Merged deliberate obstruction by the CIA of pre-9/11 investigations?

Guys, seriously, this topic is dead in the water. paloalto seems incapable of understanding that his opinions on why something happened do not immediately make it fact. Every time he prefaced a sentence with "it appears that" or "it would seem" or any one of a number of qualifying phrases, he demonstrates that admirably; and he does this in front of every "conclusion" he draws.

The lack of knowledge of how the government works is astounding in its ignorance on his part. The entire house of cards he's built based off of his own erroneous assumptions needs no more than a breath of wind to blow it to shreds. Really, nothing more need be said.
 
Guys, seriously, this topic is dead in the water. paloalto seems incapable of understanding that his opinions on why something happened do not immediately make it fact. Every time he prefaced a sentence with "it appears that" or "it would seem" or any one of a number of qualifying phrases, he demonstrates that admirably; and he does this in front of every "conclusion" he draws.

The lack of knowledge of how the government works is astounding in its ignorance on his part. The entire house of cards he's built based off of his own erroneous assumptions needs no more than a breath of wind to blow it to shreds. Really, nothing more need be said.

All of my conclusions are based on irrefutable and now well established facts. These facts are listed with the exact document and page number from the official US government document on the investigations on 9/11 by the Joint Inquiry Committee, the 9/11 Commission, the DOJ IG investigation of the FBI, and even the CIA IG investigation.

Since you did not refute any of the facts I have posted, you must then clearly agree with me on the conclusions, they are the only ones you can draw from the facts and they are all very obvious.

These conclusions are if people inside of the US government knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were going to carry out a massive attack inside of the US, see Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial”, and then found out that both al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the on August 22, 2001, and even knew that these terrorists were going to take part in this attack, see DE #939 entered into the Moussaoui trail on March 11, 2006, and then these people kept this a secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, even when they knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had actually taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, information that both the CIA and FBI HQ were aware of, and then shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew this investigation was the only one that could have stopped this attack, then it is clear they deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

This is really no other conclusion you can come too.

People on this forum who are taking the opposite point of view are simply ignoring the evidence. If you can't refute the evidence, which comes right from our own US government then you can’t refute the conclusions. You have no even semi-intelligent argument to refute these conclusions other than your own uninformed opinion, which must necessarily be based on ignorance.

It is as simple as that!
 
Oh boy, not another CTer claiming their "facts" and "evidence" are totally "irrefutable" yet the only thing they do with such monumental "irrefuatable" information is troll internet forums trying to recruit people into their cult with these grandiose claims...

If only i had a dollar for everytime i've seen this snake oil sales pitch...
 
All of my conclusions are based on irrefutable and now well established facts. These facts are listed with the exact document and page number from the official US government document on the investigations on 9/11 by the Joint Inquiry Committee, the 9/11 Commission, the DOJ IG investigation of the FBI, and even the CIA IG investigation.

Since you did not refute any of the facts I have posted, you must then clearly agree with me on the conclusions, they are the only ones you can draw from the facts and they are all very obvious.

These conclusions are if people inside of the US government knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were going to carry out a massive attack inside of the US, see Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial”, and then found out that both al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the on August 22, 2001, and even knew that these terrorists were going to take part in this attack, see DE #939 entered into the Moussaoui trail on March 11, 2006, and then these people kept this a secret from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, even when they knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had actually taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, information that both the CIA and FBI HQ were aware of, and then shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew this investigation was the only one that could have stopped this attack, then it is clear they deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

This is really no other conclusion you can come too.

People on this forum who are taking the opposite point of view are simply ignoring the evidence. If you can't refute the evidence, which comes right from our own US government then you can’t refute the conclusions. You have no even semi-intelligent argument to refute these conclusions other than your own uninformed opinion, which must necessarily be based on ignorance.

It is as simple as that!
You make up your conclusions, it is called fiction. Proof your claims are fiction; you have no Pulitzer Prize, you have not appeared on 60 minutes. Go see what 20/20 or 60 minutes say. They will tell you, your ideas are fiction.
 
Oh boy, not another CTer claiming their "facts" and "evidence" are totally "irrefutable" yet the only thing they do with such monumental "irrefuatable" information is troll internet forums trying to recruit people into their cult with these grandiose claims...

If only i had a dollar for everytime i've seen this snake oil sales pitch...

None of my snakes:
1) Are rusty; OR
2) Squeak.

Therefore no need for snake oil. ;)
 
Pathetic, ozeco41. Like everybody else who read this thread you saw the evidence. Yet all you have is lame jokes.
paloalto makes up his conclusions. Go ahead, take his fictional claims and go get a Pulitzer! What is stopping you from doing it? Right, it is made up, called fiction. Prove he has something, publish it; get permission and make paloalto famous.
 
I find it amusing that I, who have worked with and for the government for the past nine years (in both my civilian and military careers) would be told that I am "ignorant" of how it works. Apparently for paloalto, direct experience with the workings of the entity he is accusing isn't enough to have an informed opinion. When did we get to Bizarro World anyway?
 
I find it amusing that I, who have worked with and for the government for the past nine years (in both my civilian and military careers) would be told that I am "ignorant" of how it works. Apparently for paloalto, direct experience with the workings of the entity he is accusing isn't enough to have an informed opinion. When did we get to Bizarro World anyway?

You got to this Bizarro world as you describe it when your fellow government employees deliberately and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 of your fellow Americans and other people on 9/11, or have you forgotten.

Furthermore I have said you do not know about 9/11. You even claim to not know or have forgotten the information I have already posted in this thread.

Just in case you forgot, or claim to have forgotten and to remind you, the CIA was formed to make sure another Pearl Harbor surprise attack never happened. The FBI went to congress before 9/11 and said they wanted funds to make sure no terrorist attacks took place inside of the US.

Yet beyond belief, the CIA knew about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi for 21 months prior to the attacks on 9/11 and yet never gave this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, even after they found out on January 4, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash. What is even more incredible is that the CIA knew on August 22, 2001 when FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, a CIA Bin Laden unit employee, was told by the INS that both of these al Qaeda terrorosts were inside of the US. The CIA and FBI HQ even knew that these two terrorists were going to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack that they had been warned about since April 2001. FBI HQ ITOS Manager Tom Wilshire’s email on July 23, 2001 back to the management at the CIA, to Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet stated exactly this.

On August 22, 2001 Gillespie gave the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. So both Corsi and Wilshire knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and even knew they were going to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack inside of the US but also knew that these al Qaeda terrorists had also taken part in the planning of the bombing of the USS Cole with Walid Bin Attash, at the January 6-8, 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Since taking part in the planning of the Cole bombing was a crime, both Wilshire and Corsi knew that this information should have gone to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators.

But on August 28, 2001, when Bongardt accidentally got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, he called Corsi to demand that she allow him and his team to start a criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. In spite of knowing that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, information she, and the rest of FBI HQ and the CIA were keeping secret from Bongardt and his team, she tells Bongardt that he cannot start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi because her EC had information from a NSA cable on Mihdhar and Hazmi travels to the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000, and a NSA caveat on this cable required written permission before this information could be given to FBI criminal investigators.

But what is now almost beyond belief is that Corsi had been granted written permission by the NSA just the day before to give this Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI criminal investigators in New York City, Bongardt and his team.

When Bongardt realized that this NSA cable was based on a phone call in Yemen, an area outside of the US and that FISA warrants only applied to information obtained inside of the US and the only reason the NSA caveat was there was to prevent FISA obtained information from going to the FBI and ending up in a criminal trial which did not allow FISA obtained information, he asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, the FBI attorneys to see if he could investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi and find them before they had time to carry out a al Qaeda attack inside of the US. He even told Corsi that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only on order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack.

Corsi told Bongardt the very next day that the NSLU attorney had ruled that he could not take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But footnotes in the 9/11 Commission report state that Sherry Sabol, the attorney Corsi consulted, told Corsi that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi, along with her boss, Rod Middleton, who were both working under Wilshire had used lies and criminal actions to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, even when they all knew this would result in blocking the only investigation that could have prevented the massive al Qaeda attack they all knew was coming.

Since Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue an alert to the rest of the CIA on August 23, 2001, all of the CIA management, including Blee, Black and Tenet, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and were aware of this huge al Qaeda attack and even knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this massive attack. Yet none of these high level CIA managers ever alerted anyone at any FBI field office or Bongardt and his team to start any investigation for these al Qaeda terrorists before they and their al Qaeda comrades had time to carry out this attack.

Tenet even flew down to Crawford Texas on August 24, 2001 for a 6 hour long meeting with the President. At the time of this meeting Tenet knew that al Qaeda terrorist’s Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, knew about this huge al Qaeda attack and even knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this massive attack, from Tom Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 emails. Tenet even knew that a suspected al Qaeda terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui had been arrested by the FBI and that the FBI thought Moussaoui was getting training on a B7474 flight simulator in order to hijack a large airliner and fly it into a World Trade Center tower. So what did Tenet tell the President?

We don’t know, since the only time Tenet was questioned about this in public was at the April 14, 2004 9/11 Commission public hearings, and Tenet denied even talking to the President in August 2001. Tim Roemer, a 9/11 Commission member questioned CIA Director George Tenet at this hearing:

Roemer: You knew about this huge al Qaeda attack in August?

Tenet: Yes I did.

Roemer: You knew it would kill thousands of Americans?

Tenet: Yes I knew this.

Roemer: So what did he tell the President in August?

Tenet: I did not tell him anything since I had not spoken to the President in all of August (2001).

Roemer: Why was that?

Tenet: Because the President was in Crawford, Texas and I was in Washington DC.

Roemer: Did you pick up the phone and call him (and give the President of the United Sates this horrific news since the primary duty of the President to protect the American people).

Tenet: No I did not and I cannot go beyond this as my explanation.

While the White House web site had described this meeting in detail, it never told us what information Tenet gave to the President at this meeting.

But the 9/11 Commission had all of the documents and facts that I have presented at this forum, since they claimed that they had access to all of the DOJ IG transcripts of interviews and even had all of the other DOJ IG documentation I had used to put the account I had described here in this forum.

So not only had the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately and intentionally allowed the attack on 9/11 to take place, but then they lied about their actions to the 9/11 Commission, and the main official US government investigation of this was so corrupt that they allowed high level FBI and CIA officials to lie in public even when they knew they were lying and covered over all of the criminal actions at these agencies that had allowed these attacks to take place. Not only had these agencies deliberate allowed the murder of thousands of Americans, the US government has become so corrupt that they kept this information secret from the American people, not finding even one single person responsible for these attacks.

And then you have people actually on this forum defending and apologizing for these mass murders of Americans and even defending the massive corruption in the US government that has kept secret this horrific information from the American public. People on this forum, (IMHO) who are defending the people at the CIA, and FBI HQ who had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 are apologists for the mass murders of your fellow Americans.
 
You got to this Bizarro world as you describe it when your fellow government employees deliberately and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 of your fellow Americans and other people on 9/11, or have you forgotten.
...
You jump from fiction and fantasy to lies.

What did 60 minutes tell you?
 
So, in order to stop them, the FBI would need to know three things - Who To stop, When to stop them, and where to stop them. Before 10-Sep-2001, how accurate was the CIA's and / or FBI's information about what would eventually take place?
 
So, in order to stop them, the FBI would need to know three things - Who To stop, When to stop them, and where to stop them. Before 10-Sep-2001, how accurate was the CIA's and / or FBI's information about what would eventually take place?

The short answer is, not very accurate because it was extremely vague.

The fact that paloalto over here doesn't seem to get is that intelligence is really just glorified guesswork (I should know; I've worked in the area for the past eight years or so; I don't count my first year on active duty because I didn't actually do intel work then). In order for anything to be actionable, you've got to have some pretty tight specifics. There were specifics out there prior to 9/11, don't get me wrong, but they were spread out among about five of the major intel agencies, and the idea of sharing was difficult for them then (still is, come to think of it). So, if you're looking at the big picture; yes, the intel community majorly dropped the ball in regards to prevention of 9/11. Everyone here acknowledges that (except for the lunatic truthers who think they did it deliberately, but that's neither here nor there). However, if you look at just one intel agency and ignore the others, the picture becomes hellishly murky. No one agency had enough intel to consider taking action, as far as I am aware. paloalto is trying to make it seem as though that were the case, but he neglects to take a lot of other factors into account, and also touts his own interpretations of the motivations of the people in question as fact, when in fact the only people who know their motivations for sure are the people he's referencing.
 
And then you have people actually on this forum defending and apologizing for these mass murders of Americans and even defending the massive corruption in the US government that has kept secret this horrific information from the American public. People on this forum, (IMHO) who are defending the people at the CIA, and FBI HQ who had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 are apologists for the mass murders of your fellow Americans.

Strong on ideology, weak on evidence. Ideologues ROCK!
 
The short answer is, not very accurate because it was extremely vague.

The fact that paloalto over here doesn't seem to get is that intelligence is really just glorified guesswork (I should know; I've worked in the area for the past eight years or so; I don't count my first year on active duty because I didn't actually do intel work then). In order for anything to be actionable, you've got to have some pretty tight specifics. There were specifics out there prior to 9/11, don't get me wrong, but they were spread out among about five of the major intel agencies, and the idea of sharing was difficult for them then (still is, come to think of it). So, if you're looking at the big picture; yes, the intel community majorly dropped the ball in regards to prevention of 9/11. Everyone here acknowledges that (except for the lunatic truthers who think they did it deliberately, but that's neither here nor there). However, if you look at just one intel agency and ignore the others, the picture becomes hellishly murky. No one agency had enough intel to consider taking action, as far as I am aware. paloalto is trying to make it seem as though that were the case, but he neglects to take a lot of other factors into account, and also touts his own interpretations of the motivations of the people in question as fact, when in fact the only people who know their motivations for sure are the people he's referencing.


This is all generalized claptrap while paloalto presented evidence. You know the difference.
 
This is all generalized claptrap while paloalto presented evidence. You know the difference.
So personal testimony, born of experience, and an assessment of the specific intelligence failures which lead to 9/11 is "generalized claptrap"?
 
This is all generalized claptrap while paloalto presented evidence. You know the difference.

Paloalto presented his personal interpretation of evidence. As you well know, depending on world view and politics, people can come to different conclusions upon seeing the same evidence.
 
So personal testimony, born of experience, and an assessment of the specific intelligence failures which lead to 9/11 is "generalized claptrap"?

I assume that "the stuff that I don't believe" is generalized claptrap to CE, regardless of what it is.
 

Back
Top Bottom