Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

[Oystein]

I see that MirageMemories and Patriots4Truth posted in this thread, but failed to spell out briefly what they think is the best or most likely description of the 9/11 events. MM, P4T, don't you have any idea, or are you just not comfortable coming forward with it? This thread is not meant to celebrate what you call "the official theory". I am little bored by that myself. When I created the thread I had hoped and expected to get a number of differing theories, spread out over a continuum of the possibilities. Unfortunately, all those who oppose some part or all of the "OCT" have remained silent, with two commendable exceptions:

• JihadJane admitted she has no clue, which is ok - "I don't know" is a valid and often valuable answer
• paloalto, a relatively new member, who argues, a detailed "LIHOP by CIA" scenario. I am waiting for him to dedicate a thread to this theory and its evidence

Why don't Miragememories, Patriots4Truth, Derek Johnson, Java Man, Tony Szamboti, RedIbis, cooperman, Childlike Empress or Femr2 have the courage to just tell us what their constructive ideas are? or don't they have any, 9 years after?

 

[Childlike Empress]

What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?

 

[Clarrisani]

My turn.

1) Four very real civilian planes were hijacked and crashed into WTC 1 & 2, the Pentagon, with the fourth at Shanksville after a passenger uprising forced the pilot, Ziad Jarrah, to follow the back up plan should such a thing occur and send the plane into the ground.

2) The Twin Towers were both hit by planes. The cause of the collapse was a combination of the structural damage caused by the crashes combined with the heat of the fires causing the structure to weaken and ultimately fail.

3) WTC7 was severely damaged by the collapse of the North Tower which gouged out a large portion of the South side of the building. This, combined with the design of WTC7 and the free burning fires caused the collapse. The interior of the building gave way first, and with the absence of the interior structure the outer walls fell inward.

4) Pentagon was hit by a plane, as supported by the evidence of the wreckage and eyewitness testimonies.

5) As pointed out in my response to (1), Shanksville was a plane that the hijackers were forced to ditch after the passengers fought to take back the plane.

6) Al Quaeda have various reasons for disliking America. If anything, they are extremists who have a corrupted and misguided interpretation of their religion and invoke hatred for America and her allies.

7) The Bush government was far too incompetent to pull off something like 9/11, and it would have been out of the bag well before it happened given the governments inability to keep secrets. I think more could have been done to take the warnings of an impending attack seriously, but as they say about hindsight...

8) I think there needs to be more investigations on how to properly handle a disaster such as this by looking at the confusion and problems with communication ect on 9/11. As more information is revealed and the technology gets better things will become clearer as to how things happened the way they did and how they can be prevented in future. There is no such thing as too much information after all.

 

[Oystein]

What would you gain and how would you react if "one of us" would present you a detailed theory of what happened?

What a question... I am curious, and that would quench my curiosity. Good enough?
I like to know where people are coming from, what world view is at the base of what they write in this subforum.
After all, this entire subforum is about "9/11 Conspiracy Theories", which conventionally means "any and all theories about 9/11 except the common narrative". Many of us have asked for such a theory. I am not aware of anybody actually offering one, a complete theory. But you must have some sort of complete narrative - I think.


And anyway: What would you loose if you presented your theory?



How would I react? Easy.
a) In this thread: Thank you for your contribution, and maybe ask a couple of question to clarify understanding. Look at the way I reacted to paloalto.
b) Privately: Identify common ground, identify disagreement, identify holes (that would make the theory less than complete), and encourage the poster to elaborate on the discrepancies to improve the theory. I am of course convinced that the theory will not make a passing grade, but I will know only when the excercise has been completed.

 

[MaGZ]

Hi, I think the Islamic insurgency planned and executed the attack in an attempt to get the USA to retreat back into isolationist polices and thus open the door so they could wage war against the Islamic regimes supported by the USA. Israel is a red herring they use to recruit. They do not give a hoot about our way of life other then where they believe it is being adopted inside countries they consider to be Islamic.
Whether or not they harbor ambition toward global conquest remains to be seen. (no top leader of the Insurgency has ever stated this as a goal Wacko Islamics living in the West sometimes voice this rhetoric but they have no connection. (otherwise they would be locked up) It's just how they sell their books and videos.
Damage from impacts and fires destroyed the buildings. There was no warning that could have prevented the attacks once the perpetrators were within the USA. GW Bush had an adgenda prior to 9-11-2001 that did not include a Global War or any military action outside the USA. But like all of us he had to learn "Life is all the things you end up doing when you are really trying to do something else"

The Israeli Art Student spies had the hijackers under surveillance and could have told the US everything they learned if they wanted to.

 

[MaGZ]

MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.

KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.

The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.

The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.

There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.

The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.

 

[DGM]

MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students..................

See. That wasn't so hard (other "truthers" note). Now what you have to do is fill in the holes (mostly hows) and put it together into something that flows with the available evidence. Try to avoid the "it's planted/faked" because that leads to much deeper layers involving many more people thus making the complication factor unbelievable.

 

[Oystein]

MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

Oh cool, thx.

AQ did it.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.

KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.

The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.

The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.

There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.

The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.

I highlighted the parts that are new to me, not covered by evidence known to me, or that I feel need a little expanding upon.

Are there threads anywhere created specifically to provide reasons why you hold these opinions?

 

[TJM]

Give'em hell Oystein!

 

[Clarrisani]

MaGZ’s theory on 9/11

AQ did it.

Indeed they did.

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies. The Mossad reported back to the Americans but did not relay any information they learned indicating a coming attack. The US was caught by surprise on 9/11 because Israel did not tell what they knew.

Evidence? The FBI and CIA were not in communication about the attacks, and the Mossad were not involved. It was German intelligence that were watching the Hamburg Cell, but did not forward the information on to America. The Hamburg Cell was not connected to Israel at all, nor were any of the hijackers.

KSM ran the operation in the US, and meet groups of hijackers in Las Vegas on several occasions.

Again, evidence? Investigations have shown that the "Muscle Hijackers" and Hani Hanjour joined the party late, and Hanjour at least only met the other hijackers in his apartment in New Jersey prior to the attacks. There is no mention of the "groups of hijackers" meeting in Las Vegas.

The plan on 9/11 by AQ was to takeout the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House and/or Congress and the assassination of President Bush in Florida. Other planes were part of the attack but were grounded. These would-be hijackers ran from the grounded planes.

You got the first part right. The plan was to take out the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but also the Capital Building. Ramzi Binalshibh confirmed during interrogation that he had proposed the White House as a target to Mohamed Atta, but Atta rejected the idea in favour of the Capital Building as he deemed the White House to be too hard a target due to security.

There are no reports of an assassination attempt on Bush, and there were only four planes involved in the attack due to there only being four pilots: Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour and Ziad Jarrah.

The planned Bush assassination plot that morning was similar to the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan two days earlier with the use of a exploding camera. The explosives in the camera was prepared days earlier by Atta using a "Mother of Satan" explosive mixture.

You are correct that Ahmaed Shah Massoud's death is connected to September 11, given that Osama bin Laden ordered the suicide attack and the fact Massoud had warned that he believed there was an attack pending. You are also correct that it was an exploding camera.

However, the rest of your statement is unfounded. There are no reports of Atta making any sort of explosive, and no "exploding camera" was ever discovered in Florida. It is most likely that the supposed "Bush assassination" is just a rumour.

There was no military stand-down. One passenger plane was almost shot-down over Ground Zero (one missile hitting WTC 7 and another flying into the Hudson River). The hijacked plane over Pennsylvania was downed by an American fighter.

Evidence contradicts you. The military were forced to watch until the order to shoot was relayed through from the upper levels, which did not occur until after Flight 93 had crashed. There is no evidence of these missile that you speak of, and no one has reported seeing either fighter jets nor missiles in the vicinity of WTC. There is also no reports of one striking either WTC7 nor the Hudson river. In fact, there were no fighters in the vicinity of WTC at the time of the Towers being struck.

The plane at Shanksville was driven into the ground by Ziad Jarrah who was ordered to do so should anything go wrong with the plan. I'd say the heroic actions of the Flight 93 passengers is definitely something going wrong.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition to prevent the building from toppling over into the search and rescue area.

This laughable "theory" has been disproved so many times it's really not worth going into it again.

The anthrax attacks that followed over the next few weeks was a Mossad operation that was initially planned as early as 1998 but was moved up as a follow-on to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax attacks were designed by Israel to get the US to attack and invade Iraq. The anthrax came from their bio-weapons lab in Nes Ziona.

Unfounded. Investigations found Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins to be behind the attacks.

 

[Oystein]

Clarrisani,

in contrast to the usual habits and traditions of skeptics at JREF, I have asked posters in the OP to please refrain from debating the merits of the theories presented in this thread. This can be done in other threads that are dedicated to the theory in question.

Also, I specifically asked for a summary of poster's theories without them supplying any evidence, for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Useful discussion within this thread would mainly seek to clarify the presented theories (rid them of parts that or not theory, fill gaps), and clarify the intention of the thread. Other than that, this is only a roll-call. Ideally, every poster (including myself) would post only once: her or his complete and abbreviated theory.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Mossad was operating in the US under the guise of Israeli Art Students watching the hijackers at the request of US intelligence agencies.

Wait... I thought they were pretending to be a moving company?
Can't you guys keep your stories straight?

 

[Clarrisani]

Also, I specifically asked for a summary of poster's theories without them supplying any evidence, for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Sorry, bad habit. The English teacher part of me automatically links theories and evidence together.

 

[Oystein]

Sorry, bad habit. The English teacher part of me automatically links theories and evidence together.

Smile, mate!
I feel that urge myself often and have to suppress it consciously

 

[MaGZ]

Oh cool, thx.



I highlighted the parts that are new to me, not covered by evidence known to me, or that I feel need a little expanding upon.

Are there threads anywhere created specifically to provide reasons why you hold these opinions?

I challenge you to do what I did, namely Internet searches and connecting the dots.

 

[laursaurus]

The Popular Mechanics investigation of how each of the 3 towers fell is well done.
Flight 93 could have exploded in the air before it crashed. The hijackers claimed to have a bomb. If the passengers successfully thwarted the hijack, they could have detonated it.
The military was ordered to shoot down any additional hijacked planes any planes that did not comply with FAA's orders to immediately ground all air-traffic. I remember an interview with Hilliary Clinton the following week where they asked her what she thought about that order. She said she definitely would not have questioned that decision. Remember, she had been First Lady for 8 years and was very familiar with serious nature of national security.
I'm glad these Truthers are fading into obscurity. A few years ago, I was really upset that these jerks were going to rewrite history. Al Quaeda gloated over their success. If they were innocent, they would be fools to make themselves sitting ducks for retaliation.

 

[paloalto]

re: What are my conclusions if indeed this information is accurate and reliable?

re: What are my conclusions if indeed this information is accurate and reliable?

Well we have to assume a lot of different sources there are accurate and reliable.

If we do, let’s say, then after all of your reading, what are your conclusions?

TAM

Note as you can see I do not assume that any of these source were accurate, but used, consistency between the different reports, and logic, to figure out what were the reports or parts of these reports that were accurate and which ones were inaccurate, and then even why they were inaccurate, for each and every report. Once you aggregated all of the reports I had listed it was possible to tell, what part of each report was accurate and what part had been obfuscated or had left out important details, and even why they had been obfuscated!

An example is when the 9/11 Commission report was trying to explain why the two photos of from Kuala Lumpur were shown to the joint source, one photo of Mihdhar and one photo of an unidentified person. It said that the CIA thought that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Khallad Bin Attash, might be one and the same person. The DOJ IG report said that "CIA overseas personnel" had requested the photos of Mihdhar and Khallad taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting so these could be shown to the FBI/CIA joint source. The account of Ali Soufan said Soufan had sent a request to the CIA Yemen station in November 2000, asking if the CIA had any information on Khallad or on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The document “CIA Requested Changes to [9/11 Commission] Staff statement #10”, said a cable describing the identification by the joint source of Khallad Bin Attash in the Kuala Lumpur photos had been sent to the Yemen station in January 2001.

From these documents we know that Soufan had made an official request to the CIA Yemen station in November 2000 for any information the CIA had on Khallad Bin Attash, described as the master mind of the Cole bombing, or any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and attached to this request was a passport photo of Khallad that Soufan had gotten from the Yemen authorities that had arrested Fahad al-Quso. Fahad al-Quso had been arrested by the Yemen authorities and claimed he was bringing money to Khallad in Kuala Lumpur, when he got stuck in Bangkok on January 6, 2000. Thailand would not let him leave Bangkok for Malaysia due to problems with his travel papers. Since the cable describing the identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photos went to the Yemen station, we know that the DOJ IG “CIA overseas personnel” who had requested the photos from the Bin Laden unit, of Khallad and Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, were in fact the CIA Yemen station.

While all of these accounts are of the same incident, and say almost the same thing, each report leaves out critical details, it appears to make it all but impossible for the American people to put this account back together again in one place. The 9/11 Commission accounts says that the CIA wanted to show the photos of Mihdhar and an unidentified person, to hide the fact that the request was for two photos one of Mihdhar and one of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur, and left out that this request had come from the CIA Yemen station because of an official request by FBI Agent Ali Soufan. The 9/11 Commission report was trying to hide FBI Agent Soufan and what the Yemen station and the CIA Bin Laden unit knew, to hide a clear case of criminal obstruction of FBI Agent Soufan and his investigation of the Cole bombing by both the CIA Yemen station and the CIA Bin Laden unit.

The 9/11 Commission also wanted to keep secret the fact that when Khallad was identified on January 4, 2001 by the FBI/CIA joint source, and this information sent to the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Bin Laden unit, and was known by the CIA Pakistan Station since it was their handler for the joint source that was with the joint source when the identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photo was made, that this information was intentionally not given to FBI Agent Ali Soufan in February 2001 when Soufan flew out to re-interview the joint source. The 9/11 Commission it appears did not want any suggestion of a wide ranging criminal conspiracy at the CIA to hide this critical information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors, to block any further criminal investigations into this matter, which might have lead to persons much higher up who had been directing this CIA criminal conspiracy.

The 9/11 Commission statement that this identification was done because the CIA thought Khallad and Khalid al-Mihdhar might be one and same person, most likely is out and out criminal conduct by the 9/11 Commission by placing clearly misleading statements in the 9/11 Commission report. Since the CIA had the passport photos of Mihdhar and Khallad and even had the Kuala Lumpur photos of these two terrorists at the time the 9/11 Commission report says the CIA thought these two were the same person, there is no conceivable way the CIA would have thought that Mihdhar and Khallad were one and the same person, and the 9/11 Commission knew they were placing this erroneous and misleading statement in their report to cover up out and out criminal conduct at the CIA, and this example is but one of many.

Even today as seen by the comments in this thread, it is clear that people think the CIA just did not share information with the FBI, not that they withheld critical information in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy. Right in this blog, some people say this conclusion is all nonsense when all of this information actually comes right out of official US documents.

It is also obvious that the DOJ IG did not want to identify the “CIA overseas personnel” to make it nearly impossible to actually tell this request had come from the Yemen station, so the CIA Yemen station did not have to answer why they were requesting these exact photos, and their identification by the joint source, to hide the fact that it was FBI Agent Ali Soufan that was making an official request to them for this very information, and was being told none of this information existed at the CIA. Soufan’s official request makes not responding to his request or saying that the CIA had no information, a felony, out and out criminal obstruction of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

So what are my conclusions?:

It is clear that by putting these reports back together again that the facts are:

Both the CIA and FBI HQ knew a huge al Qaeda attack was coming in the summer of 2001 that would kill thousands of Americans.

By July 2001 information was sent in email, now publically available, to CIA managers, by CIA officer Tom Wilshire, that indicated that the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been receiving since April 2001. Wilshire specially called out the name Khalid al-Mihdhar in a second email, as a al Qaeda terrorists who would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda operation, which by this time everyone at these agencies knew would be inside of the US.

By July 2001 the CIA management had denied Wilshire permission on two separate occasions to transfer the information that the CIA had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and the fact that the CIA knew that Khallad had been at that meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, to the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing.

The CIA and FBI HQ had kept secret on many occasions the information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. These times were Ali Soufan’s request to the Yemen station in November 2000, Soufan’s request to the Director of the FBI in November 2000, Soufan’s request to the CIA in April 2001, the meeting in New York in June 11, 2001, and even when the Cole bombing investigators found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US.

On August 22, 2010 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, working at the CIA Bin laden unit, found Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US and gave this information to CIA officer, Tom Wilshire, who had been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit and to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. This information was sent on August 23, 2001 to the FBI, although not to Bongardt and his team, and to the rest of the CIA when Gillespie forced the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi. The FBI HQ and CIA not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on this date they also knew they were here to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands, but neither the CIA nor FBI HQ gave this information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt or anyone else at the FBI that was in a position to stop this attack.

When Bongardt found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 28, 2001, and even knew they were here to take part in yet another horrific attack, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi shut down his investigation, claiming the information he would need would have to come from the NSA and this NSA information was forbidden to be given to FBI criminal investigators. But according to the NSA release now in the public records, a NSA release to allow Corsi to give this NSA information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators and FBI Agent Bongardt had already been approved on August 27, 2001. Furthermore Corsi, Wilshire the FBI HQ and the CIA knew by this time that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were not only connected to the east Africa bombings, but had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, crimes which made restrictions due to what was called “the WALL” null and void. They also knew that this information had no connection to any FISA warrant, the only reason NSA information could be denied, because of “the WALL”, from FBI criminal investigators.

When Bongardt asked that Corsi get a ruling from the FBI NSLU, on August 28, 2001, records show Corsi fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling that stated that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and told Bongardt that the NSLU attorneys had ruled he could have nothing to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. According to the DOJIG report, p 302, Corsi knew when she told Bongardt to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, that the CIA had intentionally been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his team. Corsi knew that this photo directly connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to Bin Attash and to the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur. Since the CIA had been hiding this photo and any and all information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting since November 2000, it now is apparent that the CIA did this to keep Bongardt and his team from getting enough information so they would be able to start any investigation Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Rod Middleton, Corsi’s boss, received the photo from the CIA of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur on August 30, 2001, making it clear that Middleton was also part of this wide ranging conspiracy to criminally obstruct the investigation of the Cole bombing by Bongardt and his team.

When Bongardt’s investigation was shut down, this investigation was moved to the FBI intelligence unit in New York field office, and given to Robert Fuller, one of the least experienced FBI intelligence agents. On September 5, 2001, Corsi effectively shut down Robert Fullers’ intelligence investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, after he had failed to find any information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in the FBI data base and asked Corsi for permission to get Mihdhar’s credit card number from Saudi Arabian Airlines. Corsi refused to give him permission to even contact Saudi Arabian Airlines. Because there is no known reason to even begin to explain Corsi’s actions to deny Fuller permission to get this credit card number from Saudi Arabian Airlines, and since this clearly was going to make it impossible for Fuller to get anywhere with this investigation, before that attacks on 9/11, it appears that Corsi not only “let it happen”, but did everything possible to “make sure it would happen”.

But it is now clear that Corsi and Middleton acting under orders from higher level managers at both the FBI HQ and the CIA shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when the CIA and FBI HQ knew that as a result thousands of Americans would be killed in an al Qaeda attack that could have been prevented had Bongardt’s investigation been allowed to go forward.

Because Corsi was acting under the direction of CIA officer Tom Wilshire and Wilshire had been acting under orders from higher level managers at the CIA, and he had denied twice in July 2001 from turning over the information he had from the Kuala Lumpur meeting, by his managers at the CIA CTC unit, plus the fact that the Cole bombing investigation had been criminally obstructed numerous times by many separate groups at the CIA, and even by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, it is clear that the orders to allow the al Qaeda attacks that took place on 9/11 had to have come from the very highest levels of the CIA and FBI HQ.

You can draw a final conclusion from this information based on the two laws regarding actions that result in unintended consequences:

Law 1: There are no actions that result in unintended consequences, every result from actions at the CIA and FBI HQ was exactly as intended

Law2: Go back and read Law 1.

From this you can only conclude that the CIA and FBI HQ intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, even when they knew these attacks would result in the murder of thousands of Americans, and that this result was approved by the very highest managers at both the FBI HQ and CIA, and undoubtedly by people well above this level.

Since all of the information that back up these conclusions is now found in the public domain, and almost all of it comes from official US government documents, much I have even sourced right at this blog, and the 9/11 Commission had access to this exact same information, it is also clear that the 9/11 Commission report was a complete and total fraud on the American people to hide the criminal conduct at the both CIA and the FBI HQ in intentionally allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

 

[T.A.M.]

You are assuming that all of the investigative authorities in question, had access to all of the info you have presented, and had it in time to do something about it, but CHOSE not to reveal certain parts of their knowledge.

I do not see any proof above that all of the agencies had in their possession all of the info you mention.

I do not see proof that they INTENTIONALLY withheld such info.

Also, you lose me COMPLETELY, with the LAW 1, which is complete and utter ******

TAM

 

[TexasJack]

Also, you lose me COMPLETELY, with the LAW 1, which is complete and utter ******

TAM

I actually felt that about law 2.


This is what a scattered mind looks like; taking facts in a rambling, overlong post, then leaping to a conclusion wider than Evel Knievel ever attempted.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You can draw a final conclusion from this information based on the two laws regarding actions that result in unintended consequences:

Law 1: There are no actions that result in unintended consequences, every result from actions at the CIA and FBI HQ was exactly as intended

Law2: Go back and read Law 1.

That's actually the most useful part of the post. It encompasses the fundamental reason why conspiracist thinking is broken. The presumption that all consequences are intended and that the result of all actions is completely known in advance is, in fact, a basic feature of paranoia; patterns are discerned in areas where none exist.

Dave