Why Sibel Edmonds Can't Be Trusted

I read this essay before, but it resonates a lot more after reading Tarpley's book "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA".

If only it were true, that Edmonds explodes the 9/11 Report. Remember that what the Commission "omitted" from its report is that 911 was an inside job, that the gov't MANUFACTURED these attacks and everyone else covered that up. Instead of showing that, the Report finds not that the gov't did 9-11, but pretends that governmental intelligence "failures" and bad coordination failed to protect us from them. Consequently, the fact that Edmonds is going public with what she says were "systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks" is NOT exploding the report. She's just
trying to add more bullshit to it, additional problems and "errors" and "cover-ups of those errors" NONE OF WHICH LEAD TO THE TRUTH, THAT 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. 9-11 is not about "ERRORS". 9-11 was a governmental SUCCESS story. Why do people in the 9-11 truth movement still consider Edmonds, this so-called ex-FBI whistleblower, a hero
when her stories just support the government's limited hangout of "failures" and "coverups of failures"? You'll hear more about Edmonds this Sunday on 60 minutes, I understand. People can read about these bullshit government limited hangouts from the mainstream media, get it? It shouldn't be the 9-11 truth movement and those aligned with it supporting and disseminating Edmond's crap. Will it never end?

There's an article that everyone in the 911 Truth Movement should familiarize themselves with. It's called:

"Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
by Michel Chossudovsky.

The author is cautioning all of us in his very title, to be careful about what it is you are revealing/exposing. Some of the "lies" you are revealing only serve to perpetuate the "big lie".

One of the lies that the author talks about AS ONLY PERPETUATING THE "BIG 911 LIE" is the "forewarnings". Edmonds, the FBI translator is big on forewarnings, forewarnings of terrorist planning that they deliberately failed to translate, forewarnings that they erroneously
translated, etc.

From the article:

"The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act".
This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and "Bush bashers" because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.

Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.

"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. . ."
----

Remember, Al Qaeda is more aptly called Al Cia-da.

Everyone in the 911 truth movement needs to ask themselves whether these "forewarnings" are truly credible. This is what the author says:

"Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.

In other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a "true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an "Enemy of the Homeland". . .

" The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat. . . "

"Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings. Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question: What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an "intelligence asset".

"the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same
time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks."

In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?"

More on why Edmonds, and her sponsor, Daniel Ellsberg, can't be completely trusted, is here.