9/11 Murder Trials: Three Stooges & a Patsy

by Anthony C Heaford, 10 July 2019

I was beyond perplexed when in March 2018 I was contacted via Facebook by the US legal team defending Ammar al-Baluchi, a man accused of complicity in the murder of 2,976-people on 9/11. This was my first contact from the 9/11 Military Commission despite the fact that a year earlier, in March 2017, I had passed an intelligence dossier to Sir Graham Brady MP containing damning evidence intended for the 9/11 prosecution teams.

Sir Graham Brady MP signed for my dossier in March 2017 and considered its contents worthy enough to be passed to the British secret service, Parliament’s intelligence & security committee, and to the political officer at the US embassy in London, as per the four-documents copied below (please click on each image to see the full size document):

brady dossier receipt

From the little I knew of the legal process at Guantanamo Bay, the only evidence available to the defense teams had to have been approved and release to them by the prosecution attorneys. The US military legal office at Guantanamo later confirmed to me that my evidence had been seen by the prosecution teams and by the then judge in the 9/11 trials, Colonel Pohl. So why-the-fuck was I being contacted by defense attorneys via a private Facebook account?

I replied to that first contact by stating I would (and have done) speak to anyone inquiring about my testimony against those who planned and perpetrated 9/11, but that I would like an email from a formal US military account to confirm Dan Futrell’s claimed identity. That confirmatory email arrived promptly and was copied to both James G. Connell the Third and Lt Col Sterling Thomas - two of Ammar al-Baluchi’s attorneys:

With this validation of Daniel Futrell’s role within the 9/11 Military Commission I decided to cooperate fully, despite my grave reservations arising from his initial facebook message and regardless of the fact he was working for the defense attorneys, not the prosectuation teams whom I had hoped to work with. The bottomline was I needed them more than they needed me; I was and still am in fear for my life because of the implications of my testimony. I wanted witness protection and I thought my full cooperation was my fasted route to being afforded such status. I immediately agreed to their request for an interview and received this email in response:

Daniel Futrell proposed sending a team of his investigators to interview me over a 5-day period in June 2018, i.e. in three months time. This was beyond my comprehension - a US army officer investigating the murder of 2,976-people had formally acknowledged my claims that included being able to identify the man who members of al Qaeda called ‘the Chief’, yet Daniel Futrell offered me nothing more than saying some people would come to speak to me in THREE MONTHS TIME. I’d spent the last three years trying to get formal acknowledgement of my testimony, the three most stressful years of my life, and when that formal acknowledgement finally came it was in the form of being ‘gaslighted’ by the US military. 

My first action upon receiving the US 9/11 Military Commission’s invitation to interview was to advise British security services; I did this for two reasons:

1. I knew that no foriegn security service could operate legally in Britain without the express permission of British security services - I wanted to hear them confirm they were aware of the 9/11 Military Commission’s intention to send a team of investigators to Manchester to interview me.

2. I had been contacting British security services with my reports of having met Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Yemen since May 2015, but had been studiously ignored. The contact from the US 9/11 military commission saying “We are very interested in your insight and knowledge” was to my mind a validation of what British security services had refused to acknowledge. I wanted to see their reaction. 

I called the anti-terrorism hotline (given that my report was about al Qaeda and 9/11) and explained the contact from the US Pentagon investigators and their intention to interview me in Manchester, England. It turned out to be a very short call with the British security service's operator saying just three words before hanging up:

"Not our problem."

Psycological Torture

I have been and continue to be psycologically tortured because of my determination to expose the truth behind al Qaeda and 9/11. The US Military Commission and all security service's determination to ignore, suppress and belittle my testimony has nearly killed me, and may still do that. But I have no way back now - I have and continue to sacrifice my life to ensure the Truth is known.

Despite being aware these US Pentagon employees were playing games with me I still took the opportunity to cooperate fully, sending multiple emails with every shred of evidence I’d collated and every memory I could recall from my 1997 visit to Yemen. Only then did I request witness protection, a matter these US 9/11 investigators would not even discuss with me, as per the adjacent image of their email. At that point I refused to participate in their requested interview, but I have continued to pass them every detail of my evidence and ongoing research as a demonstration of my willingness to cooperate. 

Meanwhile I saw these same US Pentagon employees had already (four-months before they contacted me) been trashing my as yet unheard evidence in shamelessly self promoting New York Times’ magazine interviews, and even making documentaries and attending film premieres about the injustices being served upon the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the men accused facilitating the 9/11 attacks.

It is therefore my conclusion that these people involved in my psychological torture are stooges working for US intelligence agencies. The behaviour of these shameless fucks in the legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay have had only one genuine intention - to ensure the truth about al Qaeda and 9/11 is never truly known. These men are proverbially pissing on the graves of 2,976 murder victims and all those that have died since, including 9/11 first responders and every life that’s been sacrificed on the frontlines of the ‘War on Terror’ too. 

Guantanamo’s Patsy?

I am paying Ammar al Baluchi’s defense attorney Alka Pradhan the courtesy of only suggesting she is a patsy, being used by the men I’ve identified as stooges to plant misinformation in the media. If I am wrong and she did in fact deliberately trash my testimony about al Qaidah town in her New York times magazine interview, then that combined with her public arrogance over her role in the 9/11 trials would make her a despicable human being.

fake 4

Is this really appropriate behaviour from an attorney defending people accused of complicity in the murder of 2,976-people on 9/11?  Regardless of Ms Pradhan being a stooge or a patsy, this fridge magnet message on her public twitter page is beyond shameless.

Truly, for some of us nothing is written, unless we write it 
© Anthony C Heaford - The Quiet Mancunian