• 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

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


Nothing. Your posts show an incredible (willful?) ignorance of the topic. You can close your eyes all you want and throw generic platitudes about "working in the government" at us as often as you want, it doesn't change a thing about the facts at hand.
 
And just what are these facts?


99074d54b459448e8.gif
 
Nothing. Your posts show an incredible (willful?) ignorance of the topic. You can close your eyes all you want and throw generic platitudes about "working in the government" at us as often as you want, it doesn't change a thing about the facts at hand.

The IRONY, it burns!!!!

:id:
 
The IRONY, it burns!!!!

:id:


I don't think pantomime debunking will help you. Your appearances here and in paloalto's thread are nearly as absurd as when you were telling the forum that the released wikileaks cables were at the same time completely irrelevant (nothing to see here) and an incredible act of treason. That was fun, especially after you had to admit THAT YOU WEREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO READ THEM thanks to your "intelligence" clearance and disappeared into the night. :rolleyes:
 
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.


Almost 3000 people were murdered in the attacks on 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission and all of the American people wanted to know why when the CIA knew about this horrific attack and knew it would kill thousands of Americans, what did the Director of the CIA, the man chartered with preventing another Pearl harbor attack, tell the President about this attack. According to CIA Director Tenet, under oath, he says inexplicably he had not told the President anything about these attacks?

But that same day Bill Harlow, spokes person for the CIA said Tenet had misspoke at the 9/11 Commission hearings (in fact out and out lied). Harlow said Tenet had meet in Crawford with the President on August 17, and again in Washington at the end of August. But we now know that CIA Director George Tenet met with the President on August 24, 2001, a meeting that Tenet lied about when asked at these 9/11 Hearings and Bill Harlow left out when he corrected Tenets lies at these hearings. So what was so secret that Tenet was compelled to lie under oath to the 9/11 Commission and the American people about his meetings with the President in August 2001? And when the White House heard Tenet’s lie why did they not immediately call the 9/11 Commission and say that Tenet was lying to them about the meetings Tenet had in August with the President. What exactly was the White House also trying to conceal?

This meeting took place just after Tenet found out Moussaoui was arrested inside of the US when the FBI thought we was an al Qaeda terrorist getting flight training on B747 aircraft even though he did not even have a private pilot's license. Tenet by August 23, 2001 also knew that both al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack the CIA knew was just about to take place inside the US. Tenet had in fact given information on this attack to Rice, Hadley and Clarke on July 10, 2001 right at a White House meeting, a meeting that had been kept secret from the 9/11 Commission and the American public.

So the request that these people have to testify under oath and proclaim their guilt before anyone will believe that they had committed nefarious acts that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 is undermined by the very fact that they all either out and out lied while under oath or withheld and concealed information from the 9/11 Commission. But isn’t lying and withholding or concealing information while under oath prima fascia proof of nefarious intent in a court of law.
 
I don't think pantomime debunking will help you. Your appearances here and in paloalto's thread are nearly as absurd as when you were telling the forum that the released wikileaks cables were at the same time completely irrelevant (nothing to see here) and an incredible act of treason. That was fun, especially after you had to admit THAT YOU WEREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO READ THEM thanks to your "intelligence" clearance and disappeared into the night. :rolleyes:

Incorrect.

I stated that I was not allowed to DISCUSS THE CONTENTS. Those documents were, and still are, classified; the government has not lowered the classification on them, despite their being in the public domain via Wikileaks, and therefore anyone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement is prohibited from discussing classified information in an unclassified forum of any kind.

I brought my concerns regarding the fact that classified documentation had been posted on this forum to the mods, who rightly deleted the posts in question and admonished people to refrain from posting the contents of the documents on the forum; had I not done that, it is entirely possible that the government would have taken steps to shut down the forum entirely. At that point, I stated I would not discuss the Wikileaks issue any further and departed from that thread. So you see, CE, a refusal to discuss classified information in an unclassified forum is not exactly the same thing as "not being allowed to read them".

Perhaps you need to learn to read for comprehension.
 
Noah, let me expand upon your question to help whittle this down:

Just what are these facts, that prove intent, instead of incompetence?

Mere incredulity does not count.

Just re-read the following post below!

Intent is clearly shown in these actions and then their out and out lying to cover up these nefarious deeds.

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.
 
Incorrect.

I stated that I was not allowed to DISCUSS THE CONTENTS. Those documents were, and still are, classified; the government has not lowered the classification on them, despite their being in the public domain via Wikileaks, and therefore anyone who has signed a nondisclosure agreement is prohibited from discussing classified information in an unclassified forum of any kind.

I brought my concerns regarding the fact that classified documentation had been posted on this forum to the mods, who rightly deleted the posts in question and admonished people to refrain from posting the contents of the documents on the forum; had I not done that, it is entirely possible that the government would have taken steps to shut down the forum entirely. At that point, I stated I would not discuss the Wikileaks issue any further and departed from that thread. So you see, CE, a refusal to discuss classified information in an unclassified forum is not exactly the same thing as "not being allowed to read them".

Perhaps you need to learn to read for comprehension.

Sabrina is correct, a message was sent to all US military members that although the contents of Wikileaks have been openly published, classified material within Wikileaks could not be openly discussed by military members because that material still retains its classification until officially removed.
 
Noah, let me expand upon your question to help whittle this down:

Just what are these facts, that prove intent, instead of incompetence?

Mere incredulity does not count.

I predict no response. It's a lot easier just to put a stupid gif as a response than to use the brain.
 
Just re-read the following post below!

Intent is clearly shown in these actions and then their out and out lying to cover up these nefarious deeds.

Enough.

"Intent" is not clearly shown....you are assuming.

To be honest.....in real life I am "not nice" when people bring up issues such as this.....I have been MORE THAN GRACIOUS to you in attempting to educate you and I think this thread has now run it's course.

Anything involving wikileaks does not need to be discussed.

No one has to jusify anything to you since you are not an investigative body tasked with looking at documents, personel, or decisions involving agencies of this color.

No one should respond to you anymore and just let you have your beliefs and go on with your life....

There is an increased risk of having discussions that we ought not have on an internet forum....even unclassified/public information can wander into areas that should be avoided....plus the recent reference to wikileaks material is alarming to me.

I think this thread (and this discussion) has run it's course and should be closed.
 
Enough.

"Intent" is not clearly shown....you are assuming.

To be honest.....in real life I am "not nice" when people bring up issues such as this.....I have been MORE THAN GRACIOUS to you in attempting to educate you and I think this thread has now run it's course.

Anything involving wikileaks does not need to be discussed.

No one has to jusify anything to you since you are not an investigative body tasked with looking at documents, personel, or decisions involving agencies of this color.

No one should respond to you anymore and just let you have your beliefs and go on with your life....

There is an increased risk of having discussions that we ought not have on an internet forum....even unclassified/public information can wander into areas that should be avoided....plus the recent reference to wikileaks material is alarming to me.

I think this thread (and this discussion) has run it's course and should be closed.

Agreed. Oh, and it's ever so much easier, newton, if you just put paloalto on ignore; I did, and it's been much easier to deal with since. Willful ignorance can only be tolerated so far, IMO.
 
I brought my concerns regarding the fact that classified documentation had been posted on this forum to the mods, who rightly deleted the posts in question and admonished people to refrain from posting the contents of the documents on the forum; had I not done that, it is entirely possible that the government would have taken steps to shut down the forum entirely. At that point, I stated I would not discuss the Wikileaks issue any further and departed from that thread. So you see, CE, a refusal to discuss classified information in an unclassified forum is not exactly the same thing as "not being allowed to read them".


I am allowed, but freely chose not to comment on this move by the JREF. I did do at the time. You were not allowed to read them on a need-to-know basis.
 
Enough.

"Intent" is not clearly shown....you are assuming.

To be honest.....in real life I am "not nice" when people bring up issues such as this.....I have been MORE THAN GRACIOUS to you in attempting to educate you and I think this thread has now run it's course.

Anything involving wikileaks does not need to be discussed.

No one has to jusify anything to you since you are not an investigative body tasked with looking at documents, personel, or decisions involving agencies of this color.

No one should respond to you anymore and just let you have your beliefs and go on with your life....

There is an increased risk of having discussions that we ought not have on an internet forum....even unclassified/public information can wander into areas that should be avoided....plus the recent reference to wikileaks material is alarming to me.

I think this thread (and this discussion) has run it's course and should be closed.
Agreed. Oh, and it's ever so much easier, newton, if you just put paloalto on ignore; I did, and it's been much easier to deal with since. Willful ignorance can only be tolerated so far, IMO.



:dl:
 
Last edited:
Again, I am not allowed to read them on AN UNCLASSIFIED COMPUTER SYSTEM. The DoD issued a directive stating all DoD personnel were prohibited from accessing Wikileaks on unclassified computer systems. Note the term "unclassified" there, CE. You have no idea what I have or have not read, so kindly cease saying that I am not allowed to read something when in fact what I am not allowed to do is discuss the CLASSIFIED contents of memorandums on an UNCLASSIFIED system. Get it right.
 

Back
Top Bottom