dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Nice to hear from somebody who has actually read the book.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary
- Thread starter Childlike Empress
- Start date
Nice to hear from somebody who has actually read the book.
jimd3100
Thinker
And if you can't trust Tenet (who accidentally "misspoke" about how the terrorists got into the country) and our lying terrorists Saudi Friends(who helped them once they were inside the country), and the President who awarded them all afterwards(by giving Medals and covering up Saudi's role -and didn't know anything about anything because his CIA and Saudi friends "didn't tell him anything") who can you trust?
Last edited:
In which case maybe paloalto would have done better to stick to that argument, rather than provide a less than accurate impression of what "State of Denial" actually said.
The information I posted as evidence was just the tip of a massive ice berg of information on these threats. In the interests of brevity my reply was limited to just a small part of the information that the CIA was aware of on these al Qaeda attacks in the summer of 2001. Here is just a bit more information on this al Qaeda threat the CIA and FBI HQ were aware of and on the briefing at the White House. :
On July 10, 2001:
CIA Director George Tenet finds the briefing that counterterrorism chief Cofer Black gave him earlier in the day (see July 10, 2001) so alarming that he calls National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice from his car as he heads to the White House and says he needs to see her right away, even though he has regular weekly meetings with her. [WASHINGTON POST, 10/1/2006] Tenet and Black let a third CIA official, Richard Blee, who is responsible for Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, brief Rice on the latest intelligence. Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke are also present. [MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, 10/2/2006]
'Significant Attack' - Blee starts by saying, “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!” He argues that it is impossible to pick the specific day, saying Osama bin Laden “will attack when he believes the attack will be successful.” He mentions a range of threat information including:
A warning related to Chechen leader Ibn Khattab (see (July 9, 2001)) and seven pieces of intelligence the CIA recently received indicating there would soon be a terrorist attack (see July 9-10, 2001);
A mid-June statement by bin Laden to trainees that there would be an attack in the near future (see Mid-June 2001);
Information that talks about moving toward decisive acts;
Late-June information saying a “big event” was forthcoming;
Two separate bits of information collected “a few days before the meeting” in which people predicted a “stunning turn of events” in the weeks ahead. This may be a reference to intercepts of calls in Yemen, possibly involving the father-in-law of 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar (see June 30-July 1, 2001).
Multiple, Simultaneous Attacks in US Possible - Blee says that the attacks will be “spectacular,” they will be designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests, there may be multiple, simultaneous attacks, and they may be in the US itself. Blee discounts the possibility of disinformation, as bin Laden’s threats are known to the public in the Middle East and there will be a loss of face, funds, and popularity if they are not carried out. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush. The meeting will not be mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft receive the same CIA briefing about a likely imminent, multiple, and simultaneous al-Qaeda strike that was given to the White House on July 10, 2001 (see July 10, 2001). In 2006, the State Department will reveal the two were briefed within a week of the White House briefing, at the request of National Security Adviser Rice. One official who helped prepare the briefing later describes it as a “ten on a scale of one to ten” that “connected the dots” to present a stark warning that al-Qaeda is ready to launch a new attack. A Pentagon spokesman says he has no information “about what may or may not have been briefed” to Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld does not answer questions about it. Ashcroft says he was not given any briefing and calls it “disappointing” that he was not briefed. After it is confirmed that Ashcroft was briefed, apparently on July 17, Ashcroft will still claim not to remember the briefing, and will say he only recalls another CIA briefing earlier in the month (see July 5, 2001). Journalist Andrew Cockburn later reports that, “according to several intelligence sources,” Rumsfeld’s reaction to the briefing at the time “was one of vehement dismissal, complete with cutting observations about the CIA falling victim to ‘vast doses of al-Qaeda disinformation’ and ‘mortal doses of gullibility.’” McClatchy Newspapers will comment that these briefings raise “new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.” On July 26, 2001, it will be reported that Ashcroft has stopped flying on commercial airlines within the US.
Notice the link that I had posted earlier, http://news.intelwire.com/2012/05/ex...ts-on-911.html. In these just released papers, found at this link, is a description that in July and August 2001 the al Qaeda terrorists were preparing their training camps to defend against air strikes by the America military. This is a sure sign that the threats the CIA and FBI HQ had been receiving were indeed real.
On June 12, 2001 according to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA learns that the attacks that they had been warned about since April 2001 are being directed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And the CIA already had been given the final phase of the Bojinka plot by Philippine intelligence from a confession by Abdul Hakim Murad, a KSM associate, which described in detail a plan by KSM. In this confession, Murad says that KSM had been planning a terrorist attack that would involve the hijacking of multiple aircraft in the US and target the WTC Towers 1 and 2, the Pentagon and the Capitol building along with other buildings in the US. This plot was also on the Razmi Yousef’s computer which Philippine intelligence had sized at the time they arrested Murad. So by July 10, 2001 the CIA knew this plan would kill large numbers if not thousands of Americans and would result in the destruction of the WTC Towers and parts of the Pentagon and the Capitol building.
I don’t know what more they needed to connect the dots.
The big question is why did the CIA not alert the White House or the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators to the presence of Nawaf al-Hazmi who was inside of the US at the time of the July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, or to the fact that they knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar had a US visa, clearly because he intended to take part in any attack that Hazmi was also part of. Also, while on July 10, 2001 the CIA clearly knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, they never gave this horrific information to the Cole bombing investigators.
Why did Tenet, Black and Blee refuse to give their own planted CIA spy at the FBI HQ, Tom Wilshire, permission twice on July 13, 2001 and on July 23, 2001 to pass the Kuala Lumpur information, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing, to the FBI Cole bombing investigators? July 13, 2001 was just three days after delivering their horroific warning to the White House. The CIA knew without this information that any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would be almost impossible for the FBI Cole bombing investigators to initiate. These FBI criminal investigators, without this Kuala Lumpur information, simply would never have the evidence they needed to initiate just such an investigation. And both the CIA and FBI HQ knew that without this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, there would be no way to prevent any terrorist attack al Qaeda was planning
On August 22, 2001 the FBI HQ and the CIA were alerted to the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack. A even more horrific questions is why when the CIA and FBI HQ, who both knew about this attack, did they let the 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 many Americans?
This does not make any sense at all.
The FBI HQ knew these investigations were being shut down, because it was their very own FBI HeadQuater's agents that were blocking the Moussaoui investigation (by Maltbie and Frasca) or shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi (by Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton). The CIA knew the investigations of al Qaeda terrorists were being blocked or shut down, because Tenet admitted he knew by August 23, 2001 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, former Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, 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, who was shutting down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.
To date no one has answered these very simple questions.
Do you type all this stuff out by hand every single time?
I like how you just blow by the fact that you were incorrect. That's the nice thing about the Gish Gallop; even if they prove you wrong on a given point, you just keep rolling.
I'd like to point out, again, that the fact that this "iceberg" of evidence is known to the public is itself a sign of incompetence.
You sure are quick to imply intent without evidence.
I like how you just blow by the fact that you were incorrect. That's the nice thing about the Gish Gallop; even if they prove you wrong on a given point, you just keep rolling.
I'd like to point out, again, that the fact that this "iceberg" of evidence is known to the public is itself a sign of incompetence.
You sure are quick to imply intent without evidence.
Last edited:
There was so much incriminating evidence there was no way the CIA or FBI HQ could keep all of this information hidden forever. It was like trying to hold water in a flour sieve. But your comment “the fact that this "iceberg" of evidence is known to the public is itself a sign of incompetence” not only does not show incompetence but shows an evil and nefarious competence.
How many of the criminals at the FBI HQ or CIA are in prison today for having allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 that had murdered almost 3000 people. These criminals were able to lie to the many government investigations even in public testimony with almost complete impunity, and then delay investigations and the release of important information and documents on these attacks until the American people had given up and lost interest. They were not incompetent at all but had carried off one the most horrific crimes in the annals of Americans history and then gotten away with it.
Even today when their massive crimes have largely been exposed, who in any position of authority is calling for a reopening of any investigation to make these criminals accountable for their crimes. Even Lawrence Wright, who won a Pulitzer prize for the book "Looming Tower", about the attacks on 9/11 and the nefarious role the CIA had played in allowing these attacks, and who has wondered out loud in interviews, why no one at the CIA has been held accountable for allowing the attacks on 9/11, has had his questions of accountability go absolutely nowhere.
Last edited:
So you only clearly misrepresented what "State of Denial" said "in the interests of brevity"? Uh-huh.
Last edited:
Because you post SPAM, ignoring the topic. Do you know what the topic is? Who is "Press for Truth"? Why did someone make up the idiotic press story of woo? The Topic? You make up wild claims, and have not tied your SPAM attack of nonsense to the OP.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Talk about poisoning the well and putting the cart before the horse!
Letting large amounts of evidence for your evil conspiracy be known to the public is incompetence. Engaging in a conspiracy that is too massive to cover up effectively is also incompetence.
Yes, they were so competent that random people on a forum can figure out their crimes, but not the freaking FBI investigation.
Or, y'know, you're just wrong.
Not what I'd call nutjobs ranting on internet forums.
No one, which would be entirely consistent with no crimes being committed.
He meant "accountable" for failing to protect the country, not "accountable" as in "deliberately and maliciously allowed the attack".
And you're still ignoring the fact that you were flat-out wrong. If there's so much evidence, why are you so studiously avoiding admitting that the one statement was incorrect? In fact, why have you not even addressed the matter except once, to try and spin off into your usual Gish Gallop? "Whoops, I misremembered" would be simple. The people in a debate who can't admit even minor errors can't be trusted to admit major ones either.
Good find and you are right. The book, "State of Denial" did spell out in terms that could not be mistaken that a huge al Qaeda attack was aimed at the US, and that Blee, Black and Tenet thought it was urgent that Rice do something immediately to prevent this imminent terrorist attack from taking place. But the information in this book did not spell out that at this meeting Rice, Hadley, and Clarke were told that many Americans would be killed in this attack, this detailed information that was presented at this meeting about "mass American causalities" was found in a different source, in the MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, on 10/2/2006. The now available information shows that this warning was actually given to Rice, Hadley and Clarke by Blee, Black and Tenet at this July 10, 2001 meeting.
My mistake on the source of this information, it was not Bob Woodward and his book "State of Denial" but by the MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, on 10/2/2006 that reported this information. But in his book, Woodward says Tenet’s description of this imminent attack was; “This will be the big one.”
At this July 10, 2001, meeting, it was reported that Blee starts by saying, “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!” He argues that it is impossible to pick the specific day, saying Osama bin Laden “will attack when he believes the attack will be successful.” Blee states that “the attacks will be “spectacular,” they will be designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests, there may be multiple, simultaneous attacks, and they may be in the US itself.” (NOTE Woodward states that this meeting was set up specially because Black and Tenet thought this attack was coming directly to the US.) Blee discounts the possibility of disinformation, as bin Laden’s threats are known to the public in the Middle East and there will be a loss of face, funds, and popularity if they are not carried out. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush. The meeting will not be mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. (Source MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, 10/2/2006).
Numerous other news organizations reported the following:
From Eleanor Hill, Staff director, for the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and Senate as reported in many newspapers in the US:
The July 2001 briefing for senior government officials said that based on a review of intelligence information over five months "we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks." "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning," it said.
Last edited:
I find it amazing how you say he is right, then make a claim that explicitly contradicts him. "American interests and America itself are likely targets of a terrorist attack" is not the same as "they knew for a fact that America would be attacked in a huge way and precisely how".
Your claims, however, aren't just that they knew lots of Americans would be killed in the attack. They are that they knew the targets, and the method, as you say here:
And your logic on that is basic in the extreme, essentially:
a) they knew the full details of KSM's Bojinka plan, including the targets,
b) they knew in June 2001 that KSM was running the latest al Qaeda plot, therefore
c) "So by July 10, 2001 the CIA knew this plan would kill large numbers if not thousands of Americans and would result in the destruction of the WTC Towers and parts of the Pentagon and the Capitol building."
But all you're doing here is presenting partial information as though it was definitive, when that's not the case at all.
I'm not sure you've ever listed all the Bojinka targets, for instance - you tend to list those that were hit on 9/11, then say "other buildings", if you mention them at all. Here's a more complete list.
Is it possible that, in the 6+ years between this interrogation and 9/11, other targets may have been considered? Of course. The idea that Tenet definitively knew the attacks "would result in the destruction of the WTC Towers and parts of the Pentagon and the Capitol building" is absurd.
You also make it sound as though the CIA knew for certain KSM was directing the attacks, but again, that's overly definitive. The History Commons item on that is here - they received a report that he was sending people to "various countries, including the US" (so it's not specific as to target, even the country), and there is doubt expressed over at least a part of this:
So no, it's not correct to say as though it was some entirely established fact that they knew for sure in June/ July that KSM was directing the attacks.
But even if they did know it was him, and even if they knew the attacks were to be in the US - neither of which you have shown - that still doesn't necessarily mean those attacks would bear any relation to Bojinka. In fact in summer 2001 it would have been just as easy to make the case that they'd have tried something entirely different this time, different targets, different methods.
And so if you want to establish as a definitive fact that "[Tenet] knew that these terrorists were inside of the US as to take part in a plan by KSM to hijack several large commercial aircraft and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and US Capital building" then you're going to have to do rather more than you've done so far.
Is this a logical argument or simply dogma?
Childlike Empress
Banned
You are pretending that what he just posted about the early July meeting is the same known stand of knowledge as what was known to be known at the late August meeting. Maybe read the post you linked there.
Last edited:
Apologies, I didn't phrase that well.
What I should have said was that the reasoning is absurd. The idea that you can say because the US knew about Bojinka, and received a report that KSM was sending agents to various countries including the US, therefore "Tenet definitively knew the attacks 'would result in the destruction of the WTC Towers and parts of the Pentagon and the Capitol building'", is absurd.
Obviously it's still possible that he knew every detail of the attack, which is where I erred in being overly definitive. But if that's the case, paloalto has singularly failed to show it here. Which is why I pointed out that, for instance, State of Denial, his own source, says "they did not know when, where or how".
I have. Even knowing that Midhar and Hazmi were inside the US is not proof that he knew they were to take part in a "plan by KSM to hijack several large commercial aircraft and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and US Capital building." It's not even evidence of that.
Childlike Empress
Banned
Really? Yet your whole post, as you repeat later, is based on the assertion that paloalto's claims are solely based on what was known in June/July. How dishonest. Read the rest of his posts one day and make sure that the 2012 stand of knowledge about the leading-up to 9/11 is represented on your website.
My posts are based on his own thread of logic. Taken from his own post. Which doesn't support his definitive claims.
If you have some other thread of logic which shows he wasn't being overly definitive, please summarise it here.
As for the "2012 stand of knowledge about the leading-up to 9/11", I'm actually talking to Darlow Smithson right now about getting a 9/11 documentary made on that (Who is Richard Blee etc, all of it). No idea if it'll happen or not, but it's worth a try, I think.
First intelligence is never so certain that you can ever say "you know for a fact...". But Woodward wrote; "On July 10, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet met with his counter terrorism chief, Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review that latest on Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization. Black laid out the case, comprised of communications intercepts and other TOP SECTRET intelligence, showing the increasing likelihood that al Qaeda would soon attack the US. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided that he and black should go to the White House immediately. Tenet called Rice from the car, and said he needed to see her now.”
This contrasted with "American interests and America itself are likely targets of a terrorist attack" that was what Woodard said was the information that Black gave to Rice. But it turns out that it was Blee that actually gave the briefing to Rice, Hadley and Clarke, and that Blee clearly said that the “the attacks will be “spectacular,” they will be designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests". It is also clear form this information that Tenet, Black, and Blee believed the attacks were imminent and would take place inside of the US.
So why the disconnect between what Tenet, Black, and Blee believed and what was said at this meeting. It is clear that Tenet, Black, and Blee believed a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US, but this is different from what they were willing to say in a meeting with top level officials. Since no one could predict exactly what the al Qaeda terrorists were going to do, being too specific could easily come back and make them look like a bunch of fools if for some reason this attack was postponed or canceled. This is the disconnect between what you believe and what can be said at a meeting with complete certainty.