FBI 9/11 Investigations

[plague311]

No, what annoys me is that there are people like you still dragging this MUCK around the internet claiming that thousands upon thousands of people were involved in covering up the most horrendous crime that ever happened in this country. Yet not one person of any consequence has come forward to substantiate this claim. If you were a person of honor, why haven’t you brought your information to the proper officials so that justice can be done?



Why haven’t you brought this information to the attention of those families? I’m sure they would be interested, especially the families of 346 of my brothers and sisters who perished on that day. I’m sure they will sympathize with you.

I was actually going to say something along these same lines. He verbally assaults our "side" for not listening to his ramblings and doing something about it. Trying to paint us like the bad guys because we don't believe the trash he's spouting.

Yet, instead of actually doing anything that would make progress towards "exposing the baddies" he doesn't absolutely nothing. Spamming a forum repeatedly, attempting to chastise us for not seeing through the lines.

 

[paloalto]

No, what annoys me is that there are people like you still dragging this MUCK around the internet claiming that thousands upon thousands of people were involved in covering up the most horrendous crime that ever happened in this country. Yet not one person of any consequence has come forward to substantiate this claim. If you were a person of honor, why haven’t you brought your information to the proper officials so that justice can be done?



Why haven’t you brought this information to the attention of those families? I’m sure they would be interested, especially the families of 346 of my brothers and sisters who perished on that day. I’m sure they will sympathize with you.

That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.

 

[Myriad]

According to page 301 of the Department of Justice Inspector General report, FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi knew had been told on August 22, 2001 that the CIA had the photograph of Walid bin Attash, reported to be the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, that had apparently been taken at the probable January 5-8, 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting.

She already knew had previously been told that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar had been at that same probable al Qaeda planning meeting and at this point that all three had been could conceivably have all been involved in planning the bombing of the USS Cole which was reported to have likely taken place at that meeting. Planning the bombing of the USS Cole was a major Federal crime.

So, if she happened to remember all this information, and find it all sufficiently credible, and had not received any false information to the contrary that muddied the picture, and was not distracted by other matters that appeared equally or more important, she knew might reasonably have concluded that there was no reason that this information should not immediately go to the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team. She never gave this information to Bongardt or anyone else on his team.

You asked recently in another thread what hindsight had to do with the matter. I have modified your quote above to remove the certainty, conclusiveness, and specificity of the narrative that can only be obtained by hindsight, to present the scenario in a manner more similar to how it would have appeared to those participating in it.

Everyone who works with imperfect sources of information and makes decisions based on information in the real world -- and that includes not only "spooks" but also journalists, historians, scientists, and business managers -- can see how your versions of these narratives apply hindsight to produce a distorted and misleading picture. This is, in fact, a common enough behavior that there is a very well-known office jargon term for it: "Monday morning quarterbacking." It's exactly equivalent to a water cooler blowhard saying, "The quarterback had a clear line of sight to Jenkins who was obviously wide open in the end zone. So why didn't he throw to him? He must have been throwing the game!"

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Spanx]

No offence until a crime is committed

What they should have done is arrested the suspects and charged them with holding. A passport, airline ticket and some box cutters.

 

[paloalto]

You asked recently in another thread what hindsight had to do with the matter. I have modified your quote above to remove the certainty, conclusiveness, and specificity of the narrative that can only be obtained by hindsight, to present the scenario in a manner more similar to how it would have appeared to those participating in it.

Everyone who works with imperfect sources of information and makes decisions based on information in the real world -- and that includes not only "spooks" but also journalists, historians, scientists, and business managers -- can see how your versions of these narratives apply hindsight to produce a distorted and misleading picture. This is, in fact, a common enough behavior that there is a very well-known office jargon term for it: "Monday morning quarterbacking." It's exactly equivalent to a water cooler blowhard saying, "The quarterback had a clear line of sight to Jenkins who was obviously wide open in the end zone. So why didn't he throw to him? He must have been throwing the game!"

Respectfully,
Myriad

She had photographs of these three al Qaeda terrorists taken at this meeting. In addition, she also had reports that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting from the NSA and had evidence from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Walid bin Attash had been the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

If you ignore information of this sort, because no amount of information will satisfy you, you send 3000 people to their deaths.

This information was available at least three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11.

Corsi not only had information by August 22, 2001, that the CIA had the photo of Walid bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, but knew that the CIA was keeping this photo secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

 

[DGM]

But this brings up a very interesting point.

Why are people on this forum defending the few criminal in the US government that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place?

Who's defending who, from what?

The only one that can be accused of sheltering (whoever) is you. Why do you refuse to bring this to the proper authorities? We're not stopping you.

Can you explain your inaction? Do you think we are the right "authority" to bring this to?

 

[ozeco41]

Good outline Oz, bookmarked.

Thanks. I occasionally set aside my engineering to dust off the legal part of my brain.

And, surprise surprise, paloalto wont put money where mouth is.

 

[mrbusdriver]

http://thecitizen.com/node/6419

Here is at least part of the coordination problem between NSA and FBI...

 

[fess]

That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.

The inter-agency withholding of information prior to 9/11 had been going on for years. And you didn’t know this? Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t a main topic discussed in grade school now was it?

I have no doubt that a certain amount of this practice is still going on to this day.

The boat that you say I missed sank many years ago, but people like you are still trying to fill it with ping pong balls trying to raise it again.

I guess you can say that I have nothing, being that neither you nor your predecessors had anything to begin with.

 

[Robrob]

What is your agenda?

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS TO DEFEND THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HAD ALLOWED THESES ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE!

I don't think anyone here has ever defended al Qaeda.

Time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.

Yep. Any number of times I've asked him to explain what crime and he's never replied.

Truther Nonsense Trickery would not even get into court let alone survive for any time before one of the procedural challenges had you thrown out.

But it's a CRIME I tell you, a CRIME!

 

[paloalto]

I don't think anyone here has ever defended al Qaeda.


Yep. Any number of times I've asked him to explain what crime and he's never replied.


But it's a CRIME I tell you, a CRIME!

I have already demonstrated many times that the CIA and FBI HQ had absolutely no legal right to either withhold information from the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing investigation, or shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and even Senator Carl Levin came to this exact same conclusion.

US Federal law based on court cases and impeachment of Federal officials the following are considered high crimes;

Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct

According to the following Federal courts have stated that; "no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance... that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government."

Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 provides:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed
Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) "is based on the federal interest of protecting the integrity of potential federal investigations by ensuring that transfers of information to federal law enforcement ... relating to the possible commission of federal offenses be truthful and unimpeded." United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1250 (11th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Applewhaite, 195 F.3d 679, 688 (3d Cir.1999) ("It is the integrity of the process, and the safety of those involved in it that Congress was seeking to protect in enacting § 1512."). Although a defendant [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] must have engaged in misleading conduct with the intent to "hinder, delay, or prevent" communication with a federal law enforcement officer, the statute makes clear that "no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance... that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g)(2). As the Third Circuit has observed, the statute instead requires only "that the government establish that the defendants [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] had the intent to influence an investigation that happened to be federal." Applewhaite, 195 F.3d at 687; see also United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 681 (1st Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407, 422 (5th Cir.1999)"

This makes clear that it is a Federal crime to engage in misleading conduct to withhold material information from any Federal law enforcement officer.

Claiming that Bongardt could not have the NSA information when clearly he could, is a Federal crime.

Knowledge that FBI Agent Dina Corsi, and FBI SSA Rod Middleton were criminally obstructing Bongardt’s investigation, is also a crime.

Withholding information, by CIA officer Clark Shannon, at the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York, in the face of a direct request from Federal FBI criminal agents on the Cole bombing investigation, asking ; “Who are these people [in these photos from Kuala Lumpur], why are you following them and what have they got to do with the Cole bombing, when the CIA clearly knew at this point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the USS Cole bombing is a crime.

The examples I have cited are in fact just the tip of a giant ice berg of evidence showing that the CIA and FBI HQ had criminally withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi numerous times from FBI criminal investigators

Shutting down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when you know that as a result thousands of Americans are going to be murdered in a horrific al Qaeda attack that Mihdhar and Hazmi will take part in, an attack that could be stopped by Bongardt’s investigation of these known al Qaeda terrorists, is a horrific crime.

As shown in the US Federal statutes, even covering this over as with the 9/11 Commission investigation and report and the DOJ IG investigation and report also constitutes a crime.

I don’t know how this could be made any clearer.

 

[Redwood]

Time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.

Truthers want Show Trials, not old-fashioned legal proceedings.

 

[BStrong]

That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.

Until you go to the IG and get indictments based on your assertions, you're just running your mouth with this ****.

 

[Myriad]

She had photographs of these three al Qaeda terrorists taken at this meeting. In addition, she also had reports that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting from the NSA and had evidence from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Walid bin Attash had been the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

If you ignore information of this sort, because no amount of information will satisfy you, you send 3000 people to their deaths.

This information was available at least three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11.

Corsi not only had information by August 22, 2001, that the CIA had the photo of Walid bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, but knew that the CIA was keeping this photo secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!

A lot of people believe, even today after multiple investigations and eleven years of historical perspective, that the attack really was an inside job and that the terrorists you named were mere dupes, if not totally innocent. For years they've been posting these beliefs and accusations in this very subforum. So could you fault Corsi for believing the same?

If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[paloalto]

Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!

A lot of people believe, even today after multiple investigations and eleven years of historical perspective, that the attack really was an inside job and that the terrorists you named were mere dupes, if not totally innocent. For years they've been posting these beliefs and accusations in this very subforum. So could you fault Corsi for believing the same?

If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad

"Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!"

Anything is possible, but I just never found any evidence, even the slight bit of evidence of what you are suggesting, and it seem pretty farfetched.

Why would she assume Bongardt and his team were in on it?

 

[paloalto]

Until you go to the IG and get indictments based on your assertions, you're just running your mouth with this ****.

The IG does not handle criminal prosecutions, the United States Attorney for Washington DC does.

 

[BStrong]

The IG does not handle criminal prosecutions, the Untied States Attorney for Washington DC does.

Then you know where to bring your case file.

Have at it and report back.

 

[Myriad]

Anything is possible, but I just never found any evidence, even the slight bit of evidence of what you are suggesting, and it seem pretty farfetched.

Why would she assume Bongardt and his team were in on it?

And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?

See if you can answer this part, because it's very similar to questions that really would likely also be asked by the defense, in a trial:

If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[paloalto]

And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?

See if you can answer this part, because it's very similar to questions that really would likely also be asked by the defense, in a trial:




Respectfully,
Myriad

“And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?”

I did not presume I was a prosecution witness at a trial in this reply just telling you what I personally thought, regardless of how improbable it was. I don’t believe anyone would say this at a trial.

"If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?"

Interesting point!

First the actual facts behind the attacks on 9/11 have been hidden from the millions of Americans even to today. There is no way they could possibly understand why these attacks were allowed to take place with the facts that they are aware of today, the facts that came out of the 9/11 Commission report and the main stream media coverage of this report. I have been listing numerious new facts on this forum.

These new facts are located in the DOJ IG report, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the Joint Inquiry Committee report, footnotes at the back of the 9/11 Commission report that very few Americans have ever read, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward on July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trail, which most Americans are complete unaware of even today.

So the American people just never had the information they needed to make any kind of intelligence analysis of this event. I had aggregated all of these documents together and tried to make as accurate as possible a complete account of the intelligence prior to the attacks on 9/11. I had no agenda other than to try to understand this issue.

The account I have presented is that account, and it tells a far different story than they did not share information, or the wall prevented information from going between the CIA and FBI.

It turns out as can be seen in my account that the CIA had actually taken over the ITOS unit at FBI HQ, so plenty of information was going to this FBI unit. It was this unit that prevented the Kuala Lumpur information from going to the FBI field agents on the Cole bombing, FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. It was also these FBI HQ ITOS agents that shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when the FBI HQ and the CIA knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. It was also FBI ITOS agents that blocked Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui

 

[fess]

“And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?”

I did not presume I was a prosecution witness at a trial in this reply just telling you what I personally thought, regardless of how improbable it was. I don’t believe anyone would say this at a trial.

"If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?"

Interesting point!

First the actual facts behind the attacks on 9/11 have been hidden from the millions of Americans even to today. There is no way they could possibly understand why these attacks were allowed to take place with the facts that they are aware of today, the facts that came out of the 9/11 Commission report and the main stream media coverage of this report. I have been listing numerious new facts on this forum.

These new facts are located in the DOJ IG report, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the Joint Inquiry Committee report, footnotes at the back of the 9/11 Commission report that very few Americans have ever read, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward on July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trail, which most Americans are complete unaware of even today.

So the American people just never had the information they needed to make any kind of intelligence analysis of this event. I had aggregated all of these documents together and tried to make as accurate as possible a complete account of the intelligence prior to the attacks on 9/11. I had no agenda other than to try to understand this issue.

The account I have presented is that account, and it tells a far different story than they did not share information, or the wall prevented information from going between the CIA and FBI.

It turns out as can be seen in my account that the CIA had actually taken over the ITOS unit at FBI HQ, so plenty of information was going to this FBI unit. It was this unit that prevented the Kuala Lumpur information from going to the FBI field agents on the Cole bombing, FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. It was also these FBI HQ ITOS agents that shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when the FBI HQ and the CIA knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. It was also FBI ITOS agents that blocked Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui

Boy, am I glad you showed up so I don’t have to listen to “the millions of Americans” who haven’t the slightest idea of what is going on in the world. Now I can listen to you and get a real edumacation.