You are here

Hidden in plain sight: The Washington Post’s “devastating” admission that 9/11 was an inside job

Washington Post: CIA admits destroying tapes of KSM “confessions” under torture; main 9/11 Commission Report pseudo-evidence permanently erased from historical record because it would be “devastating” to CIA.

“The 2005 destruction of 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects at secret CIA prisons immediately prompted concern at agency headquarters that the decision was not adequately cleared and may have been improper, according to newly released documents….Jose Rodriguez Jr., head of the directorate of operations at the CIA from 2004 to 2007, sent a cable authorizing the destruction of the tapes.

“Foggo’s deputy wrote that Rodriguez thought ‘the heat from destroying is nothing compared to what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain — he said that out of context they would make us look terrible; it would be “devastating” to us.’ ” (full story: )

Why would the CIA think destroying the only alleged evidence for the 9/11 Commission’s version of events would bring down LESS heat than releasing this evidence?  Clearly, if KSM and the 9/11 patsies were shown to be guilty, videos of them being tortured would hardly be “devastating” for the CIA. Unfortunately, the majority of the American public would probably applaud the torture. The only conceivable reason these tapes would be “devastating” is that they would show that KSM (or the feeble-minded impostor they claim is KSM) and the other patsies were innocent and tortured into false confessions, and perhaps brainwashed into believing the script drilled into them during the torture sessions. The only conceivable reason the release of these tapes would be “devastating” is that they would have made it clear that it wasn’t Arabs who brought down the three  skyscrapers with advanced nanothermite explosives.

The Post’s story is a “devastating” admission that 9/11 was an inside job.

8 Thoughts to “Hidden in plain sight: The Washington Post’s “devastating” admission that 9/11 was an inside job”

  1. Anonymous

    Maybe what the tapes showed was that KSM wasn't tortured at all and he's been CIA all along.

  2. Anonymous

    Greetings, Kevin —

    I appreciate your not only tracking recent developments with the 9/11 suspects/detainees who were also used as sources for the Commission's myth making, but relating them back to further critique the Commission. You've no doubt been doing the same with Zubaydah.

    Also value discussions about attitudes toward nature, religious or secular. Highly relevant to the collective survival of all of God's creatures.

  3. Anonymous

    The CIA has been destroying self-incriminating audio (and more recently, video tapes ever since the wrong Lee Harvey Oswald "visited foreign embassies in Mexico City in September, 1963. The FBI Special Agents who knew Oswald well, said that the tape the lying CIA made of someone purporting to be Oswald, "was not made of Lee Harvey Oswald's voice." The "Company" told Warren Commission investigators that the "tape was erased to save tape space."

    At the Joseph Backes web-site, CIA file # 44-1639-32, received by an M. D. Crawford (file declassified in 1995 for the Assassination Records Review Board, stated: No info on Lee Harvey Oswald." The file was created on November 8, 1963. Who, in the CIA wanted information on an at that time innocent lone-nut who was not yet an assassin of anyone??

    The problem for Americans is that they have allowed a bit of comfort, plus ball games and drinking, and night clubs, sex and movies to dull their "moral compasses." Now, they have no sense of moral direction, it seems, at all. The CIA, managed by it's "outside of government" corporate masters, has robbed us in more ways that what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, or Sept. 11, 2001.

    Nowadays, they first threaten a president they fear will not give them free reign, then they get his cooperation with them. This is what happened to President Kennedy. He stood in their way. As Mike Malloy used to say, "they offed him." How true. Godspeed to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    They have robbed us of who were thought we were.

    Of the photos of one whom they claimed was Oswald, turned out to be a photo of someone else.

  4. Anonymous

    Wow Kevin, Thank You for the analysis of the Washington Post revelation! Frankly I have not been keeping up with 9/11 issues, but your post are very helpful, and this is really great. I am so glad that you are on the ball. I am curious to hear Farrakhan speak up as well, his speech at this time could well be a very important message to consider.

  5. Wow! Thanks for this, Barbara. I had understood from the mainstream coverage last year that they had destroyed the KSM tapes. Your analysis raises questions like, if the pathetic schizophrenic Abu Zubaydah was talking without torture, why torture him at all; why would the tapes be "devastating"; why destroy the tapes; why is the (Bush-Cheney) CIA "admitting" through its megaphone the Washington Post that they destroyed these particular tapes because they would have been "devastating"; etc. etc. Sometimes this kind of story comes from someone firing a shot across someone else's bow. Who's firing across whose bow? In today's USA we're stuck following the example of the Kremlinologists who used to try to figure out what was going on in the Soviet government through weird little clues rather than by taking anything at face value.

  6. It's an interesting blog entry. I lean toward they are almost all patsies. Dupes rounded up to be pulled from a stable, whenever, disinformation for the masses seems necessary. Barbara Honegger's contribution is also interesting. I have simply followed the rule of listening critically to pathological liars. You assume their line is a lie, first of all, then seek the truth elsewhere. It's clear, our government is run by liars. They are inclined to and enjoy the disrespect of offering us falsehoods. It's a power trip to know they can lie and get away with it and do anything they desire such as rounding up in a capricious manner dupes off the ground in the Middle East.

  7. Barbara Honegger

    The only problem with Kevin Barrett's analysis of why the CIA thought it would be more devastating to reveal what the (allegedly) destroyed tapes said than the fallout from destroying them is that the official claim is that the destroyed tapes were of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nasiri — NOT of alleged 9/11 mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, and it was KSM's 'confessions' — not Abu Zubaydah's — that the official story in the9/11 Commission report was based on. The only (claimed) major revelation that Abu Zubaydah revealed as a result of his alleged torture was to identify KSM AS the alleged 9/11 mastermind. But there's even reason to doubt that Abu Zubaydah revealed anything of significance due to torture at all, as Posner, in his book WHILE AMERICA SLEPT — which came out long before the revelation of the (alleged) destruction of the tapes — revealed that Abu Zubaydah FREELY and without any coercion, let alone torture, "spilled the beans" and revealed the names of two Saudi princes and the head of the Pakistani Air Force General Mir as the main links to bin Laden, and that he did so when he was tricked into believing he was being held and about to be interrogated by the Saudis, not Americans. All three men fingered by Abu Zubaydah, including the two Saudi princes, died suspicious deaths within days, one reportedly as the result of mere 'thirst.' So the Washington Post story isn't quite the devastating admission that 9/11 was an inside job as Barrett claims. Nevertheless, what IS critically important is that the Post's own stories on the CIA's (alleged) destruction of the Abu Zubaydah tapes clearly state that, whereas the CIA taped 'harsh interrogations' of THREE 'high value detainees' — of Abu Zubaydah, al Nasiri, AND OF KSM — that it destroyed ONLY the tapes of TWO of those THREE detainees — Abu Zubahday and al Nashri. Therefore, the REAL 'hidden in plain sight' admission of Washington Post — actually of the Bush-Cheney CIA TO the Post –is that THE CIA STILL HAS THE VIDEOTAPES OF THE INTERROGATIONS OF KSM. Whoever represents KSM in the '9/11 Five' trial, whereever (and if) it is eventually held, needs to know this and subpoena the tapes. Barbara Honegger, Author of "The Pentagon Attack Papers":

Leave a Comment