What's your theory about 9/11?

[000063]

These did,indeed,occur to me. Which is why I said the Otis F15s were supposed to do a 'patriotic' flyover of the WTC AFTER WTC2 was hit so that people COULD SEE them & think it was a near miss (oopss just missed better luck next time..at least we know they TRIED).
I was never in the military (thank God) but the question itself is nothing but an appeal to authority because implied within it is the implication that I just can't understand things military or 911 & therefore must accept without question the claims of those who were. Appeal to authority is a well know debating technique & it has no place in a real discussion/debate about 911. It's a trick.

It would be, except it goes to indicate a possible lack of knowledge about military procedure. No one is demanding you accept the opinions of people in the military, though one does wonder why you dodged the question repeatedly. You've also offered opinions about the military which have been both proven wrong, and are, logically, inherently less likely to be true if you have not worked in or closely with the military.

Of course, Beachnut also showed you were quote-mining, while you were using your own appeal to emotion/authority. He also showed Smedley was using hyperbole. You even admitted he was right only a page back.

The same is true with the 'appeal to emotion' that Beachnut is so good at,"why do you spit on the military"?"make excuses for the terrorists" (predrawn conculsion) etc,etc. Those well know techniques have no place in a real debate about 911 because they are easily recognized for what they are:Techniques/tricks designed to sway the minds of readers with something other than (short of) REASON.

Such as making up nonsense about a "patriot flyover" without a scrap of evidence to indicate that was the plan, as well as other unbacked claims? You asserted that soldiers always obey orders, then promptly reversed that to claim the pilots would've fired without orders.

You never answered the question of how the fighter pilots would know the jets would be used as weapons. Or how many intercepts, ever, in similar situations.

 

[swright777]

These did,indeed,occur to me. Which is why I said the Otis F15s were supposed to do a 'patriotic' flyover of the WTC AFTER WTC2 was hit so that people COULD SEE them & think it was a near miss (oopss just missed better luck next time..at least we know they TRIED).
I was never in the military (thank God) but the question itself is nothing but an appeal to authority because implied within it is the implication that I just can't understand things military or 911 & therefore must accept without question the claims of those who were. Appeal to authority is a well know debating technique & it has no place in a real discussion/debate about 911. It's a trick.
The same is true with the 'appeal to emotion' that Beachnut is so good at,"why do you spit on the military"?"make excuses for the terrorists" (predrawn conculsion) etc,etc. Those well know techniques have no place in a real debate about 911 because they are easily recognized for what they are:Techniques/tricks designed to sway the minds of readers with something other than (short of) REASON.

It's not an appeal to authority. Your posts prove that you don't understand things military but you write them as if you do. It looks like Beachnut is trying to figure out where you get your misinformation.

I also thank God that you were never in the military, even though you might have a better understanding of things if you were.

 

[Garrison]

Reasons for the scramble that occur to a layman:

There was massive confusion over what was going on and having them on site if they were needed made sense at the time.

It might help calm panicking citizens to see them in the air.

And of course that old favourite, the need to be seen to be doing something, anything, regardless of whether it was useful.

Now if none of those occurred to you I really don't think you can expect to be taken very seriously at all.

These did,indeed,occur to me.

Great, now I cut all the speculation and innuendo and that was all that was left of your reply so could you explain on what actual evidence you chose to ignore those simple and reasonable explanations as to why the fighters would be dispatched?

 

[fess]

These did,indeed,occur to me. Which is why I said the Otis F15s were supposed to do a 'patriotic' flyover of the WTC AFTER WTC2 was hit so that people COULD SEE them & think it was a near miss (oopss just missed better luck next time..at least we know they TRIED).
I was never in the military (thank God) but the question itself is nothing but an appeal to authority because implied within it is the implication that I just can't understand things military or 911 & therefore must accept without question the claims of those who were. Appeal to authority is a well know debating technique & it has no place in a real discussion/debate about 911. It's a trick.
The same is true with the 'appeal to emotion' that Beachnut is so good at,"why do you spit on the military"?"make excuses for the terrorists" (predrawn conculsion) etc,etc. Those well know techniques have no place in a real debate about 911 because they are easily recognized for what they are:Techniques/tricks designed to sway the minds of readers with something other than (short of) REASON.

So, by the use of the term “patriotic flyover”, you consider the events of 9/11 to be no more than a sporting event?

And no, none of the pilots on this board are using an appeal to authority; we are only telling you that you are wrong. For a number of pages, you proved your knowledge of military aviation, or, aviation in general, came from copying and pasting from various websites. Some of which I might add were taken out of context. Were you trying to prove that your knowledge of flying is greater than that of the pilots on this board who have the actual experience of military flying?

 

[Justin39640]

So, by the use of the term “patriotic flyover”, you consider the events of 9/11 to be no more than a sporting event?

And no, none of the pilots on this board are using an appeal to authority; we are only telling you that you are wrong. For a number of pages, you proved your knowledge of military aviation, or, aviation in general, came from copying and pasting from various websites. Some of which I might add were taken out of context. Were you trying to prove that your knowledge of flying is greater than that of the pilots on this board who have the actual experience of military flying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rVE7haSLmE#t=25s

 

[fess]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rVE7haSLmE#t=25s

 

[paloalto]

ETA:
Your little theory about KSM being guilty but doing it as part of a CIA operation is probably the only 9/11 MIHOP theory that is even possible, albeit still implausible and totally unsupported by evidence. Perhaps if the twoof movement had gone with that instead of thermite, giant lasers, controlled demolition, fake phone calls, fake planes, no planes, flyover planes, ect, they wouldn't be the complete laughing stock that they are today.

But there is now abundant evidence found in US official documents supports that theory that the CIA using agents at FBI HQ, allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The CIA had moved one of their most important mangers, Tom Wilshire, in mid-May 2001 over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, the one unit at the FBI in charge of all investigations of terrorists in the world, to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators, FBI SA Ali Soufan and Steve Bongardt.

Soufan had sent a request directly to the CIA in April 2001 asking the CIA for any information they had on Walid bin Attash and on any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. The CIA was horrified after getting this request at the possibility that the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out one of the CIA’s most closely head secrets, that Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.

The first thing Wilshire did when at his new FBI position was ask FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting between the CIA, FBI HQ and the FBI Cole bombing investigators to find out what the FBI Cole bombing investigators knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. The CIA wanted to know, had the FBI Cole bombing investigators found out that bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi planning the Cole bombing. This had been the information that the CIA had been trying to keep secret since January 4, 2001 when bin Attash was positively identified from his photo taken at this meeting.

At this June 11, 2001 meeting Corsi presented the three photos of Khalid al Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA. Then CIA officer Clarke Shannon asked Bongardt and his team did they recognize anyone in these photos. Since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it and the CIA knew exactly what both Mihdhar and Hazmi looked like it is clear that the CIA only wanted to know if the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing. Even though Shannon, Wilshire and the management of the CIA knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing they refused to give this information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Wilshire, Shannon and the CIA even knew that Hazmi was already inside of the US and knew that Mihdhar had a US visa so he could join up later with Hazmi in a terrorist attack inside of the US.

On July 5, 2001 Wilshire sent email back to the CIA indicating that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings of the al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA had been warned about since
April 2001.

On July 13, he sent email back to his CIA ,managers asking for permission to turn the Kuala Lumpur information over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. On July 23, 2001 he sent this same request to his CIA managers Richard Blee, Cofer Black. Both requests were denied without explanation. In his July 23, 2001 email, Wilshire stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.

But the real horror story is that on August 22, 2001 the CIA found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and this information went to Wilshire and Corsi. Wilshire requested that Corsi write up a EC, to start a intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and not a criminal investigation to keep this investigation away from Bongardt and his team. Wilshire knew that an intelligence investigation would delay or outright prevent any criminal investigation by Bongardt from being even started, since the rules by the FBI OIPR would not allow both an intelligence investigation and criminal investigation on the same target at the same time.

On August 28, 2001 Corsi’s EC was sent to the New York FBI office and was sent accidentally by John Liguori to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. Bongardt called Corsi and asked that this investigation be given to him and his team. But Corsi refused and said that the NSA cable that was part of her EC prevented this EC from going to Bongardt, due to a NSA restriction placed on all NSA cables. But the NSA had already approved Corsi’s request to pass this information on to the FBI criminal investigators in New York on August 27, 2001, one day before she told him that he could not take part in this investigation.

When Bongardt protested and stated that this NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, the only real reason the NSA would deny this information from going to FBI criminal investigators, Corsi at Bongardt’s request contacted a NSLU attorney at FBI HQ. On August 29, 2001 she told Bongardt that the attorney had ruled that Bongardt could not take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But page 238 of the 9/11 Commission report, footnote 81, says that the attorney, Sherry Sabol, told Corsi that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 30, 2001 the CIA sent Rod Middleton the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, directly connecting both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. According to the DOJ IG report Corsi had known since August 22, 2001, that the CIA had this photo, knew it connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. In spite of both Corsi and Middleton having this information they never called Bongardt and asked that he restart his investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi and Middleton who had been directly supervised by Tom Wilshire had illegally shut down the one criminal investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton were aware of the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that was just about to take place inside of the US. Wilshire was secretly still working for the CIA while ostensibly working as a high level manager at the FBI HQ. Blee, Black and Tenet were also aware of this huge attack and still allowed Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton to block Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

What is even more horrific is that Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas, to have a secret 6 hour meeting with President Bush on August 24, 2001, when he knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA had been warned about since April 2001, and even knew that the FBI had already had Zacarias Moussaoui arrested when he had tried to get training on B747 simulator without even having a pilot’s license.

So what did Tenet tell Bush about Mihdhar, Hazmi and Moussaoui when he met with Bush on August 24, 2001. We still don’t know since when Tim Roemer asked Tenet at the April 14, 2004 public hearings what he told the President, Tenet said he not talked to Bush in all of August 2001, after admitting that he knew about this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack, and knew that thousands of Americans would be killed in this attack. Tenet said he had not only not talked to Bush in all of August 2001, but could not even explain why he had not called the President on the phone to give him this horrific information, a statement that left Roemer with his mouth hanging wide open in total disbelief, a statement that also left all of people in the 9/11 Commission hearing room in total disbelief.

 

[BasqueArch]

But there is now abundant evidence found in US official documents supports that theory that the CIA using agents at FBI HQ, allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The CIA had moved one of their most important mangers, Tom Wilshire, in mid-May 2001 over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, the one unit at the FBI in charge of all investigations of terrorists in the world, to spy on the FBI Cole bombing investigators, FBI SA Ali Soufan and Steve Bongardt.

Soufan had sent a request directly to the CIA in April 2001 asking the CIA for any information they had on Walid bin Attash and on any al Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000. The CIA was horrified after getting this request at the possibility that the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out one of the CIA’s most closely head secrets, that Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.

The first thing Wilshire did when at his new FBI position was ask FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi to set up a meeting between the CIA, FBI HQ and the FBI Cole bombing investigators to find out what the FBI Cole bombing investigators knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. The CIA wanted to know, had the FBI Cole bombing investigators found out that bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi planning the Cole bombing. This had been the information that the CIA had been trying to keep secret since January 4, 2001 when bin Attash was positively identified from his photo taken at this meeting.

At this June 11, 2001 meeting Corsi presented the three photos of Khalid al Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA. Then CIA officer Clarke Shannon asked Bongardt and his team did they recognize anyone in these photos. Since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it and the CIA knew exactly what both Mihdhar and Hazmi looked like it is clear that the CIA only wanted to know if the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing. Even though Shannon, Wilshire and the management of the CIA knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing they refused to give this information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Wilshire, Shannon and the CIA even knew that Hazmi was already inside of the US and knew that Mihdhar had a US visa so he could join up later with Hazmi in a terrorist attack inside of the US.

On July 5, 2001 Wilshire sent email back to the CIA indicating that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings of the al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA had been warned about since
April 2001.

On July 13, he sent email back to his CIA ,managers asking for permission to turn the Kuala Lumpur information over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. On July 23, 2001 he sent this same request to his CIA managers Richard Blee, Cofer Black. Both requests were denied without explanation. In his July 23, 2001 email, Wilshire stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.

But the real horror story is that on August 22, 2001 the CIA found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and this information went to Wilshire and Corsi. Wilshire requested that Corsi write up a EC, to start a intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and not a criminal investigation to keep this investigation away from Bongardt and his team. Wilshire knew that an intelligence investigation would delay or outright prevent any criminal investigation by Bongardt from being even started, since the rules by the FBI OIPR would not allow both an intelligence investigation and criminal investigation on the same target at the same time.

On August 28, 2001 Corsi’s EC was sent to the New York FBI office and was sent accidentally by John Liguori to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. Bongardt called Corsi and asked that this investigation be given to him and his team. But Corsi refused and said that the NSA cable that was part of her EC prevented this EC from going to Bongardt, due to a NSA restriction placed on all NSA cables. But the NSA had already approved Corsi’s request to pass this information on to the FBI criminal investigators in New York on August 27, 2001, one day before she told him that he could not take part in this investigation.

When Bongardt protested and stated that this NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, the only real reason the NSA would deny this information from going to FBI criminal investigators, Corsi at Bongardt’s request contacted a NSLU attorney at FBI HQ. On August 29, 2001 she told Bongardt that the attorney had ruled that Bongardt could not take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But page 238 of the 9/11 Commission report, footnote 81, says that the attorney, Sherry Sabol, told Corsi that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 30, 2001 the CIA sent Rod Middleton the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, directly connecting both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. According to the DOJ IG report Corsi had known since August 22, 2001, that the CIA had this photo, knew it connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. In spite of both Corsi and Middleton having this information they never called Bongardt and asked that he restart his investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi and Middleton who had been directly supervised by Tom Wilshire had illegally shut down the one criminal investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton were aware of the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that was just about to take place inside of the US. Wilshire was secretly still working for the CIA while ostensibly working as a high level manager at the FBI HQ. Blee, Black and Tenet were also aware of this huge attack and still allowed Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton to block Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

What is even more horrific is that Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas, to have a secret 6 hour meeting with President Bush on August 24, 2001, when he knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that the CIA had been warned about since April 2001, and even knew that the FBI had already had Zacarias Moussaoui arrested when he had tried to get training on B747 simulator without even having a pilot’s license.

So what did Tenet tell Bush about Mihdhar, Hazmi and Moussaoui when he met with Bush on August 24, 2001. We still don’t know since when Tim Roemer asked Tenet at the April 14, 2004 public hearings what he told the President, Tenet said he not talked to Bush in all of August 2001, after admitting that he knew about this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack, and knew that thousands of Americans would be killed in this attack. Tenet said he had not only not talked to Bush in all of August 2001, but could not even explain why he had not called the President on the phone to give him this horrific information, a statement that left Roemer with his mouth hanging wide open in total disbelief, a statement that also left all of people in the 9/11 Commission hearing room in total disbelief.

This rabbit-hole babbling lacks Pulitzer potential.

 

[paloalto]

This rabbit-hole babbling lacks Pulitzer potential.

If you have any valid objection to the accuracy of anything in the prior post please point it out. With all due respect, since you did not it is clear that your post is nothing but a snarky uniformed opinion that lacks any connection to any intelligent thought or to any factual information. Unfortunately the fact that you attack the prior post with nothing but unintelligent rambling and the lack of any facts from official US sources to back up your post just goes to show the complete bankruptcy of your ideas to rebut this post.

If you wish to present a intelligent rebuttal, please go the official US documents I have used and find any information that you think can rebut my post. You can start with the DOJ IG report, see pages 295-310 and then the article in the New Yorker July 10-17 2006, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, and the defense exhibits from the Moussaoui trial, particularly DE 939.

I have already posted the exact page numbers with the exact document that I had used to find the facts that I had presented in my post. The DOJ IG report is written with aliases to hide the real identity of the people in this report. But Dina Corsi, is aka Donna, Tom Wilshire is aka John, Steve Bongardt is aka Scott, and Rod Middleton is aka Rob. Ali Soufan has no alias as he is almost never mentioned in the DOJ IG report. It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Soufan is mentioned only once as “the New York FBI agent” who flew out to Islamabad, Pakistan on February 1, 2001 and sat right next to the Pakistan CIA Alat who had been present on January 4, 2001 when bin Attash was positively identified in a Kuala Lumpur photograph by the CIA/FBI joint source. When Soufan presented the Joint source with the Yemen obtained passport photo of bin Attash, the Pakistan alat said nothing to Soufan about the identification of bin Attash from the Kuala Lumpur photo just the month before, said nothing about this al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and said nothing about the photo of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur that had been shown to the CIA/FBI Joint source on January 4, 2001.

All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station. The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself. It was withholding this information that had ultimately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

 

[BasqueArch]

This rabbit-hole babbling lacks Pulitzer potential.

If you have any valid objection to the accuracy of anything in the prior post please point it out. With all due respect, since you did not it is clear that your post is nothing but a snarky uniformed opinion that lacks any connection to any intelligent thought or to any factual information. Unfortunately the fact that you attack the prior post with nothing but unintelligent rambling and the lack of any facts from official US sources to back up your post just goes to show the complete bankruptcy of your ideas to rebut this post.

If you wish to present a intelligent rebuttal, please go the official US documents I have used and find any information that you think can rebut my post. You can start with the DOJ IG report, see pages 295-310 and then the article in the New Yorker July 10-17 2006, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, and the defense exhibits from the Moussaoui trial, particularly DE 939.

I have already posted the exact page numbers with the exact document that I had used to find the facts that I had presented in my post. The DOJ IG report is written with aliases to hide the real identity of the people in this report. But Dina Corsi, is aka Donna, Tom Wilshire is aka John, Steve Bongardt is aka Scott, and Rod Middleton is aka Rob. Ali Soufan has no alias as he is almost never mentioned in the DOJ IG report. It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Soufan is mentioned only once as “the New York FBI agent” who flew out to Islamabad, Pakistan on February 1, 2001 and sat right next to the Pakistan CIA Alat who had been present on January 4, 2001 when bin Attash was positively identified in a Kuala Lumpur photograph by the CIA/FBI joint source. When Soufan presented the Joint source with the Yemen obtained passport photo of bin Attash, the Pakistan alat said nothing to Soufan about the identification of bin Attash from the Kuala Lumpur photo just the month before, said nothing about this al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and said nothing about the photo of Khalid al-Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur that had been shown to the CIA/FBI Joint source on January 4, 2001.

All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station. The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself. It was withholding this information that had ultimately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Very well, fair enough. Here is the longer version.

The claim that the 9/11 attacks were a part of an intentional government conspiracy by the FBI and CIA is false. Your claims are a combination of well known facts and unsubstantiated personal opinion.
A. Facts
1. Ali Soufan, Moussaoui, Alat, Cole bombing, Kuala Lumpur, bin Attash, al Qaeda, Khalid al-Mindhar, others, meetings, photographs, associations. All these are very well known undisputed published public facts provided by government investigations and form the bulk of your posts. These facts are not in dispute and in hindsight form and integrated narrative. Predicting the Past is a common gift.
2. There is no evidence the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

B. Opinions. (A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
Quotes paloalto
1. CIA allowed the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks to take place. “It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.”
2. CIA perpetrated a massive criminal conspiracy. “All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station.”
3. George Tenet orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy. “The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself.”

These personal opinions are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence for any of these claims.

CIA and FBI intelligence recorded shortcomings explain the failure to stop the Cole and 9/11 attacks.

DOJ IG concluded that deficiencies in FBI’s handling of intelligence, individual failures, systemic problems, lack of an effective analytical program, failure to use the FISA stature fully, inadequate organization, were the reasons for the success of al Qaeda’s Cole and 9/11 attacks, not that the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

From “Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks (November 2004)” - Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ IG) released publicly June 2006. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf

Quote DOJ IG (2006)
“CHAPTER SIX - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Our review found many deficiencies in the FBI’s handling of intelligence
information related to the September 11 attacks. In addition to individual
failures, which we detail at the end of each chapter, we found significant
systemic problems that undermined the FBI’s Counterterrorism Program. For
example, before the September 11 attacks the FBI lacked an effective
analytical program, failed to use the FISA statute fully, and was inadequately
organized to disseminate timely and sufficient information within the
Intelligence Community. As we detailed in this report, these systemic
problems significantly affected the FBI’s handling of the Phoenix Electronic
Communication (EC), the Moussaoui investigation, and the pursuit of
intelligence information relating to Hazmi and Mihdhar, two of the September
11 terrorists.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see the riveting, poignant documentary on the FBI’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, hero John O’Neill, that fleshes out the FBI’s systemic failures.
“The Man Who Knew”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

Quote PBS Frontline

“FRONTLINE's story on John O'Neill spotlights two central issues that emerged during the 9/11 Commission hearings held in the spring of 2004 investigating why the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the Sept. 11th terrorist attack:

- The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.
These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other. Read FRONTLINE's "What If" report for details.

- The 9/11 Commission hearings also revealed how the FBI was not capable of functioning as a domestic intelligence service because of limited resources as well as a culture and organization that emphasized a traditional law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. FBI agents were trained to build criminal cases that could be prosecuted. As the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement noted, "The Bureau rewarded agents based on statistics reflecting arrests, indictments and prosecutions. As a result, fields such as counterterrorism and counterintelligence, where investigations generally result in fewer prosecutions, were viewed as backwaters."
John O'Neill had run up against this FBI culture; his counterterrorism efforts directly threatened the dominance of the group who held sway over the bureau - the criminal division. O'Neill also fought to improve the FBI's resources and capabilities to fight the new terrorism, arguing for a plan that represented a seismic shift in the way the FBI had always operated. One example: He would have given authority to a new more analytic agent who would have enhanced technology to fight terrorism. As the 9/11 Commission hearings disclosed, "66 percent of the bureau analysts were not qualified to perform analytic duties."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/911commission.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, fleshed out and substantiated, with the bulk of your claims comprised of well known facts provided by the government’s investigations and journalists, plus unsubstantiated personal opinions:

No Pulitzer for you.
Or for anyone with similar claims.
QED.

 

[paloalto]

Very well, fair enough. Here is the longer version.

The claim that the 9/11 attacks were a part of an intentional government conspiracy by the FBI and CIA is false. Your claims are a combination of well known facts and unsubstantiated personal opinion.
A. Facts
1. Ali Soufan, Moussaoui, Alat, Cole bombing, Kuala Lumpur, bin Attash, al Qaeda, Khalid al-Mihdhar, others, meetings, photographs, associations. All these are very well known undisputed published public facts provided by government investigations and form the bulk of your posts. These facts are not in dispute and in hindsight form and integrated narrative. Predicting the Past is a common gift.
2. There is no evidence the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

B. Opinions. (A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
Quotes paloalto
1. CIA allowed the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks to take place. “It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.”
2. CIA perpetrated a massive criminal conspiracy. “All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station.”
3. George Tenet orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy. “The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself.”

These personal opinions are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence for any of these claims.

CIA and FBI intelligence recorded shortcomings explain the failure to stop the Cole and 9/11 attacks.

DOJ IG concluded that deficiencies in FBI’s handling of intelligence, individual failures, systemic problems, lack of an effective analytical program, failure to use the FISA stature fully, inadequate organization, were the reasons for the success of al Qaeda’s Cole and 9/11 attacks, not that the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

From “Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks (November 2004)” - Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ IG) released publicly June 2006. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf

Quote DOJ IG (2006)
“CHAPTER SIX - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Our review found many deficiencies in the FBI’s handling of intelligence
information related to the September 11 attacks. In addition to individual
failures, which we detail at the end of each chapter, we found significant
systemic problems that undermined the FBI’s Counterterrorism Program. For
example, before the September 11 attacks the FBI lacked an effective
analytical program, failed to use the FISA statute fully, and was inadequately
organized to disseminate timely and sufficient information within the
Intelligence Community. As we detailed in this report, these systemic
problems significantly affected the FBI’s handling of the Phoenix Electronic
Communication (EC), the Moussaoui investigation, and the pursuit of
intelligence information relating to Hazmi and Mihdhar, two of the September
11 terrorists.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see the riveting, poignant documentary on the FBI’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, hero John O’Neill, that fleshes out the FBI’s systemic failures.
“The Man Who Knew”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

Quote PBS Frontline

“FRONTLINE's story on John O'Neill spotlights two central issues that emerged during the 9/11 Commission hearings held in the spring of 2004 investigating why the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the Sept. 11th terrorist attack:

- The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.
These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other. Read FRONTLINE's "What If" report for details.

- The 9/11 Commission hearings also revealed how the FBI was not capable of functioning as a domestic intelligence service because of limited resources as well as a culture and organization that emphasized a traditional law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. FBI agents were trained to build criminal cases that could be prosecuted. As the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement noted, "The Bureau rewarded agents based on statistics reflecting arrests, indictments and prosecutions. As a result, fields such as counterterrorism and counterintelligence, where investigations generally result in fewer prosecutions, were viewed as backwaters."
John O'Neill had run up against this FBI culture; his counterterrorism efforts directly threatened the dominance of the group who held sway over the bureau - the criminal division. O'Neill also fought to improve the FBI's resources and capabilities to fight the new terrorism, arguing for a plan that represented a seismic shift in the way the FBI had always operated. One example: He would have given authority to a new more analytic agent who would have enhanced technology to fight terrorism. As the 9/11 Commission hearings disclosed, "66 percent of the bureau analysts were not qualified to perform analytic duties."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/911commission.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, fleshed out and substantiated, with the bulk of your claims comprised of well known facts provided by the government’s investigations and journalists, plus unsubstantiated personal opinions:

No Pulitzer for you.
Or for anyone with similar claims.
QED.

Thanks for your reasonably well researched reply. At least you are using the information that is now available to analyze what went wrong.

But your conclusions are still wrong for the following reasons.

The below conclusions are not backed up by this own DOJ IG report:

Quote DOJ IG (2006)
“CHAPTER SIX - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Our review found many deficiencies in the FBI’s handling of intelligence
information related to the September 11 attacks. In addition to individual
failures, which we detail at the end of each chapter, we found significant
systemic problems that undermined the FBI’s Counterterrorism Program. For
example, before the September 11 attacks the FBI lacked an effective
analytical program, failed to use the FISA statute fully, and was inadequately
organized to disseminate timely and sufficient information within the
Intelligence Community. As we detailed in this report, these systemic
problems significantly affected the FBI’s handling of the Phoenix Electronic
Communication (EC), the Moussaoui investigation, and the pursuit of
intelligence information relating to Hazmi and Mihdhar, two of the September
11 terrorists.”

This conclusion attempts to blame the 9/11 attacks on "the many deficiencies in the FBI’s handling of intelligence information related to the September 11 attacks". But this conclusion is contrary to the very information found in this DOJ IG report and from additional information found in the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trial.

This conclusion does not explain why the person who was directly supervising Corsi and Middleton, Tom Wilshire, a former Deputy Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit, and who knew immediately on August 22, 2001, when he and Corsi were told in Wilshire’s FBI office that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these two al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack, why he did not immediately alert the FBI criminal investigators to find these terrorists before they had time to carry out a al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US. Why did he not alert every manager at the FBI HQ that these two al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the for no other reasons than to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack.

Wilshire had sent an email to his CIA CTC managers Richard Blee, and Cofer Black on July 23, 2001 indicating that Mihdhar and Hazmi would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack. Wilshire worked with Corsi to write up a EC on August 22, 2001 to start an “intelligence investigation” for Mihdhar and Hazmi not a criminal investigation. But both Corsi and Wilshire knew that the CIA had a photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, (Wilshire knew that by January 2001, Corsi by August 22, 2001), knew that meant that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, knew that was a major crime that meant that this information should have gone immediately to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, Bongardt and his team. Yet not only was this information kept secret from Bongardt and his team, but when John Liguori sent Corsi’s EC to Bongardt on August 28, 2001, Corsi refused to allow Bongardt to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, even though Bongardt also knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack.

No deficiency in the FBI handling of information can explain why FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi told FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 28, 2001 that he could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, because the NSA did not allow the NSA information in her EC to go to any FBI criminal investigator when she had already been approved to give this information to Bongardt and his team by the NSA just the day before on August 27, 2001.

This DOJ IG conclusion does not explain why Corsi lied to shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. On August 28, 2001, after Corsi claimed the NSA information in her EC prevented Bongardt from getting her EC, Bongardt asked her to get a opinion from the NSLU attorneys at FBI HQ on the issue if he could start an investigation since Bongardt did not see any connection to this NSA information and any FISA warrant, the only reason why the NSA approval would even be needed to send this information to FBI criminal investigators.

Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the attorney she and her boss Rod Middleton had consulted had ruled that Bongardt could not take part in any investigation from Mihdhar and Hazmi. But the 9/11 Commission report page 538 foot note 81 says that on November 7, 2002 Sherry Sabol told DOJ IG investigators, testimony transcribed by the DOJ IG investigators, that she told Corsi that since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi, and also Middleton, her boss, had lied in order to shut down FBI Agent Steven Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when both she and Middleton knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US and also knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were al Qaeda terrorists who were going to take part in this attack.

On August 30 2001, the photo of Walid bin Attash was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton. So Corsi’s boss also knew by August 30, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing yet none of these people, Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire, called Bongardt to tell him to immediately start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

The conclusion in the DOJ IG report does not explain any of this and their conclusions are in fact contrary to the very information found in this report, clearly showing that even the DOJ IOG was obfuscating the facts around why the attacks on 9/11 had taken place.

While the DOJ IG report tried to write off Corsi’s crimes committed while trying to shut down Bongardt’s; investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi with “Corsi was confused over rules regarding FISA warrants”, the email she sent to John Liguori on August 29, 2001 show she was in no way confused when she shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation.

In email on August 29, 2001 to Liguori, Defense Exhibit #681, she says “if at such time as information is developed indication evidence of a substantial Federal crime this information will be passed over the wall”. But Corsi had already told DOJ IOG investigators that she knew by at least August 22, 2001 that the CIA had a photo of bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and knew this directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. This was 6 days before she shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Not only is this information about Corsi’s knowledge that the CIA had the photo of bin Attash in the DOJ IG report page 301, but the DOJ IG had the written testimony of Attorney Sherry Sabol, on November 7, 2002, indicating that she told Corsi that there was no reason to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. This written testimony clearly known to the DOJ IG and yet deliberately was left out of the DOJ IG report, as was the July 23, 2001 email by Wilshire back to his CTC managers indicating that Mihdhar was be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorists attack.

This is further evidence that the DOJ IG report, while in most cases was the most accurate had deliberately left out critical information directly pointing at the criminal culpability of FBI HQ agents and managers allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

 

[Starving for Truth]

SNIP

Shut up, fake truther disinfo agent and stick to the topic!
You don't belong to our truth movement, we don't want sophists like you, only real interested truth seekers!

 

[paloalto]

Very well, fair enough. Here is the longer version.

The claim that the 9/11 attacks were a part of an intentional government conspiracy by the FBI and CIA is false. Your claims are a combination of well known facts and unsubstantiated personal opinion.
A. Facts
1. Ali Soufan, Moussaoui, Alat, Cole bombing, Kuala Lumpur, bin Attash, al Qaeda, Khalid al-Mihdhar, others, meetings, photographs, associations. All these are very well known undisputed published public facts provided by government investigations and form the bulk of your posts. These facts are not in dispute and in hindsight form and integrated narrative. Predicting the Past is a common gift.
2. There is no evidence the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

B. Opinions. (A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
Quotes paloalto
1. CIA allowed the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks to take place. “It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.”
2. CIA perpetrated a massive criminal conspiracy. “All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station.”
3. George Tenet orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy. “The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself.”

These personal opinions are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence for any of these claims.

CIA and FBI intelligence recorded shortcomings explain the failure to stop the Cole and 9/11 attacks.

DOJ IG concluded that deficiencies in FBI’s handling of intelligence, individual failures, systemic problems, lack of an effective analytical program, failure to use the FISA stature fully, inadequate organization, were the reasons for the success of al Qaeda’s Cole and 9/11 attacks, not that the CIA and FBI knew beforehand that the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks would take place and allowed them to happen.

From “Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks (November 2004)” - Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ IG) released publicly June 2006. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf

Quote DOJ IG (2006)
“CHAPTER SIX - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Our review found many deficiencies in the FBI’s handling of intelligence
information related to the September 11 attacks. In addition to individual
failures, which we detail at the end of each chapter, we found significant
systemic problems that undermined the FBI’s Counterterrorism Program. For
example, before the September 11 attacks the FBI lacked an effective
analytical program, failed to use the FISA statute fully, and was inadequately
organized to disseminate timely and sufficient information within the
Intelligence Community. As we detailed in this report, these systemic
problems significantly affected the FBI’s handling of the Phoenix Electronic
Communication (EC), the Moussaoui investigation, and the pursuit of
intelligence information relating to Hazmi and Mihdhar, two of the September
11 terrorists.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see the riveting, poignant documentary on the FBI’s leading expert on Al Qaeda, hero John O’Neill, that fleshes out the FBI’s systemic failures.
“The Man Who Knew”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

Quote PBS Frontline

“FRONTLINE's story on John O'Neill spotlights two central issues that emerged during the 9/11 Commission hearings held in the spring of 2004 investigating why the U.S. intelligence community failed to prevent the Sept. 11th terrorist attack:

- The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.
These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other. Read FRONTLINE's "What If" report for details.

- The 9/11 Commission hearings also revealed how the FBI was not capable of functioning as a domestic intelligence service because of limited resources as well as a culture and organization that emphasized a traditional law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. FBI agents were trained to build criminal cases that could be prosecuted. As the 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement noted, "The Bureau rewarded agents based on statistics reflecting arrests, indictments and prosecutions. As a result, fields such as counterterrorism and counterintelligence, where investigations generally result in fewer prosecutions, were viewed as backwaters."
John O'Neill had run up against this FBI culture; his counterterrorism efforts directly threatened the dominance of the group who held sway over the bureau - the criminal division. O'Neill also fought to improve the FBI's resources and capabilities to fight the new terrorism, arguing for a plan that represented a seismic shift in the way the FBI had always operated. One example: He would have given authority to a new more analytic agent who would have enhanced technology to fight terrorism. As the 9/11 Commission hearings disclosed, "66 percent of the bureau analysts were not qualified to perform analytic duties."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/could/911commission.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, fleshed out and substantiated, with the bulk of your claims comprised of well known facts provided by the government’s investigations and journalists, plus unsubstantiated personal opinions:

No Pulitzer for you.
Or for anyone with similar claims.
QED.

To reply to”


"B. Opinions. (A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
Quotes paloalto
1. CIA allowed the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks to take place. “It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.”
2. CIA perpetrated a massive criminal conspiracy. “All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station.”
3. George Tenet orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy. “The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself.”

These personal opinions are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence for any of these claims."


It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.


Soufan was lead investigator on the Cole bombing, the most important criminal investigation at the FBI at this time. Yet he is almost completely left out of not only the DOJ IG report but the 9/11 Commission report. He was found in detail in the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright in the July 10-17, 2006 article on "the FBI agent who almost stopped the attacks on 9/11".

This article described several direct requests by Soufan to the CIA, for information on Walid bin Attash, and any meeting in southeast Asia/Kuala Lumpur. These requests were to the CIA Yemen station on November 2000, to the FBI Director Louis Freeh in November 2000, requesting that Freeh ask the CIA for any of this information and again to the CIA in April 2001 and July 2001 for this same information.

The fact that the CIA had this information and either deliberately did not give this information to Soufan or did not even reply to his requests was in fact a massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA, the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors on the USS Cole.

These requests were in fact left out of the DOJ IG report, in spite of the fact that Soufan was a FBI agent and must have been known to the DOJ IG, apparently in order to hide the fact that the CIA had criminally obstructed the criminal investigation of Soufan into the Cole bombing. The fact that Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had none of this information, when in fact the 9/11 Commission report, page 181, said that the CIA had given him much of this information in January 2000 and the NSA had also given him this same information in December 1999, see DOJ IG report pages 238-239, shows that even the director of the FBI had criminally obstructed his own investigation into the Cole bombing.

On January 4, 2001 Walid bin Attash was positively identified from his photo taken at Kuala Lumpur. Just after the identification, this information was known by the CIA Yemen Station, the CIA Pakistan Station and the CIA bin Laden unit as well by the CIA upper manager Blee, Black and Tenet. Yet this information was never given to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, until after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place, even though it directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were also at the Kuala Lumpur meeting at the same time, to the planning of the Cole bombing, yet more evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy.

The only person that had the direct oversight over all of these CIA units was CIA Director George Tenet. Cofer Black was over the CTC unit, the unit over the Bin Laden unit headed by Richard Blee. So it was Tenet, Black and Blee who had orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy to hide this information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. It was withholding this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, that had allowed Corsi and Middleton to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, which then allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.
.

 

[paloalto]

To reply to”


"B. Opinions. (A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
Quotes paloalto
1. CIA allowed the Cole bombing and 9/11 attacks to take place. “It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.”
2. CIA perpetrated a massive criminal conspiracy. “All of this information was kept completely secret from Soufan and the other FBI Cole bombing investigators in massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA that involved the Pakistan CIA Station, the Yemen CIA Station and the Bin Laden CIA Station, aka Alec Station.”
3. George Tenet orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy. “The only person that could have orchestrated this massive CIA criminal conspiracy was George Tenet himself.”

These personal opinions are unsubstantiated. You have no evidence for any of these claims."


It is clear that almost every mention of Soufan was left out of the DOJ IG report to hide the CIA criminal culpability in not only allowing the Cole bombing to take place but also the attacks on 9/11 to take place.


Soufan was lead investigator on the Cole bombing, the most important criminal investigation at the FBI at this time. Yet he is almost completely left out of not only the DOJ IG report but the 9/11 Commission report. He was found in detail in the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright in the July 10-17, 2006 article on "the FBI agent who almost stopped the attacks on 9/11".

This article described several direct requests by Soufan to the CIA, for information on Walid bin Attash, and any meeting in southeast Asia/Kuala Lumpur. These requests were to the CIA Yemen station on November 2000, to the FBI Director Louis Freeh in November 2000, requesting that Freeh ask the CIA for any of this information and again to the CIA in April 2001 and July 2001 for this same information.

The fact that the CIA had this information and either deliberately did not give this information to Soufan or did not even reply to his requests was in fact a massive criminal conspiracy by the CIA, the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors on the USS Cole.

These requests were in fact left out of the DOJ IG report, in spite of the fact that Soufan was a FBI agent and must have been known to the DOJ IG, apparently in order to hide the fact that the CIA had criminally obstructed the criminal investigation of Soufan into the Cole bombing. The fact that Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had none of this information, when in fact the 9/11 Commission report, page 181, said that the CIA had given him much of this information in January 2000 and the NSA had also given him this same information in December 1999, see DOJ IG report pages 238-239, shows that even the director of the FBI had criminally obstructed his own investigation into the Cole bombing.

On January 4, 2001 Walid bin Attash was positively identified from his photo taken at Kuala Lumpur. Just after the identification, this information was known by the CIA Yemen Station, the CIA Pakistan Station and the CIA bin Laden unit as well by the CIA upper manager Blee, Black and Tenet. Yet this information was never given to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, until after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place, even though it directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were also at the Kuala Lumpur meeting at the same time, to the planning of the Cole bombing, yet more evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy.

The only person that had the direct oversight over all of these CIA units was CIA Director George Tenet. Cofer Black was over the CTC unit, the unit over the Bin Laden unit headed by Richard Blee. So it was Tenet, Black and Blee who had orchestrated this massive criminal conspiracy to hide this information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. It was withholding this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, that had allowed Corsi and Middleton to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, which then allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.
.

My original post in this forum had been to respond to a question posted on this forum that the “theory about KSM being guilty but doing it as part of a CIA operation is probably the only 9/11 MIHOP theory that is even possible, albeit still implausible and totally unsupported by evidence”.

But how is the information I posted connected to Khalid Sheikh Mohamed?

I had already stated that the CIA had been trying to hide the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, after bin Attash had been positively identified at this meeting.

But this story only gets worse as more information comes out. There had never been any official US government document that placed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 5-8, 2000.

In May 20111 for the first time there was an official US government document that placed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed right at that meeting for the very first time, in fact staying with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi at the very condominium where this meeting had actually taken place.

What is the importance of this horrific information?

It is that the CIA had not only photographed 11-12 al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Affric bombings at this meeting and then let them all walk away, but that they had photographed Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at this same meeting, as he was actually planning the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers.

At the time of this meeting Khalid Sheikh Mohamed had a 2 million dollar FBI reward on his head for the Bojinka plot to place bombs on US airliners. The second part of this plot was to hijack many US airliners in the US and fly these into US symbolic targets, the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the US capital build among others. This plot had been given to the CIA and FBI HQ in the US by the Philippine intelligence authorities. Yet the CIA, who knew exactly what Khalid Sheikh Mohamed looked like and knew that he had this huge FBI reward on his head just let him just walk away to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

So why had this horrific information been kept secret for 11 years?

The following questions are to the people on this forum:

What US official document does this information now appear in?

And what large US main stream media organization did this information go to?

And why did this large US main stream media organization not report this information to the American people?

And finally what does this horrific information tell us about the CIA?

 

[beachnut]

... and Middleton to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, which then allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

Allowed? Where is your Pulitzer? lol SPAM attack again. Can't you answer your own questions?

Are you trying to get on topic? What are you doing to free KSM? Oh, you are convicting him.

 

[cecil1]

United States.

(15) "United States" means -

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity

of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/...USC):CITE AND (USC w/10 (3002)):CITE

The federal corporation known as the united states (according to uscode) will not give a care as a corporation is owned by shareholders, not the people.

For the people by the people is so horribly incorrect it's pathetic. Beachnut rofl.

Pretty sure no one here cares either Paloalto.

Good job though.

 

[beachnut]

United States.

(15) "United States" means -

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity

of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/...USC):CITE AND (USC w/10 (3002)):CITE

The federal corporation known as the united states (according to uscode) will not give a care as a corporation is owned by shareholders, not the people.

For the people by the people is so horribly incorrect it's pathetic. Beachnut rofl.

Pretty sure no one here cares either Paloalto.

Good job though.

Paloalto has failed to garner that Pulitzer. You could team up with a newspaper and do an end-run, earn a Pulitzer. But it seems your support here is the same as your support for September Clue(less), meaningless.

Are you trying to free KSM with your tacit support of 911 truth apologies for terrorists?

 

[twinstead]

United States.

(15) "United States" means -

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity

of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/...USC):CITE AND (USC w/10 (3002)):CITE

The federal corporation known as the united states (according to uscode) will not give a care as a corporation is owned by shareholders, not the people.

For the people by the people is so horribly incorrect it's pathetic. Beachnut rofl.

Pretty sure no one here cares either Paloalto.

Good job though.

I don't know what's worse, somebody who thinks he has it "all figured out", or somebody who arrogantly thinks he has it "all figured out".

 

[cecil1]

Paloalto has failed to garner that Pulitzer. You could team up with a newspaper and do an end-run, earn a Pulitzer. But it seems your support here is the same as your support for September Clue(less), meaningless.

Are you trying to free KSM with your tacit support of 911 truth apologies for terrorists?

How did you gather I support SC? I oppose it, hence looking for evidence it's bunk.

I support truth however.

What angers you more that I show you know very little about usa or I doubt everything you say, which?

 

[beachnut]

How did you gather I support SC? I oppose it, hence looking for evidence it's bunk.

I support truth however.

What angers you more that I show you know very little about usa or I doubt everything you say, which?

You support SC, you can't understand RADAR. Like you support fantasy conclusions. If you don't support lies like Paloalto has, and the lies of SC, then you would debunk them; you can't. Good luck with your failed 911 truth movement.