1. Reasonably specific warnings of the terrorist attacks of 9-11, including mention of specific US cities:
‘According to my guys, Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this (I assumed he meant the CIA or the White House).’
2. Mention of tall buildings possibly as targets:
‘I’ve been thinking about this; trying to make more sense out of it myself. The source mumbled something about tall buildings. Maybe they will blow up the plane over some tall buildings; I don’t know.
3. That the attack was imminent (as of the Spring of 2001):
‘No specific dates; not any that they were aware of. However, they said the general timeframe was characterized as ‘very soon.’ They think within the next two or three months.’
There's just one little problem with the above; Sarshar has already discussed much of what he had to say with the Chicago Tribune way back in 2004 (around the time of his testimony) and none of those allegations appeared in that story.
Specific US cities? Nope:
According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.
It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.
The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."
Note that the current article does not mention Europe at all as a possible target; Texas sharpshooter fallacy, anybody? The 2004 article does not mention tall buildings at all, although obviously this would have been a spectacular revelation. And the specific time frame mentioned in the current article? The Tribune piece is quite adamant about that:
According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.
Note as well the dramatic point in the piece on Sibel's site:
Now the informant had our full attention; the agents seemed very alarmed, since their main unit of operation was under the WFO Counterterrorism division. They asked the guy to stop, asked him to repeat that again, and ordered me to take verbatim notes as I translated.
But that's not what Sarshar himself reported in 2004
According to Sarshar, the two FBI agents who interviewed the Asset were not visibly surprised by his report. It was his impression, Sarshar said, that the agents weren't sure whether to believe their informant, and that even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true.
Note as well that in the current article, Sarshar names the two FBI agents who were with him as "Tony and John". But in one of the few unredacted portions of Sarshar's interview:
He couldn't remember the name of one of the agents.
I would love to see Sarshar's testimony unredacted; based on what we already know there is no real good reason for keeping it secret. But I'm guessing that it bears little resemblance to the account at Sibel Edmonds' site.
0 comments:
Post a Comment