Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

[BigAl]

Richard Clark made some harsh statements regarding the Bush Administration's failure to prevent attacks in today's WaPost:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../05/29/AR2009052901560.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Wow!

Clarke is right on but why is this news? What was known by the FBI field force has been known for years and the NSA knew stuff but because of there need for secrecy meant it took longer to become public but it has been public for a couple years.

The fault of the FBI and therefor the Bush administration was not to listen to their investigators and to act on what they knew. I recommend reading Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is a legitimate (I hope) question.

We now know that three of the top Al-Qaeda men in capture were tortured via waterboarding. Many speculate as to what we got from them via torture versus before torture.

Does anyone have a link or links to this information, or know where I might find some answers as to what these men told us before their captors started to waterboard them/

Thanks in advance.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Here is a legitimate (I hope) question.

We now know that three of the top Al-Qaeda men in capture were tortured via waterboarding. Many speculate as to what we got from them via torture versus before torture.

Does anyone have a link or links to this information, or know where I might find some answers as to what these men told us before their captors started to waterboard them/

Thanks in advance.

TAM

Assuming that KSM is one of the men you're referring to, there isn't much on what he said before waterboarding. The closest we get is that he refused to talk until he was able to meet with a lawyer, which was refused him. All of the info and his confessions appear to occur after the waterboarding begins.

 

[A W Smith]

Assuming that KSM is one of the men you're referring to, there isn't much on what he said before waterboarding. The closest we get is that he refused to talk until he was able to meet with a lawyer, which was refused him. All of the info and his confessions appear to occur after the waterboarding begins.

oh really?

from the book
http://www.amazon.com/Masterminds-Terror-Behind-Devastating-Terrorist/dp/1559707178

When star Al-Jazeera TV reporter Yosri Fouda received an anonymous call summoning him to a secret interview in Pakistan with al-Qaeda, he knew he could be walking into a deadly trap, as Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl had done only months before. But he took the risk and hit pay dirt. For 48 hours, Fouda listened as two of the world's most wanted men, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, head of al-Qaeda's military committee, and Ramzi Binalshibh, the link between Mohammed Atta and the senior al-Qaeda leadership, proudly claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon – the first time al-Qaeda took direct responsibility. During the course of the in-depth interview, they detailed exactly how, over a two-year period, the plot was conceived, planned, and executed. Based on that interview and hours of follow-up investigation, MASTERMINDS OF TERROR also contains dramatic accounts of the subsequent seizure of both Binalshibh and Mohammed and analyzes al-Qaeda's attempts to justify its actions on what it calls 'Holy Tuesday.'

 

[T.A.M.]

Assuming that KSM is one of the men you're referring to, there isn't much on what he said before waterboarding. The closest we get is that he refused to talk until he was able to meet with a lawyer, which was refused him. All of the info and his confessions appear to occur after the waterboarding begins.

I appreciate your information...however.

1. Upon what evidence or information do you make the assumption that all the info was gathered after waterboarding (is it based on his refusal to talk without a lawyer and no lawyer provided? if so, how do we know he did not just talk any way, lets say a week after they refused. Without documentation, we do not know.)?

2. Yes KSM, as well as Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. Do you have any info on these other two?

So really, the answer, from your research, is we do not know?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I appreciate your information...however.

1. Upon what evidence or information do you make the assumption that all the info was gathered after waterboarding (is it based on his refusal to talk without a lawyer and no lawyer provided? if so, how do we know he did not just talk any way, lets say a week after they refused. Without documentation, we do not know.)?

2. Yes KSM, as well as Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri. Do you have any info on these other two?

So really, the answer, from your research, is we do not know?

TAM

Looking through the reports of interviews before KSM's capture and after there are a lot of conflicting accounts.

A great deal of skepticism emerges in response for KSM's habit of taking credit for operations he couldn't have been involved in.

Fouda's initial interview was never backed up by the video, as promised and also generated a great deal of skepticism. For example,

the Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002]http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=yosri_fouda

I know you said you were interested in the other planners as well, but if you haven't already, I definitely recommend checking out this lengthy article describing the recent Red Cross interviews with KSM.

 

[T.A.M.]

Looking through the reports of interviews before KSM's capture and after there are a lot of conflicting accounts.

A great deal of skepticism emerges in response for KSM's habit of taking credit for operations he couldn't have been involved in.

Fouda's initial interview was never backed up by the video, as promised and also generated a great deal of skepticism. For example,



I know you said you were interested in the other planners as well, but if you haven't already, I definitely recommend checking out this lengthy article describing the recent Red Cross interviews with KSM.

I have bookmarked the article for reading.

In reading Shenon's book, in particular the last section, I have come to the conclusion that even those who opposed Zelikow etc...(such as Kerry) feel that the overall narrative of 9/11 is preserved, regardless of what might or might not have been obtained solely through torture. I would imagine this is due to secondary corroboration of testimony from the three, with facts known prior to their interrogation.

That said, it is troubling that there is no source available, to tell me what these people gave up prior to the torture.

TAM

 

[Toke]

That said, it is troubling that there is no source available, to tell me what these people gave up prior to the torture.

That does suggest to me that somebody is withholding information to show torture in a more efficient light. Perhaps trusting goverments and intelligency agencies is not my strong side.

 

[T.A.M.]

That does suggest to me that somebody is withholding information to show torture in a more efficient light. Perhaps trusting goverments and intelligency agencies is not my strong side.

I agree. Ultimately, I think it would be best to have the reports detailing what was learned from these men prior to the torture (either through voluntary confession, or non "enhanced" interrogation techinques) versus through torture.

In the absence of this however, I think the prudent (rather then the rush) thing to do is to take what we know they have told us, and use secondary sources to refute or confirm their testimony. It seems that that is what the commission attempted (at least in some cases to do).

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

That's a rather disturbing revelation.

It makes me wonder what kind of person would WANT to use torture given that they were perfectly capable of gathering information without it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Thank you TAM for starting this thread. there have been numerous valid questions about 9/11.

The one I have and would like to find out about deals with the "doomsday" planes which were caught on video on 9/11. (let me point out, I am NOT A TRUTHER.)

I have seen several videos which claim the "doomsday jets" were up flying on 9/11 right after the attacks. Now I can fully understand Airforce One for evacuating top individuals, but the videos show what appear to be these jets.

Were they flying on 9/11, and if so why?

 

[BigAl]

Thank you TAM for starting this thread. there have been numerous valid questions about 9/11.

The one I have and would like to find out about deals with the "doomsday" planes which were caught on video on 9/11. (let me point out, I am NOT A TRUTHER.)

I have seen several videos which claim the "doomsday jets" were up flying on 9/11 right after the attacks. Now I can fully understand Airforce One for evacuating top individuals, but the videos show what appear to be these jets.

Were they flying on 9/11, and if so why?

Why not? We were under attack and nobody knew when it would end until after it was over. Twoofers would try to make something out of it if they didn't take off.

 

[T.A.M.]

Thank you TAM for starting this thread. there have been numerous valid questions about 9/11.

The one I have and would like to find out about deals with the "doomsday" planes which were caught on video on 9/11. (let me point out, I am NOT A TRUTHER.)

I have seen several videos which claim the "doomsday jets" were up flying on 9/11 right after the attacks. Now I can fully understand Airforce One for evacuating top individuals, but the videos show what appear to be these jets.

Were they flying on 9/11, and if so why?

I am unsure, I have not looked into it. Gravy's site,

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

and 9/11 myths,

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

are great places to start.

In reading Clarke's "Against all Enemies" (highly recommended) I remember him stating that AWACS were up and about shortly after...not sure if it could be those, or C-130's.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thank you TAM for starting this thread. there have been numerous valid questions about 9/11.

The one I have and would like to find out about deals with the "doomsday" planes which were caught on video on 9/11. (let me point out, I am NOT A TRUTHER.)

I have seen several videos which claim the "doomsday jets" were up flying on 9/11 right after the attacks. Now I can fully understand Airforce One for evacuating top individuals, but the videos show what appear to be these jets.

Were they flying on 9/11, and if so why?

I am unsure, I have not looked into it. Gravy's site,

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

and 9/11 myths,

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

are great places to start.

In reading Clarke's "Against all Enemies" (highly recommended) I remember him stating that AWACS were up and about shortly after...not sure if it could be those, or C-130's.

TAM

I wonder if TruthersLie is referring to Venus 22, the 747 NECAP platform. That jet's been discussed in this forum before, the most recent thread being here.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Whoops! Did I say New York? Hard to recall, given that moderation is turned on for this thread. Anyway... Venus 22 was over DC, not New York. Was that the "white jet" being referred to?

ETA: Ok. Looks like I didn't say "New York". Whew!

 

[TruthersLie]

ElMondo and TAM

Thanks for the information. I am looking it over right now.

I do know that twoofs go crazy about those jets.

Thanks again.