http://www.jaynadavis.com/foreword.html

By David P. Schippers
Fmr. Chief Investigative Counsel for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton

On the morning of April 19, 1995, my tranquility and feelings of security were demolished in one horrific explosion. I, together with millions of other Americans, watched in torment, as what had once been the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, collapsed into a mass of smoking ruins. I listened intently to the reports of an obvious terrorist bombing in the United States. My eyes filled with tears as the images of dead children and bloody victims appeared on the television screen.

Along with many other citizens, my suspicions initially focused on a possible Middle Eastern connection. The bombing and murder of innocents was a classic operation of Arab terrorists, and the method conformed to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Those suspicions were later buttressed when it was learned that the FBI was looking for several Middle Eastern men - in particular, an individual known as "John Doe 2." A sketch of that individual was distributed throughout the media and an all-points bulletin went out calling for his apprehension. Then, within a week, the entire objective of the investigation changed dramatically and without explanation.

Shortly after the disaster, Timothy McVeigh was arrested by the FBI and charged with the crime. With that arrest and the subsequent apprehension of Terry Nichols, it seemed that all further leads dissipated. The investigation came to an abrupt end. They had their perpetrators, so there was no need to look further. The manhunt for John Doe 2 was abandoned, and the public was led to believe that the initial lead had failed to pan out. No longer was there any official suggestion that there may have been some Middle Eastern involvement. On the contrary, the Clinton administration adopted the party line that the bombing was planned and executed by two white male types. The President himself predictably attacked "two right-wing fanatics" and indicted conservative talk show hosts for their incendiary language calculated to incite the Timothy McVeighs of the nation to launch such attacks.

Once McVeigh and Nichols were in custody, the whole tenor of the bombing investigation did an about face. The government and the media dropped all references to possible state sponsorship and labeled anyone who thought otherwise, as a "way-out conspiracy cuckoo." All efforts were redirected to insure, at any cost, the conviction of the two men in custody. The glaring questions that remained unanswered were shoved under the table and ignored. We who were forced to rely upon the reports emanating from the compliant media were convinced that the crime had been solved completely and all the loose ends had been dealt with successfully. I, for one, had been completely misled, but I didn? t learn of it until almost six years later.

Everyone swallowed whole the false story put out by the government. That is, almost everyone. A young and beautiful investigative reporter at KFOR, an Oklahoma City television station was not satisfied with the official account. Jayna Davis was on the scene within minutes of the bombing. She saw the devastation and lived the human suffering. She possessed those rare qualities in a television reporter: honor, integrity, and a willingness to work hard for the full story. Rather than waste her time attending insipid news conferences, Jayna elected to conduct her own independent investigation. And what an investigation it was! Despite adversity, road blocks, and being told outright lies, Jayna persevered and did, in fact, get to the truth of the Oklahoma City Bombing. The startling result of that investigation is reported fully in this book.

Over the next five years, Jayna made every attempt to share the results of her efforts with law enforcement. But to no avail. Nobody wanted to be bothered with the truth because it might cause doubt about the official story. Disillusionment and frustration descended like a pall upon Jayna Davis and her husband, Drew, They began to lose their respect and reliance on the Rule of Law. Then they had an idea.

In early October, 2000, I received a letter from Jayna Davis. In it she recounted, in general, the results of her six-year investigation, together with an account of the attacks and stonewalling she had encountered. She told of the careless indifference of the FBI and the supine acceptance of the party line by others to whom she had brought her evidence.

I frankly admit that because I did not know Jayna Davis, I was slightly dubious. Actually, my first reaction was that she was just another conspiracy nut coming out the woodwork. I noted, however, that the letter was extremely well written, articulate, and concise. More important, the letter identified just enough details to suggest that the author possessed much more information than she had revealed.

My interest was stimulated, so I placed a phone call to Ms. Davis. She sounded not only rational but extremely intelligent. During the ensuing conversation, she revealed additional facts and assured me that very allegation made was fully confirmed by filmed interviews, affidavits, and unimpeachable documents. When I asked Ms. Davis to send some of the confirming material to me, she responded that she would prefer to bring it to me personally.

On the morning of March 15, 2001, that vivacious lady entered my office in Chicago, accompanied by her husband, Drew. They were carrying three large loose-leaf binders stuffed with documents, which they placed in front of me. As I paged through the reports and affidavits, Jayna and Drew quietly narrated the events surrounding the bombing. After no more than fifteen minutes, I realized that I was sitting in the presence of a true patriot and a courageous young woman, who had accomplished an astounding feat of investigation.

Since then, Jayna Davis has tried over and over to bring her evidence and conclusions to the attention of those responsible for the safety and security of the nation. Time and time again, she has been rebuffed, ridiculed, and ignored. Finally, she has decided to place her findings before the country in the form of a book. She will be ignored no more!

This is a book that needed to be written; the American people deserve it. Jayna Davis writes with the clarity and precision of a seasoned investigative journalist. The facts are riveting and her narration of the nine-year quest for justice and truth flows as would a novel. If ever there was a page-turner, this is it.

I predict that The Third Terrorist will drop like a missile on the federal bureaucracy. No doubt the response will be both immediate and vicious, as is the case whenever a citizen demonstrates the temerity to question the actions or the powers of officialdom. Ms. Davis will certainly suffer personal vilification and false accusations as she has in the past. Her motives and her veracity will be attacked by those who do it so well. I know that Jayna fully expects all that and has the intrepidity to endure it. Let it be known, though, that every attempt to denigrate Ms. Davis and her conclusions is doomed to failure. Why? For the simple reason that there is contained in this book not one fact, not one allegation, not one accusation, not one conclusion that is not supported and corroborated by evidence sufficient to constitute proof in a court of law.

If you are a citizen who is seriously concerned over your own security and that of the United States, it is critical that you read this book cover to cover. I can say with certainty that you will be astounded by the investigative ability of Jayna Davis; dismayed by the ineptitude, if not outright incompetence of those charged with investigating the Oklahoma City disaster; and, above all, enraged by the inexplicable policy adopted by our government to cover up a state sponsored Middle Eastern terrorist act in the American heartland six years before 9-11.

It is my honest opinion that if the Department of Justice and the federal investigative agencies had not ignored Jayna Davis and instead accepted the mass of creditable evidence compiled by her, indicating direct Middle Eastern involvement in the bombing, the course of future events may have been altered. Had those investigators taken their duty seriously and followed up on the investigation of that information, it is entirely likely that the Twin Towers would still be standing.

I count it as a singular honor to have been asked to contribute this foreword to what may well turn out to be perhaps the most vital expose of the young twenty-first century. My respect and admiration for Jayna Davis and what she has accomplished is unbounded. She is, without question, the finest and most thorough investigator that I have ever known, and I have known literally thousands. Her professional abilities and technical competence though, pale in the light of her heroic courage. She endured the wrath of the FBI, the disdain of the Department of Justice, and the snickers of her fellow journalists. Yet she did not waver, but continued to pursue the truth. The culmination of that pursuit is this book.

It has been said prophetically that someday the American people will realize what Jayna Davis has been through for her country. Then will she be honored and then will her unselfish labors be finally recognized. Let that day come sooner rather than later. Una donna non conoscei mai simile a questa.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16861

Who Is David Schippers?

Thanks to www.cooperativeresearch.org

August 3, 1999: Wright Removed from Vulgar Betrayal Investigation
Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright is abruptly removed from the Vulgar Betrayal investigation into terrorism financing (see 1996). The entire investigation apparently winds down without his involvement, and will shut down altogether in 2000 (see August 2000). A New York Post article will state, “[T]he official reason was a fear that Wright’s work would disrupt FBI intelligence-gathering. My sources find this dubious: After years of monitoring these individuals, the bureau had likely learned all it could.… [But] conversations with FBI personnel indicate that he was told informally that his work was too embarrassing to the Saudis. In support of this is the fact that Wright was shut down as he seemed to be closing in on Yassin al-Qadi.” [Washington Post, 5/11/2002; New York Post, 7/14/2004] Wright later will claim that a reason he is given for being taken off the investigation is a recent dispute he is having with a Muslim FBI agent who refuses to wear a wire (see Early 1999-March 21, 2000). [Federal News Service, 6/2/2003] He is also accused of sexually harassing a female FBI agent. This charge is investigated and later dropped. [Chicago Tribune, 8/22/2004] Wright is removed from counterterrorism work altogether and remains that way at least through early 2002. [Associated Press, 3/15/2002] In September 1999, he will hire Chicago lawyer David Schippers, famed as House investigative counsel in the Clinton impeachment, to help fight the closure of the investigation. Although Schippers is known as an enemy of President Clinton, Wright will say, “I’m confident President Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the lack of support and eventual closure of the Vulgar Betrayal investigation.” [Federal News Service, 6/2/2003; CNN, 6/19/2003]

February-March 2001: Politicians Warned about Terrorism Funding in US
In September 1999, FBI agent Robert Wright hired David Schippers as his lawyer to represent him in his troubles with the FBI (see August 3, 1999). Schippers was the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial. Schippers later will claim that at this time he begins contacting congresspeople that he knows from the impeachment trial with concerns about terrorism. He later recalls, “I was talking primarily about the infiltration of Hamas [inside the US]—how they’re moving the money. I have evidence on that. I have all kinds of material.” In an obvious reference to the Vulgar Betrayal investigation, he also will assert that he knew US intelligence had “established the sources of the money flow of bin Laden” as early as 1996, but by 1999 had faced high-level obstructions into investigating these matters. But he will claim, “I couldn’t get anybody to talk to me.” [WorldNetDaily, 10/21/2001; Ahmed, 2004, pp. 258-260] Schippers later claims he will continue to warn politicians about terrorism funding in the US, while also warning them about a potential al-Qaeda attack on lower Manhattan based on information he will receive in May 2001 (see May 2001; July-Late August 2001).

May 2001: Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Learns About Al-Qaeda Manhattan Attack Warning
David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, was hired to represent FBI agent Robert Wright in September 1999 (see August 3, 1999). After 9/11, Schippers will claim that he began privately informing congresspeople about Wright’s investigation into terrorism financing in the US in early 2001, but found little interest (see February-March 2001). Schippers appears to have had different sources than Wright who began telling him about attack warnings. Supposedly, the first warning was based on a secret February 1995 report which stated that bin Laden was planning three attacks on the US: the bombing of a federal building in the heartland of the US, shooting down or blowing up an airplane, and a massive attack in lower Manhattan. Schippers believes the first warning was a prediction of the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (see April 19, 1995) and the second was a prediction of the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 (see July 17, 1996-September 1996). In some versions of this warning, the Manhattan attack was meant to be caused by a “dirty bomb” - explosives mixed with radioactive materials - but other accounts described the use of planes as weapons instead. He says one of his sources for this early warning was Yossef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Schippers will claim that his sources continued to uncover further information. The Manhattan warning “had started out just a general threat, but they narrowed it and narrowed it, more and more with time,” until the “same people who came out with the first warning” tell him in May 2001 that “an attack on lower Manhattan is imminent.” Schippers speaks to several FBI agents directly, and hears that “there are [other agents] all over the country who are frustrated and just waiting to come out.” They are frustrated by “a bureaucratic elite in Washington short-stopping information,” which gives “terrorism a free reign in the United States.” Schippers later claims that some FBI agents later told him that before 9/11, “they had [Mohamed] Atta in their sights.” They also had attempted to “check out” the names and activities of “very strange characters training at flight schools.” He will claim that “FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota” tell him “there [is] going to be an attack on lower Manhattan.” Schippers will later claim that he will attempt to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft and other politicians about this warning in coming months, but that they will show little interest (see July-Late August 2001). [WorldNetDaily, 10/21/2001; Indianapolis Star, 5/18/2002; Ahmed, 2004, pp. 258-260]

June 9, 2001-July 10, 2001: Wright Says FBI Unit Is Making ‘Virtually No Effort’ to Neutralize Known Terrorists Inside the US
FBI agent Robert Wright gives the FBI a mission statement he wrote that outlines his complaints against his agency. It reads, in part, “Knowing what I know, I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are removed from the FBI, I will not feel safe. The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad. Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves.” Wright asks the FBI for permission to make his complaints public. Larry Klayman, chairman of the public-interest group Judicial Watch, claims that regulations require the FBI to give or deny clearance within 30 days, which would have made FBI failures an issue before 9/11. But the FBI delays making a decision and will only allow Wright to publicly reveal his mission statement in May 2002. [Cybercast News Service, 5/30/2002; Federal News Service, 5/30/2002] One month later, Wright and his lawyer David Schippers have a meeting with a reporter from the CBS news program 60 Minutes to express the concerns in his statement. He claims that he says it is only a matter of time before there will be an attack on US soil. However, he is prohibited by his superior from speaking to 60 Minutes or any other media outlet. [Federal News Service, 6/2/2003] Schippers will later claim that this month he also attempts to contact a number of important politicians with his concerns based on information from Wright and other FBI agents that he knows, but he was rebuffed (see July-Late August 2001).

July-Late August 2001: Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Tries to Warn about Al-Qaeda Attack on Lower Manhattan
David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial and the lawyer for FBI agent Robert Wright since September 1999, will later claim that he was warned about an upcoming al-Qaeda attack on lower Manhattan in May 2001 (see May 2001). After May, Schippers continues to get increasingly precise information about this attack from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota, and around July he renews efforts to pass the warning to politicians. He will claim, “I tried to see if I could get a Congressman to go to bat for me and at least bring these people [to Washington] and listen to them. I sent them information and nobody cared. It was always, ‘We’ll get back to you,’ ‘We’ll get back to you,’ ‘We’ll get back to you.’” At the same time he is attempting to pass on this warning, he will claim he is also attempting to pass on the work of reporter Jayna Davis and her theory that Middle Easterners were involved in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (see April 19, 1995), and also Wright’s claim that Hamas operatives were operating freely inside the US (see February-March 2001). The three claims put together seem to lead to a bad response; Schippers later comments, “People thought I was crazy.” Around July 15, he attempts to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft. Conservative activist “Phyllis Schlafly finally apparently made some calls. She called me one day and said, ‘I’ve talked to John Ashcroft, and he’ll call you tomorrow.’” The next day, one of Ashcroft’s underlings in the Justice Department calls him back and says, “We don’t start our investigations with the Attorney General. Let me look into this, and I’ll have somebody get back to you right away.” Schippers will say he never did hear back from anyone in the Justice Department. Perhaps coincidentally, on July 26 it will be reported that Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial aircraft due to an unnamed threat (see July 26, 2001). In late August, his FBI agent sources again confirm that an al-Qaeda attack on lower Manhattan is imminent. [WorldNetDaily, 10/21/2001; Indianapolis Star, 5/18/2002; Ahmed, 2004, pp. 258-260] In 2003, Wright will say, “In 2000 and in 2001, [Schippers] contacted several US congressmen well before the September 11th attacks. Unfortunately, these congressmen failed to follow through with Mr. Schippers’ request that they investigate my concerns.” It is not clear if Wright was one of the Chicago FBI agents that Schippers claims gave warnings about a Manhattan attack, or if Wright is only referring to Wright’s investigation into funding for Hamas and other groups that Schippers was also warning politicians about (see February-March 2001). [Federal News Service, 6/2/2003]

May 5, 2002-July 22, 2004: US Government Fails to Investigate Wright’s Complaints
FBI agent Robert Wright, feeling that he had been gagged by FBI superiors (see September 11, 2001-October 2001), files a formal complaint in early 2002 with the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of the Justice Department. The IGO probes agency wrongdoing and mistakes. However, the IGO turns him away. On May 5, 2002, the IGO writes that “Mr. Wright raises serious charges concerning the FBI’s handling of a criminal matter relating to suspected terrorists,” but the IGO does “not have the resources to conduct an investigation of [the] anticipated size and scope.” Instead, the IGO recommends Wright to refer his complaints to Congress. The IGO had previously conducted large-scale investigations, for instance looking into the FBI’s alleged mishandling of evidence in the trial of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. David Schippers, one of Wright’s lawyers, scoffs at the IGO’s explanation: “The truth is, they don’t want to investigate FBI dereliction of duty.” The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry will interview Wright in late 2002. [LA Weekly, 8/9/2002] However, neither his name, nor Yassin al-Qadi’s name, nor any details about the Vulgar Betrayal investigation will appear in the Inquiry’s heavily censored 2003 final report. He will not be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, and neither his name, nor Yassin al-Qadi’s name, nor any details about the Vulgar Betrayal investigation will appear in the 9/11 Commission Final Report in 2004. Supposedly, the FBI “stalled Wright’s appearance before the 9/11 Commission until it was too late for him to appear before its public hearings.” [US Congress, 7/24/2003 pdf file; US Congress, 7/24/2003; DebbieSchlussel (.com), 7/14/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004]