• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission

Thanks for changing your earlier post, Al. My answer still fits. ;)

Spying Blind by Amy B. Zegert:

Publisher Princeton Press said:
In this pathbreaking book, Amy Zegart provides the first scholarly examination of the intelligence failures that preceded September 11. Until now, those failures have been attributed largely to individual mistakes. But Zegart shows how and why the intelligence system itself left us vulnerable.

Amy B. Zegart is associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the author of Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC.


Christopher Dickey said:
Ever since the end of the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, and more than a dozen other intelligence organizations that answer to the president had been struggling to adapt their sources and methods to the new menace. As Amy B. Zegart argues in Spying Blind, they just weren't up to the job.... Zegart, blaming institutional inertia more than individuals, counts more than 20 specific instances where the CIA or the FBI missed chances to stop the 9/11 attacks.


Thomas Kean said:
There is no longer any doubt of the failure of our intelligence agencies in the years following the Cold War. Amy Zegart has examined the reasons for this failure in addition to the well-meaning but mistaken attempts to address the problem. An important book for all those interested in the nation's security.

Lee Hamilton said:
Spying Blind is a timely and sweeping overview of the organizational challenges confronting our intelligence agencies in an age of terrorism. Amy Zegart has written a comprehensive and engaging book that will be of interest to anyone who seeks a better understanding of America's national-security agencies.
 
Here is a critical review of the book, written on the newsgroup of historycommons.org, filed under "complete 9/11 timeline":

[...] Basically, Zegart takes the 9/11 Commission’s no-fault thesis to the nth degree by claiming the whole thing was systemic failure and holding no individual accountable for his or her failures.

Here are a typical couple of paragraphs of dreck, about the FBI’s search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi:

Amy Zegart said:
Culture also played an important role. It turns out that the FBI analyst who requested the manhunt actually believed the matter had some urgency. She was so worried about finding Almihdhar, in fact that she called an agent in New York’s bin Laden squad to alert him even before finishing her formal request. This was something she had never done before.14 A few days later, she sent him an e-mail urging, “I… want to get this going as soon as possible.”15 In addition, when another counterterrorism agent pressed to have the manhunt opened as a full-scale, high priority criminal investigation, she explicitly considered the matter and sought legal advice. Yet she ultimately assigned the manhunt the lowest possible priority: a “routine” intelligence case. Why?

The answer lies in pervasive attitudes and beliefs, not individual errors. Like nearly all FBI officials, the analyst believed that criminal investigations—which are designed to solve past crimes—took precedence over intelligence investigations designed to gather information about future attacks. After September 11, the analyst told Justice Department officials that although she considered finding Almihdhar to be important, this investigation was “no bigger” than any other intelligence investigation at the time.16 Good instincts led the analyst to take unusual steps to expedite the search, but old attitudes prevailed: when pressed to prioritize the manhunt relative to the bureau’s traditional law enforcement work, she put down “routine.”


Those knowledgeable of the issues will have identified in this passage Dina Corsi (the FBI analyst), Craig Donnachie (the bin Laden squad agent) and Steve Bongardt (the other counterterrorism agent). Having read the relevant sources, Zegart knows who these people are, but, with the exception of a walk-on part for Bongardt in an end note late in the book, she doesn’t trouble her readers with them. This means that unless you have read all of Zegart’s sources five times yourself, you can’t tell that some of the same people are involved in multiple failures.

You can also only marvel at Zegart’s description of Corsi’s actions. Zegart has her charging hard to get the case started, but it took her a week to send the five-page lead to New York, so how much did she really want it? And your jaw can only drop in wonder at Zegart’s explanation for Corsi giving the lead routine precedence. As Zegart must know, Almihdhar and Alhazmi were being sought as material witnesses in the Cole bombing investigation, which was actually a past crime, having occurred the previous October. This, in Zegart’s world, should mean that the investigation gets a high priority, but Zegart keeps this from her readers, giving them the impression the two men were being sought for some other reason.

There are also three things startling by their absence here. One is the complete absence of Tom Wilshire, referred to variously and vaguely throughout the book, but never by name and never by an alias readers can keep track off. Zegart cites The Looming Tower repeatedly, so she must know who he is, but she isn’t telling her readers. Second, in the whole of the discussion of the failed hunt for Almihdhar the two things conspicuous by their entire absence from the book are the NSA’s permission to share its intelligence on Almihdhar and Alhazmi with Bongardt and other criminal agents and Sherry Sabol’s alleged (and probably fabricated) opinion that Bongardt could not be present at an interview of Almihdhar if the FBI did find him. Why does Zegart miss them out? We don’t know, but we do know that they are pretty powerful evidence of intentional wrongdoing by Corsi, and that if you wanted to write a book claiming systemic failure was the main cause of 9/11, you’d better leave them out. [...]


Closing the review, the author remarks the "near-total absence of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from the book" and links to a UCLA biography of Mrs. Zegert, archived 2006 by the Wayback Machine:

UCLA said:
She received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, where she studied under Condoleezza Rice.

:cool:
 
Here is a critical review of the book, written on the newsgroup of historycommons.org, filed under "complete 9/11 timeline":




Closing the review, the author remarks the "near-total absence of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice from the book" and links to a UCLA biography of Mrs. Zegert, archived 2006 by the Wayback Machine:



:cool:

I hilited your problem for you. Historycommons.org is know for keeping lies and bull**** on their site, even when asked to correct it.
 
That silly little site is rediculous. I found many errors in their "facts" and use logical fallacies time and time again.

Maybe logical fallacies, maybe not, either way I think at the time this web page went live (says Copyright 2003) they felt there were a lot of unanswered questions. And yes, there were legitimate concerns unlike the concerns of the truther movement!
 
Maybe logical fallacies, maybe not, either way I think at the time this web page went live (says Copyright 2003) they felt there were a lot of unanswered questions. And yes, there were legitimate concerns unlike the concerns of the truther movement!

I couldn't agree more. At the time, those were legitimate questions. The ones that can be answered, have been. The ones that won't be answered ( presidential procedure, things like that) I am sure we will never know the answer to. I am ok with that. So are the majority of the FSC.
 


I looked at both sides and shared my investigation with you. This book written by a student of Condi is as official as it gets. I will learn nothing from reading it.

Apropos Condi, two paragraphs from the wikipedia article on Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission:

In 1989, in the George H. W. Bush administration, Zelikow was detailed to join the National Security Council, where he was involved as a senior White House staffer in the diplomacy surrounding the German reunification and the diplomatic settlements accompanying the end of the Cold War in Europe. During the first Gulf War he aided President Bush, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State James Baker in diplomatic affairs related to the coalition. He went on to co-author, with Condoleezza Rice, the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft , an academic treatment of the politics of reunification, which was published in 1995. [...]

At the recommendation of Lee H. Hamilton, the vice-chair, Zelikow was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, whose work included examination of the conduct of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and their administrations. Zelikow's prior involvement with the administration of George W. Bush led to opposition from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, citing a conflict of interest. In response to the concerns, Zelikow agreed to recuse himself from any investigation matters pertaining to the National Security Council's transition from the Clinton to Bush administrations, which Zelikow had helped manage.
 
Of course, the whole point of Al's post was to demonstrate that if truthers could focus on the real issues of 9/11, in this case institutional ones, instead of the sci-fi platform of man-made demolitions or space beams, they could actually be a viable group. This is why they fail and will continue to fail.
 
I couldn't agree more. At the time, those were legitimate questions. The ones that can be answered, have been. The ones that won't be answered ( presidential procedure, things like that) I am sure we will never know the answer to. I am ok with that. So are the majority of the FSC.

It's all good!
 
Of course, the whole point of Al's post was to demonstrate that if truthers could focus on the real issues of 9/11, in this case institutional ones, instead of the sci-fi platform of man-made demolitions or space beams, they could actually be a viable group. This is why they fail and will continue to fail.

Spot on.

I have commented many times on the crazy tactics of lots of truthers. Why don't those truthers or genuine sceptics who have concerns about issues of collusion/corruption/conspiracy stick to those issues?

Tying their political concerns to demolition of WTC, no plane at the Pentagon etc immediately destroys any credibility their claims may have. It is simply too easy to rebut the technical claims and any conspiracy claims tied to them fall with them.
 
But the thing is that even without any technical evidence, the - call them political - known facts alone are enough to demand a new investigation. Anything else can only add, never substract.

So, unlike Bush and Cheney, Condi publically testified under oath to the 9/11 commission, whose executive director was her old personal friend Philip Zelikow. She was interviewed by Richard Ben-Veniste in front of the 9/11 widows.

And she blatantly lied. Here's a five minute clip:


Consequences for Mrs. Rice? Career boost.
 
But the thing is that even without any technical evidence, the - call them political - known facts alone are enough to demand a new investigation. Anything else can only add, never substract.

So, unlike Bush and Cheney, Condi publically testified under oath to the 9/11 commission, whose executive director was her old personal friend Philip Zelikow. She was interviewed by Richard Ben-Veniste in front of the 9/11 widows.

And she blatantly lied. Here's a five minute clip:


Consequences for Mrs. Rice? Career boost.
Why does the president have to testify to Congress? Under oath? 911 truth are not too good at using logic - have you noticed that? Give it up - 8 years of failure for 911 truth - you were right, give it up is what 911 truth needs to do. With your superior efforts failing to support any 911 truth claims, it is over.

Prove she lied. 8 years and nothing.
 
Jon Gold has produced a couple of short videos to make the facts contained in his collection more accessible. Here are three of them.

9/11 Commission (see Fact #26) (5:42min)


Philip Zelikow (see Fact #16) (6:04min)


Max Cleland (see Fact #37) (4:04min)
 
Jon Gold has produced a couple of short videos to make the facts contained in his collection more accessible.
They are not facts you can use to support his delusions on 911. 911 truth is challenged, they can't figure out 911 after 9 years. Perfected failure, is 911 truth's only product, and idiotic videos which prove the authors are not firing on all eight.

Posting moronic videos; is this your new hobby? How does making up lies and false information help the families affected by 911?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom