I am including an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on 9-11 Conspiracy along a link to Sibel Edmonds website. Sibel would love to tell us more but she has be constrained from doing so by John Ashcroft and the "Justice Department".
Sibel Edmond's website:
http://www.justacitizen.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_EdmondsOn December 11, 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft, again invoking the State Secrets Privilege, filed a motion calling for Edmonds' deposition to be suppressed and for the entire case to be dismissed. The judge, seeking more information, ordered the government to produce any unclassified material relating to the case. In response, Ashcroft submitted further statements to justify the use of the State Secrets Privilege, and on May 13, 2004, took the unprecedented step of retroactively classifying as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds' own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by POGO.
On June 23, 2004, the lawfulness of the retroactive reclassification was challenged in a suit filed by POGO, citing fear that the group might be retroactively punished for having published the letters on its website. The Justice Department tried, but failed, to get the suit dismissed, and said that POGO could not prove that it was being threatened with prosecution. On February 18, 2005, the day before a hearing on the case, the Justice Department, under the leadership of a new Attorney General, backed away from its claim that those particular documents were classified, and approved their release in full. <1> <2> It is not clear whether this concession affects the publishability of other statements and documents relating to Edmonds; the Justice Department's gag order, of sorts, seems to remain in effect, since a court has not determined whether the department actually has the authority to retroactively reclassify the documents.
In the meantime, however, the reclassification was successful; Edmonds was barred from testifying in the 9/11 class action suit, and on July 6, 2004, her own suit was dismissed on state secrets grounds. Edmonds immediately appealed the latter decision.
The day the appeal was filed, the Inspector General released an unclassified summary of a highly classified report on an investigation that had concluded “that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services. …Rather than investigate Edmonds' allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract.” <3>
But on April 21, 2005, in the hours before the hearing of her appeal, three judges issued a ruling that barred all reporters and the public from the courtroom. During the proceedings, Edmonds was not allowed into the courtroom for the hearing. On May 6, 2005, when her case was dismissed, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Other_points_of_interestWhistleblowers
Depending on how many of the above theories one believes, the list of collaborators needed can grow or shrink. Opponents of these theories say that one weakness of the conspiracy claims is the absence of credible whistleblowers.
While many researchers in opposition to the above conspiracy theories suggest that a conspiracy would require silencing a vast number of individuals, the proponents of those theories tend to disagree. On speculation alone, author David Ray Griffin has argued that many of the people involved would likely not know the full extent of the plot. Griffin theorizes so few individuals have come forward out of fear from threats, possibly in regards to family or employment. In an interview with the Santa Barbara Independent, Griffin states: "You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, 'If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.' Griffin does not cite any examples of this occurring.
Griffin also argues that many would likely feel they have little incentive to come forward, given the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media thus far. "You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut." In spite of these supposed repercussions, he claims a number of whistleblowers such as Kevin Ryan, Sibel Edmonds, and David Schippers have chosen to speak out.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
