Skeptic Project

As promised earlier, here's a preliminary, nonexhaustive list of what I would consider to be legitimate topics for a follow-up investigation:

1) Hear the whistleblowers, from the FBI and other government agencies., who were not heard by the 9/11 Commission. A list of at least some of them can be found on this page by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver. Of course it should not be assumed that their claims are infallible, but their claims should be heard and looked into, it seems to me.

2) Read the classified material that the 9/11 Commission fought for and finally obtained but didn't have time to read because they got it too late.

3) Allow members of the follow-up commission access to more information about Abu Zubaydah, Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, and other detainees, as requested in vain by the 9/11 Commission, according to Kean and Hamiltion.

4) In light of the above three categories of new information, revisit the issue of possible involvement by foreign governments, as alleged by Senator Bob Graham.

5) In light of the new information, revisit the issue of the money trail in general. Perhaps there might be evidence, after all, for some of the things for which the Commission "found no evidence."

Ed wrote:

Sibel Edmonds is a twoof pet, she has no evidence and has provided no evidence ever since she started making her claims. She acts like she was employed by the FBI or that she was an FBI agent, but she worked for a CONTRACTOR for the FBI

Are you sure she "worked for" a contractor? According to what I've been able to find, she herself WAS a contractor.

On the website of the Federation of American Scientists (hardly a "twoof" organization), I found a copy of an unclassified summary of "A Review of the FBI's Actions in Connection With Allegations Raised By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds" from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. According to this, she worked directly for the FBI as a "Contract Linguist." And she had a security clearance.

What is your source for the claim that she "worked for" a contractor?

As for your claim that she has provided no evidence, a quick Google search just now has led me to a Sunday Times (U.K.) article, FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft, January 20, 2008, which claims the following:

One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.

Ed wrote:

AFTER 911, and it makes no sense she could ever get the kind of information she claims she had doing the work she said she did.

She worked as a translater. It does make sense that the FBI would have hired a big bunch of contractors immediately AFTER 9/11, to transcribe and translate, in a hurry, a big bunch of bugged phone conversations that took place BEFORE 9/11. So I don't see how the timing discredits her claims of knowledge about things that happened BEFORE 9/11.

As for her credibility in general (not pertaining specifically to her 9/11 allegations): Judging by the above-linked OIG report summary, it would seem that her allegations about a co-worker were basically credible for the most part, although the OIG was not able to substantiate all her allegations. The report summary says:

We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the coworker were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds. Moreover, we concluded that, had the FBI performed a more careful investigation of Edmonds' allegations, it would have discovered evidence of significant omissions and inaccuracies by the co-worker related to these allegations. These omissions and inaccuracies, in turn, should have led to further investigation by the FBI. In part, we attributed the FBI's failure to investigate further to its unwarranted reliance on the assumption that proper procedures had been followed by the FBI during the co-worker's hiring and background investigation, which did not include a risk assessment, contrary to FBI practice. We also found that Edmonds was justified in raising a number of these concerns to her supervisors. For example, with respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations.

With regard to some of Edmonds' allegations, the OIG did not find evidence to support her allegation or the inferences that she drew from certain facts. However, Edmonds' assertions regarding the co-worker, when viewed as a whole, raised substantial questions and were supported by various pieces of evidence. While there are potentially innocuous explanations for the coworker's conduct, other explanations were not innocuous. Although the exact nature and extent of the co-worker's security issues are disputed, it is clear from the OIG's investigation that the facts giving rise to Edmonds' concerns could have been uncovered had the FBI investigated Edmonds' allegations further. We believe that the FBI should have investigated the allegations more thoroughly. We also believe the FBI's handling of these allegations reflected an unwarranted reluctance to vigorously investigate these serious allegations or to conduct a thorough examination of Edmonds' allegations. As will be discussed in the next section, the FBI did not, and still has not, conducted such an investigation.

More recently, her Boiling Frogs Post claims, as of March 17, 2010, that she has obtained under FOIA some FBI documents to prove various claims of hers.

Ed wrote:

The fact is if all these whistleblowers had something significant it would have been out by now.

Why are you so confident about that?

She also contradicts your other points as she basically says the Commissioners ignored these people on purpose. Yet your other points say the Commissioners tried very hard to get materials and couldn't. The Commissioners all seem very proud of the report even the ones that have been very critical of the government's conduct like John Farmer.

I don't claim to know anyone's real motives, but I would expect Sibel Edmonds and the Commissioners to have different biases. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would expect the Commissioners to be proud of their work and to paint a picture of themselves as dedicated and hard-working. At the same time, I would expect Sibel Edmonds to be extremely frustrated and to feel, regardless of the facts of the matter, that she was being deliberately ignored. Neither bias necessarily impugns the credibility of either Sibel Edmonds herself or the Commissioners.

After all, the Commission had a limited budget and a too-small amount of time. Rightly or wrongly, the Commissioners might have decided that their limited time was better spent talking to high-level people and fighting to obtain classified documents, rather than listening to, and trying to evaluate the credibility of, a lot of low-level witnesses.

More later.

Before we get into a debate about a 9/11 follow-up investigation, let's be sure what we're discussing here. Diane, I think I hear you advocating for a new full-scale investigation of 9/11 based on the five factors you listed, and you've stated that a call for such an investigation would be the basis of dialogue with 9/11 Truthers.

My belief is that a new investigation, at least a full-scale one, is pointless and counterproductive, would seek only to legitimize the Truthers' woo claims by appearing to take them seriously, and would not result in any productive dialogue with the Truthers, who would invariably denounce any new 9/11 investigation that did not unequivocally reach the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.

That being said, if you're raising questions about the original 9/11 Commission's investigation that ought to be answered at some point, by someone, I don't necessarily disagree with that limited idea, so long as we're not talking about an investigation that is expressly a "reopening" of the basic 9/11 case, or is likely to be construed as such.

Let's remember that the 9/11 Commission found that there were plenty of warnings of the coming attack that were ignored, downplayed or otherwise not acted upon, and lots of incompetence and inertia in nearly every US government agency tasked with counterterrorism. The question, "Should we have been able to predict the attacks?" was clearly answered by the Commission as "Yes, we should have."

I think most of the points you raise as legitimate follow-up issues would serve to demonstrate merely more of the same. That doesn't make them invalid, but do we need another investigation to ask the question, "Should we have been able to predict the attacks?" only to answer, as the 9/11 Commission did, "Yes, we should have"?

On your specific points:

1. Sibel Edmonds. What I hear her alleging is wrongdoing by an FBI employee and violations of security clearances. Worthy of investigation by someone? Sure. Relevance to 9/11? Well, clearly fits in the "more of the same" category. If Sibel Edmonds had more warnings that were ignored, sure, we ought to know about them. Worth a full-blown "reopening" of 9/11? No. This sounds like a job for a low-level FBI security review board, not a national-level commission.

2. Review of classified material. Again, do we need a full-blown "reopening" in order to do this? Again, job for some low-level board, not a national commission.

3. Info on detainees. I'd like to see that issue tackled in a general investigation of terrorism detainees, and not one specifically devoted to 9/11.

4. Possible involvement by foreign governments. Doesn't impress me, at best it would fall in the "more of the same" category. If there was pay dirt here, meaning, some evidence of significant involvement by a foreign government directly in 9/11, in 9 years we would have found it. If there was such evidence, wouldn't Bush have trumpeted it to the world during the run-up to the Iraq War? He tried unsuccessfully to link Saddam to 9/11 in the public's mind without any evidence. Surely he could have made use of some, if it existed.

One item on your list doesn't make sense to me.

5) In light of the new information, revisit the issue of the money trail in general. Perhaps there might be evidence, after all, for some of the things for which the Commission "found no evidence."

So, we're going to spend time and public money chasing down leads for which there was no evidence. Why is this a responsible use of federal money and investigative resources?

There is no evidence that Moammar Qadafi was behind 9/11 either. In the continued absence of evidence, is it worthwhile to reopen the investigation just to make sure that, 9 years later, there STILL isn't any evidence linking Qadafi to 9/11? Unless we have some reason to suspect Qadafi was involved, I don't think this makes a lot of sense.

With your statement no. 5 I hear you advocating essentially an open-ended hunt for anything the Commission missed. The only possible reason this could make any sense is because you suspect there might be something out there that the Commission didn't uncover the first time--and plays right into the Truthers' demands that a new 9/11 investigation be opened into woo claims.

Muertos wrote:

Diane, I think I hear you advocating for a new full-scale investigation of 9/11 based on the five factors you listed,

I'm advocating a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission. As Kean and Hamilton themselves have pointed out, the 9/11 Commission was not given sufficient time or resources to fulfill its mandate.

My belief is that a new investigation, at least a full-scale one, is pointless and counterproductive, would seek only to legitimize the Truthers' woo claims by appearing to take them seriously, and would not result in any productive dialogue with the Truthers, who would invariably denounce any new 9/11 investigation that did not unequivocally reach the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.

I'll discuss that issue later, in a separate thread.

1. Sibel Edmonds. What I hear her alleging is wrongdoing by an FBI employee and violations of security clearances. Worthy of investigation by someone? Sure. Relevance to 9/11? Well, clearly fits in the "more of the same" category. If Sibel Edmonds had more warnings that were ignored, sure, we ought to know about them. Worth a full-blown "reopening" of 9/11? No. This sounds like a job for a low-level FBI security review board, not a national-level commission.

Given the history of conflict between Sibel Edmonds and the FBI, her allegations would need to be handled at a higher level than the FBI, let alone a "low-level FBI security review board." She has already, long since, tried in vain to go through lower-level channels about various things.

Likewise, all the other whistleblowers need to be heard at a higher level than the agencies they've been battling with, or whatever other channels they've already tried to go through.

2. Review of classified material. Again, do we need a full-blown "reopening" in order to do this? Again, job for some low-level board, not a national commission.

It needs to be done by someone independent of the agencies who fought to keep the material out of the hands of the Commission. Again, not a job for a low-level board.

3. Info on detainees. I'd like to see that issue tackled in a general investigation of terrorism detainees, and not one specifically devoted to 9/11.

That could, indeed, be another valid way to tackle that particular set if info.

4. Possible involvement by foreign governments. Doesn't impress me, at best it would fall in the "more of the same" category. If there was pay dirt here, meaning, some evidence of significant involvement by a foreign government directly in 9/11, in 9 years we would have found it. If there was such evidence, wouldn't Bush have trumpeted it to the world during the run-up to the Iraq War?

Not necessarily. Depends on which foreign government(s). If the government in question is or was a U.S. ally, it might have been seen as impolitic to bring the matter to public attention rather than just pressure the foreign government, through private channels, to fire or discipline whoever was responsible.

He tried unsuccessfully to link Saddam to 9/11 in the public's mind without any evidence. Surely he could have made use of some, if it existed.

Indeed, I think we can be fully confident that, if there was any foreign government involvement, the foreign government wasn't Iraq.

Regarding the money trail, you wrote:

So, we're going to spend time and public money chasing down leads for which there was no evidence.

The idea was to finish looking at the classified information that the 9/11 Commission asked for and eventually received but didn't have time to look at. That classified information might include more information about the money trail. If it does, then that should be looked at. Ditto regarding the possibility of foreign government involvement. The as-yet unread classified info might (or might not) confirm earlier allegations which the 9/11 Commission was unable to confirm earlier.

Either way, it should be looked at, just to finish the 9/11 Commission's job.

Regarding Nick Levis, see my response here.

I did not "promote" either Nick Levis or the Truth Action forum as authoritative sources of info. My point in bringing them up was to call your attention to how they conduct dialogue. I'm not claiming that their beliefs are correct. My point is simply that -- based on their manner more than anything else -- these are people with whom it is possible to have reasonable discussions.

My aim was to give you a feel for them as personalities. But, apparently, all you can see is the specific content of their beliefs. And then you jump to conclusions about them as people based solely on that.

About Philip Zelikow -- as I said here, you just don't seem to get the concept of conflict of interest. I've tried my best to explain it, and to provide relevant links. I give up.

Also, why should we trust a woman who has made false claims before

What specific claims has she made that are demonstrably false?

A woman who only worked as a translator for the FBI AFTER 911.

She very well might have translated some very interesting bugged phone conversations that had been made before 9/11. As I said, I don't see a reason here to dismiss her claims. I already discussed this elsewhere on this board.

Because you already showed me Nick Levin's petition for a new investigation and the reasons they want to see one reopened and it has very little to do with anything you're talking about here. Yet you claimed these are the people you claim are making reasonable arguments for a new investigation

I never said that I agree with all their arguments.