in August about Moussaoui, particularly from foreign intelligence services, that he was a member of Bin Laden's organization Al Qaeda should have been a large warning flag if that information had been put together in Washington. It was not."

MSNBC News Wonders If Obstruction of Moussaoui Investigation Facilitated 9/11 Attack

At its website MSNBC News engages in some troubling speculation about Moussaoui:

Dec. 14 His arrest on Aug. 16 poses one of the great what-ifs of the war on terrorism -- the possibility, remote but tantalizing, that FBI agents working in Minneapolis might have discovered the Sept. 11 hijacking conspiracy before it happened.

August 2001: FBI Agent Speculated That Moussaoui Might Be Planning WTC Attack

Newsweek published a dramatic statement in its issue of May 27, 2002. The article is reproduced at the website of the library of the University of Missouri journalism school:

In mid-August Minneapolis agents arrested a French-Moroccan flight student, Zacarias Moussaoui, and worked themselves into a "frenzy" over the possibility that he was planning a terrorist act involving a large aircraft, one official said. One agent even speculated in his notes that Moussaoui, whom some authorities now believe was supposed to have been the 20th hijacker, might be planning to crash a plane into the World Trade Center.

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that during the summer of 2001 an agent warned the bureau that Moussaoui "could fly something into the World Trade Center." He also admitted that the bureau "should have more aggressively pursued warnings" from Minneapolis agents about Moussaoui.

Moussaoui's Oklahoma Budget: $64,000

Zacarias Moussaoui's 2001 excursion in Norman was well-funded. USA Today reported that his sponsor, Yazid Sufaat, provided him $35,000 at the start and agreed to send an additional $2500 monthly. Sufaat was host of the January 2000 Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia. When Moussaoui arrived in Norman in February 2001 he deposited $32,000 in a local bank. Given that he was in Norman six months, the total sum of the monthly payment amounted to another $15,000. Item 67 of the Moussaoui indictment states that in early August 2001 Ramzi Bin al-Shibh provided Moussaoui a wire transfer of $14,000. The total sum of cash available to Moussaoui during his half-year in Norman was $64,000.

What were Moussaoui's expenses? MSNBC says that at the Airman Flight School Moussaoui expressed interest in a course which would cost $5000. While he was attending Airman, he was housed in a University of Oklahoma dormitory contracted with the school. Item 71 of the indictment alleges that he paid approximately $6300 in cash to attend the flight school in Minnesota. During the summer Moussaoui lived in an apartment on Monnett Avenue in Norman. This was a short walk from the OU campus. Housing costs in Oklahoma are fairly inexpensive compared to the nation. The apartment rental was probably around $300 monthly. Another expense was the $1000 he spent on a Ford Taurus. These known expenses amount to $13,200. When he was arrested he in Minneapolis he had $32,000 in cash. This sum and his expenses account for $45,200 out of a total purse of $64,000.

What happened to the remaining sum of nearly $19,000? Recalling that his housing and school enrollment costs have already been considered, a young single male not encumbered by medical expenses can easily live on $1000 per month in Norman. Moussaoui was in the community for six months. A a strict Islamic zealot, he cannot be expected to have been a high-rolling spendthrift.

Hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi made a visit to Oklahoma in April 2001.6 Gunaratna reports that he was there "to consult with his cell colleagues." By late August, after this visit, Gunaratna reports that Moussaoui was running out of cash and contacted Bin al-Shibh for a wire transfer. 16 Connect the dots. In all likelihood, Alhazmi was in the state to receive cash from Moussaoui in order to help finance his preparation for martyrdom on September 11.

FBI Agent Rowley Suspects Political Interference

In response to these peculiar events, in May 2002 FBI agent Coleen Rowley wrote to bureau director Robert Mueller and accused FBI headquarters of obstructing the investigation. She wrote that the Minneapolis agents "believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer" [emphasis added]. Reminding the director that French Intelligence had confirmed Moussaoui's activities connected with bin Laden, she stated that probable cause "was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources."

Rowley was tempted to describe the FBI's behavior in the Moussaoui matter as a "cover-up," but decided that the term would be "too strong a characterization." She decided instead to "carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here."

In spite of her pledge to choose her words carefully, Rowley could not contain her passion. She told Mueller that headquarters "brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause." One of these ridiculous questions was the supposition that Zacarias Moussaoui was such a common name in France as to render meaningless the information from there. A look at a Paris phone directory found only one person by that name. In spite of this, she wrote that headquarters "continued to stall."

Groping for an explanaion for FBI headquarters' peculiar behavior, former Justice Department attorney Mary Schiavo said FBI officials in Washington may have had a regional bias in the Moussaoui case: "They probably assumed there's nothing going on in Minnesota."

Rowley was more direct. She wrote that "certain facts" had "been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons [emphasis added]." The most interesting question is: what were the likely improper political reasons?

Why did Tenet's CIA intervene to hush things up about Moussaoui? Was Tenet working in concert with his mentor Boren?

Rowley Describes "Climate of Fear" at the FBI

This Time magazine article highlight’s Rowley’s observation that a "climate of fear" within the FBI prevented agents from doing their jobs when it was time to investigate Moussaoui.
David Boren is very adept at using intimidation and creating such climates within agencies and institutions where his long tentacles can reach. In October 2003, in a rare editorial bold enough to criticize the state of affairs at OU, The Oklahoma Daily used the phrase "culture of fear" to describe the atmosphere at the school. With obvious implied reference to Boren as the "former politician," the Daily continued:

Often, members of the OU community whom The Daily tries to speak to tell reporters they have been told not to talk, or that the reporter should talk to an official source.

There is a reason these answers are given.

OU is a large, public organization run by a former politician that has an interest in making itself look good.

A March 2003 letter published by The Norman Transcript also described OU as a "culture of fear." The writer expressed opposition to Boren’s plan to create a gargantuan new weather center south of the main campus. It was signed "Name Withheld." 17

Boren "Not Surprised" by WTC Attack

Boren summoned some of his associates for a public discussion about the "war on terrorism" at the University of Oklahoma on February 25, 2002. Among those in attendance was CIA officer Edgar. According to The Daily Oklahoman (2/26/2002), Edgar said he was "not surprised" by the September 11 attacks on the U.S. The Oklahoman continued:

The attacks also didn't surprise OU President David Boren. The former head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said Monday he and CIA Director George Tenet were not "totally shocked" Sept. 11.

"I thought George was obsessed with Osama bin Laden and terrorism around the world," Boren said.

The two often had talked about the potential for international terrorists to strike in the United States before word [of the attack] came as they shared breakfast on Sept. 11.

What are we to make of these "experts" telling us so nonchalantly that they were "not surprised" by the WTC attack? This language is very close to suggesting that they were able to predict the attack. If that were the case, why did they not use their presumed expertise and command over resources to intervene to prevent it?



Sherlock didn't say this but he might as well have: even the most cunning of criminals can betray themselves with a slip of the tongue.



Other Revealing Statements by Boren and Tenet

In his August 6 memo, Tenet told Bush that al-Qaeda might be "tempted" to hijack airliners. What did he mean by this? Exactly who was going to do the tempting? Was this a coded communication?

In his remarks to PBS after the hijacking, Boren was cheering for retribution. He said, "if we don't act now...we're going to continue to ask for this kind of thing" [emphasis added]. Continue to ask? Were Boren and Tenet "tempting" Al Qaeda and "asking for" the 9/11 attack in order to give themselves an opportunity to disrupt it with dramatic action at the last moment to make themselves appear heroic?

Boren described to ABC news his response to the announcement of the WTC attack when he was having breakfast with Tenet. "Out of the corner of my eye," he said, "I could see several people converging on our table." He continued: "One of them said to George Tenet, 'Mr. Director, the World Trade tower has just been attacked by an airplane.' I was struck by the fact he used the word 'attacked.'"

What's interesting here is that Boren was not "struck" by the fact that there had been hijackings. He was surprised that buildings had been attacked. In contrast to the report of this breakfast given by the Washington Post, there is no mention of Tenet's having recalled Moussaoui's six-month stay in Norman, where he took pilot lessons, stayed in OU housing, and worked out at OU's gym. That's because ABC was relying on Boren for information about the event.

Boren also told PBS that Mohmmar Qadaffi expressed his disapproval of the hijackings, but sanctimoniously accused him of not being sincere and just trying to take Libya off the "suspect list." How was Boren able to go about making allegations that Qadaffi had devious motives with such confidence? Was he really talking about himself?

OU Gives Money to Saudi Prince -- Prince's Wife Gives Money to Terrorists

In March 2002 The Oklahoma Daily proudly reported another one of Boren's love-fests for the international rich and famous. The guest of honor this time was His Royal Highness Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, ambassador to the United States for Saudi Arabia. His Most Royal Excellency Prince Bandar addressed a dinner audience at 7 p.m. in the OU student union. Boren was there to glow in the Prince's limelight and moderate the question-and- answer session between the ambassador and audience members. I do not know how large an honorarium in OU funds was paid to Boren's good friend the Prince.

CIA boss and Boren protege George Tenet was also scheduled to speak at the event. Additionally CIA agent and visiting OU professor David Edger participated and expressed deep feelings of warmth toward his good friends Boren and Tenet. He described Tenet as "a very close friend of President Boren." Edger added, "We are lucky to have him. He's playing an important role in the Middle East in the Arab-Israeli problem."

Members of the Saudi royal family appear to have rather peculiar notions of noblesse oblige. The Washington Post reports that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of Prince Bandar, has provided "charitable support" to Osama Bassnan, described by the FBI as "an extremist and [an Osama] bin Laden supporter." Bassnan also befriended 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.

Alhazmi was in Oklahoma on April 1, 2001, probably to receive cash from Zacarias Moussaoui. On that day he was given a speeding ticket while traveling east on I-40. He was in Washita county in western Oklahoma driving toward Oklahoma City, which is 20 miles north of Norman. A copy of the speeding ticket was published by Newsweek on June 10, 2002. 6 Along with Khalid Almihdhar, Alhazmi was one of the two hijackers known by the CIA to have attended the January 2000 Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysai.

The father of Boren's friend Prince Bandar is facing legal problems resulting from allegations that the family was funding terrorists. Hundreds of relatives of 9/11 victims have filed a lawsuit alleging that Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz knowingly contributed money and support to al Qaeda through Islamic charitable organizations.

CIA Agent Edger Admits to Failure

Evidence suggests that Edger reinforced Boren and Tenet in the belief that any terrorist activities involving the seizing of aircraft would be conducted with the purpose of taking hostages for negotiation. In February 2002 he was hosted for a speaking engagement by the Norman public library. The Norman Transcript reported: 7

He said although officers knew members of the cell and some of what they were doing, they had no idea that they would meet in London and go to different parts of the U.S., where they would learn to fly planes to crash into the World Trade Center.

"In that case, we failed," Edger said.

Le Figaro Says CIA Let Bin Laden Slip Away in July 2001

In November 2001 The Guardian of London published its account of a story, earlier reported by Le Figaro, that two months before the attack bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days of treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent. The Guardian continued:

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift [elevator], on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.

Bin Laden was likely to have found comfortable hospitality in Dubais. According to Gunaratna, of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence in Scotland, Al Qaeda had a cell there in 2001. The United Arab Emirates was a major center for the terror network's financial operations. 18



You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles.
-- Sherlock Holmes



CIA Agent Edger Scowls at Le Figaro Story

In January 2002, I attended a small discussion on the OU campus led by CIA agent Edger. I asked him what he knew about the Le Figaro report of Bin Laden's July 2001 presence in the American hospital in Dubais. A scowl emerged on his face as he replied, "Never heard of it." He added, "That doesn't mean it didn't happen." Then he disposed of the matter by quickly pointing to the next questioner. The others in the discussion group were obsequious OU students unwilling to raise any issues which might create discomfort or embarrassment.

CIA Agent Edger Ignores Questions
On August 27, 2003, I visited the OU poltical science department and was given Edger's email address by the secretary. I sent him this email:

__________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Edger:

I am doing some research into pre-9/11 survellance over Al Qaeda activities by the U.S. intelligence community. Perhaps you can answer some questions for me.

According to the LA Weekly, before his trip to Minneapolis Zacarias Moussaoui had a meeting with Mohammad Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 plot, in an Oklahoma City motel. Also present was a man who appeared to be Marwin Al-Shehhi, who helped crash a jetliner into the south tower of the WTC.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/36/news-crogan.php

The Norman Transcript reported that your responsibility was surveillance over the Hamburg cell, of which Atta was a member. Did you know about this meeting? The FBI knew about it but apparently did not treat it as significant. Why not?

Additionally, the meeting was confirmed on the O'Reilly show by Larry Johnson, former Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (May 11, 2002).

Further, US News (9/23/02) reported an Al Jazeera interview with Ramzi Bin Al Shibh. He described an August 2001 coded chat room message among Al Qaeda members. The content was:

The first semester starts in three weeks. Nothing has changed. Everything is fine. ...This summer will surely be hot...Nineteen certificates for private study and four exams.

Did you intercept this message?

Thank you for any answers you can provide.

Michael Wright
Norman, Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________

Agent Edger has not answered the questions. Since he is retired and has already admitted to failure, he would have nothing to lose by answering, if the true answers were no. Since he chose not to answer, we are led to the strong suspicion that the true answers were yes .

French Set Example for War Against Terrorists in 1994

Americans backing Bush's 2003 war in Iraq found occasion to ridicule and denounce the French as "cowards" because they would not support it. In view of the way French commandos in 1994 successfully reclaimed control of an aircraft seized by hijackers intent upon crashing it into the Eiffel tower, this is supreme irony.

An Air France jet hijacked by GIA terrorists landed landed in Marseille, where the hijackers ordered it filled with 27 tons of jet fuel for a trip to Paris. The events were reported by The Seatlle Times:

As the plane was being fueled, French commandos hid in mobile loading ramps rolled near the jet. In a flash, they stormed the jet, throwing in stun grenades. Through the smoke and noise, they shot and killed the four hijackers.

None of the remaining 177 passengers was seriously hurt. Massive tragedy had been averted.

America's entire intelligence community, including its friends in academia, has shown itself to be worthless at best. At worst, the higher circles are riddled with corruption, political intrigue, and treacherous misconduct.

Japanese Journalist Expresses Suspicion

Yoichi Clark Shimatsu, former general editor of The Japan Times Weekly and journalism lecturer at The University of Hong Kong offers more information about the CIA's mysterious failure to obstruct the 9/11 attacks:

Though Osama bin Laden, a popular hero in the Muslim world, makes a tempting, if elusive, target for American grief, it is a mystery how he could have organized the U.S. attacks right under the noses of the CIA's top intelligence experts camped out at his front door. Over the past summer, the entire State Department team for South Asia - all of them former or acting CIA officials - has visited or been stationed in the capitals of Pakistan and India. They include:

George Tenet, CIA director - made a clandestine visit to Islamabad and Peshawar, the listening post near the Afghan border.

Richard Armitage, a CIA and Defense Intelligence veteran - met with Indian security officials in New Delhi.

Christina Rocco, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and former official in the CIA Directorate of Operations (the covert arm that conducts sabotage and assassination) - toured Pakistan in July.

Wendy Chamberlin, Bush's newly appointed Ambassador to Islamabad, is also a former CIA operative and close associate of Rocco.

Robert D. Blackwill, the new Ambassador to New Delhi, is an intelligence veteran and served as assistant in the National Security Agency to then President George Bush in 1989-90. Blackwill, by the way, was the faculty member at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government who served as the CIA's chief "handler" of the Chinese PLA officer who defected late last year.

As late as September, three members of the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee also visited Pakistan with an entourage of espionage operatives.

Failed Sting Operation Accounts for Facts

The facts presented in this document can be accounted for by the explanation that Boren, Tenet, and their collaborators had planned a sting operation against Al Qaeda, and it backfired in their face as the 9/11 attack. They had made a very tragic blunder in their scheming. As various news services reported, in August 2001 Tenet told the President that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking aircraft, but led him to expect that the terrorists would "take over an airliner holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives." Enthusiastic about the prospect of glory from planning a rescue mission, Boren and the incompetent sting planners did not reckon that spectacular suicide bombings would be the Al Qaeda method. Their judgment was blinded by the inextinguishable gleam burning in Boren's eye, as the former Senator dreamed of a Presidential candidacy.

We know that Tenet's CIA was conducting surveillance over terrorists who later became 9/11 hijackers as early as the January 2000 meeting in Malaysia, but the agency did not move to disrupt the plot. They also passed up an opportunity to capture Bin Ladin in July 2001. With their obstruction of the effort to search Moussaoui's computer, the high-level operators in the intelligence community actually facilitated the advance of the 9/11 attack by frustrating the efforts of the honest agents in Minneapolis.

The theory of a sting operation explains the coincidence of CIA agent David Edger's arrival at OU in August 2001. Boren arranged for his appointment as a visiting professor. Edger is a specialist in covert action and infiltration. His earlier CIA assignment was surveillance over the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell. One could expect a man with such a background and interest to be enthusiastic about the opportunity to participate with the inner circles of the intelligence community in a dramatic sting operation.

The sting theory explains other facts in the situation. Evidence is not sufficient to evaluate the question of whether sting planners were aware in advance of the scope of the 9/11 terror operation and the number of aircraft to be hijacked. We do know that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into the ground before it reached its target. Why?

We have been greeted with the story that heroic passengers resisted the hijackers. Is this believeable? The alternative explanation is that CIA operatives assigned to the sting attempt were trying to rescue the aircraft and failed. It is useful to review certain essential facts, as reported by news media, for the purpose of evaluating this alternative explanation, which is speculative. Readers can weigh all the evidence in this document and decide whether it is plausible speculation which justifies additional investigation by those with subpoena power.

Factual References:

MSNBC:

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/949739.asp?cp1=1"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp?cp1=1

[The first MSNBC news online article has been taken down since this webpage appeared.]

Essential Facts:

One: There were five large men on board the flight, and they attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. As far as we know, this kind of event only happened on Flight 93. Tom Burnett was 6'2" and a former high school quarterback. MSNBC describes the other four as follows:

This much we know, they were big guys: Bingham was a 6-foot-4 rugby player; Glick, also a rugby player and judo champion; Beamer was 6 foot 1 and 200 pounds, and Nacke was a 5-foot-9, 200-pound weightlifter with a "Superman" tattoo on his shoulder.

Two: The five men allowed themselves to be herded to the rear of the aircraft with the other passengers.

Three: One of the hijackers announced to passengers that he had a bomb strapped to his belt.

Four: A hijacker pretending to be the legitimate pilot announced over the public address system that he intended to land the aircraft at an airport.

Five: After they had been herded to the rear, information reached the passengers that other hijacked aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Six: The five men made their move against the hijackers after this information reached them.

Seven: The aircraft was deliberately crashed by hijackers in the course of the struggle with those attempting to regain control.

Eight: the legitimate pilots of the aircraft had been injured or possibly killed by the hijackers.

An interesting clue is found in a statement by author Jere Longman. Describing the passengers credited for attempting to resist the hijackers, he says that they were not a group of ordinary people in an extraordinary moment. "They were," he says, "as a group, very accomplished people, generally on top of their game" ( MSNBC).

Now we move from reported events to informed speculation. Here is how the sting explanation accounts for these events plus other information assembled in this document. The five men described as heroic passengers were covert CIA operatives assigned to the sting. They allowed themselves to be herded to the rear of the craft, at the beginning of the operation, because they believed Tenet's advice that the purpose of the hijacking was to take hostages and negotiate for some demand. They did not expect a suicide crash. Further, their instruction was to save the aircraft, so they did not want to provoke the hijacker claiming to have a bomb to detonate it. Their plan was to conceal their identities until the aircraft landed and then to assault the hijackers.

They changed their plan and attempted to regain control only after news about the WTC attacks reached the passengers from cell phone communication. At that time, they attempted attempted unsuccessfully to regain control of the aircraft with an assault on the pilot's cabin. Such an attempt would have feasible if one or more of men planted on the plane by the CIA were a trained pilot, since by then they understood that hijackers intended to crash the aircraft into a target and commit suicide. In the course of the physical confrontation, the hijacker in the pilot's seat decided to prevent the agents from regaining control by crashing the aircraft, killing its passengers, and claiming an early martyrdom.

The sting theory also explains the fact that one of the terrorist's tickets for the Pennsylvania flight was purchased on Boren's turf -- a public computer terminal in the University of Oklahoma library. The OU librarian who informed me of this assumed that the young Caucasion American male who ordered the ticket was involved with a neo-Nazi group whose members shared Al Qaeda's hatred for Israel.

The problem with her explanation is that there are no such neo-Nazi groups known to be active in the Norman area. The more plausible explanation is that he was working for Boren and the sting planners.

Finally, the sting theory accounts for another interesting fact which emerged in August 2003. It was disclosed by Stern magazine in Germany that, long before the attack, U.S. authorities were aware that 9/11 terrorist Ziad Jarrah was taking flight lessons. He was questioned for four hours during a January 2000 stopover in the United Arab Emirates. On the day of the attack, he was the hijacker pilot on Flight 93. Readers must ask: why was he ever even allowed to enter this country?

October 2003 Update:

Flight 93 Widow Says Husband Expected Aircraft Would Be Landed

The bungled sting explanation should be evaluated from the standpoint of scientific methodology. In science, one proposes a hypothesis and tests it with evidence. If the evidence does not contradict the hypothesis, then it is considered sustained. That doesn't mean it's confirmed; it means that there's no cause to dismiss it.

A hypothesis which is repeatedly sustained in tests with evidence which could potentially contradict it is worthy of more confidence, and is elevated to the status of theory. In scientific parlance, it's silly to dismiss something as "just a theory -- not a fact." A theory has a high degree of confidence in the scientific community. Of course, if I am correct there are certain insiders who already know that my explanation is true, but due to the politics of the situation and their own culpability as actors in it they are not disclosing their knowledge.

One hallmark of a good theory is that events can be predicted from it with a high success rate. Although the book Let's Roll by Flight 93 widow Lisa Beamer 19 existed before August 2003, when I formulated the bungled sting explanation I didn't know about it. I discovered the book on 10/12/03, and was quite interested to learn that events predictable by this explanation are actually reported by Beamer to have taken place.

I have suggested that the five large men who attempted to reclaim the aircraft, after it became known that a suicide crash instead of a hostage negotiation was the hijackers' plan, were actually CIA operatives involved in a sting operation. The wives of contracted CIA operatives assigned to an aircraft in order to confront terrorists would not necessarily have to know about their husbands' involvement in covert operations. This is an especially necessary condition for the possibility that the mission would fail: the CIA would not want to be blamed.

It is plausible that the men involved in planning for the sting attempt would have to spend extra time preparing and training for it. In Chapter 11, Beamer reports that she and husband Todd argued frequently about the fact that he was spending too much time away from home, ostensibly on business related to his job at Oracle. The bungled sting explanation suggests that part of this time was actually accounted for by training activities for CIA operative duties.

Additionally one would expect CIA operatives prepared to confront airline hijackers to be large, calm, and willing to engage in physical combat. One would also expect them to be in anticipation of a hostage-taking operation -- not suicide crashes. This is exactly what the August 6 CIA memo to Bush indicates that Tenet was predicting hijackers would do. I have argued that CIA insiders were relying upon this expectation while constructing their plan for a sting operation.

On pages 200-203, Lisa Beamer reports a conversation between Lisa Jefferson, a GTE Airfone representative, and her husband Todd, reported by the press to be one of the five Flight 93 heroes. Jefferson described him as "calm and soft-spoken." She said that he thought the terrorists were going back to the airport and the plane would land safely, and that he didn't seem desperate. Jefferson's most revealing statement about Todd Beamer was this: "Todd was so rational and methodical about what he was doing" (p. 211).

On page 204 the author reports that Jeremy Glick was seated somewhere near Todd. She describes him as a former NCAA judo champion and a "strong, athletic-looking guy at six feet, one inch, and 220 pounds" and "the type of guy with whom Todd would have struck up an instant friendship." Talking on a cell phone with his wife, he calmed her down after she panicked. Beamer describes Mark Bingham as 6'5" and a former rugby player who had once faced down an armed mugger on the streets of San Francisco. Bingham was seated in the first-class section next to Tom Burnett (CNN).. The hijackers were also seated in that section.

Lisa Jefferson reports that at one point in the encounter Todd Beamer became frightful and started praying. This evidence does not direct us to dismiss the sting explanation. Beamer was calm until he learned that the other hijacked aircraft were being crashed into buildings. This severely unsettled his expectation that the aircraft would be landed by the hijackers.

Lisa Beamer reports a rather unusual array of talent on board flight 93, which was carrying only 33 passengers (excluding hijackers). She describes Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, and Mark Bingham as "athletic colleagues" of husband Todd. CeeCee Ross-Lyles, one of the flight attendants, was a former police officer. Lou Nacke was a 200-pound weight-lifter with a Superman tatoo on his shoulder. Lou Guadagno was a California Fish and Wildlife officer trained in hand-to-hand combat, Linda Gronlund had a brown belt in karate, William Cashman, although 60 years old, was a former paratrooper with the 101st Airborne reported as "still in good shape," and Alan Beaven was over 6' and a former Scotland Yard prosecutor who enjoyed rock climbing.

Additional information about Guadagno was provided by Jere Longman, author of Among the Heroes. 20 Longman describes Guadagno as a federal wildlife officer and said that before boarding Flight 93 he placed a pickax in his carry-on luggage. As a federal agent, he was licensed to carry a firearm and was trained in how to respond to a highjacking. He was also able to bench-press 350 pounds.

She adds that "the small number of passengers had a surprising amount of aeronautical acumen." Don Greene had flown single-engine aircraft and operated a company which produced safety devices for airlines. Andrew Garcia was an air-traffic controller. More than a third of the passengers appeared to have some degreee of preparation for confronting a challenge from hijackers. Should this be dismissed as just another coincidence? Beamer concludes Chapter 19: "Working together, they could have probably brought the plane down safely...if..."

I'll finish the sentence for her: if only CIA insiders had not recklessly allowed the 9/11 plot to advance so they could implement their bungled sting operation in reliance on a false expectation, all of these people would be alive today.

How Did Larry Ellison Know About Beamer's Heroics?

One more fact from Beamer's book deserves our scrutiny. In chapter 17 she reports that Larry Ellison, leader of the Oracle Corporation which employed her husband, sent out an email to all employers two days after the attack. He told them of Todd Beamer's death. Then he praised him for "courageous actions" in attempting to recover the aircraft from the terrorists.

Lisa Beamer was perplexed by this. She wrote: "How did Larry know that?" She observed that the FBI had not made any announcement to that effect. His name had not shown up on any reports which would justify these statements. She resolved the paradox with the conclusion that Ellison "couldn't imagine Todd Beamer's sitting idly by while terrorists threatened to hurt others."

Did Larry Ellison accidentally slip a hint of advanced knowledge of Todd Beamer's planned assignment to help obstruct the terrorist hijacking? Lisa Beamer's explanation for Ellison's apparent clairvoyance would perhaps be plausible if Ellison had already read published reports of a passenger revolt on Flight 93. Perhaps with knowledge of Todd Beamer's character he could have reasonably expected Beamer to have participated. There is a big problem here: a review of the AP story available at The Daily Oklahoman archive does not provide much support for this view. As of September 13, there had been no firm published report of a passenger revolt. AP writer Sharon Cohen reported only "hints of resistance" and did not mention Todd Beamer. She described a phone call by Tom Burnett, who told his wife that he and other passengers would try to take action. That is not sufficient to justify Ellison's September 13 announcement that Beamer had participated in courageous actions to rescue the aircraft.



A complex mind. All great criminals have that.
-- Sherlock Holmes
To which I add: as the size of the participant group and complexity of the plot increase, with a growing number of deceptions to be coordinated, the chance for error enabling discovery of the perpetrators increases accordingly. -- Michael Wright



Conflicts in Reports About Jeremy Glick

In her book (p. 204), Lisa Beamer writes that Jeremy Glick had planned to fly out to San Francisco for a business meeting the day before, but because of the fire at the airport, his flight had been rerouted to Kennedy International. She said that Glick chose instead to return home and take Tuesday's early flight out of Newark. This was United Flight 93.

She did not present any details about the fire nor even name the airport where this event happened. Airwise News confirms that there was a fire at the Newark airport on September 10, 2001, but it only caused flights to be delayed by 35 minutes.

MSNBC gives a different account. It says that Glick had planned have been on Flight 93 on the day before the attack, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport.

What are we to make of these conflicts? If the bungled sting argument is correct, then we can count on the sting planners to have also attempted a cover-up operation. For this it would suit their purposes to present the appearance that CIA operatives were merely ordinary passengers with no prior intention to be on Flight 93 on the same day. Unfortunately for those engaging in complex scheming and cover-up manufacture, it is difficult to keep all the deceptive stories consistent.

No Allegation of Super-Conspiracy -- Just Treacherous Misconduct and Blind Ambition

There is no claim here that the 9/11 attack was totally a plot of the U.S. government or its agents. The Al Qaeda terrorists were sincere fanatics devoted to their cause. They weren't sponsored by the U.S. On the other hand, the blundering fools attempting to conduct a sting operation made themselves the attackers' silent partners by obstructing efforts to discover and disrupt the plot before it matured. These traitors must all be identified, brought forward, and severely punished now . Americans should not have to wait 40 years for the official apology for this abominable treachery.

Sting Explanation Looks at Evidence in Light Most Favorable to Schemers

One of the most important pieces of evidence for the sting explanation is one I uncovered myself -- the fact that an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker was bought at the OU library. Later the FBI, while confirming the event, refused to identify the purchaser. The explanation for their secrecy is most likely that the purchaser was actually working for intelligence to infiltrate Al Qaeda. I have direct experience to confirm the fact that using infiltrators to participate in crime and then letting them escape prosecution is a common practice. For that experience, go here and see the court documents about FBI informant and agent provocateur William Lemmer.

The next question is: what was the larger nature of the infiltration plan? From there I progress to the sting explanation. This actually gives the benefit of the doubt to the suspected schemers Boren, Tenet, and Edger. The "dark" conspiracy theories hold that the whole 9/11 catastrophe was a government plan undertaken to have an excuse to make war in Afghanistan and Iraq and to implement a program of repression at home. I am not making that argument.

Still, the schemers were trying to infiltrate Al Qaeda for some purpose. By having an infiltrator buy the ticket they were advancing the 9/11 plot. For what? The bungled sting explanation allows that they were trying to be heroic but stumbled on their own incompetence while pursuing glory. If I'm wrong, then they were up to something far worse.

Eye Spy Says 9/ll Hijackings Were a Giant Sting Operation

In its issue 8 of 2002, the British magazine Eye Spy alleged that the entire 9/11 hijacking operation was a sting attempt coordinated by Barbara Olson, wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Olson died on American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.21 Eye Spy claims that four agents were on United Airlines flight 175 and seven or eight more were on United 93. They report that Olson was accompanied on the aircraft by three federal agents. While expanding the view of the scope of the sting operation, Eye Spy agrees that the sting planners expected the aircraft to be landed by hijackers instead of crashed into buildings.

Eye Spy would not support my suspicion that the five men described by news media as "heroic passengers" were actually CIA operatives on United flight 93. The article states: "Washington allegedly deleted the names of the many agents, along with names of the 19 hijackers, from the passenger lists of the flights." I had formulated my own bungled sting explanation in regard to the Pennsylvania flight before seeing this article in Eye Spy.

Suggestion to George Bush: Prosecute Perpetrators

I first published the bungled sting explanation and evidence online in mid-August 2003. In September I emailed the Independent 9/11 Commission in Washington and the Family Steering Committee for this Commission and invited them to read it.

On October 3, I had a phone call from 9/11 Commission staff member John Tamm, who said he would be reading the article. The Commission's website reports John Tamm's identifying information:

John Tamm. Professional staff member. Veteran Supervisory Special Agent from the FBI's Justice Task Force, Criminal Investigative Division. Specializes in review of operational and management effectiveness in investigations. Front line supervisor in Boston, MA, during FBI's investigation of the AA Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 hijacking. Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, Retired.

Is this work coming to the attention of the inner circles of the Bush administration? I don't know, but in case it is, I have these suggestions for Mr. Bush:

1. Fire George Tenet;

2. clean out the CIA and uproot everyone who is part of the Boren-Tenet network -- like so many rotten teeth;

3. do everything possible to remove all influence from Boren and Tenet from the 9/11 investigatory process;

4. bring federal charges against corrupt members of government, members of the intelligence community, and their collaborators, who for their own nefarious purposes willfully obstructed efforts which, if allowed to proceed, may have led to the prevention the 9/11 attack.

Federal Statutes Under Which Sting Planners Might Be Prosecuted

Two statutes and perhaps others should be considered as possible ways by which the planners of the bungled sting can be prosecuted. Purchasing an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker was a treasonous act, along with instructing anyone else to make this purchase and participating in the planning of any activities in which this deed was an element of the script.

1. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381

Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

2. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, Section 4

Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both

Anyone, including news organizations, who have participated in the cover-up of the ticket purchase should be held accountable under the second statute. This also applies to federal agents or other officials who have pressured any news organizations into suppressing information about this event.

Was the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Another Bungled Sting?

In October 1993 the New York Times published an account of information provided by an FBI informant who had infiltrated the group which bombed the World Trade Center that year:

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 Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The news article does not make clear what the FBI supervisor's ostensible reasons were for calling off the plan to use fake powder. The story was based on transcripts of interviews with the informant Salem, but the court prevented much of the material from being made public.

The Times stated that Salem's interview "portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City's tallest towers." The news article reports that Salem was anguished at not being able to obstruct the trade center blast and blames the FBI supervisor for having "messed it up":

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. headquarters in Washington about the bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

Defense attorney William Kunstler said that the transcripts he had seen "were filled with all sorts of government misconduct." Citing the government's order, he said he could not provide any details.

Absurd Developments in Proceedings Against Moussaoui

We have all heard the proverb: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive."

The non-sequiturs emerging in the government's story revolving around the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, indicted in December 2001 for involvement in planned terrorist attacks against the U.S., continue to become more startling. AP stories appearing in print on August 9, 2003, lead us to the absurd suggestion that Al Qaeda was planning to crash a jet into the White House on 9/11, and then they were going to repeat this performance on a later date !

In 2001 we were greeted with the plausible argument that Zacarias Moussaoui had intended to be the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot, on the Pennsylvania flight, before his arrest in August of that year. Now the story presented to us from official sources has evolved with an unbelievable twist. An AP story by Larry Margasak reports that prosecutors have begun to argue that Moussaoui and accomplices planned to fly a fifth attack plane, intended to crash into the White House. 22

On the very same day, another AP story was published by Ted Bridis. Concerning United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after being hijacked, he wrote: "U.S. officials have said that they believe the hijackers intended to fly the Boeing 757 into the White House." 23

Regarding the "fifth airliner," prosecutor Kenneth Karas was reported to have not made clear whether the alleged operation was planned for September 11, 2001. Do they think us so gullible that we can be led to believe that Al Qaeda was planning to crash two airliners into the White House on two separate days? Or perhaps two on the same day?

In October 2003 we were greeted with the bizarre news that Judge Leonie Brinkema, reported by namebase.org to be an associate of George Tenet, had banned from Moussaoui's trial any evidence related to the question of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. This was because of the government's refusal to make available three Al-Qaeda witnesses in U.S. custody. Is there any reason to grant the government and the nation's intelligence community any credibility whatsoever in its prosecution of Moussaoui and its general pathetic performance in defending us against terrorism?

As of January 2004, it's been 25 months since Moussaoui was indicted, and he still has not come before a jury. How do we account for such gross incompetence? Why are the American people being deprived of justice in this matter? There is a good chance that his trial will be transferred to a military court, which will not be public. Are there secrets we must not know? In the current political environment, are the competent and honest investigations we deserve being conducted?

October 2003 Update

Even More Absurd Developments

The government's strange behavior in the Moussaoui case continues to twist and turn along its convoluted path. In late October 2003, Time described the court proceeding against Moussaoui as "a legal wrangle." The magazine said that "sources" told them that "the FBI has long believed that Moussaoui played no part in the 9/11 scheme and was only a minor player in al-Qaeda." This was roughly consistent with what Time had reported as the CIA's view of Moussaoui, presented to FBI headquarters in August 2001, when Tenet was assisting in the obstruction of the search warrant requested by Minneapolis agents interested in examining his computer. Time was seemingly forgetting all about its May 2002 issue with Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley's letter expressing outrage over this. In this communication Rowley reminded the FBI director that within days of Moussaoui's arrest, French Intelligence had confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and his activities connected to Osama Bin Laden.

Time was careless and inaccurate as it went about aligning itself with the unnamed "sources." Early in the article the magazine confirmed that Moussaoui had been wired funds by Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, whom it described as "a key orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks." Later in the same article Al Shibh was downsized to a mere "alleged" coordinator. Time also stated that "direct contact between Moussaoui and the 19 was never alleged." As mentioned earlier, the LA Weekly reported a meeting between Moussaoui and 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta, in an Oklahoma City motel. The Weekly said that the FBI was not terribly interested in the August 2001 meeting, which was confirmed by a former State Department official appearing on the O'Reilly show.

Time reported that Judge Brinkema, listed by namebase.org as an associate of George Tenet, "basically agreed with Moussaoui that he was only on the fringes of the 9/11 attacks." Aligning herself with Tenet's view expressed to the FBI in August 2001, she called him "a remote or minor participant" in Al Qaeda's war against the U.S. In her own courtroom, Moussaoui had openly prayed for the destruction of the United States. Is this judge making sense?

Late October 2003:

Absurd Developments Never End -- Official Story Keeps Changing

In August 2003, the AP reported that Al Qaeda had in mind a fifth hijacked airliner to crash into the White House. On that same day, a different AP article reminded us about the original story presented to the public. This was that the fourth 9/11 hijacked plane was intended to crash into the executive mansion. I quickly noted this paradox here and denounced the absurdities of the entire line of official nonsense.

Are the spooks monitoring my website now and trying to straighten out their inconsistencies with more lies -- weaving a more tangled web of deceit? In late October Reuters ran an article based upon a report in the German magazine Der Spiegel , which now claims that The U.S. Capitol Building, not the White House, was the fourth target of the 9/11 attackers. This was based upon "interrogations of suspected al Qaeda leaders." Der Spiegel names Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shaibah as the sources. Both men are in U.S. custody. Is it possible that their captors pressured them into making these statements?

With the current official construction of history, everything is reconciled once again. We are to forget the earlier reports that Moussaoui was to be the twentieth hijacker, and the fourth 9/11 plane was intended to crash into the White House. Now we are to believe, because of reported information from captives, that the fourth aircraft was bound for the Capitol before it crashed in Pennsylvania. Now we may accept the current rubbish that Moussaoui was not part of the 9/11 plot, and that he was involved in the planning of a secondary wave of attacks that never materialized. This version saves David Boren from embarrassment arising from the fact that Moussaoui spent six months on the University of Oklahoma campus during 2001.

We are reminded of this statement by U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, addressing the U.S. Supreme Court. It was published by The Washington Post:

It is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations...where government officials might quite legitmately have reasons to give false information out."

Along these lines, the imaginations of official deceivers covering for government misconduct in the 9/11 catastrophe are becoming more fertile all the time.

The information about the Der Spiegel story was called to my attention by Nico Haupt, webmaster of the Global Free Press. He made these comments about it:

I would read this story with a big grain of salt. DER SPIEGEL recently appeared to act like a spokes person of the German Intelligence, the BfV.

There is some new distraction going on in Germany, regarding the official version of Sep 11th, which seems to match the same strategy of the U.S.

Don't feel confused, when Germany's magazine DER SPIEGEL looks more white-housish than reichstagish. They don't support the 9/11 authors, they ignore the investigative 9/11 truth movement, they ignored Meacher, McKinney + Co.

Why Have They Not Offered Moussaoui a Plea Bargain in Exchange for Information?

Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh mostly goes along with the reconstructed view of Moussaoui as a third-rate Al Qaeda member. In spite of this error, he makes an interesting observation on page 8:

After a year of intensive work, the intelligence community has yet to uncover any support team that, many investigators believe, had to have helped the September 11th terrorists inside America. Moussaoui's lawyers and some F.B.I. officials remain bewildered at the government's failure to pursue a plea bargain. Frank Dunham, who was a federal prosecutor in northern Virginia before becoming a federal public defender, told me, "I've never been in a conspiracy case where the government wasn't interested in knowing if the defendant had any information -- to see if there wasn't more to the conspiracy."

Why this lack of enthusiasm on the part of the government for the task of identifying other conspirators?

Hersh makes the same mistake as others who try to deflate Moussaoui. Apparently ignorant of the fact that Mohammed Atta traveled to Oklahoma City to visit him, he says no evidence was found of meetings between Moussaoui and any of the nineteen hijackers. Hersh also ignores the evidence indictating that Nawaf Alhazmi's 2001 trip to Oklahoma was to meet with Moussaoui.

Hersh makes another error by aligning himself with Tenet's view given at the time FBI headquarters was obstructing the search of Moussaoui's computer. He quotes an unnamed "intelligence official" who told him that Moussaoui was not an agent of a foreign power and cited the French intelligence reports as authority. As the Washington Post and other publications have disclosed, Moussaoui had been the subject of an intelligence file five inches thick. It was known in August 2001 that he was an Al Qaeda member.

Strange Developments Continue: FBI Creates Phantom Suspect as 20th Hijacker

The game to downsize Moussaoui and make him appear to be only a minor player in Al Qaeda continues. USA Today reports that the FBI has claimed a "new suspect" who was to have been the 20th hijacker. The interesting things are:

1. the FBI does not name the suspect;

2. the newspaper's sources of "information" don't want to be named either.

In fact, the article does not say much at all, except for the FBI claim that they have a new "suspect," who they say "had to leave" the USA before 9/11. "The official would not say why the operative left, whether he is alive or whether he is in U.S. custody."

It strains the imagination to conceive of a news article incorporating any more secrecy than this. They tell us so little about the "new suspect" that we have to wonder whether he is anything more than a phantom.

It is difficult to resist the idea that they are working desperately to take the spotlight off of Moussaoui and therefore away from Oklahoma and David Boren.

How Did FBI Identify All 19 Hijackers Only Three Days After 9/11?

Only three days after the 9/11 attack the FBI issued a press release which identified all 19 of the hijackers. How were they able to do this so quickly? One would not reasonably expect them to have ascertained these identities so quickly from the rubble of the collapsed WTC towers. The suspicion emerges that U.S. intelligence agencies knew well in advance who the likely hijackers were and allowed their plans to progress.

According to Tenet's testimony, the CIA had begun tracking Al Qaeda members Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar as early as January 2000. Tenet would have us believe that the agency did not know about the other seventeen. What do we know of his credibility? The following facts need to be considered in the assessment of this question:

1. As disclosed by Stern magazine, long before the attack, U.S. authorities were aware that 9/11 terrorist Ziad Jarrah was taking flight lessons, and he was questioned for four hours during a January 2000 stopover in the United Arab Emirates;

2. Tenet assisted David Boren in the corruption and politicization of the CIA's analytical division in 1991, by helping to push through the appointment of Robert Gates as director;

3. he has contradicted himself on the question of Moussaoui's involvement in the 9/11 plot;

4. Solicitor General Theodore Olson has defended the government's practice of distributing false information;