The situation is infuriating. Whenever a spectacular piece of new 9/11 information comes out, it gets relegated to the “conspiracy buff” leper colony
The Times of London has published just such a breakthrough. The subject is Louai al-Sakka (sometimes spelled Sakra), a captured Al Qaeda member now sitting in a jail cell in Turkey, where he was arrested in 2005. He was making bombs in his apartment, hoping to use them against Israeli vessels. An accidental explosion scuppered his plans.
Previously, he specialized in the creation of fake documents; he had also set up a physical training camp in the mountains near Istanbul. Among his “students,” back in 1999-2000, were six of the 9/11 hijackers.
Sakka claims that American Airlines 77, which struck the Pentagon, was actually piloted by Nawaf al-Hazmi. The conventional scenario ascribes that duty to Hani Hanjour, a less competent flight student than al-Hazmi. Many have questioned whether Hanjour could have accomplished the spiral descent.
The Sakka account (which includes rather more than I have here described) raises many questions. Is he credible? Turkish prisons are, of course, notorious.
In Turkey, police sources claim Sakka may have become clinically insane or perhaps be an egomaniac who has overstated his role.
Where, then, is the breakthrough in this story? Simply this: The estimable Paul Thompson — whose “Cooperative Research” site does not get nearly the attention it deserves — has compiled an impressive amount of information linking Sakka to Western intelligence services.
Needless to say, that surprising data nugget does not find its way into the recent Times piece.
Sakka’s claim to have trained 9/11 hijackers has appeared before.
But he will also say that he knew Mohamed Atta, which presumably would take place during Sakra’s time in Germany (see Early August 2005). He will warn the Syrian government about the 9/11 attacks one day before they happen (see September 10, 2001) and evidence will suggest he was an informant working for the CIA and other governments (see 2000). He will later admit meeting Asaf Shawkat, head of Syrian intelligence, in Germany, but it is not known when this meeting took place. [BBC, 11/10/2005]
(Emphasis added.) George Tenet’s autobiography almost certainly refers to Sakka in this passage: “[A] source we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country went to see his foreign handler and basically told him that something big was about to go down. The handler dismissed him.”
Tenet said that the warning lacked specifics. However,
On September 10, 2001, he tipped off the Syrian secret service… that terrorist attacks were about to occur in the United States. The evidently well-informed al-Qaeda insider even named buildings as targets, and airplanes as weapons. The Syrians passed on this information to the CIA—but only after the attacks.” [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 8/24/2005]
(Emphasis added.) Why divulge details to the Syrians but not the Americans? Why, if he were a trusted Al Qaeda operative, did he work with the CIA at all?
According to the Turkish newspaper Zaman, 2000 was the year when the Americans “turned” Sakka, who received an unspecified (but large) amount of money from the CIA. More than that: He received protection during his time in Turkey — while he ran those Al Qaeda training camps.
Then came his mysterious sojourn in Germany in 2000-2001. During this period, he appears to have met Atta — and then he went “underground.
Germany’s BND — their version of the CIA — aided Sakka while he was on the run. This, despite the fact that Sakka was considered a wanted man in Germany, due to his role in earlier terror plots.
Please read — do not skim; READ — the following:
In late 2005, after Sakra’s arrest in Turkey (see July 30, 2005), the German television news show Panorama will report that the German BKA (Federal Office of Criminal Investigation) suspects the German BND (Federal Intelligence Service) to have helped Sakra escape from Germany in late 2001. Supposedly, German police had learned where he was staying in Germany, but the BND enabled him to escape via France to Syria in order to prevent further investigations about him. Panorama will report that Sakra was secretly still working for Syrian intelligence and was giving them information about al-Qaeda’s leadership. Sakra will go on to mastermind a series of suicide bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2003…
(Emphases added.) The chronology is unclear: Where was Sakka on September 11, 2001 — Germany or Syria? The phrase “late 2001″ may or may not include September. We know that he warned Syrian intelligence on September 10 — however, we also know that he met the head of Syrian intelligence at some point during his stay in Germany. The meeting may have taken place on that date.
Whatever the chronology, the BND’s protection of Sakka tends to make us wonder about Tenet’s assertion that Sakka was a walk-in who had provided only vague details about the 9/11 plot. (Although the CIA and BND sometimes conflict, they usually cooperate.) He was not an informant; he was an operative.
Factions within the intelligence services of America, Germany, Turkey and — one presumes — France were all protecting a 9/11 plotter before and after the event.
Why would the BND and/or the CIA help Sakka travel to Syria? Why did they encourage the meeting with Syria’s intelligence chief?
He may have hinted at an answer during his trial:
Sakra makes additional claims during the trial. He says through his lawyer that shortly after being arrested in Turkey in 2005, he was visited in his Turkish prison cell by a group of English speaking foreigners. He claims that he was offered his freedom if he would falsely agree to testify that the Syrian government was involved in the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafiq Al-Hariri in 2005. He claims these people were aware that he had secretly met with the head of Syrian intelligence in the past, and that he turned down their offer.
(Emphasis added.) Is it conceivable that Western intelligence arranged Sakka’s 2001-2002 “escape” to Syria in order to lay the groundwork for a false charge to be leveled (much later) against the Syrian government? Or was Sakka being used in some other way against Syria?
Even if we grant Tenet’s assertion that Sakka’s information about 9/11 was too vague to prevent the tragedy, surely after the attack, the CIA must have known that the man was an inside player. And yet Sakka was allowed to travel back to Turkey, where he continued to be a protected individual. (Recall: Tenet described a source “we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country.” This reference almost certainly goes to Turkey.)
Could the BND and Turkish intelligence have acted on Sakka’s behalf without the CIA’s knowledge and acquiescence? Doubtful.
We cannot know what Sakka was up to in Syria, but one thing seems clear: Western intelligence placed greater value on his services than on bringing a 9/11 plotter to justice. His protection continued in the face of the 1999 plots, the 9/11 tragedy, and the 2003 bombings. It ended only when he decided to go after Israeli ships.
At his 2005 trial, his lawyer offered an intriguing observation:
Sakra’s lawyer will claim that if Sakra revealed all that he knew, “a few states would collapse.”
No worries. Those states can rely on the protection of what I have derisively called the 9/11 “tranny” movement.
The world’s conspiracy buffs are too dazzled by their beloved pseudoscience to follow this tale of spookery. Frankly, most buffs simply lack the intelligence to follow any complex storyline. Alex Jones and other “low-IQ, high-paranoia” types fetch the big audiences, while the extraordinary work of Paul Thompson remains largely ignored. Meanwhile, those annoyed by the fanaticism of the CD-ers tend to tune out all new information to arise from that event.
By endlessly repeating the baseless mantra that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, the infantile CD-ers have successfully diverted journalists and the public from inquiring about the complicated links between Al Qaeda and various factions within western intelligence.
That outcome is what the funders of the of the “truth” movement paid for.