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

[chrismohr]

In other words, they were willing to sacrifice to expose wrongdoing.

That's kind of an argument in the debunkers' favor, CE.

000063 is right. I have always said that especially in the age of WikiLeaks etc., something as big as the willful murder of thousands of innocent Americans employing hundreds or thousands of people would not be hidden forever. One guilty Catholic in the CIA with a terminal diagnosis not wanting to go to hell is all it would take.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
And speaking of WikiLeaks, when Assange released hundreds of thousands of pages of secret State Department documents, what emerged from them was nothing remotely as serious as 9/11 MIHOP or even LIHOP. A few Middle East despots were embarrassed by what they quoted as saying, some information was leaked that made Hillary Clinton's work harder, but where was there a single document that gave smoking-gun evidence of the kind of calculated evil that is often presented as happening in the underbelly of The Beast? I haven't really researched this whole side of 9/11 nor do I want to undergo the brain damage of another thousand hours... I did that on the MIHOP side of all this and came up empty. So maybe there's something here but I'm going to let others do the work of uncovering it if there is.

 

[Sabrina]

Exactly, Chris.

I can buy into the idea that we let it happen out of ignorance/arrogance, knowing what I know of general government incompetence (for instance, my entire unit has no equipment to use during our annual training because we all turned it in expecting to order new items, only to find out that the place we are ordering from is so backed up that it probably won't be completed until the end of the year; and we're a logistics unit to boot!), but the whole LIHOP/MIHOP thing is harder to parse. The number of people who would have to be "in on it", or at least part of it, in either of those scenarios, is prohibitive to the very idea of a conspiracy. And then to expect all of them to keep their silence and not put anything on paper (and in a government that is utterly wedded to the notion of paper backups to everything; the approximate number of trees I personally have killed while putting together various reports makes me cringe when I think about how much simpler and better it would have been if I could have kept everything electronic) is ludicrous on the face of it. In eleven years, NO ONE slipped up and said something they shouldn't? NO ONE came forward with smoking gun evidence? Please.

Fact is, truthers who buy into the whole LIHOP/MIHOP scenario have nothing, and they KNOW they have nothing; they just refuse to admit it and stick their heads in the sand like ostriches in order to cling desperately to the idea that they are more important than they really are.

 

[newton3376]

If our government had a hand in planning 9/11.....and they wanted it to occur in 2001....it still would not have happened.

We would still be in the endless phase of power point briefings and VTC's discussing funding and trying to get the equipment needed to do the job....

And somewhere there would be words like "warfighter", "paradigm shift", and "value add" thrown in....

There would be ICD's, CDD's, KPP's, CDR's, etc etc etc.....with plenty of revisions, reviews, and really really long email chains.

Plus.... by the time the project went through all of the endless quad charts, feasibility studies, and the DOD's ridiculous acquisition process...... it would evolve from several planes to some guy with a grenade and a hot dog cart.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Plus.... by the time the project went through all of the endless quad charts, feasibility studies, and the DOD's ridiculous acquisition process...... it would evolve from several planes to some guy with a grenade and a hot dog cart.

But costing about seventeen times as much as the original plan.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

But costing about seventeen times as much as the original plan.

Dave

Yes...........that too.

Good point Dave.

 

[paloalto]

000063 is right. I have always said that especially in the age of WikiLeaks etc., something as big as the willful murder of thousands of innocent Americans employing hundreds or thousands of people would not be hidden forever. One guilty Catholic in the CIA with a terminal diagnosis not wanting to go to hell is all it would take.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
And speaking of WikiLeaks, when Assange released hundreds of thousands of pages of secret State Department documents, what emerged from them was nothing remotely as serious as 9/11 MIHOP or even LIHOP. A few Middle East despots were embarrassed by what they quoted as saying, some information was leaked that made Hillary Clinton's work harder, but where was there a single document that gave smoking-gun evidence of the kind of calculated evil that is often presented as happening in the underbelly of The Beast? I haven't really researched this whole side of 9/11 nor do I want to undergo the brain damage of another thousand hours... I did that on the MIHOP side of all this and came up empty. So maybe there's something here but I'm going to let others do the work of uncovering it if there is.

Unfortunately the information now coming from the DOJ IG report and the Moussaoui trial documents, and now finally the admission by Richard Clarke and FBI Agent Ali Soufan is finally exposing what really happened on 9/11. Both Clarke and Soufan say that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators and the from the NSC at the White House.

Both now say that withholding this information allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11. Soufan points to the CIA as the agency who had deliberately withheld this information from him and the FBI, Clarke points right at CIA Director George Tenet, and CTC Head Cofer Black and Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Richard Blee as the people at the CIA who had withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from him and the FBI.

Both point to the fact that the cables that came from the CIA to the FBI and NSC had no information on Mihdhar, Hazmi, Bin Attash or the meeting at Kuala Lumpur, while the cables that went throughout the CIA had all of this information. Clarke also mentions that while he talked to George Tenet every day, and thought Tenet was his friend, Tenet never once mention Khalid al-Mihdhar or Nawaf al-Hazmi, even though Blee, Black, and Tenet all knew these terrorists were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, knew they were going to take part in an al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans and even knew that their efforts to block the FBI investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agents Soufan and Bongardt was going to stop the one investigation that could have prevented these attacks. The information in the DOJ IG report and the Moussaoui trial documents make these facts abundantly clear.

 

[000063]

You have evidence of incompetence, not malice.

 

[jimd3100]

You have evidence of incompetence, not malice.

Mihdhar and Hazmi living with an Intelligence asset in America was just "incompetence". Here is more "incompetence" when this asset who was introduced to the hijackers by a Saudi Intelligence agent was not allowed to be questioned by our elected representatives.......

"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

It's just "incompetence". "Incompetence" turned out to be a pretty good deal for him......

"Initially the asset was not paid. In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset."

footnote 197 DOJOIG report
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter5.htm

It's Just Incompetence that people who helped pay rent, get IDs, and enroll terrorists in flight schools were Saudi Intelligence agents.....

"One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power."

page 226/858 (from congress/senate Inquiry)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

"The exact nature of Bayoumi's employment has remained unclear, but his close associates suspected him of being a Saudi intelligence officer."

(FBI Document)
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2002-04-15-FBI-LHM-omar-al-bayoumi2.pdf

Just "incompetence" that both the CIA and Saudi Intelligence knew these guys were terrorists and were in America and they were being assisted because of "incompetence"....

"However, the C.I.A. did share the information with Saudi authorities, who told the agency that Mihdhar and a man named Nawaf al-Hazmi were members of Al Qaeda.

http://www.lawrencewright.com/WrightSoufan.pdf

Don't dare call it a cover up. It's just "incompetence"....

Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (Senate)
I will quote a couple of people, one who is in the Chamber now. I
will quote Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, the chair and ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway.
As I indicated, 28 pages of this report were redacted by White House
lawyers. That means the American public cannot see what was in that
report. We will have no knowledge and no information about what was
contained in that rather exhaustive report.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html


Just "Incompetence" that again 9-11 was a pretty good deal for Saudi Arabia - "incompetence" seems to pay well......

Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (Senate)
There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are
disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the
terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that are
going to get this indirect economic benefit.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

Just "incompetence"......

"John Lehman thought that he asked some of the tougher questions of Bush during the session, especially about the possibility of Saudi government ties to some of the hijackers. Lehman recalled asking Bush about the news reports that checks for thousands of dollars written by the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, might have been funneled to two of the hijackers in San Diego. "He dodged the questions," said Lehman.

page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Un...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271632815&sr=1-2

Remember, he's not being dishonest...he's just being incompetent....

"I answered every question they asked"

--G Bush after meeting with 9-11 Commission (1:50 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bnuvtRo8b0

"He dodged the questions," said Lehman

. page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Un...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271632815&sr=1-2

It was simply "incompetence" that no notes, or recordings were allowed to take place while he and Cheney were not under oath.

Being awarded with the highest honor a civilian can receive is always a true sign of incompetence....

On December 14, 2004, President Bush awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Awarded_the_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom

As already pointed out - "Incompetence" pays well......

For those keeping score, way back in December 2004, former CIA director George Tenet signed a book deal with Rick Horgan at Crown for a reported $4 million dollars.

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/george-tenet-gets-a-book-deal-yet-again_b1433

Insiders say he’s decided to defer the deal with Crown Books, worth nearly $5 million, until after he has more time to pull his thoughts together.

http://rightvoices.com/2005/03/03/tenets-book-deal/

What's wrong with "incompetence"? It certainly pays well. I mean besides costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars and corrupting an entire system?

You have evidence of incompetence, not malice.

Yea, that's all it is. And everyone should be fine with it, it's the key to keeping us so free, and prosperous.

 

[paloalto]

You have evidence of incompetence, not malice.

Nice try, but you fail, here is the time line of the interaction between the FBI, FBI HQ and the CIA.

August 28, 2001

FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton, tell FBI Cole bombing investigators, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, on August 28, 2001 that in spite of the fact that they already had her EC to start an intelligence investigation, he is not allowed to start any investigation for Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi because her EC has a NSA cable as part of it that was prohibited from being be given to FBI criminal investigators. But Corsi had already gotten approval from the NSA to pass the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi to the FBI criminal investigators just the day before on August 27, 2001. So Corsi knew this reason why Bongardt could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi was an out and out lie and that she had no legal right to block his investigation for these two al Qaeda terrorists.

Bongardt requested that Corsi consult the NSLU, the FBI in house lawyers, to determine if her refusal to allow him to start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi was correct in view of the fact that he knew that the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant and knew that these terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in some horrific al Qaeda attack.

On August 29, 2001,

FBI Agent Dina Corsi, with her supervisor Rod Middleton, tells FBI Cole bombing investigators, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team that the attorney they had contacted Sherry Sabol, and ruled that Bongardt could not start or take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But we learn from 9/11 Commission report, page 538, that Sherry Sabol actually told Corsi and Middleton, according to the testimony Sabol gave to DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. This lie will finally shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, ensuring that the al Qaeda terrorists will be free to carry out the attacks on 9/11. Corsi also sends Bongardt an email that says “if at such time that information is developed of a substantial Federal crime ( by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall”.

But FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi already knew on August 22, 2001, according to the DOJ IG report, page 301, that the CIA had a photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur. She knew this directly connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who she knew were also at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing. So she already knew that she had no legal right to block Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. By hiding this information from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, he will have no way to counter her illegal and nefarious obstruction of his investigation, even though he knows that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to carry out some horrific terrorist attack. He tells Corsi, "why do you think they are here, do you think they are going to F****** Disneyland"

August 30, 2001

Middleton gets the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur from the CIA. This is the photographic proof that had been hidden by the CIA from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing since January 4, 2001, that directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the crime of planning the Cole bombing. In spite of getting this photo, and the fact he had been working directly with Corsi to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, he never calls Bongardt and gives him permission to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Middleton continues his nefarious effort to block this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by Bongardt and his team of criminal investigators.

Incredibly Tom Wilshire who had been supervising both Corsi and Middleton, had been told along with Corsi on August 22, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. He had written his CTC managers, Blee, Black and Tenet on July 23, 2001, indicating that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. In this email he had requested permission to turn the Kuala Lumpur information over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, but was denied, in this his second request, by Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet. This is clear evidence that in spite of the fact that Wilshire was ostensibly working for the FBI, he was still secretly under the control of the CIA and his former CIA managers.

So on August 22, 2001 Wilshire not only knows these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US but also knows that they were here in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001. In spite of this knowledge it is now clear that former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Wilshire had directed Corsi and Middleton, to keep the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi away from Bongardt and his team, and knew when they were criminally obstructing Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that this will insure that the huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ was aware of will not be stopped.

The information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001 also went back to the CIA Bin Laden unit, first to Blee, then Black and finally George Tenet. So by August 23, 2001 these three CIA managers not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, but by this date also know that Moussaoui thought to be connected to al Qaeda, had been arrested by the FBI while trying to take flying lesions on a B747 simulator, with absolutely no prior flight experience at all. They also know that someone at FBI HQ had been blocking any progress in the investigation of Moussaoui.

All of this information comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and was confirmed by the documents entered into the Moussaoui trial. This is not evidence of incompetence, unless you simply ignore this evidence altogether that is now in the public domain, but clearly is evidence of malice.

 

[NightStar76]

I'm incapable of believing our government could act so purposefully, across two presidential administrations (three, now?), and then keep it quiet, with no one coming out, no actual papers exposed, and no scapegoats announced.

Even if the American government wanted to enact a terrorist attack on its own soil (and no one's convinced me why they would), all American history suggests they wouldn't be able to do so successfully.

This is basically the same as believing in magic. Wait, no. That's a slur on the honorable name of magic. It's akin to believing in the hollow shell of ritual that surrounds magic or religion. The belief that because government acts like it's an unstoppable, all-powerful force, it must be an unstoppable, all-powerful force. Governments are just organizations, organizations are just people, and people are just concerned with the day to day.

There are three basic things the truthers need to prove before they move on to 'how'. They need to prove motive and opportunity. That's something the people who accept the official story (aka, the reality-based community) have proven already. Osama Bin Laden had the the resources, the motivation, and the fanatically devout manpower to pull off one major attack. He did.

You need to prove that our government had anyone who could or would gain from this. And not in generalities, like 'the government is evil' or 'black helicopters are stealing my teeth'.

I want names, phone numbers, addresses and something that would stand up for an indictment. You can't give me that? Then your theory is meaningless.

 

[jimd3100]

So by August 23, 2001 these three CIA managers not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, but by this date also know that Moussaoui thought to be connected to al Qaeda, had been arrested by the FBI while trying to take flying lesions on a B747 simulator, with absolutely no prior flight experience at all. They also know that someone at FBI HQ had been blocking any progress in the investigation of Moussaoui.

So being "incompetent", Tenet then fly's down to the Presidents Ranch to not tell him anything. Because after all, he's "incompetent".....

CIA Director George J. Tenet acknowledged yesterday that he did not brief President Bush, FBI leaders or Cabinet members after he was informed in late August 2001 of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, who would later be charged as a conspirator in the terror attacks. The briefing for Tenet was titled "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13122-2004Apr14.html

Being "Incompetent" he never flew down to see the President at his ranch. He said so right here, and he certainly wouldn't lie would he? He's just incompetent........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5cIo33eVSKg

But also being "incompetent" the President had already admitted on August 25, that Tenet flew down to see him at his ranch. One can use the wayback machine and see it on the white house website....

Office of the Press Secretary
August 25, 2001

President Gives Tour of Crawford Ranch:
The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there.

You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913...use.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825-2.html

It's just a coincidence that Tenet didn't fly down and see the President just after the FBI gave him a presentation on Moussaoui called ""Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly" even though the president said he did on Aug 25 2001, and it's really incompetent that the reason he flew down according to the President was so he could show off his ranch.......

You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010913...use.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825-2.html

After all, who wants to talk about work when you are on vacation. That would be much to competent.

 

[newton3376]

Nice try, but you fail, here is the time line of the interaction between the FBI, FBI HQ and the CIA.

I edited out your word salad.....there are ALOT of assumptions in the text you posted about what people were thinking or why they did or did not do certain things......

If you believe you have the whole story you are likely incorrect....for starters.

Some people did not take the threat seriously.....some did. No one knew exactly what the terrorists were planning or when they were planning on doing it.

Terrorists sometimes make plans (elaborate plans even) to conduct an operation and it never evolves beyond the early phases......maybe some people thought that some "Arabs" were not capable of really pulling off an attack on US soil. Who knows?

Were there coverups afterwards? Absolutely. Should people have lost their jobs? Yes I personally believe so.

But should they have gone to jail or should they be accused of "letting" the attacks take place for some nefarious purposes? I don't see enough evidence in anything you have posted to come to such a judgement.

Not doing your job or not doing it very well for whatever reason (racism, incompetence, inter-agency rivalry, laziness, arrogance, denial, etc) is definately grounds for losing your job.....but that is a far cry from assuming the reason was to purposefully allow thousands of Americans to die and compromise the national secutiry of the United States.

We have been through all of this before.....at this point you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Because that's what this is all about.......you WANT to believe there was a conspiracy. Two people in this thread with past and current working knowledge in this "world" have tried to explain things to you and you choose to ignore the advice.

Believe me....if I had any reason to suspect it was on purpose then I would be in full support of your views....I don't directly work with ANY of the people involved in this specific Intelligence incident so it doesn't affect me one bit if any or all of those folks go to jail. I was not involved in the operation so I have nothing to gain by trying to cover up for them.

I do not share you views SOLELY because I do not see any evidence to support your conclusions. You can call me a shill or say that it's because I sometimes work with such agencies....but you do so in spite of me TELLING you why I do not agree.

There isn't enough evidence to support your conclusions.

 

[paloalto]

I edited out your word salad.....there are ALOT of assumptions in the text you posted about what people were thinking or why they did or did not do certain things......

If you believe you have the whole story you are likely incorrect....for starters.

Some people did not take the threat seriously.....some did. No one knew exactly what the terrorists were planning or when they were planning on doing it.

Terrorists sometimes make plans (elaborate plans even) to conduct an operation and it never evolves beyond the early phases......maybe some people thought that some "Arabs" were not capable of really pulling off an attack on US soil. Who knows?

Were there coverups afterwards? Absolutely. Should people have lost their jobs? Yes I personally believe so.

But should they have gone to jail or should they be accused of "letting" the attacks take place for some nefarious purposes? I don't see enough evidence in anything you have posted to come to such a judgement.

Not doing your job or not doing it very well for whatever reason (racism, incompetence, inter-agency rivalry, laziness, arrogance, denial, etc) is definately grounds for losing your job.....but that is a far cry from assuming the reason was to purposefully allow thousands of Americans to die and compromise the national secutiry of the United States.

We have been through all of this before.....at this point you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Because that's what this is all about.......you WANT to believe there was a conspiracy. Two people in this thread with past and current working knowledge in this "world" have tried to explain things to you and you choose to ignore the advice.

Believe me....if I had any reason to suspect it was on purpose then I would be in full support of your views....I don't directly work with ANY of the people involved in this specific Intelligence incident so it doesn't affect me one bit if any or all of those folks go to jail. I was not involved in the operation so I have nothing to gain by trying to cover up for them.

I do not share you views SOLELY because I do not see any evidence to support your conclusions. You can call me a shill or say that it's because I sometimes work with such agencies....but you do so in spite of me TELLING you why I do not agree.

There isn't enough evidence to support your conclusions.

Excellent!

Then go through all of the facts I have posted, all of them and explain each and evey one of them, if you can.

I would conclude before you even start that you can't. By the way the information I posted is just the tip of giant ice berg of information on this horrific conspiracy. And all of this information comes directly from official US government documents from the investigations of the attacks on 9/11.

 

[000063]

So being "incompetent", Tenet then fly's down to the Presidents Ranch to not tell him anything. Because after all, he's "incompetent".....

We are talking about the Bush administration here.

 

[000063]

Excellent!

Then go through all of the facts I have posted, all of them and explain each and evey one of them, if you can.

I would conclude before you even start that you can't. By the way the information I posted is just the tip of giant ice berg of information on this horrific conspiracy. And all of this information comes directly from official US government documents from the investigations of the attacks on 9/11.

So the evidence you're using to prove the government covered up their deliberate involvement is government documents?

Your own claims actively require the govt. to be incompetent at hiding their involvement, enough to leave an "iceberg" of evidence.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm incapable of believing our government could act so purposefully, across two presidential administrations (three, now?), and then keep it quiet, with no one coming out, no actual papers exposed, and no scapegoats announced.

<snipped generic incredulity babble>

I want names, phone numbers, addresses and something that would stand up for an indictment. You can't give me that? Then your theory is meaningless.

What an absurd post given the posts above it and the information throughout this thread. Your incapability to believe does not change the facts extracted from official sources and corroborated from the horses mouth in the documentary this thread is about. And nobody claims "the government" acted purposefully, it's all about specific people who prevented other specific people from doing their job.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I can't speak for everyone here (nor anyone, really) as I know that there are very likely posters here who are absolutely against whistle-blowing - by the simple fact that there are posters here who are against, well, just about everything. Meh, I'm all for the creation of a halfway house and safe refuge for whistleblowers. I also think the WPA needs to be worded more strongly and be better enforced.

My problem, as with many who share some of my opinions, is with Edmonds making herself out to be some kind of expert on 9/11, taunting the world for years with all that she was privy to and would one day reveal, and then shutting up like a clam (on the topic of 9/11) when she took the witness stand. I don't think she sold us out - I think she never had anything other than what she ultimately revealed in those hearings.

She was a low-grade translator for a brief period. The stuff she saw had to do with political contributions by interested parties who shouldn't have been allowed to be interested. Nothing more. If she wants to tell me about how the translation desks in the FBI worked during that period, I'm all ears. If she wants to tell me that the documents she was exposed to somehow were the first in a series of connect-the-dot moves to get to the bottom of 9/11? Then she's going to have to prove it. This, she has not accomplished and she's had a lot of time and a change of administrations. The fact that this has not been forthcoming suggests to me that what we saw of her testimony behavior is what she's got..... nothing.

Sibel Edmonds is only tangentially related to the topic of this thread, mostly because she has an internet radio show where she interviewed the producers of the documentary, and gave them advise. This interview is still in the OP, btw.

She did not plan to become a public whistleblower, she tried to report what she found in the language department to the appropriate people, only to get heavily retaliated against. Which triggered her going up in the chain all the way to a gagged congress(!) not allowed to talk about her case. Which is the real story and another case of the fish stinking from the head, somehow paralleling the topic this thread is about and other glimpses into the cover-up, like what happened to the Able Danger story. Which she manages to reveal in a profound way in her just released memoirs, while avoiding to name the details that could get her to jail, but are known from others sources anyway, if one is interested in the topic.

Why should she and others go to jail for no reason/without effect, given a complacent media and a profoundly disinterested public? That's the real problem. It's all in the open, but nobody cares.

 

[LSSBB]

I believe that until there are any statements of intent, either written or under oath, by those in the know, that they were willing to let the terrorists carry out their acts full well knowing that it would lead to loss of life, that the theory that it were so remains an unproven conjecture. As to incompetence, which likewise is a conjecture but under law is I believe the default here, much of its plausibility lies in the emphasis the administration put into discounting the capability of a non-state actor to carry out such an attack.

 

[MikeW]

Being "Incompetent" he never flew down to see the President at his ranch. He said so right here, and he certainly wouldn't lie would he? He's just incompetent........

Almost immediately after saying he didn't, another CIA official said he did.

Sounds fairly incompetent to me.

 

[Sabrina]

A lot of you are missing the point.

It's not just letting it happen out of incompetence; it's also letting it happen because we were arrogant. We couldn't conceive of someone planning and executing a successful terrorist attack of that magnitude in the United States unless the person were already a US citizen (i.e. Timothy McVeigh, and even he didn't manage anything near the scale of 9/11). Add to that the fact that, prior to 9/11, the vast majority of terrorist attacks occurred OVERSEAS, and you have a recipe for assumptions that turned out to be erroneous in the extreme.

We had NOTHING actionable; even in all the government documents that have been released, the best we can do is point to items in there and say, "well, in hindsight it seems obvious now, doesn't it?", which doesn't take into account that, AT THE TIME, the assumption was that a terrorist attack would take place OVERSEAS rather than in the US itself. Sure, it's very likely that some people warned of something that was coming, but couldn't provide anything actionable to support their theories, and therefore nothing was done. Incompetence and arrogance at their best, or worst. No one knew, specifically, that terrorists were planning to hijack four airplanes and fly them into buildings and decided to sit back and let it happen; the most anyone really knew was that SOMETHING was likely being planned, but we had little or no information pointing to any specifics such as the planes being hijacked, or that they'd be flown into buildings in kamikaze fashion, or anything approaching a specific timeframe. And in the government, you have to provide ACTIONABLE intelligence in order to get anything done; a nebulous assertion that "an attack is coming" isn't enough to get anyone to sit up and take notice, even now after the attacks. The long and the short of it is, assuming one understands how the government works (which it's clear the truthers in this thread do not), the theory that we let it happen out of ignorance/arrogance/incompetence is much more likely than either the LIHOP or MIHOP scenarios, because those scenarios depend upon many many MANY people keeping their silence for eleven straight years and NOTHING being put down on paper to say "we're going to let it happen" or "this is how we're going to make it happen", and quite frankly, that is 100% IMPOSSIBLE.

But then, what do I know; I merely WORK in/around the government.