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

[thatsmystory]

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.

Why are the reasons for their conduct still secret? Why hasn't the media interviewed these officials?

The intelligence community made the claim that al Qaeda was a serious threat to national security before 9/11. Officials like Richard Clarke complained that politicians didn't understand the threat. Yet after 9/11 intelligence officials made absurd excuses that completely contradicted the notion that al Qaeda was a serious threat. For example Tenet absurdly claiming that al-Hazmi and al-Midhar weren't watchlisted due to faulty cable trafficking procedures. The point being that serious threat notification would not rely on cable trafficking procedures. Instead in person meetings or secure phone calls would have been used. Furthermore Tenet's explanation was refuted by FBI agents Rossini and Miller (stationed at Alec Station at the time) who told James Bamford (for his book and a NOVA special) that they were ordered not to tell the FBI. Later we have the same pattern of withholding which obstructed the Cole investigation.

Bob Graham just published a book on the Saudi role of supporting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Was all the nonsense about sharing failures a cover story to protect high level officials who ordered US intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda? According to Michael Scheuer the Saudis protected Bin Laden before 9/11. He made this comment in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll. That comment tracks with Graham's allegations.

How does the notion of good faith conduct track with the secrecy and explanations that are contradictory and do not withstand scrutiny?

 

[thatsmystory]

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.

What is hard to understand is why debunkers are evidently satisfied with the concealment of evidence from the public. What explains such faith in government officials? Note I am not referring to a choice between the 9/11 Commission and the truth movement. I am specifically referring to the withholding of information from the public. For example the 28 pages of the JI that deal with Saudi involvement, the complete CIA IG report and interviews with key officials involved in al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing failures (i.e. Blee, Wilshire, Middleton and Corsi).

 

[twinstead]

What is hard to understand is why debunkers are evidently satisfied with the concealment of evidence from the public. What explains such faith in government officials? Note I am not referring to a choice between the 9/11 Commission and the truth movement. I am specifically referring to the withholding of information from the public. For example the 28 pages of the JI that deal with Saudi involvement, the complete CIA IG report and interviews with key officials involved in al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing failures (i.e. Blee, Wilshire, Middleton and Corsi).

Faith? It's called pragmatism. Show me an intelligence organization anywhere on Earth that always shares it's information and evidence with the public.

I'll wait.

 

[beachnut]

This is all generalized claptrap while paloalto presented evidence. You know the difference.

Go publish paloalto's fiction, his "evidence" is as bad as CIT. You have no evidence, you can't list your evidence, you can't list paloalto's evidence, you can't list CIT's evidence. 911 truth going for 10 years of evidence free nonsense. You and paloalto are conspiracy theorists, basing your claims or support on fictional nonsense. Proof, you can't publish it as reality, they and you have failed to publish your claims. Go ahead prove me wrong, publish. When will you learn to figure out what evidence is?

What is hard to understand is why debunkers are evidently satisfied with the concealment of evidence from the public. What explains such faith in government officials? ... ).

What do you have as evidence for your claims? What are you claims? Are you supporting the claptrap paloalto has? Do you understand what evidence is and that paloalto's claims are fiction?

What is easy to understand, a few fringe CTers don't comprehend 911 so they make up fantasy like paloalto and most of 911 truth.

 

[beachnut]

Why are the reasons for their conduct still secret? Why hasn't the media interviewed these officials?

...
Bob Graham just published a book on the Saudi role of supporting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Was all the nonsense about sharing failures a cover story to protect high level officials who ordered US intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda? According to Michael Scheuer the Saudis protected Bin Laden before 9/11. He made this comment in a Book TV interview with Steve Coll. That comment tracks with Graham's allegations.

How does the notion of good faith conduct track with the secrecy and explanations that are contradictory and do not withstand scrutiny?

This is classic 911 truth in action...

Bob Graham... writes a fictional political hit piece on Bush, and 911 truth will use it as evidence. Which part of fiction does 911 truth not understand?

Graham was in Tallahassee today, signing copies of his new book "Keys to the Kingdom." It's a fictional political thriller based on his belief that the U.S. government covered up Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism following the 9/11 attacks.
Graham admits he wrote the novel because he was angry the administration of George Bush withheld information about the Saudis' role in 9/11.
"My anger is directed at anyone who has made the decision that the American people should not understand the full extent of Saudi involvement in 911 and with that information take the steps to protect us from a future such action by the Saudis."

Bias claptrap, used by 911 truth as evidence. Did you miss, "based on his belief", and the killer phrase, "fictional political thriller"? lol, you can't make up this stuff, but 911 truth comes through, again.

Graham fiction, paloalto fiction, which is better? Fiction - what 911 truth uses as evidence.

 

[Sabrina]

You know, I could go into detail about the intelligence failures, and get into the specifics on a lot of things... but I won't. You know why? Because the vast majority is either classified or sensitive enough that, even though it is NOT classified, it could still pose a threat to national security if the details emerged with evidence to back it up. So I'm afraid you'll have to be content with the "generalized claptrap", given that it is backed up by my own personal experience gotten from WORKING IN THE AREA IN QUESTION, and make do. I refuse to violate my oath to protect sensitive information just to satisfy the prurient curiosity of people who don't even BEGIN to understand the convoluted nature of the government in general and the intelligence community in particular. Deal with it.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It isn't classified at all, as paloalto showed us. You just have to open your eyes and read, Sabrina.

 

[beachnut]

It isn't classified at all, as paloalto showed us. You just have to open your eyes and read, Sabrina.

LOL, his conclusion are fiction. It was funny when thatsmystory brought up Bob Graham just published a book, a book of fiction to support his CT, as you do with paloalto's crazy claims, which are fiction.

What she said is true, you don't understand what she said. What paloalto showed us, how not to connect the dots. It is fiction. But feel free to take this junk and publish it and learn. I suspect, with you thinking CIT has something, it is easy to fall for paloalto's massive SPAM attack.

 

[dafydd]

Pathetic, ozeco41. Like everybody else who read this thread you saw the evidence. Yet all you have is lame jokes.

The whole truth movement is one big joke,we're just trying to fit in.

 

[Sabrina]

It isn't classified at all, as paloalto showed us. You just have to open your eyes and read, Sabrina.

No, the limited documents that he has are not classified. What about the follow-ups, and any further information that is NOT included in those documents? He takes what amounts to extremely generalized information and draws his own conclusions based off of a pitifully poor understanding of how the intelligence community works. That is not evidence; that is speculation, pure and simple. The more detailed information THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE is classified, more than likely.

Personal incredulity does not an argument make, CE. Them's the breaks.

 

[paloalto]

You jump from fiction and fantasy to lies.

What did 60 minutes tell you?

Go publish paloalto's fiction, his "evidence" is as bad as CIT. You have no evidence, you can't list your evidence, you can't list paloalto's evidence, you can't list CIT's evidence. 911 truth going for 10 years of evidence free nonsense. You and paloalto are conspiracy theorists, basing your claims or support on fictional nonsense. Proof, you can't publish it as reality, they and you have failed to publish your claims. Go ahead prove me wrong, publish. When will you learn to figure out what evidence is?

What do you have as evidence for your claims? What are you claims? Are you supporting the claptrap paloalto has? Do you understand what evidence is and that paloalto's claims are fiction?

What is easy to understand, a few fringe CTers don't comprehend 911 so they make up fantasy like paloalto and most of 911 truth.

Unfortunately and contrary to your claims now clearly and obviously based on ignorance, all of my evidence is based on official US government reports that came from the government investigations of 9/11. The fact that you have utterly failed again and again to even refute one single fact is clear proof that not only do you have nothing to back up your ridiculous arguments, but that you do not know anything about 9/11.

You have clearly never taken the time to research this event. It looks like you take all of your misinformation on 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission which we now know was a complete and total fraud. The very simple questions I posted, and which remains unanswered even to today, illustrate that the 9/11 Commission and report was a fraud. You have done nothing but drink the 9/11 Commission cool aid. Since you have only used the 9/11 Commission report for your information, it is clear that you know absolutely nothing about the attacks on 9/11 or why they were deliberately allowed to take place by the CIA and FBI HQ agents and managers.

The information that I have posted and that was left out of the 9/11 Commission report was in the DOJ IG report, CIA IG report, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, the book "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward, and even the Harper's article in January 2007 on Richard Blee. While the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan was not an official US government report, this information was given to Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan's assistant, and was vetted by FBI information officer, John Miller. Woodward’s book described the meeting on July 10, 2001 at the White House between Rice, Clarke, and CIA managers Tenet, Black and Blee, where these CIA managers told Rice a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. While at first Rice denied this meeting ever took place, after a week she admitted this meeting had actually taken place and even confirmed this warning by the CIA.

But the 9/11 Commission left this meeting completely out of their report, just one of many facts we now know they tried to keep secret to hide the CIA, FBI HQ and administration culpability in deliberately allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Beyond belief, just after this White House meeting, Blee, Black and Tenet refused to give FBI ITOS Deputy Chief Tom Wilshire, who knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and knew they had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, permission to give this horrific information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, Soufan and Bongardt, when they knew that this was the only real way this attack on 9/11 could have been stopped

I have posted not only the exact document but even the actual page number where each fact and piece of information I have posted are found, so anyone reading this blog can confirm my information.

But you have presented no opposing facts, none at all, or even shown where any of my information is incorrect, just your now clearly uniformed opinions. Posting your opinions multiple times does not make your augments more credible. It just proves that you have no facts at all to back up your uniformed opinions, and that your opinions are devoid of any and all substance.

Posting your opinions based on no evidence at all just makes your augments look completely ridiculous and posting these ridiculous augments multiple times, with all due respect, just makes you look completely ridiculous.

But there is a bigger question here. Why are you defending people at the CIA and FBI HQ who deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place? In my book, allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans, amounts to outright treason and treachery against the American people. So you need to explain why you are defending people who have clearly committed treason against the United States.

 

[NoahFence]

So you're good at researching. Want a coookie?

You fail at interpretation.

 

[paloalto]

So you're good at researching. Want a coookie?

You fail at interpretation.

Here is what the FBI HQ knew and when they knew it, and what they did with this information.

Mid-May 2001 - FBI Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS section, Tom Wilshire, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing. He also knows that Hazmi is inside of the US in order to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack and that Mihdhar has a multi-entry US visa in order to join Hazmi in the US so that he can take part in this same attack. Yet in spite of being the very highest manager in charge of all FBI field terrorist investigations worldwide, he never gives this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, an investigation that his ITOS unit actually has control over.

July 5, 2001 - Tom Wilshire knows that the people at Kuala Lumpur are connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI HQ have been getting about a massive al Qaeda attack, and sends this information in email to his CTC managers back at the CIA.

July 10, 2001 - Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit and Tom Wilshire's supervisor, Cofer Black, Blee’s supervisor and head of the CIA CTC unit, and George Tenet, Cofer Black's supervisor and Director of the CIA hold a meeting at White House with Rice and Clarke and tell Rice a huge al Qaeda attack is just about to take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans

July 23, 2001 - Tom Wilshire knows that Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack, and sends this information in email to his managers at the CIA, Blee, Black and Tenet.

August 22, 2001 - Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi are told by FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie, who was working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US. Wilshire knows immediately that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001. Corsi admits to the DOJ IG criminal investigators after the attacks on 9/11 that on August 22, 2001 she knew that the CIA had a photograph of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew this directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing and knows that this means that Bongardt should be allowed to start a FBI criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi immediately.

But both Corsi and Wilshire keep this information secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators.

August 23, 2001 - Gillespie sends this information, that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US, throughout the CIA and to Blee, Black and Tenet.

August 28, 2001 - Corsi’s EC is sent to the FBI New York office and is sent by John Liguori to Bongardt. Bongardt calls Corsi and requests that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi be given to him and his team. Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton, tell Bongardt that because her EC had information from a NSA cable, it is illegal for him to even have her EC, and that he has to destroy her EC and will not be allowed to take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But Corsi had already been given a written release by the NSA to give this NSA information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the day before.

Bongardt tells Corsi and Middleton that these two al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US only in order to take part in yet another horrific al Qaeda attack, and says the because NSA information has no connection to any FISA warrant, he requests that Corsi get an opinion from the FBI NSLU attorneys to see if he can start an investigation for these terrorists and find them before they have time to carry out another attack.

August 29, 2001 - Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that he cannot take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But page 538, Footnote 81 of the 9/11 Commission report says that the attorney Corsi consulted, Sherry Sabol told the DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, that she had told Corsi since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and if Corsi was still confused, she (Corsi) could contact the NSA and get a release herself. Corsi never tells Sabol that she had already gotten a NSA release the day before.

Robert Fuller an inexperienced intelligence agent is given the assignment to investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi.

August 30, 2001 - The CIA sends the photograph of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur to Rod Middleton. Corsi’s supervisor now has photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. In spite of having shut down Bongardt’s investigation with Corsi on August 28-29, 2001, he never calls Bongardt and allows him to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Wilshire, and Middleton know about the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack inside of the US, and know that by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation thousands of Americans will perish in these attacks. CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet also know this, and know by allowing Wilshire, Middleton and Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi thousands will be killed in an attack that Bongardt could have prevented. Yet these high level CIA managers and FBI managers never raise any alarm and alert any FBI field office that could have prevented these al Qaeda attacks they know are about to take place.

To summarize:

Almost beyond belief, Tom Wilshire, number two at the FBI ITOS, the unit in charge of all FBI terrorist investigations in the world, not only was working with FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton her supervisor to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, but was in contact with Frasca and Maltbie on August 24, 2001, and it is clear had been in email contact with these RFU managers well before this date to get updates on the details of the Samit investigation. Wilshire had it all, all of the information that should have been used to raise an alarm to very highest level and make sure these investigations were allowed to proceed at the very highest urgency, but just the opposite was done.

Not only was Wilshire working with Corsi and Middleton to shut down Bongardt’s investigation but he was aware from Maltbie’s email, that Maltbie and Frasca were sabotaging Samit’s investigation. What is beyond belief is at this time Wilshire already knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americas.

No one has ever explained why when Wilshire the number two at the FBI HQ ITOS unit knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing by May 15, 2001, four months ahead of the 9/11 attacks, he never notified the FBI Cole bombing investigators of this information even though his unit was actually in charge of their investigation.

Maybe someone at this forum can explain this very strange and criminal behavior on Tom Wilshire. Both Corsi and Rod Middleton were also aware of this information, Corsi by August 22, 201 and Middleton by August 30, 2001 and neither one of these FBI HQ agents and supervisors in charge of Bongardt’s investigation alerted Bongardt of this information and in fact unit they fact kept this information secret so they could shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. Maybe someone on this forum can also explain this.

Question: Why did very high level FBI HQ ITOS manager Tom Wilshire, a former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, never raise any alarm when he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001 and knew they were going to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans?


Question: Explain why Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at FBI HQ, the one FBI HQ unit in control of all FBI terrorists investigations worldwide, never told the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the USS Cole bombing when he was aware of this information by mid-May 2001, 4 months prior to the attacks on 9/11?

Both Corsi and Rod Middleton were also aware of this information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, Corsi by August 22, 2001 (she admitted this to DOJ IG investigators) and Middleton by August 30, 2001, (the CIA actually sent Middleton the photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur on August 30, 2001, connecting both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing) and neither one of these FBI HQ agents and FBI supervisors in charge of Bongardt’s investigation alerted Bongardt of this information and in fact they kept this information secret so they could continue the shutdown of his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. They knew shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the massive al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

Question: Why did FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, and even knew it was a crime to withhold this material information from Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators?

Question: Why did FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew that this would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks that they had been warned about since April 2001, the attacks of 9/11?

Question: Since Wilshire was in a high level management position at the FBI ITOS unit that was over Corsi and Middleton, and it is clear from the information in the DOJ IG report he was directing Corsi’s efforts to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, why did he do this when he knew that the result would be to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out attacks inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans?

On August 27, 2001 Corsi requested a release from the NSA to pass the NSA information in her EC to the FBI Agents in New York on the Cole bombing investigation including FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's and this release was granted in just few hours. But on August 28, 2001 just the very next day, when Corsi’s EC with this NSA information, was sent accidentally to Steve Bongardt by John Liguori and Bongardt called her to request the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi be given to him and his team since it appeared due to the information in her EC that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were now connected to people who had taken part in the Cole bombing. But Corsi told Bongardt that because of the NSA information in her EC, he was not even allowed to have here EC, and he had to destroy her EC and could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Question: Why did FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi force Bongardt to destroy here EC on August 28, 2001 using the reason she had not gotten permission from the NSA to send this information to him, when she already had gotten the NSA release to give him the NSA information in her EC the day before, on August 27, 2001?

Question: And why did Corsi request this release from the NSA if she had no real intention of ever giving her EC with this NSA information to Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators?

On August 23, 2001, Margaret Gillespie had the CIA bin Laden unit issue an alert to the rest of the CIA indicating that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. So Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, his supervisor Cofer Black and his supervisor George Tenet would have been aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and they all knew that these al Qaeda terrorists were in the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans (from Tom Wilshire’s emails to them in July 2001). These CIA managers had refused to give Tom Wilshire permission in July 2001 to pass the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI, in response to his email requests on July 13, 2001, and July 23, 2001.

Question: When these high level CIA managers had gone to the White House on July 10, 2001 to tell Clarke and Rice a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did they refuse to give Tom Wilshire permission to pass the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI on July 13, and July 23, 2001, the very information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11?

Question: Why did these high level CIA managers never raise any alarm about this horrific information after they were given the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 23, 2001 and even knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to part in a huge al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands?

On August 24, 2001 Tenet flies out to Crawford Texas, to have a 6 hour ling meeting with President Bush. At the time of this meeting, Tenet knew about Moussaoui, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

Question: So exactly what did Tenet tell the President on August 24, 2001, at a meeting he desperately tried to keep secret from the American people and the 9/11 Commission when he told the commission that he had not talked to the President at all in all of August 2001?

Question: Did Tenet lie to the 9/11 Commission so he would not have to answer any questions on what he told the President at this meeting?

Question: On September 4, 2001 Tenet attended the first Principals meeting at the White House on the al Qaeda terrorists. Yet in spite of knowing about this huge al Qaeda attacks that will take place inside of the US, he never brings this information up at this meeting. Why?

On November 2000, Soufan made a request to FBI Director Louis Freeh, and asked Freeh to make an official request to the CIA and George Tenet for any information that the CIA had on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur and Walid bin Attash, Khallad, the mastermind of the Cole, bombing. Freeh said the CIA had none of this information. But Freeh himself had gotten much of this very information from the CIA in January 2000.

Question: Why did Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI criminally obstruct his own investigation of the Cole bombing when this was at the time the FBI’s most important investigation?

Question: Why was all this information listed above left out of and never explained by the 9/11 Commission when it was in the DOJ IG report combined with the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan?

Question: Was the 9/11 Commission covering up the crimes at the CIA and FBI HQ that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place?

Maybe you can explain why all of this information was just left out of and never explained by the 9/11 Commission.

Back up your claim about my not interpreting this information correctly by answering these very simple common sense questions!

Either you can answer these questions or you can’t. Either you know about the events on 9/11 or you don’t, and your prior response was just unsupported nonsense.

Remember that almost 3000 people paid with their lives because these questions had not been answered prior to the attacks on 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

...
But there is a bigger question here. Why are you defending people at the CIA and FBI HQ who deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place? In my book, allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans, amounts to outright treason and treachery against the American people. So you need to explain why you are defending people who have clearly committed treason against the United States.

Here you go making conclusions that are fiction, based on your opinion. Where is your Pulitzer? You are like Bob Graham who made up his book too. You guys like to make up stuff. You keep repeating your junk, and then you keep repeating failed claims.
What happen, did 60 minutes, 20/20, and all the other media outlets tell you the Truth, you have fictional claims? Why are you missing the Pulitzer Prize? It took less than 2 years to earn a Pulitzer for Watergate, why have you failed? Because you have fiction you made up from the stuff you keep SPAMMING us with. Did you cut and paste and reuse all that crap?

 

[Sabrina]

It's times like this that I am glad I have paloalto on my ignore list. Reading even the small bits that people quote in their responses makes me feel like I've lost IQ points... I hesitate to think what actually reading the full post would do.

 

[twinstead]

So. After 40 years the Pentagon Papers are finally being released in their entirety. Do you think that in 1971 if there had been an internet that Ellsberg would have gone on relatively obscure discussion forums with his evidence? Uh, no.

Come on Paloalto. You and the truth movement are no Ellsberg. Hell, the New York Times was one of the newspapers to publish parts of it years ago. Take your earth-shattering evidence that shows the US government was complicit or looked the other way while 3000 innocent people were murdered to a respected news organization and let it rip.

Just don't be surprised if they take a pass on what, if true, would be a major coup for ANY media; it won't be for the reason you think it is.

 

[NoahFence]

It'll take a while to read and respond to that (probable) drivel by paloalto during a Bruins playoff game, but rest assured, I will.

 

[thatsmystory]

Faith? It's called pragmatism. Show me an intelligence organization anywhere on Earth that always shares it's information and evidence with the public.

I'll wait.

It's called abusing the classification process to keep the public ignorant.

 

[thatsmystory]

No, the limited documents that he has are not classified. What about the follow-ups, and any further information that is NOT included in those documents? He takes what amounts to extremely generalized information and draws his own conclusions based off of a pitifully poor understanding of how the intelligence community works. That is not evidence; that is speculation, pure and simple. The more detailed information THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE is classified, more than likely.

Personal incredulity does not an argument make, CE. Them's the breaks.

Why is it classified? Is the public not allowed to understand why almost 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11?

 

[thatsmystory]

This is classic 911 truth in action...

Bob Graham... writes a fictional political hit piece on Bush, and 911 truth will use it as evidence. Which part of fiction does 911 truth not understand?

Bias claptrap, used by 911 truth as evidence. Did you miss, "based on his belief", and the killer phrase, "fictional political thriller"? lol, you can't make up this stuff, but 911 truth comes through, again.

Graham explains he resorted to fiction because he wouldn't have been able to get a non fiction book past the classification process. The book is based in large part on the work of the JI and the redacted 28 pages that deal with a Saudi support network for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. This is in no way "trutherism."

The way you mockingly dismiss credible questions that were never fully answered is nothing short of disturbing.