DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I've read what he said.
Can you point out the part where he accuses anyone of treason (murder)?
Interview with former FBI agent Mark Rossini
- Thread starter cjnewson88
- Start date
Can you point out the part where he accuses anyone of treason (murder)?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
What foolish nonsense!
What does it matter what Mark Rossini said?
Unless he says that HE, personally, had the clear and explicit intention to murder 3000 people, it doesn't matter if he claims that anyone else had the explicit intention to have 3000 people murdered.
But of course he said no such thing.
Not at all.
You repeat foolish, biased conjecture.
Try to stick to the facts you can prove, and you might restore some credibility.
The longer you go on pretending you or Mark Rossini can read minds, the more you kill dead the remnants of the credibility you had with me just a few days ago.
First my post stated that Rossini backs up my assertions for the limited amount of information at the CIA Alec station that he was aware of.
Why did you ask if he accuses anyone of Murder or treason, this question is nothing but a Red Herring.
Here is the part that backs up my assertions:
Undicisettembre: Yes, let’s talk about that. Could 9/11 have been prevented?
Mark Rossini: The 9/11 attacks did not have to happen. The 9/11 attacks happened because of the willful and purposeful non-passage to the FBI of information by the CIA concerning hijackers that had what we call a "Terror Summit" in Malaysia in January 2000. The CIA purposely did not tell the FBI about that meeting nor did they more importantly tell the FBI that two of the people at the meeting, who turned out to be hijackers, had visas to visit the USA. The CIA and the NSA also knew about the travel plans they had to come to America and still did not tell the FBI. If the FBI had been given this information we would have stopped 9/11. A colleague of mine who was with me at the CIA, Special Agent Doug Miller, wrote a draft Central Intelligence Report, known also as a CIR, which is the only official way information is transferred between the agencies, to tell the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia and about these individuals that were there, and the CIA blocked it. To this day no one has ever been held accountable for blocking Doug’s memo from going or for telling me I couldn’t tell the FBI about what Doug tried to send. This is something even the 9/11 Commission neglected to investigate, and I applaud former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, who was 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman and who cited this as a failure to pursue and get an answer. There’s so much more about the subject that it would take probably hours to listen to and talk about. There are so many missteps here and willful omissions that it’s criminal. It’s a stain on our society, it’s a stain on our system of justice that three or four key individuals have not been called before a court of law, a Grand Jury or a regular Jury, and been asked “Why did you block his memo?”
Moreover, even if Doug didn’t write his memo, even if Doug and I were never assigned to the CIA, no one asked them “Why did you (Alec Station) on your own not send the information to the FBI?” The question is valid and needs to be asked because everyday information is sent back and forth between the two agencies via a CIR, and I guarantee you there was nothing that was sent between the two agencies before or after 9/11 that was more important than what Doug was trying to send over to the FBI.
And we have to come to understand why that happened.
As a country, as a world, as humanity we have to get to the truth about why Doug’s memo didn’t go, we cannot just sit by idly and accept that. Until we do that, we really have no moral standing, nor can we hold our rules, laws and courts as legitimate. We should not and cannot face our citizens and say “We did everything to prevent this, and we are doing everything to protect you,” because we haven’t and we are not.
Undicisettembre: I would like you to elaborate on the reason why they did that. I can’t believe the CIA were so stupid to make such a big mistake on purpose.
Mark Rossini: It’s not because they were so stupid, but because they had this specific plan of action… [This information was withheld from FBI criminal investigators] in particular my boss, mentor and friend John O'Neill, [because] the people that managed Alec Station despised because they were jealous.
There’s enough circumstantial evidence to prove that the crime took place of a Willful Omission or Conscious Avoidance of telling the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia and that at least two of the people who attended this "terror summit" had visas to come to the USA. Those FBI cowboys could cause a political stir at the White House and State Department.
In spite of what you think, the CIA provides a vital function in protecting America, but to an FBI agent like me or Ali it’s difficult to understand their mentality. We get evidence, we put people in jail. We don’t have a long term view of the world like who is going to rule a country 60 years from now.
So I agree with Ali, and I understand why he has that feeling. And while Ali had dealings with them in the field they were hiding from him the picture of Khalid and CIA knew Khalid was linked to the meeting in Malaysia but refused to tell him.
Saddam was an evil man. Saddam had killed people and there’s no question about it, but he did not attack America and he did not have anything to do with 9/11 and he was a Sunni that controlled the Shia country. We went in there and removed a powerful Sunni leader and now we have the mess of a Shia-led country of Iraq aligned and friends with another massive Shia country which is Iran, which has always been seen as the enemy. What genius was asleep at this switch and didn’t think beforehand of what we were doing?
If anyone in Washington DC had half a brain they would have realized that, but they were bent on revenge, getting Saddam’s oil and controlling the whole Middle East. Now we created this “megacountry” and alliance between Iraq and Iran controlled by Shia governments and we have Sunnis who live in Iraq who are oppressed and have come to join ISIS.
With respect to the 9/11 Commission:
“What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction”. — Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, January 2, 2008, Chair and Vice-Chair of The 9-11 Commission
The two questions that have never been addressed are: Why was the Central Intelligence Report (known as a CIR), drafted by FBI Special Agent Douglas J. Miller (who was detailed to the CIA’s Alec Station), which contained information about the “Terror Summit” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2000, suppressed and not sent to the FBI? And why was I told to shut up about it?
As in any case, an “incident” happens and then an investigation is launched, based upon Probable Cause, to determine “Why?” Directly connected to the “Why” is of course the motive or reason known as “mens rea”.
In the absence of a confession, all cases, civil or criminal, are proven based upon circumstantial evidence, which based upon their totality, would lead a “reasonable person” to conclude logically “the why” of an “incident” and ergo assign responsibility to an individual or a group for said act(s).
Addressing the two questions above, which are directly linked to the 9/11 attacks, I seek to prove the “Why”.
WHY?
I believe it can be proven circumstantially that the reason why Doug’s CIR was suppressed, and I being ordered to not inform the FBI, was because the CIA was engaged in a recruitment operation along with the Saudi Arabian intelligence service known as the Mabahith, within the United States, of one or more of the terrorists who met in Malaysia, in direct violation of every applicable rule, regulation and law. Moreover, and perhaps the most pathetic and emotionally cringing part, is that they, the management of the CIA, Alec Station, and the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, (CTC), did not want the FBI, in the persona of FBI Special Agent-in-Charge John P. O’Neill, Jr., to interfere in their effort.
[NOTE there is no evidence anywhere that the CIA wanted to recruit Mihdhar and Hazmi. ]
As previously stated, SA Douglas J. Miller, wrote a draft CIR on January 5, 2000, that would have transmitted the information to the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia. This draft CIR was based upon a CIA cable that had come in from Kuala Lumpur Station which contained all the details surrounding the people who met there; who was followed, how and why it came to pass, ie., their travel through Dubai; how they were stopped there and searched “routinely” using the cooperation of the Dubai authorities; and how it was discovered that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi has visitors visas to enter the USA.
Doug wrote specifically that al-Mihdhar would likely be traveling soon to “most likely New York City” (this could only have been gleaned by the CIA if they had reviewed his visa application in Jeddah…which they did logically, since how would have Doug been able to put that in his cable?), and that he has been connected to the 1998 embassy bombings (an active FBI case at the time). He also wrote that photos of al-Mihdhar have been obtained and will be sent as well (meaning to the FBI) [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 502].
Since Doug's cable was not moving along the electronic queue line for eventual release we know from the historical and electronic record that after several days, Doug sent an electronic message to the Deputy Chief Alec Station (along with a copy of his draft CIR), asking if the draft cable he, Doug, wrote “Is this a no-go, or should I remake it in some other way?”
Doug never received a direct response from the Deputy Chief of Alec Station. After my conversation with "AEA" Doug did receive an electronic message from "AEA" saying "hold off now per Deputy Chief, [Tom Wilshere]" Alec Station.
Note two things regarding "AEA": Firstly, the 9/11 Commission, the JICI, the DOJ/OIG, and the CIA/OIG report that he/she wrote a cable January 6th 2000 to Malaysia Station, stating in substance "the information has been passed to our FBI partners"
Last note: "AEA" does later admit he/she didn't “personally share the information with the FBI” (footnote 44 at page 502 of the 9/11 Commission Report). Ergo the contents of the cable he/she wrote was a lie, and there is no record anywhere of he/she being asked or giving an explanation.
At this very moment is when 9/11 could have been prevented. Yes…without question. To discount this is foolish. The cell would have been disrupted and perhaps the FBI and the CIA and the Mabahith could have worked together and developed one of the cell members as a source, but we will never know.
What we also have at this instance is a purposeful and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.
There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation.
In order to build a circumstantial case, you have to draw upon facts and then make logical conclusions. Given the above (my known public and government testimony, albeit not before the 9/11 Commission, and that of Mr. Clarke’s interview), and what follows in this document, the case is even stronger.
Take a moment to study this:
July 12, 2001: Acting FBI Director Prevented by CIA from Telling Attorney General Ashcroft about Al-Qaeda Malaysia Summit:
On July 12, 2001, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard briefs Attorney General Ashcroft a second time about the al-Qaeda threat (see July 12, 2001). In a later letter to the 9/11 Commission discussing the meeting, Pickard will mention, “I had not told [Ashcroft] about the meeting in Malaysia since I was told by FBI Assistant Director Dale Watson that there was a ‘close hold’ on that info. This means that it was not to be shared with anyone without the explicit approval of the CIA.” During the briefing, Pickard also strongly recommends that Ashcroft be briefed by the CIA to learn details that Pickard feels he is not allowed to reveal. The “meeting in Malaysia” is an obvious reference to the January 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia (see January 5-8, 2000). Louis Freeh, the FBI director at the time of the summit, and other unnamed FBI officials were told some about the summit while it was taking place (see January 6, 2000). It is unknown if Pickard and Watson learned about it at that time, but Pickard’s letter shows they both knew about it by the time of this briefing.
What is so troubling about the above is that the 9/11 Commission, to my knowledge, never followed up further on this. Nor did they question Tenet on it, whom 9/11 Commissioner Governor Tom Kean essentially called a liar in the Salon article. Former Governor Kean says for the record that Tenet “misled the 9/11 Commission”:
In June/July 2001, the Deputy Chief of Alec Station, who was then detailed to the FBI’s ITOS (International Terrorism Operations Section) at FBIHQ requested, for unbeknownst reasons, analysts back at Alec Station to start retrieving and studying all known cables concerning al-Mihdhar. What prompted this?
Lastly, when the Deputy Chief of Alec Station was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission on live TV (their identity was hidden by a curtain), the Deputy Chief was asked “Why was the FBI not informed?” The Deputy Chief’s emotional response was “we were so overwhelmed, it just fell through the cracks.” I don’t accept their answer and neither should you. How could it have fallen “through the cracks” with all the cable traffic about it? How could it have “fallen through the cracks” when the resources of the CIA and several liaison services were utilized to engage and conduct surveillance on the Malaysia summit attendees in January 2000? How could it have "fallen through the cracks" if "AEA" passed along the note to Doug "hold off now per Deputy Chief"? How could it have “fallen through the cracks”, if the CIA came up to FBINY in June 2001 and asked the FBI to find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi? How could it have “fallen through the cracks” if the Deputy Chief wrote in July 2001 about another attendee at the Malaysia Summit named Khallad bin Attash, that he was "a major league killer"? So if a "major league killer" was the terror summit along with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar why is the FBI not notified immediately of every single detail and holding? All the Deputy Chief of Alec Station had to do was get up from his desk and walk 10 feet to the office of FBI Section Chief Mike Rolince.
Last point: It is common knowledge (numerous press reports and governmental inquiries) that the Chief of Alec Station had a meeting with Tenet and other senior CIA officials in July 2001 in which he warned that an attack was imminent and that "they are already here", referring of course to terrorists.
Per Pickard’s letter to the 9/11 Commission he was told by Dale Watson about some close held information regarding the meeting in Malaysia when he, Pickard, became the Acting FBI Director in July 2001. Watson further advised Pickard that he, Pickard, was forbidden from even informing then Attorney General John Ashcroft of this information. Question though: What was Dale actually told and by whom, and from whom did that person learn it from?…go down the evidentiary chain. Logically one would believe that Dale learned about it from Director Freeh who again, logically, was told it by George Tenet. One can assume Tenet told Freeh, that the CIA was developing information regarding a terrorist cell which had a meeting in KL, and “we (the Agency) will keep you appraised”. This does not constitute the passage of intelligence. Nor can it ever be construed by anyone in the Intelligence Community (IC), in its remotest form, as a formal passage of intelligence. As Mr. Clarke has pointed out, and Cofer Black’s own statement to me and others at the CIA:
“If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist”
Ergo, whatever Tenet told Freeh, who told Dale, who told Pickard, is not passage of CIA information that the FBI was expected to have acted upon. Moreover, it is logical to conclude that whatever Tenet told Freeh, it did not contain any information about terrorists in KL having US visas, since if it did the FBI would have been obligated, and demanded to act upon it. There is no way Director Freeh would not have marshaled all the resources of the FBI on this if he was told they had visas for the USA.
Also remember about how a senior Alec Station official is alleged to have lied to the JICI regarding his/her visit to FBIHQ. A visit in which he/she allegedly passed the information about the Malaysia meeting and all the intelligence regarding the visas held by al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi.
Moreover, the CIA knew after the Malaysia summit that they did come to the USA in March 2000. There are cables on the record acknowledging the arrival of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi from CIA Station Los Angeles to numerous domestic and foreign CIA stations, but no copy was sent to the FBI or Immigration/Customs.
There was no follow up by the CIA to the FBI, because the info was never passed. Once again, the answer to 9/11, is: Why was the information never passed formally for investigative action by the FBI?
One last note about “official passage of information” and CIR’s: If the information about the hijackers was passed in the manner/by the alleged person who is the subject of the Stein and Salon articles, as well as the logically assumed conversation between Tenet and Freeh, one has to wonder why it was not done in a formal CIR basis? How could something so vital and relevant to our nation's safety and security, not warrant being passed in the form of a CIR for investigative action by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)? Neither the 9/11 Commission nor the JICI, to my knowledge, took a sample of every CIR that went from the CIA to the FBI, thirty days prior and thirty days after Doug drafted his cable. Then again why limit it to a 60 day window? Why not for a year? I doubt sincerely that any of those other CIR’s contained information as relevant, actionable, and urgent as the information contained in Doug’s suppressed CIR. The only “study” of CIR’s done by the 9/11 Commission was a tabulation of the amount of CIR’s sent by the CIA to the Intelligence Community (IC) member agencies.
To recap, an individual (allegedly the subject of the Stein, Salon and Mayer articles), is alleged to have lied about going down to FBIHQ and passing the information and we have to know why. He/she claiming they came to FBIHQ and passed it, albeit to an unknown person, and the assignment of Doug and I to Alec Station, has always been the CIA's fallback position to pass the buck of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to the FBI. Curiously enough the Agency never points to the Pickard letter or the assumed conversation between Tenet and Freeh. Sadly in the public’s mind the FBI is to blame for the 9/11 attacks. This is in large part due to the CIA’s media campaign right after 9/11 pushing the fact that the FBI “knew”, and should have acted upon it.
Getting back to the CIA's media campaign to put the blame squarely with the FBI, one has to wonder what exactly was truly going on and why this "push" by Tenet and the CIA's press office. I can't help but posture that the CIA was afraid of the truth getting out. Keep in mind the following:
1) No one in my unit (Alec Station) was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, not even the Chief of Alec Station, nor the person who told me keep silent about Doug’s memo. That person was sent out of the country on a long term assignment.
2) The only person defacto from Alec Station interviewed by the 9/11 Commission was the #2 of Alec Station who had been detailed to the FBI. The interview was aired live on TV with him/her behind a curtain to shield their identity. If he/she was never detailed to the FBI, I doubt the 9/11 Commission interview would have taken place.
3) The senior Alec Station executive who allegedly lied to the JICI about going down to the FBI building and passing the information to the FBI.
4) The Pickard letter.
I can't help but believe the CIA feared that if it was revealed the CIA ran a unilateral surveillance and recruitment operation on American soil, with the Saudi Mabahith, which failed, that in the extreme the whole CIA would have been abolished, and at "best" or perhaps “least” in some eyes, very senior CIA officials would have gone to jail. The abolishment of the CIA would have caused the equivalent of an earthquake in the American government structure domestically and internationally. The latter scenario of a CIA employee being prosecuted is a watershed of everything being revealed by a person upon whom so much secrecy has been entrusted to. Perhaps it’s best to protect them, keep the Agency intact and make the FBI the "fall guy”?
To add insult to injury, the subject of the aforementioned articles (Stein, Salon and Mayer) has been promoted. One has to question why...loyalty? Fear? Perhaps it's best described in another article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker concerning the protection of the CIA employees involved in the Senate report on torture:
What we also have at this instance is a purposeful and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.
There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation.
Mark Rossini's conclusions are the same as mine.
The CIA lied to the FBI multiple times and criminally withheld the information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, from the FBI criminal investigators
Tenet had given Louis Freeh and later Dale Watson and Tom Pickard information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting but never informed them that Hazmi had entered the US or that Mihdhar had a US visa.
Rossini fails to mention that Ali Soufan had asked Freeh on November 2000 to ask the CIA and Tenet if they had any information on any Al Qaeda planning meeting, in January 2000 or any information on Walid bin Attash. Even though Freeh had been given information on this planning meeting and even information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf were going to this meeting, by Tenet himself, Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had none of this information, criminally sabotaging the most important criminal investigation at the FBI at this time.
The FBI criminal investigators were never given this information that came from Kuala Lumpur, until August 28, 2001, and then when they accidentally found out, FBI HQ's, FBI HQ’s agent Dina Corsi and her boss, Rod Middleton, immediately shut down their investigation, using lies, deceptions and criminal actions.
While Rossini calls these actions crimes, even though at this time the CIA had not yet received warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US. After April 2001, the CIA was well aware of this huge attack and still continued not only to hide information that could have stopped this attack, but had even ordered their spy inside of the FBI Tom Wilshere, twice, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, by ordering Wilshere not to provide any CIA information from the Kuala Lumpur meetings and the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, to Bongardt and his team.
What Rossini said that bears repeating, "What we also have at this instance is a purpose full and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.
There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation."
Numerous laws were broken in withholding this information in Doug Millers's January 5, 2000 CIR, from the FBI, but this withholding was repeated numerous times even after the CIA knew after April 2001, that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, that would murder many, many, Americans. Not only did the CIA withhold critical information from the FBI that could have been used to prevent the attacks on 9/11, Tenet, Black and Blee had specifically ordered their spy inside of the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by withholding the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the actual planning of the Cole bombing.
How do I come to these conclusions:
In the absence of a confession, all cases, civil or criminal, are proven based upon circumstantial evidence, which based upon their totality, would lead a “reasonable person” to conclude logically “the why” of an “incident” and ergo assign responsibility to an individual or a group for said act(s).
It is absolutely impossible to believe that when the CIA did this and Corsi and Middleton , working for Wilshere shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, all of the people involved knew full well that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific attack inside of the US killing many Americans.
Since all of these actions were deliberate, one can conclude that the CIA and the agents and managers that they had corrupted at FBI HQ’s had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out this attack. At this point there is no rational circumstance that would allow anyone to conclude otherwise, and to this date no one has come up with any other explanation for their actions.
A fantasy conclusion after the classic wall of words posted n+1 times
Which is total BS since no one knew what the attack was going to be. You can't allow a surprise attack to be carried out since no one had a clue how it would be carried out.
Which is total BS since no one knew what the attack was going to be. You can't allow a surprise attack to be carried out since no one had a clue how it would be carried out.
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
If someone can't get their point across in a paragraph or less, especially in a format such as an Internet discussion/debate forum, there is absolutely no point or purpose or reason to read their digital diarrhea.
I was asked to post what Rossini stated that backed up my conclusions. I did that. If you are unable to read this post, you were obviously unable to read Rossini's article, which by the way was much, much, longer.
Almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, sometimes, it may take a few paragraphs to get a point across, of why all of these innocent people were murdered on 9/11.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
paloalto,
thanks for posting so much of what Rossini said. I am more certain now than before that he did not support your foolish nonsense claim that anyone in those US agencies acted criminally with an intent to murder 3000.
He says several times that agents acted with intent when they held back this or that information or looked some other way or droped one or another ball. None of these intentions were "to murder 3000". The intentions were all quite different from that.
Was there a chance to prevent 9/11? Potentially.
Did agents consciously chose to not pursue paths of actions that would have had the potential to prevent 9/11? It appears so, and I appreciate and laude your efforts to bring this to light.
Were some of those actions or inactions criminal? Perhaps, though I can't judge that and you do not refer applicable law.
Does any of this mean US agents intended to have 3000 murdered? HELL NO!
thanks for posting so much of what Rossini said. I am more certain now than before that he did not support your foolish nonsense claim that anyone in those US agencies acted criminally with an intent to murder 3000.
He says several times that agents acted with intent when they held back this or that information or looked some other way or droped one or another ball. None of these intentions were "to murder 3000". The intentions were all quite different from that.
Was there a chance to prevent 9/11? Potentially.
Did agents consciously chose to not pursue paths of actions that would have had the potential to prevent 9/11? It appears so, and I appreciate and laude your efforts to bring this to light.
Were some of those actions or inactions criminal? Perhaps, though I can't judge that and you do not refer applicable law.
Does any of this mean US agents intended to have 3000 murdered? HELL NO!
You make up BS about 9/11; you ignore the other possible threats, and the fact is we can't read minds, we can't tell the future.
Why?
Because UBL wanted to kill americans, he allowed it to happen, he helped.
Why,
because we treated hijacking an aircraft as a negotiation opportunity.
Why,
because 19 nuts for UBL decided they could kill their way to the cockpits of four planes and kill 8 pilots so they end the fake hijacking by using planes as kinetic energy weapons.
You ignore the many other tasks the FBI and CIA were working, and have no clue you can't see which threat or which bad guys are going to do something. No clue when or where. The BS of the lights were blinking red is also a monday morning quarterbacking thing - we look back at failure and think we should have seen IT.
Rossini is looking back, as others are, and think they could have, or should have seen IT coming. Gee, if we were like you are, we would never lose a football game, never have an accident, never not know what was going to happen.
The conclusions you make, due to failed logic.
It is so easy to look back and see the threads leading to the event. I have no idea why you are not the richest person in the world since you can read the future... oops, from after the future.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This.
paloalto's conclusions are based solely on hindsight. He fails to support his conclusions as to the intent of the people he accuses of treason.
His default position. We're stupid because we can't connect the dots. Fact is, we can. Difference being, we accept the facts that predate the event.
No one ever made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder exactly 3000 people. This is nothing but a Red Herring.
What is claimed is that the CIA and agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that both agencies and the Bush administration had been warned about since April 2001.
My previous conclusions bear repeating:
It is absolutely impossible to believe that after April 2001, and after the warnings that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was going to take place inside of the US were pouring into the CIA and FBI HQ's, and the CIA ordered their own manger working at the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and FBI Agent Ali Soufan's Cole bombing investigations of Mihdhar and Hazmi, by withholding the Kuala Lumpur information from them, and Corsi and Middleton, who were working for Wilshere then shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, all of these people knew full well that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific attack inside of the US, killing many Americans.
Lets simplify this. You are warned a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack is just about to take place inside of the US. You are told that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US, clearly in order to take part in this attack. You then shut down the only criminal investigation of these al Qaeda terrorists, that could have found them and stopped this attack, before it took place, knowing full well that when you do this this will allow these terrorists to take part in this terrorist attack.
This makes a lot of sense?
Since all of these actions were deliberate, and since all of these people not only knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, but also knew that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this huge attack, one can conclude that the CIA and the agents and managers that they had corrupted at FBI HQ’s had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out this attack. At this point there is no rational circumstance that would allow anyone to conclude otherwise, and to this date no one has come up with any even semi-rational explanation for their actions.
Again, no one knew exactly how people would be killed in this attack, but the CIA had clearly indicated that it would be "mass casualties".
So we should forgive them because they did not precisely know exactly how many people would be killed by their actions?
Again this makes a lot of sense?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
Hindsight gets injected from the very start here. What is the definition of "hijacker?" Something like "someone who is hijacking or has hijacked [a plane or other vehicle]," right?
So in January 2000, what had any of the people at the Malaysia "Terror Summit" hijacked? Nothing. So how could the CIA pass to the FBI information concerning hijackers? None of them were hijackers at that point.
Now, you're going to tell me something like, "Obviously Rossini really meant 'people who would later become hijackers.' Like he actually said in the following sentence."
But I'm not buying that. Because if that's what he wanted to convey, he would have said so clearly. Instead, his wording is crafted to imply that the FBI was kept in the dark about people known at the time to be hijackers. And that's false spin. No one knew they were hijackers because no one knew hijacking was their plan.
The same sneaky spinning of hindsight evident in the very second sentence pervades the entire passage.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I marked in yellow one of the the only two red herrings around here.
Otherwise, you are of course grieveously mistaken - YOU, paloalto, are a one who "made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder [almost] 3000 people":
See? "Deliberately" ..."murder" ... "3000".
Whether or not you add the number "3000", strawman it with the adverb "exactly" or qualify it with "almost" - this claim is still a foolish nonsense pretense at reading minds. Neither you nor Rossini offered evidence that any agent had the intent to have a "massive and horrific" number of victims murdered or maimed.
You see, that is the other, and more massive Red Herring around here. This imagined intent distracts from the serious and worthwhile issues that your research legitimately raises, and I strongly advise you to get rid of that red Herring already.
ETA:
Argument from incredulity duly rejected. Thanks for making explicit that your foolish delusion is actually an article of faith, nothing more.
Last edited:
Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11.
Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum.
The CIA, FBI HQ’s and even the Bush administration had been getting numerous warnings of huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US, since April 2001
In August 21, 2001, both the CIA and FBI HQ’s are notified, from information provided by the INS, that Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US. Both the CIA and FBI HQ’s were clearly aware that these two individuals were al Qaeda terrorists. They had been photographed at an important al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, planning future terrorist attacks.
The FBI HQ’s had even sent several emails back to the CIA indicating that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Mihdhar and Hazmi, were connected to the these warnings, and in one email had even stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.
On August 21, 2001, from information obtained from the INS, both the CIA and FBI HQ’s find out that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US.
Now as many, many posters have clearly pointed out on this forum, how could anyone have connected the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that several, it turns out there were three, al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US.
Lets simplify this just a bit.
A huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US of A, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US of A.
Lets see how incredibly hard this world have been.
Warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attacks inside of the US, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US. See how exceedingly hard this is.
For the CIA and FBI HQ's to connect the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, to the fact that three al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US, was according to the many posters on this forum, just way, way, too hard, yes just really too hard.
There was just no way for anyone to connect these so called dots. This was what might be called a “bridge too far”.
To have connect these dots, or so we are told, would have taken Einstein-ian intelligence, but since the only person to have had this intelligence was Albert Einstein himself and since he had died in 1953, unless he came back from the dead, an rather unlikely occurrence, there was just no one, as many people have pointed out on this forum, smart enough to connect these dots. After all connecting dots was very, very, hard
We are further told by many posters on this forum, that the information that could have connected these dots was only found after 9/11, that I am using 20/20 hindsight to connect the dots. But hold on here. Wait a minute. Lets look at this in greater detail.
Wasn’t the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place, was known by the CIA, FBI HQ's and the administration, since April 2001, and the fact that it was definitely going to take place inside of the US was known, by late July 2001. And wasn't the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and in fact his brother, Salem al-Hazmi were all found inside of the US and known by the CIA and FBI HQ's on August 21, 2001.
Now I know people on this forum have pointed out that the information that could have stopped these attacks was only found after the attack of 9/11. But, unless I am wrong, August 21, 2001 is over three weeks prior to the attacks on September 11.
So it would appear that the information that could have been used to stop these attacks was known over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11, actually well before the attacks actually took place, attacks which took place over three weeks after August 21, 2001.
But several posters have rightly and correctly pointed out, and this is just very important to note, that on this forum, one really just should never, ever get confused with facts.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Your venomous sarcasm won't win you a flower pot. Why waste your breath?
Try a little modesty and admit that you cannot read minds; that you argue from (in)credulity; that you used extreme hyperbole when mischaracterizing the intent of certain agents.
It seems that your intent is to make damned sure that no serious, rational person is ever convinced by your arguments that an investigation into those matters is warranted.
Get your act together - correct it.
At cut out that sarcasm crap.
Try a little modesty and admit that you cannot read minds; that you argue from (in)credulity; that you used extreme hyperbole when mischaracterizing the intent of certain agents.
It seems that your intent is to make damned sure that no serious, rational person is ever convinced by your arguments that an investigation into those matters is warranted.
Get your act together - correct it.
At cut out that sarcasm crap.
Last edited:
You conclusion remains your fantasy.
You failed to show how any information could stop 9/11.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time? Would you say the number of suspects would be greater than a handful or several hundred (thousand)?
After the fact it's easy to identify the ones you should have focused on. My question to you would be, should we have rounded every suspected person with ties to terrorism, using any evidence proven or not? Do you think we have enough man power to do this?
Last edited: