Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security

“Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”

Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.

C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.

In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.

Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security
Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, New York Times, February 19, 2011

Now this is a real gem. What were Mr Montgomery's technology credentials? How was the effort overseen and supervised? I obviously wouldn't know but as someone who spent close to 3 years as a government parasite I wouldn't be surprised if no one in the government ever read a line of computer code this supposed "security expert" wrote.

So that joker collected millions off Joe The Taxpayer? Good for him - that's what suckers are for! What he did wrong was gamble it away - he should've just stashed it in some safe offshore haven and he would've now been looking at lounging on the beach as opposed to facing charges and dealing with all those legal problems.

Also note the government officials' ubiquitous use of national security as a way to keep things out of public scrutiny. Things being what they are, I am surprised we ever learned of the Deepwater Horizon disaster among other things. So perhaps I should keep quiet about this sort of thing lest our servants and protectors get some funny ideas.

Oklahoma City Bombing: live local TV coverage soon after the event

from disinfo.com

Disinformation: After the bombing, while the rescue attempts were going on, the Oklahoma TV News stations were reporting that the police and ATF officials were saying that there were more undetonated bombs found in the building. The TV newsmen kept reporting this for hours. Police logs confirmed undetonated bombs were found, and so did FEMA reports. Even Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, on the morning of the bombing, said, "The reports I have is that one device was deactivated, and apparently, there's another device." But since then the government has claimed that all these reports and sightings of other bombs were wrong. That there was only the one McVeigh truck bomb. Does that make sense? Do you believe that?

Charles Key: Yes, the information is just very strong, and to me it's too strong to be able to try to discount it. We have affidavits in our report from paramedics and other rescuers at the scene who say they heard law enforcement people stating there were other bombs found in the building. And then you had bomb experts who had time to drive to a TV station, and sit there, and talk about the un-detonated bombs they had, bombs that were found in the building. You know, it's just too much competent information that can't be reasoned away as mistakes.

Disinformation: In that same TV interview, Governor Keating, who is an ex-FBI agent, said, ". . . obviously, whatever did the damage to the Murrah Building was a tremendous, very sophisticated explosive device." But explosives experts have made it clear that an ANFO bomb is an extremely rudimentary bomb. If someone blew up the building by placing charges on different columns inside the buildings, then that would take a sophisticated knowledge of explosives, right?

Charles Key: Yes. Authorities have said that an ANFO bomb is a very simple, crude bomb.

Disinformation: What might be the most intriguing information you put out in your Final Report is that the most preeminent experts on explosives--people like Sam Cohen and General Partin--have said an ANFO truck bomb could not have possibly done the damage to the Murrah Building. You've said that the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee tried very hard to find an expert or authority who would say that an ANFO bomb could have done the damage, but you weren't able to, right?

Charles Key: That's true. Yes. We couldn't find anybody who would put their name, put their opinion in writing, that an ANFO truck bomb could have done this. If somebody wants to claim that it could have been done, then they need to put in writing, show how it could work, and give examples of that. And nobody I know of has been able to do that. Not even the witnesses the government used in the trial could do it. They didn't do it...

http://www.disinfo.com/arch...
www.prisonplanet.tv

www.st911.org

YouTube link


See also:
The Oklahoma City Bombing

And now back to Oklahoma City and all those years and events since...

Bravo, Sibel!

Here is a letter the former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has written to Thomas Kean, Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission.

A couple of comments here, if I may. The letter above summarizes the experiences of just one woman, working in a fairly low-level position for the FBI for a short period of a mere several months. Let us take it with a grain of salt, as she may be bitter or highly subjective for other reasons, and, for the sake of argument, discount half of what she is saying. We still get a very grim picture of glaring omissions in the relevant portions of the 9/11 report.

Let us also for the sake of argument assume that everything stated in the report is 100% true,- which may be the case,- but let us merely assume that the "omission ratio", so to speak, in parts of the reports other than the ones Sibel Edmonds' experience is relevant to, is comparable to that in the sections she is discussing in her letter. That leaves us with a report so incomplete as to be almost irrelevant. It is akin to a building which is made of quality materials,- but in which entire floors are missing.

Personally, having myself spent almost three years working in a government facility, I don't have any problem viewing all of Ms Edmonds' allegations as entirely realistic. I can very easily indeed imagine things like that happening.

So, my advice to those who choose to trust the 9/11 commission report is,- do what makes you happy, just remember,- there may be ten feet of snow between what you have chosen to believe and the truth, as this report appears to be a mass-scale snow job.

I would also like to add that I think we are all very lucky indeed that there are people like Sibel Edmonds out there, and should do what we can to help her weather the storm she is now in.