portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Who Killed John O'Neill?

If you believe the media, John P. O'Neill was simply another innocent
victim killed in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
But you don't need much imagination to suspect something deeper was at
Who Killed John O'Neill?
Who Killed John O'Neill?
Clearly, O'Neill was a man Osama bin Laden wanted dead. O'Neill had
been a Deputy Director of the FBI, and Osama bin Laden's main pursuer
in the US government. O'Neill had investigated the bombings of the
World Trade Center in 1993, a US base in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the US
embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam in 1998, and the USS Cole last

But once the first plane hit the North Tower, Osama bin Laden wouldn't
be the only man to profit from O'Neill's death. At the moment of
impact, O'Neill became the man who knew too much.

Just two weeks, TWO WEEKS, prior to the attack, O'Neill had left his
job with the FBI. O'Neill had quit because he believed that the Bush
administration had stymied the intelligence agency's investigations on
terrorism. O'Neill charged that it had done so even as it bargained
with the Taliban on handing over of Osama bin Laden in exchange for
political recognition and economic aid. In the ultimate irony, O'Neill
had gone public with these charges at the same time that he was leaving
the FBI to become the head of security at the World Trade Center.

"The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil
corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it,"
O'Neill reportedly told the authors of an explosive new book, Hidden
Truth, by intelligence analysts Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie.
Brisard met O'Neill several times last summer and reports that O'Neill
complained bitterly that the US State Department - and behind it the
oil lobby who make up President Bush's entourage - blocked attempts to
prove bin Laden's guilt.

Released just last November, Brisard and Dasquie's book was mostly
ignored by the US media. But it is beginning to cause a stir. Just two
days ago, the story aired for the first time on US television when
CNN's Paula Zahn interviewed former Iraqi chief U.N. weapons inspector
Richard Bulter. "The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush
administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office
slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan
in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across
Afghanistan" Butler said.

Maybe part of the reason Paula left Faux news is because she knew her
right wing bosses would never let her run a story like this one. But
what Paula didn't explore, or even mention, was that O'Neill was not
alive to confirm or refute those charges. What CNN didn't find
interesting was the fact that John P. O'Neill was in his 34th-floor
office in the World Trade Tower when the first of two hijacked planes
hit the building, or that he phoned a son and a friend to reassure them
he was fine.

What the US media have apparently found less interesting than the death
of Clinton's dog is that we have only the government's version of what
happened next. O'Neill is reported to have called FBI headquarters, and
then re-entered one of the towers to help others. The official story is
that O'Neill was inside when the buildings collapsed.

How convenient for the Bush administration that Mr. O'Neill would not
only die in the attack, but also that he would make such a call. Not
only was the Bush administration's most dangerous critic forever
silenced, but he also provided the administration the perfect story to
explain his death.

Can you imagine how the events of the past four months would have
differed had John P. O'Neill, former Deputy Director of the FBI and
head of security at the World Trade Tower at the time of the attacks,
had been alive to tell this story?

Can you imagine the uproar this story would be causing if Bill Clinton
were still president?

As things stand, only time will tell if O'Neill's story is investigated
by the US press that found Monica Lewinsky worthy of two years of our
lives. Certainly, the authors who have reported it are credible. Till
the late 1990s, Brisard was the director of economic analysis and
strategy for Vivendi, the giant French conglomerate that owns Universal
Studios and effective control of USA Networks. He also worked for
French secret services (DST), and wrote for them in 1997 a report on
the now famous Al Qaeda network, headed by bin Laden. Dasquie is an
investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a
respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy. And
Richard Bulter, who put the story in play on the US cable networks, is
hardly an excitable conspiracy nut.

Perhaps the CIA will investigate. But I wouldn't expect much from them.
After all, they were apparently unable to penetrate the same Al Qaeda
network that welcomed in John Walker, a confused 20 year old kid from
California, who is reported to have met bin Laden himself.

< http://www.thedailybrew.com>
Feel free to forward to your friends

Home - More info on 9-11 <index.htm>
John O'Neill - a real American Hero?
Frank Levi - Feb 2002
Just for a few moments, let's delve into the world of the conspiracy theorist and make a few assumptions.
Let's start by assuming that the real motives for the 9-11 attacks were much more than just a desperate attack by Islamic extremists on the West and the real motives and perpetrators are much more sinister - as well as being conveniently covered by a smokescreen of government and media lies.
Let's say for example - there is a secret government whose aim is control of the world's remaining resources and ultimately total global domination - as Osama Bin Laden himself said "a government within the government". This so called "Secret Government" used various intelligence agencies to arrange the attacks, deliberately arranged the collapse of the buildings and arranged a convenient cover story to justify the immediate invasion of Afghanistan. The immediate benefits of this being control of the vast oil resources in the Caspian Basin, not to mention the massive strategic benefits gained by controlling this area.
Suppose a high ranking figure in the FBI is doing his best to track down the leading figures of modern-day Islamic terrorism and just happens to start poking his nose in to business that may cause "issues" for your hidden agenda - what do you do?
Suppose this same FBI character decides to start blabbing to some French intelligence experts about how his efforts to investigate the terrorist activities of one former CIA asset, Osama Bin Laden, are being blocked - what do you do?
Smear him and/or damage his reputation
Make it impossible for him to continue in the FBI
Have him permanently removed from the equation
Meet John O'Neill
< http://www.nymag.com/page.cfm?page_id=5513>
This article gives an excellent look at the career and personality of John O'Neill - a brash, outspoken womanizer whose single-minded pursuit of the terrorist threat led him into all kinds of trouble with the higher echelons of power in the U.S.
He joined the bureau in the 1970s and became head of the counter-terrorism section in 1995.
Some key points to note in this article about the huge hurdles he had to face in investigating the various attacks blamed on Osama Bin Laden:
Strange goings in on Saudi Arabia:
<<In July, over drinks at Elaine's, O'Neill began to open up to Brisard about his frustrations, which, it turned out, stretched back to the 1996 investigation of the Riyadh army-base bombing. O'Neill made several trips to Saudi Arabia, one with Freeh, but witnesses were executed before the FBI could question them. >>
<<O'Neill complained about the inability of U.S. diplomacy to obtain anything from King Fahd. He told the Frenchman that "every answer, every key to dismantling the Osama bin Laden organizations are in Saudi Arabia.">>
Blocked while investigating the Cole bombing:
<< He ran into another diplomatic barrier last year in Yemen, after the Cole bombing. Within days of arriving, he'd knocked heads with the ambassador, Barbara Bodine. While the FBI was interrogating witnesses, the State Department was trying to coax Yemeni diplomats into pledging not to support terror. The conflicting agendas, combined with O'Neill's determination, were explosive. He wanted his agents to carry automatic weapons, like their Yemeni counterparts; she insisted they carry smaller arms, like diplomats. By the time Barry Mawn arrived, Bodine was calling O'Neill an outright liar. O'Neill's comments about the ambassador, friends say, weren't printable. >>
<< When O'Neill came back for Thanksgiving, James was shocked to see him exhausted and twenty pounds lighter. He never returned: Bodine told Freeh that O'Neill wasn't allowed to. One more irony came after September 11. The FBI returned after Bodine left her job, and according to Mawn, Yemeni authorities were so moved by O'Neill's death that they began cooperating with the investigation again. >>
The real killer came whenever O'Neill decided to open up to the French intelligence experts, Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard in July of last year.
< http://www.rense.com/general17/deal.htm> - an article on Brisard and Dasquié's book - Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth) which claims:
<< Under the influence of United States oil companies, the government of President George W Bush initially blocked intelligence agencies' investigations on terrorism while it bargained with the Taliban on the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid>>
<< The authors claim that O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it". The two claim that the US government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.>>
So now we have our background, let's move back to those outrageous conspiracy theories
Smeared, Discredited and Heading for Early Retirement
This began with reports on the conflict with the Yemeni ambassador and continued with the suitcase incident detailed below
<<The scuffle with the ambassador made the papers. And before long, O'Neill's press coverage got worse. On August 19, the Times printed that he was under investigation. A year earlier, he'd attended a retirement seminar in Tampa, left a conference room to make a call, and come back to find his briefcase had been stolen. It turned up in a nearby hotel without his lighter and cigar cutter, but still with some classified documents that he shouldn't have taken from his office. O'Neill had reported it to the police and the Bureau right away. Under normal circumstances, this never would have been made public. But O'Neill thought he knew why it had.
"He thought the leak might have come from Washington," says Mawn. That same month, O'Neill told Mawn and others that Dick Clarke, the president's terrorism czar at the National Security Council, had asked O'Neill whether he wanted his name put forward to succeed him.
"It would be a powerful position," Mawn says. "That person would have direct contact with the FBI and turn around and influence top Cabinet people, and possibly even the president. So if I was somebody who didn't like him, it would be because he is getting into a position of power that could possibly get back to the Bureau to do things his way." >>
He left the bureau in July, a tired and frustrated man
The Hit?
Shortly after leaving the FBI, John O'Neill was offered a job offering three times the salary he had previously received - approximately $300, 000
The job was head of security for the World Trade Center.
His first day was the 11th Sept.
He apparently went back into the building to help with the rescue operation and was killed when the building collapsed on top of him
Is this just a coincidence? If it is, it's a very big one. We've all seen films, usually featuring organized crime conspiracies where the whistle blower just happens to get killed in a crash just before giving evidence - is it beyond the realms of possibility that this could be a similar situation?
Hopefully, this will at least have given you some insight into the life of a very brave man.

homepage: homepage: http://www.thedailybrew.com