• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

The information that a small group of people in the CIA going up to Tenet withhold from the FBI and other agencies the crucial information that two terrorists who were well known and closely surveilled at the meeting in Malaysia had entered the US, for a period starting in early 2000, in a way that can not technically be anything other than intentional. And more (which most likely will be the topic of part two of the documentary).

That's what the OP of that thread says and what you were denying without any serious challenge over a series of posts. Do you now agree that this is what the facts say?

Wait? You mean to tell me that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the FBI?

Why that is unheard of!:rolleyes: The Intel agencies would never withhold information from each other!:rolleyes: They all work together oh so nicely:rolleyes: Always giving each other information and talking about how competent and professional the other agencies are :rolleyes:

There is never, ever any infighting or competition among them either.:rolleyes:

I mean...I have never seen this happen in real life :rolleyes: No one from those agencies has ever attempted to keep information from me. :rolleyes: No one from any of those agencies has ever asked me not to share Intel with the "other" guys just because he didn't like them :rolleyes:

Whew! You really discovered something new there Magellan...we should alert the President at once!

Who knew that the Intel agencies did not play nice together? Shocking!:rolleyes:

Do you have any other "points" you would like to make CE? I'm waiting with anticipation...:rolleyes:
 
Lawrencve Wright

I'm sure he is a good interviewee, it's his interview skills I'm interested in, which he has none that I know of. There is no evidence US sponsoring Al Qaeda, until I see a credible source, I call it fiction.

And why should I take a recommendation of a news article collector? Scott is listed as a poet, does he do the kind of research of Coll, McDermott, or Wright? Does he interview hundreds of pertinent people and scour the public and private archives in places such as Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern countries? Why would Scott or Thompson trump their meticulous research? That's like asking me to replace Adrian Gonzalez with Crash Davis on my fantasy-baseball team.

Lawrence Wright accused the CIA of criminally obstructing the Cole bombing investigation in his account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan. This criminal obstruction was carryed out by FBI HQ agents who were working under a CIA manager ,Tom Wilshire, that Tenet, Black and Blee had moved over to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May 2001, to spy on the Cole bombing investigators. The CIA thought in April 2001 that the Cole bombing investigators, including FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt had found out about the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and had uncovered the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this al Qaeda meeting with Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, actually planning the Cole bombing. This was the information that Tenet, Black and Blee had been trying to keep secret ever since Walid Bin Attash had been identified with Midhar and Hazmi at this al Qaeda planning meeting on January 4, 2001.

It was this fact alone that meant that the CIA had been criminally culpable in allowing the attack on the USS Cole to take place killing 17 US sailors, the CIA knew it and wanted to keep this horrific information completely secret, even going so far as to criminally obstruct the Cole bombing investigation many times. While this former CIA manager, Tom Wilshire, was working at FBI HQ and directing the criminal actions of FBI HQ agent Dina Corsi and her boss Head of the FBI HQ Bin Laden unit, Rod Middleton, he was actually secretly reporting to his former CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet. When these FBI Agents at FBI HQ shut down the FBI criminal investigation by Bongardt of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28, 2001, these CIA managers who were secretly directing Wilshire’s actions knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this horrific al Qaeda attack and even knew by allowing Wilshire, working with Corsi and Middleton, to shut down this investigation, it would allow these al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of innocent Americans.

All of this information has been presented here in this very forum before along with that actual US government documents that prove all of this. If you can imagine that, the US government documents are proof of this account of 9/11. This is no wild conspiracy theory but the documented account that actually comes right directly from the US government investigations of 9/11. Even FBI Agent Ali Soufan and White House Counter terrorism director in the Bush White House, Richard Clarke, now have finally admitted 10 years after the attacks on 9/11 that Tenet, Black and Blee, had deliberately and intentionally withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from them and the other FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the very information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Wait? You mean to tell me that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the FBI?

Why that is unheard of!:rolleyes: The Intel agencies would never withhold information from each other!:rolleyes: They all work together oh so nicely:rolleyes: Always giving each other information and talking about how competent and professional the other agencies are :rolleyes:

There is never, ever any infighting or competition among them either.:rolleyes:

I mean...I have never seen this happen in real life :rolleyes: No one from those agencies has ever attempted to keep information from me. :rolleyes: No one from any of those agencies has ever asked me not to share Intel with the "other" guys just because he didn't like them :rolleyes:

Whew! You really discovered something new there Magellan...we should alert the President at once!

Who knew that the Intel agencies did not play nice together? Shocking!:rolleyes:

Do you have any other "points" you would like to make CE? I'm waiting with anticipation...:rolleyes:

That's a nasty rash you've got there, newton!
 
That's a nasty rash you've got there, newton!

Almost eight months now. He is no longer contagious; you might be safe from catching a case of reality.

... that actual US government documents that prove all of this. If you can imagine that, the US government documents are proof of this account of 9/11. This is no wild conspiracy theory but the documented account that actually comes right directly from the US government investigations of 9/11. ... , the very information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
What newspaper has this Pulitzer Prize winning stuff? Are you saying people can predict the future? How? How do you know someone is about to car-jack you, or kill you? Sounds like fiction to me. Why are you not in the CIA and FBI saving us from the next attack if you are able to, after the fact, connect the dots? Oops, you figured this out after you knew 19 terrorists did 911. How would you prevent it?
 
Almost eight months now. He is no longer contagious; you might be safe from catching a case of reality.


What newspaper has this Pulitzer Prize winning stuff? Are you saying people can predict the future? How? How do you know someone is about to car-jack you, or kill you? Sounds like fiction to me. Why are you not in the CIA and FBI saving us from the next attack if you are able to, after the fact, connect the dots? Oops, you figured this out after you knew 19 terrorists did 911. How would you prevent it?


I didn't predict the future, Tenet, Black and Blee did when on July 10, 2001 they called Rice at the White House as they were racing over in their car to the White House to set up an urgent meeting with Hadley, Clarke and Rice. At this meeting Tenet, Black and Blee said that the al Qaeda terrorists were just about to attack the US in an attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

The CIA had been told in 1995 by Philippine intelligence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef had been making bombs in their Manila apartment when one caught file, and said that Abdal-Harkim Murad told them that KSM had been planning to hijack aircraft in the US for a terrorist attack that would use these hijacked commercial aircraft to target the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the US Capital building among others.

In 1995 Yousef was captured at an al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan, clearly linking both Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the al Qaeda terrorists and linking the 1993 attack on the WTC Towers to the al Qaeda terrorists. On June 12, 2001 the CIA and Richard Blee, was told that it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that was directing this up an coming attack inside of the US, and that he was sending in the summer of 2001 al Qaeda terrorists into the US to link up with other al Qaeda terrorists who were already in the US in order to carry out this attack. So at this July While House meeting the CIA already knew the targets were the World Trade Center Towers the Pentagon and the US Capital building and that the terrorists were going to use large commercial hijacked aircraft. Since we know Blee was close to Black it is clear that Blee would have immediately notified Black of this horrific information, which then would quickly have gone right to Tenet.

When Tom Wilshire asked his CIA managers, Blee, Black and Tenet his immediate bosses for permission in July 2001 to pass the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, the information that Walid Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing, he was denied permission twice to do this. The first request Wilshire made was only three days after the July 10, 2001 meeting at the While House. In his July 23, 2001 request Wilshire stated that Mihdhar will be found at the location of then next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.

On August 22, 2001 the CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack. This information went to Blee, who had to approve the cable on Mihdhar and Hazmi sent to the State Department, an unknown FBI unit and the rest of the CIA and to Black, Blee’s boss, and Tenet Black’s boss. Not only did the CIA and FBI Headquarters keep this information secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team but when Bongardt accidentally found out that both of these terrorists were inside of the US on August 28, 2001 and even knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a terrorists attack, Blee, Black and Tenet allowed Wilshire, using FBI HQ Agents Corsi and Middleton to illegally shut down Bongardt’s investigation of these terrorists even when they knew that Bongardt’s investigation was the only investigation that could have stopped this huge attack and saved the lives of thousands of Americans.

Corsi told Bongardt when he first called her on August 28, 2001, that he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because she did not have permission to give him her EC that contained a NSA cable restricted from being given to FBI criminal agents without NSA approval. But Corsi had already been approved to give this information to Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators, according to the DOJ IG report on August 27, 2001. When Bongardt protested and stated that since the information in the NSA cable was not connected to any FISA search warrant, they only reason for the NSA restriction on their information, FBI Agent Corsi came back on August 29, 2001 and said the NSLU attorney she had contacted had ruled that Bongardt could not take part or start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But according to the 9/11 Commission report, page 538 footnote 81, Sherry Sabol the attorney Corsi contacted, tells DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, that because the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and she had given this information to Corsi on August 28, 2001.

On August 29, 2001 Corsi sends Bongardt an email that states, “if at such time as information is developed of a substantial Federal crime (by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall". But according to pages 301 and 302 of the DOJ IG report, Corsi tells DOJ IG investigators that she was aware by August 22, 2001 that the CIA had the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, and knew that this connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at this meeting. She also knew that the CIA had been hiding this photo so Bongardt and his team would not have the evidence they needed to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Since planning the Cole bombing was “a substantial Federal crime” Corsi herself knew she had no legal right to shut down or block Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. It was these lies and criminal actions that had allowed the CIA working with FBI HQ agents to block and shut down any investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 that had cost almost 3000 innocent Americans their lives.
 
Last edited:
Here's what's frustrating to me as the guy who spent over 1000 hours looking into the controlled demolition theory of Richard Gage: I am way too burned out to even research this issue. Childlike Empress's evidence here looks better (at first glance) than the CD theories, which are all based on what I consider incredibly shoddy research. What if Gage et al had not come up with this embarrassing theory? For me personally, what if I had spent 1000 hours researching CE's claims instead of Gage's?

As one who has done almost no research, I see two possibilities: someone in the government wanted 9/11 to happen and they let it happen. Or, two agencies were involved in petty intraoffice squabbles that allowed thousands of Americans to die. In my mind, either possibility is horrible and merits a serious look. If I were commander in chief I would not want FBI/CIA turf fights to get in the way of national security/. I feel like a fool for haviung wasted so much time on theories that have so little to offer. At least CE's investigations merit a look, if only to be sure our security apparatus is tighter next time.
for having looked s
 
Here's what's frustrating to me as the guy who spent over 1000 hours looking into the controlled demolition theory of Richard Gage: I am way too burned out to even research this issue. Childlike Empress's evidence here looks better (at first glance) than the CD theories, which are all based on what I consider incredibly shoddy research. What if Gage et al had not come up with this embarrassing theory? For me personally, what if I had spent 1000 hours researching CE's claims instead of Gage's?

As one who has done almost no research, I see two possibilities: someone in the government wanted 9/11 to happen and they let it happen. Or, two agencies were involved in petty intraoffice squabbles that allowed thousands of Americans to die. In my mind, either possibility is horrible and merits a serious look. If I were commander in chief I would not want FBI/CIA turf fights to get in the way of national security/. I feel like a fool for haviung wasted so much time on theories that have so little to offer. At least CE's investigations merit a look, if only to be sure our security apparatus is tighter next time.
for having looked s

You're one of the few official 9/11 conspiracy theory believers here who I wouldn't necessarily label a "government truther". You should be proud and embrace it, as there's no dignity whatsoever in being a government truther.

Kudos to you.
 
You're one of the few official 9/11 conspiracy theory believers here who I wouldn't necessarily label a "government truther". You should be proud and embrace it, as there's no dignity whatsoever in being a government truther.

Kudos to you.

SHC, I have said this, many people have said this; but just because we aren't members of 9/11 truth and buy into stupid theories involving massive coverups and absurd technologies doesn't mean we trust or 'worship' our governments.

Calling people 'government truthers' is just insulting.
 
Dang Chris...you should be honored...SHC doesn't consider you a shill for the government. How does that make you feel?

Hmm? Or, donning my ATS and Alex Jones cape and hat,... SHC is disinfo and he's helping muddy the waters so we won't realize that Chris is actually The Man. :eek:
 
SHC, I have said this, many people have said this; but just because we aren't members of 9/11 truth and buy into stupid theories involving massive coverups and absurd technologies doesn't mean we trust or 'worship' our governments.

Calling people 'government truthers' is just insulting.

Do you or do you not believe that the U.S. government told the truth about their role in the 9/11 attacks?

If not, what do you think they were hiding or not honest about?

If yes, then you are a government truther, as you believe the government told the truth.
 
I notice FBI agent John O'Neil's problems with US Ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, which lead to O'Neil's reassignment from the Cole bombing, and ultimately his retirement from the FBI are conspicuously absent from this thread.

Had Bodine allowed the FBI to investigate freely the chance are O'Neil could have put the pieces together himself - without the CIA's help.

I also notice nobody brings up the fact that none of the men attending the meeting in Malaysia were known to have been involved in any crimes against the United States. So technically there was no reason to alert the FBI.

The question is why nothing was said after the Cole bombing? It is entirely possible the CIA agents involved were incompetent, terrorism was not taken seriously at Langley beyond its use as a tool to squeeze extra funding from Congress. This was still true even after CIA employees were gunned down in front of CIA headquarters by a Pakistani national.

Tech note: The CIA did tell the FBI about Almidar and Alhazmi on July, 13, 2001. This was two years after the meeting, and a year after the Cole.

The FBI did nothing.

The CIA sent a memo on August 23, 2001 asking the FBI to track the two men down. When agents requested full criminal investigative resources be used to find them their request was denied by FBI headquarters.

At the end of the day both the CIA and FBI are just government agencies.
 
Do you or do you not believe that the U.S. government told the truth about their role in the 9/11 attacks?

If not, what do you think they were hiding or not honest about?

If yes, then you are a government truther, as you believe the government told the truth.

That would be a series of loaded questions, SHC. But yeah, I do believe they were being as honest as they could be at the time. Does this mean I trust my government? Only when that trust is justified.
 
Do you or do you not believe that the U.S. government told the truth about their role in all of the events and background, surrounding the 9/11 attacks?

Feeding off of Mudcat's comment, if you remove the bias in your question and word it the way I've edited it, I think you'd find a number of members here would possibly concur - to varying degrees. As mentioned above, just because we don't believe in particle beam weapons, hush-a-boom explosives, thermite/thermate/thermute, missiles masquerading as pigeons or angels masquerading as pterodactyls does not mean that we automatically believe every utterance of every government official.

I'm sure this is very inconvenient for you because in Truther World if you find one inconsistency you are required to believe the whole fable, but that's just not the way it works.

Personally, I have no difficulty believing that the events leading up to 9/11 represent a massive failing of US intelligence gathering (and/or "intelligence responding to"). Nor do I have any difficulty believing that various folk - from the Executive level on down, have obfuscated to make sure that that particular cluster-fornication is not completely and openly discussed.

Does that mean Dick Cheney personally handed money to a guy at the Abu Nidhal bakery in Sheboygan? Or that Dubya plotted with the Saudi royal family to let their citizens attack our country and kill our people so his buddies could get more oil exploration deals. No, not unless proved.

If not, what do you think they were hiding or not honest about?

Well, as Edmund Gwenn commented in Miracle on 34th Street (when he was asked in court for his residence), "That's what we're here to determine." I'm all for investigative journalism and dot connecting. Much of the material is very tenuous but there are little nuggets of truth that come out and other and more competent researchers may be able to put them altogether to finally get the whole story. History is like that. We were still putting together the accurate details of Operation Overlord fifty years after it happened, and it was incredibly well documented and amongst the allies, fairly "open".

If yes, then you are a government truther, as you believe the government told the truth.

Your need to pigeonhole people into Us versus Them is noted. It is misguided and inappropriate, but many people think like that - the world's a Marvel cartoon and the bad guys are on one side with the good guys on another. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that.
 
So you believe the U.S. government told you the truth about 9/11, yet you wonder why I call you a "government truther"?

Do I have this right so far?


SpringHallConvert, I note that you responded to Mudcat, but not to me. Why? Are you unable to have a nuanced discussion? This is all too common in Truther-Folk. They just want to be able to label and pigeonhole. If someone tries to bring any shades of gray into the discussion or burst their little bias bubble, they ignore it and go looking for someone else they can squeeze into a preconceived mold.

As I said, it doesn't work like that in the real world. We had an era here (up to the 2008 election) when every truther who came along wasted post after post attacking Bush and Cheney, totally unaware that the majority of the "debunking community" had no love for those two gentlemen and did not support them or their policies. (I can recall one regular who absolutely stunned them when it turned out he had more street cred and protester notches on his gunbelt than the whole bunch of them. Gee, whatever happened to that guy. Lived somewhere in Asia, I believe. Real attractive, too.)

It is possible to be against war, racism, poverty and injustice yet still not see ghosts under the bed. If someone brings me proof of the ghosts under the bed? Well, I'm your boy... but don't let the beams cross! But absent that proof or any actual evidence that someone in the government sat in and planned the events of that day I'm still in the LIHTI (Let It Happen Through Incompetence) camp.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom