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

[LSSBB]

So, 20 / 20 hindsight and government agencies FUBAR. Why is this being posted in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section?

Because it seems in the absence of clear evidence speculation tends to fester... oh wait, even when there is clear evidence speculation festers and denies the evidence...

 

[paloalto]

So, 20 / 20 hindsight and government agencies FUBAR. Why is this being posted in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories section?

Because this is the US government’s official version of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, and is documented right in the actual reports from the government's own investigations on 9/11. But most of this information has been kept secret from the American people.

 

[carlitos]

I read the Looming Tower in 2007, I think, so that part wasn't much of a secret.

 

[Robrob]

Because this is the US government’s official version of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, and is documented right in the actual reports from the government's own investigations on 9/11. But most of this information has been kept secret from the American people.

Ironic then the government was willing to freely declassify this information then wouldn't you say?

 

[mike3]

YOU should care JihadJane

I know more about those agencies then Sibel Edmonds ever will in her wettest dreams....

She is irrelevant....her opinion on ANYTHING outside of her very brief experience in that world doesn't matter to.....well.....anyone really.

Actually....she matters to truthers like yourself for some unknown reason....of course you know as little about these matters as you do Engineering, Math, or any other topic....

So have at it Keep JAQing off to irrelevant nonsense.

How did you get all this knowledge?

 

[Axxman300]

But had the FBI just put them under surveillance they would have uncovered the plot for the attacks on 9/11 and found the 10 other terrorists that Mihdhar and Hazmi had purchased airline tickets for.

The same FBI that took forever to connect Al Qaeda to the first WTC bombing?

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have put all that together. Just like they were all over Zacarias Moussaoui - whom they had in custody yet still couldn't convince FBI lawyers they had probable cause to search his laptop.

While you speculate about things which might have happened "only if" the facts of what actually happened are loud and clear.

 

[paloalto]

The same FBI that took forever to connect Al Qaeda to the first WTC bombing?

Yeah, I'm sure they'd have put all that together. Just like they were all over Zacarias Moussaoui - whom they had in custody yet still couldn't convince FBI lawyers they had probable cause to search his laptop.

While you speculate about things which might have happened "only if" the facts of what actually happened are loud and clear.

FBI Agent Harry Samit, the FBI Agent who had arrested Moussaoui, in court under oath, said that Michael Maltbie and David Frasca blocking his attempt to get a search warrant for Moussaoui duffle bag was a crime and that both Maltbie and Frasca were criminals for blocking his investigation. Samit's boss told Frasca that Minneapolis FBI though Moussaoui wanted to hijack a large commercial aircraft and fly it into the World Trade Center Towers.

But what is beyond belief and clearly points to a massive and wide spread criminal conspiracy at the FBI HQ is that Tom Wilshire, made email contact with Maltbie over the Moussaoui investigation, according to DE 939 entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006. The email from Maltbie back to Wilshire on August 24, 2001, says “ignore the previous email that suggested Moussaoui has engaged in nefarious activities. We have found nothing to suggest Moussaoui is connected to any nefarious activities”.

This is at a time when FBI Agent Harry Samit has almost gone ballistic trying to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. At no time did Samit ever make any statements that Moussaoui was anything other than a terrorist who wanted to train on B747s in order to hijack one of these aircraft and crash it into a large buildings in the US. Maltbie was not the FBI criminal investigator on the Moussaoui investigation Samit was, and Samit never said anything other than Moussaoui was clearly connected to some nefarious activities. So why Maltbie is saying this in this email has never been explained.

But it is clear that on August 24, 2001, Wilshire has all of the information necessary to prevent the attacks on 9/11 and yet instead of alerting the FBI criminal agents to this information, he continues to supervise Corsi and Middleton as they illegally shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. He was directing Corsi and Middleton to sabotage Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists, and as of August 24, 2001, he and Corsi were keeping completely secret the fact that both Midhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, and he even knows that someone is sabotaging Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui.

Samit and his fellow agents were not even allowed to request a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag until after the second WTC tower was hit by United 175. When they were able to look inside of his duffle bag, they found a receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh from Hamburg, traced this to his phone calls and the al Qaeda paymaster in the UAE and then connected almost all of the al Qaeda terrorists to this phone in matter of days.

No one from the FBI has ever explained any of this. After Samit called Maltbie and Frasca criminals in court in the Moussaoui trial, the FBI said it would make no comment and that Maltbie and Frasca would make no comment to explain any of this. The fact that these FBI HQ managers had sabotaged Samit’s investigation and as a result almost 3000 innocent people in the US were murdered was just something the FBI was never going to explain.

Both Maltbie and Frasca worked in the same FBI unit as Corsi and Middleton, the FBI ITOS unit that had as their Deputy Chief the same Tom Wilshire who was supervising criminal activities of Corsi and Middleton. What appears to be a massive coincidence has never been explained by the FBI or in fact anyone. All of the US government investigations of 9/11 have covered over the crimes by Maltbie, Frasca, Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire to hide the FBI criminal culpability in allowing the attacks on 9/11 and protect the CIA managers Blee, Black, and Tenet who were secretly directing the actions of Wilshire to criminally block FBI criminal investigations of all al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US.

 

[Robrob]

FBI Agent Harry Samit, the FBI Agent who had arrested Moussaoui, in court under oath, said that Michael Maltbie and David Frasca blocking his attempt to get a search warrant for Moussaoui duffle bag was a crime and that both Maltbie and Frasca were criminals for blocking his investigation..

This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV.

SA Samit wanted to obtain a court order to search. He was told be his supervisors - based on their years of training and experience - that he did not have enough probable cause to obtain a court order. After the fact, SA Samit venting his frustration calling their decision "criminal" is no more pertinent than your teenager calling you the worst parent in the world.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Monday morning is a great time to be a quarterback. Etc...

 

[paloalto]

This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV.

SA Samit wanted to obtain a court order to search. He was told by his supervisors - based on their years of training and experience - that he did not have enough probable cause to obtain a court order. After the fact, SA Samit venting his frustration calling their decision "criminal" is no more pertinent than your teenager calling you the worst parent in the world.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Monday morning is a great time to be a quarterback. Etc...

Samit could not get a search warrant because Maltbie and Frasca said that although the French intelligence had connected Moussaoui to Khattab and the Khattab terrorist organization, which was closely associated with al Qaeda, the Khattab organization was not a "recognized terrorist organization". Getting a FISA warrant required probable cause that the search warrant target “belonged to or was associated with a foreign terrorist organization”. Maltbie and Frasca stated that they would not even allow Samit to request a search warrant from the OIPR unless Samit had probable cause that Moussaoui was connected to a "recognized foreign terrorist organization".

But both the OIPR and the FISA court stated that they had no concept of a “recognized terrorist organization”, any terrorist organization could be used to get a FISA warrant if the subject was connected to that organization. The term recognized terrorist organization was just an excuse dreamed up by Maltbie and Frasca to illegally deny Samit any chance to request a search warrant from the OIPR. What's even more horrific is that Samit and his FBI criminal investigators were aware of this.

So Maltbie and Frasca arguments were spurious and were only used to illegally deny Samit a search warrant. Maltbie and Frasca had no legal right to prevent Samit from requesting a search warrant from OIPR since he had probable cause that Moussaoui was connected to the Khattab terrorist organization, an organization that was closely associated with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

These two FBI ITOS managers were clearly aware of this huge al Qaeda attack and knew that every effort should have been used to pursue every lead and yet shut down Samit’s investigation with this illegal reason. The result was that 3000 people were murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11. This attack would have been prevented had Maltbie and Frasca not illegally and criminally blocked Samit’s criminal investigation of Moussaoui.

Let me repeat your own statement; “"This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV."

 

[Robrob]

Let me repeat your own statement; “"This is the problem you have when uninformed people cherry pick "facts" to support their POV."

Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't. For all you know, if they had authorized SA Samit to write the search warrant, the judge would have rejected it.

So Maltbie and Frasca arguments were spurious and were only used to illegally deny Samit a search warrant.

Out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you written? As I'm sure you probably know, anyone can write a search warrant affidavit. You don't even have to be law enforcement to write one. All you have to do is get a judge to sign it. SA Samit feels guilty he didn't simply walk down to the Federal Building and get a judge to sign his warrant so he blames his supervisors?

Yeah, my comment stand about when uninformed people cherry pick events with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[paloalto]

Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't. For all you know, if they had authorized SA Samit to write the search warrant, the judge would have rejected it.

Out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you written? As I'm sure you probably know, anyone can write a search warrant affidavit. You don't even have to be law enforcement to write one. All you have to do is get a judge to sign it. SA Samit feels guilty he didn't simply walk down to the Federal Building and get a judge to sign his warrant so he blames his supervisors?

Yeah, my comment stand about when uninformed people cherry pick events with 20/20 hindsight.

It was a violation of FBI rules for Samit to directly request a search warrant from the FISA court. First the managers at the FBI RFU had to approve his request before it could even be sent to the OIPR unit of the FBI for approval. It was actually the NSLU under the OIPR that had to approve the request. If they approved it, it went to the FISA court for review. In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

 

[Robrob]

In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

Yes, because the affidavits are vetted by the supervisors first.

So essentially your evidence of a crime is the supervisors did their jobs?

You are familiar with the concept of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, right?

 

[jimd3100]

Samit said he was effectively "shut down" by FBI headquarters, and his office was "denied every tool at the division's disposal."

He never made another request for an intelligence warrant and was forbidden from contacting local federal prosecutors for a criminal one.

Samit later told the inspector general he felt the Washington supervisors performed "misconduct of the most serious kind."

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-20/...samit-aviation-security-witnesses/3?_s=PM:LAW

But that's their job right? Samit doesn't know what he's talking about --because we have a jref poster who knows better...

So essentially your evidence of a crime is the supervisors did their jobs?

So their job is to bother the head of the CIA with a briefing on every warrant they refuse to grant no matter how often the agent begs for it?

Tenet was briefed about Moussaoui after Moussaoui was arrested because his behavior at a Minnesota flight school was suspicious. The title of the briefing: "Islamic Extremist or Islamic Fundamentalist Learns to Fly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301007.html

You're probably missing some real good TV....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY

 

[Robrob]

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-20/...samit-aviation-security-witnesses/3?_s=PM:LAW

But that's their job right? Samit doesn't know what he's talking about --because we have a jref poster who knows better...

Have you ever disagreed with your boss? Samit felt he had PC, his supervisor didn't. Interesting Samit never made another request or tried to develop more PC. I asked you before, how many years do you think Samit had been an agent? How many years do you think his supervisor had been one?

From your own link: "Samit said Maltbie preferred to deport Moussaoui to France, where he could be searched more freely."

Sounds like his supervisor was trying to accomplish the same thing, just not the way Samit wanted it.

So their job is to bother the head of the CIA with a briefing on every warrant they refuse to grant no matter how often the agent begs for it?

Their job would be to brief the CIA about a credible threat, yes. You do understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, right? Just because they did not have enough PC to get into that bag does not mean there weren't concerns. Out of curiosity, do you actually have a background in law enforcement or are you just a hobbyist?

You're probably missing some real good TV....

See, that's where you kind of ceased discussing the subject and turned into a conspiracy theorist.

Let's get this back on track. Yes, Samit was correct in his suspicions. Unfortunately, his superiors did not think he had enough PC for a warrant. Samit's job was to write the best affidavit he could. His supervisor's job was to decide if it was enough. The decision not to go forward was a legal call they had to make, separate from the accuracy (or not) of Samit's belief. Even if Samit had obtained a warrant, there is no telling if the search results would have had any effect or not on the events of 911.

From another point of view, one could blame Samit for not doing a good enough investigation in the first place. I don't think that for a minute but it's the same kind of spin.

"As a certified private pilot himself, Samit was suspicious, suspecting that Moussaoui was plotting an act of international terrorism against the United States. He therefore sought permission to search Moussaoui's belongings which were known to include several bags and suitcases, and a laptop computer. The first application to obtain a criminal search warrant was denied by FBI Headquarters on the ground of insufficient evidence. A second application to search was made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but this was also denied. The FBI did obtain a search warrant for the belongings, but only after the September 11th attacks. The Minneapolis Field Office had received a report from Moussaoui's home government of France that linked him to Islamic terrorism, but the FBI Headquarters in Washington did not believe that evidence was sufficient to present to the FISA court for a search warrant. On the question of using foreign government intelligence to validate a request for a domestic search warrant through the FISA court, it is unclear if the Field Office could have appealed administratively to the White House National Security Council. Had the belongings been opened before September 11, knives, flight manuals, and other clues would have been found. Whether these clues would have sparked a national emergency or simply been treated like the August 6 memo entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US is subject to debate."

 

[carlitos]

I In over 18,500 search warrant requests to the FISA court only 5 had ever been rejected.

But hundreds have been modified before being granted. And I think these numbers are a bit dated.

 

[paloalto]

Have you ever disagreed with your boss? Samit felt he had PC, his supervisor didn't. Interesting Samit never made another request or tried to develop more PC. I asked you before, how many years do you think Samit had been an agent? How many years do you think his supervisor had been one?

From your own link: "Samit said Maltbie preferred to deport Moussaoui to France, where he could be searched more freely."

Sounds like his supervisor was trying to accomplish the same thing, just not the way Samit wanted it.



Their job would be to brief the CIA about a credible threat, yes. You do understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, right? Just because they did not have enough PC to get into that bag does not mean there weren't concerns. Out of curiosity, do you actually have a background in law enforcement or are you just a hobbyist?



See, that's where you kind of ceased discussing the subject and turned into a conspiracy theorist.

Let's get this back on track. Yes, Samit was correct in his suspicions. Unfortunately, his superiors did not think he had enough PC for a warrant. Samit's job was to write the best affidavit he could. His supervisor's job was to decide if it was enough. The decision not to go forward was a legal call they had to make, separate from the accuracy (or not) of Samit's belief. Even if Samit had obtained a warrant, there is no telling if the search results would have had any effect or not on the events of 911.

From another point of view, one could blame Samit for not doing a good enough investigation in the first place. I don't think that for a minute but it's the same kind of spin.

"As a certified private pilot himself, Samit was suspicious, suspecting that Moussaoui was plotting an act of international terrorism against the United States. He therefore sought permission to search Moussaoui's belongings which were known to include several bags and suitcases, and a laptop computer. The first application to obtain a criminal search warrant was denied by FBI Headquarters on the ground of insufficient evidence. A second application to search was made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but this was also denied. The FBI did obtain a search warrant for the belongings, but only after the September 11th attacks. The Minneapolis Field Office had received a report from Moussaoui's home government of France that linked him to Islamic terrorism, but the FBI Headquarters in Washington did not believe that evidence was sufficient to present to the FISA court for a search warrant. On the question of using foreign government intelligence to validate a request for a domestic search warrant through the FISA court, it is unclear if the Field Office could have appealed administratively to the White House National Security Council. Had the belongings been opened before September 11, knives, flight manuals, and other clues would have been found. Whether these clues would have sparked a national emergency or simply been treated like the August 6 memo entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US is subject to debate."

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia piece you posted about searching Moussaoui’s duffel bag deliberately was trying to be deceptive, but that is also exactly what the DOJ IG did in his DOJ IG report. The DOJ IG stated that not getting a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag did not make any difference because there were no plans or other information that could have allowed the Minneapolis agents to uncover the plans for the attack on 9/11.

But Samit testified at the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui that once he obtained a search warrant for Moussaoui's duffle bag he found the receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, traced that to his phone in Germany and then from phone records to the UAE paymaster and then to most of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11.

But the Wikipedia piece left out this horrific detail. But anyone who has followed this case knew this information, so why did you post a deliberately deceptive account of what was found in Moussaoui’s duffel bag, when it was the contents of Moussaoui’s duffel bag that broke the case wide open, unfortunately after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place and almost 3000 people murdered?

It turns out in terrorism cases, very little information will be known about the target especially since most of the time they were overseas. But from a common sense point of view Samit had more than enough probable cause to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. No has explained when the RFU mangers blocked Samit’s search warrant, and they already knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was coming, knew that Moussaoui was thought to be a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 without even a pilot’s license, and had large amounts of money in his bank account he refused to explain where it came from, why they did this?

Even his flight trainers thought Moussaoui was a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 in order to carry out some terrorists attack. When they blocked Samit’s search warrant they had to know that the result could be that thousands of Americans would be murdered by the other terrorists who were still left in place after Moussaoui’s arrest. NOBODY COULD BE THAT STUPID!

These managers at the RFU were supervised by Tom Wilshire, a former CIA officer and CIA plant at the FBI whose job initially was to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and then in July 2001, his job changed to criminally obstruct the FBI Cole bombing investigation and make sure the Kuala Lumpur information never reached Bongardt and his team. Once Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, Wilshire supervised FBI Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton to criminally and illegally shut down Bongardt's investigation, even when Wilshire knew the result would be blocking the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks that he and his managers knew were just about to take place inside of the US and result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

One wonders what influence he had over the decision of Maltbie and Frasca to block Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. This is especially true in light of Maltbie’s bizarre August 24, 2001 email to Wilshire, that stated there was no evidence of any nefarious motives by Moussaoui, during a time when Samit was going ballistic trying to get a search warrant in order to prevent any potential terrorist attack, and when there was a monumental amount of evidence to the contrary, an email that even today makes no sense and that no one has ever explained.

 

[paloalto]

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia piece you posted about searching Moussaoui’s duffel bag deliberately was trying to be deceptive, but that is also exactly what the DOJ IG did in his DOJ IG report. The DOJ IG stated that not getting a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag did not make any difference because there were no plans or other information that could have allowed the Minneapolis agents to uncover the plans for the attack on 9/11.

But Samit testified at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui that once he obtained a search warrant for Moussaoui's duffle bag he found the receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, traced that to his phone in Germany and then from phone records to the UAE paymaster and then to most of the terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11.

But the Wikipedia piece left out this horrific detail. But anyone who has followed this case knew this information, so why did you post a deliberately deceptive account of what was found in Moussaoui’s duffel bag, when it was the contents of Moussaoui’s duffel bag that broke the case wide open, unfortunately, after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place and almost 3000 people murdered?

It turns out in terrorism cases, very little information will be known about the target especially since most of the time they were overseas. But from a common sense point of view Samit had more than enough probable cause to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag. No has explained when the RFU mangers blocked Samit’s search warrant, and they already knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was coming, knew that Moussaoui was thought to be a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 without even a pilot’s license, and had large amounts of money in his bank account he refused to explain where it came from, why they did this?

Even his flight trainers thought Moussaoui was a terrorist trying to get training on a B747 in order to carry out some terrorists attack. When they blocked Samit’s search warrant they had to know that the result could be that thousands of Americans would be murdered by the other terrorists who were still left in place after Moussaoui’s arrest. NOBODY COULD BE THAT STUPID!

These managers at the RFU were supervised by Tom Wilshire, a former CIA officer and CIA plant at the FBI whose job initially was to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators and find out what they knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and then in July 2001, his job changed to criminally obstruct the FBI Cole bombing investigation and make sure the Kuala Lumpur information never reached Bongardt and his team. Once Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, Wilshire supervised FBI Agent Dina Corsi and her supervisor Rod Middleton to criminally and illegally shut down Bongardt's investigation, even when Wilshire knew the result would be blocking the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks that he and his managers knew were just about to take place inside of the US and result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

One wonders what influence he had over the decision of Maltbie and Frasca to block Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. This is especially true in light of Maltbie’s bizarre August 24, 2001 email to Wilshire, that stated there was no evidence of any nefarious motives by Moussaoui, during a time when Samit was going ballistic trying to get a search warrant in order to prevent any potential terrorist attack, and when there was a monumental amount of evidence to the contrary, an email that even today makes no sense and that no one has ever explained.

Of course all of this leaves out the giant elephant in the room. The FBI HQ and the CIA knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US in August 2001. The recent documents at http://news.intelwire.com/2012/05/exclusive-cia-documents-on-911.html reconfirm that the CIA and FBI HQ and many other high level US officials US knew this threat was imminent and real.

So why did the management of the FBI HQ and the CIA allow the Samit's Moussaoui investigation to be blocked and Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi to be completely shut down when the FBI HQ management and the CIA management knew that sabotaging these investigations would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks the FBI HQ and the CIA had been warned about and knew would kill thousands of Americans.

So the comment that "Yep, SA Samit's supervisors made a decision based on their years of training and experience. In hindsight we wish there had been more probable cause to obtain a court order. Unfortunately in their judgment there wasn't." overlooks the obvious question if the FBI HQ knew about this massive al Qaeda attack, and the CIA and even high level White House officials knew about this attack, why did the let these FBI criminal investigations of any and all al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US to be either blocked or shut down, when they knew it would result in the murder of thousands of Americans? The FBI HQ knew this because it was their own FBI HQ agents either blocking the Moussaoui’s investigation or shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. The CIA knew this because Tenet had admitted he knew about the Moussaoui investigation and the issues Samit was having trying to convince FBI HQ to let him have a search warrant. And it was the CIA's own spy inside of the FBI, Tom Wilshire, who was secretly working for his CIA managers Blee, Black, and Tenet while ostensibly working as the Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit over both the RFU with Maltbie and Frasca and the bin Laden unit with Corsi and Middleton, that was shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

To date no one has answered this very simple question.

 

[paloalto]

Perfect 20/20 hindsight. Well done.

That is why the US taxpayer spent 44 billion a year, to get foresight.

Explain why when the CIA and FBI knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans they shut down all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US. Explain why in 19 months and 44 Billion dollars a year the CIA and later the FBI HQ were somehow unable to give the information on the Mihdhar and Hazmi to the FBI Cole bombing investigators and allow them to pursue these al Qaeda terrorists known to be in the US so they could take part in a massive al Qaeda attack. What would just a simple email have cost, to have alerted FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and allow him to undertake the very investigation he had wanted to undertake for Mihdhar and Hazmi. What did we get for our 44 billion dollars spent each year on intelligence?

It looks like we got criminal obstruction of FBI criminal investigations and finally the murder of almost 3000 people on 9/11. It looks like the 44 billion dollars actually in fact was used to criminally obstruct FBI criminal investigations to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and this information incredibly now comes from US government reports on the official investigations of the attacks on 9/11. This is what the US government is actually now saying!

 

[kmortis]

Keep it on topic.
Keep it civil.
The topic is not the other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Robrob]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/aba0435l.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.