The U.S. and Its Allies Had Contact with Bin Laden and the 9/11 Hijackers Many Times Before 9/11

Including a Direct Contact with Bin Laden by an FBI Resource In 1993

The report that the FBI had a human resource in direct contact with Bin Laden in 1993 – and covered it up and hid it from the 9/11 Commission and Congress – is newsworthy. See this Washington Times report and NBC News coverage.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg:

  • The mainstream French paper Le Figaro alleged that the CIA met with Bin Laden himself 2 months before 9/11
  • A high-level military intelligence officer says that his unit – tasked with tracking Bin Laden prior to 9/11 – was pulled off the task, and their warnings that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were being targeted were ignored
  • The National Security Agency and the FBI were each independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind’s phone calls
  • According to various sources, on the day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker “tomorrow is zero hour” and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind’s phone calls
  • According to the Sunday Herald, two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.” U.S. officials later told CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
  • And according to CBS News, at 9:53 a.m on 9/11, just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, “the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden’s operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia”, and secretary of Defense Rumsfeld learned about the intercepted phone call in real-time (if the NSA monitored and transcribed phone calls in real-time on 9/11, that implies that it did so in the months leading up to 9/11 as well)

Indeed, former counter-terrorism boss Richard Clarke theorizes that top CIA brass tried to recruit the hijackers and turn them to our side, but were unsuccessful. And – when they realized had failed – they covered up their tracks so that the FBI would not investigate their illegal CIA activities , “malfeasance and misfeasance”, on U.S. soil.

And former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds – deemed credible by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groupsalleges that the U.S. worked with Bin Laden right up to 9/11 … and for months afterwards.

In any event, it’s indisputable that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable … as was Al Qaeda flying airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

As is the fact that the U.S. has backed the world’s most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jack

    The CIA has long profited from drug trade liquidity, most recently from enourmous domestc loan sharking and criminality in the housing market, along various other ploys and fronts. US Finance and Banks and are an essential part of this hegemony, always have been. Bin Laden’s usefullness has always been as an mythical distraction.

  • xoxxxo

    If you what to know the truth about Richard Clark and 9/11, I suggest the recent book: Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects by Kevin Ryan (formerly with UL) and this interview series:

    Part 1:
    Part 2:
    Part 3:
    Part 4:
    Part 5:

  • jadan

    Why get caught up in the cover story? It doesn’t matter who rented rooms to the hijackers or intercepted their phone calls and blah, blah, blah. The hijackers don’t matter at all, and neither does bin Laden, because these people did not destroy the WTC buildings #1-7. You’re wasting your time & energy. Hijacked airplanes under the guidance of some fictional mastermind did not destroy the WTC. Say that again: hijacked airplanes did not destroy the WTC buildings #1-7. Years later, a group of Navy Seals did not kill bin Laden in Pakistan. The only evidence that is relevant is the physical evidence from the scene, the photos, the videos, and the reports of the survivors caught up in the orgy of destruction on that day. Everything else is horse shit that will nourish all sorts of speculations that go on forever and never get to the truth. Figure out how the buildings were destroyed and you will get closer to the perpetrators and the truth.

    • Dr. Truth

      Real simple, controlled demolition which takes months to devise!

    • Michael

      Thank you Jadan, I tell people all the time that the official story is a myth but they don’t want to listen because it is much easier for them to hide behind the “official story”.

    • FrankOlson

      Right on, jadan.

    • Luther Blee

      This view is popular in some truther circles but I disagree with it.

      The dichotomy of ‘physical evidence’ or ‘horse-shit’ does not seem useful, this tent is big enough for many parties. You are dismissing great work like Kevin Fenton’s ‘Disconnecting the Dots’, Sibel Edmonds’ work on Gladio B or Peter Dale Scott’s ‘Road to 911’ with a dismissive wave of the your hand.

      I would never reject a through debunking of the cover story like this. Such research is important in its own right & it can convinces more people to question 911 then more specialized debates about physical evidence,

      Same with JFK research, lots of good work on gunshot and autopsy evidence, but when I’m talking to casual listener it is easiest to discuss ‘respectable night-club owner’ Jack Ruby and get a positive response. Pulling on the “Al Qaeda” thread is an excellent first move to pull apart the official story that many people buy into.

      Sociological and political analysis is a vital tool even if you are just looking at the patsies. Cover stories can be traced backward to sources. Physical evidence can be planted and wrapped in plausibility deniablilty. Neither is clearly superior.


      • jadan

        The physical evidence on 911 could not have been “planted”, except the wallet of a “hijacker”, of course. That evidence is photos, videos, witness testimony, and samples of material. At a distance of over 10 years it is the only source that speaks unambiguously about the nature of that act of political terror. If you knew nothing about the atomic bomb other than as a rumor, you would not know what to make of Hiroshima or Nagasaki because you could not analyze the evidence with certainty. But you could conclude that the weapon used was new and of unprecedented power and that those who deployed it were powerful state actors. Political analysis has gotten nowhere. Physical evidence has been more fruitful. We’re at the “controlled demolition” stage, or hang out. Deeper analysis shows this hypothesis doesn’t work either. We need to focus on the evidence to understand that what we saw on 911 was something we’d never seen before (like the atomic bomb in 1945), that it’s power was of an order and quality of destructiveness also unknown, and that its deployment was only possible by powerful state agents embedded within the National Security State apparatus, not rag tag knucklehead airline hijackers. So long as we focus on political/social speculation we’re wasting our time if we do not know the nature and source of the weapon used. When we know that, the political/social analysis may prove useful in identifying perps.

        • Luther Blee

          I think we far more agree than disagree on this subject but I still believe that both types of analysis – physical and sociological – when done well are equally useful and both analyses point to “state agents embedded within the National
          Security State apparatus, not rag tag knucklehead airline hijackers.” Conversely poorly done research of either type nourishes all sorts
          of speculations that go on forever and never get to the truth.

          Simply because evidence is ‘physical’ in no way guarantees that it is true. JFK research is awash in bad political speculation but the 50th anniversary TV coverage was awash in horrendous ‘physical evidence’ disinformation. My concern is the quality of the research not the type.

          If you choose to place your efforts toward identifying the ‘new weapon.of unprecedented power’ used in 9-11, I hope such research is fruitful and I would read it. I just think it is presumptuous to then declare all other types of research, as pointless. PAX

  • empty

    “deemed credible”

    “In 1995, a group called the “Project Starlight Coalition” sent
    President Clinton a letter asking him to declassify any documents about
    extraterrestrials or UFOs.

    Two months later, an aide replied that he had forwarded the request for a meeting to White House staff.

    “The President appreciates your interest and long-standing involvement in this issue,” James A. Dorskind, a special assistant to the president, wrote to members of the coalition.”,4675,ClintonLibraryUFOs,00.html

    • Luther Blee

      The phrase “deemed credible” is used to describe Sibel Edmond in this article. Why drag all this –totally unrelated– UFO stuff?

      Why indeed?

  • Dr. Truth

    Does any thinking historian not finally believe unfortunately that 911 was an inside job?