Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories

[Undesired Walrus]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

[elbe]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

This is clearly an attempt by the government to trick us into thinking they can't keep secrets and distract us from the Truth!

[BigAl]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Submissions

[Horatius]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?



Surely it doesn't.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6160430#post6160430

[paloalto]

The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.

You are partially right, this information was not kept secret. But you are wrong as to "Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories".

Using the governments own documentation, which has this information that has not been presented to the American public by MSM, you can see exactly who took part in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and even why, at least at the lower levels of the US large intelligence bureaucracies, people inside of the US government deliberately allowed these attacks to take place.

While you can then connect these people to people at very top of the US government, there is no documentation, that I have been able to find, as to why the people at the very top of the US government allowed these attacks to take place.

If you are seeing this information for the very first time, you are clearly not at all well informed as to what had occurred in the large US intelligence agencies prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to succeed. While the large MSM have not printed or provided this information, it is available with the most minimal effort for anyone that wants to know what had occurred that ultimately had allowed the attacks on 9/11.

[beachnut]

The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to ...
Prove it. Get a Pulitzer Prize. Your post qualifies you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist with zero evidence.

Made any progress on collecting the evidence since January 2010? With a good paper and some class work you could have earned a Masters Degree with a thesis to be used as a submission to earn the Pulitzer Prize. What did you do since you broke this "Story" in Jan 2010?

SIX Months, tic tock...



Your hearsay does not qualify as,
If you are seeing this information for the very first time, "information" in the form of evidence. You get your information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo.

Good luck; did you apply for the Pulitzer? lol

[Oystein]

The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.

You are partially right, this information was not kept secret. But you are wrong as to "Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories".

Using the governments own documentation, which has this information that has not been presented to the American public by MSM, you can see exactly who took part in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and even why, at least at the lower levels of the US large intelligence bureaucracies, people inside of the US government deliberately allowed these attacks to take place.

While you can then connect these people to people at very top of the US government, there is no documentation, that I have been able to find, as to why the people at the very top of the US government allowed these attacks to take place.

If you are seeing this information for the very first time, you are clearly not at all well informed as to what had occurred in the large US intelligence agencies prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to succeed. While the large MSM have not printed or provided this information, it is available with the most minimal effort for anyone that wants to know what had occurred that ultimately had allowed the attacks on 9/11.

Great!

Any names?

Any documents?

Sure you can spit out some starting points. Just don't be so vague.

[paloalto]

Your post qualifies you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist with zero evidence.





You get your information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo.



OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

[TexasJack]

OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

I'll alert the media.

[Thunder]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

ah...they only WANT you to think that!!

the 90,000 Afghan documents were purposefully leaked, by the NWO.

the goal? to make Obama the loser of this war, so that a stronger-bolder-more right wing Conservative will win the Presidency in 2012, and the Zionist plans can be finished!!

muhahahaha!!!

:p

[Thunder]

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

The Communists and Nazis also loved to make lists of their enemies. Its one of the first things authoritarian governments do, before they ship their enemies to death camps.

you are on your way..

[T.A.M.]

ah...they only WANT you to think that!!

the 90,000 Afghan documents were purposefully leaked, by the NWO.

the goal? to make Obama the loser of this war, so that a stronger-bolder-more right wing Conservative will win the Presidency in 2012, and the Zionist plans can be finished!!

muhahahaha!!!

:p

Sarah Palin : Rand Paul 2012!!!!!

TAM:)

[beachnut]

OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.
OOPS, You are right. You make up the woo, by taking information, messing it up so bad and twisting it; the web sites you think you get the "information" from are not "idiotic nut case web sites of woo", it was your web site that is an "idiotic nut case web site of woo". I made two errors.

You better apply for the Pulitzer Prize first; someone might take your vast pile of incriminating evidence (are you related to MM) and get the Pulitzer Prize first.

What did CBS do when you told them? How many news agencies have issued restraining orders to you?

[paloalto]

From the prior post:

OOPS, You are right. You make up the woo, by taking information, messing it up so bad and twisting it; the web sites you think you get the "information" from are not "idiotic nut case web sites of woo", it was your web site that is an "idiotic nut case web site of woo".


To look deeper into whether my web site is a "idiotic nut case web site of woo", I am listing one of the more important facts from this site that shows the information on this web site, where it came from and what interpretation I made from this information. The material is transcribed directly from US government web sites and sources, without edit or modification other than being shortened to fit this post:

The following is found in the Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan: page 66-67 THE NEW YORKER, JULY 10, 2006. This information was given to Lawrence Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan's assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was vetted by John Miller, information officer at the FBI.

"In November, 2000, a month after the Cole bombing, Soufan sent the agency (the CIA) the first of several official queries. On Soufan's behalf, the director of the F.B.I. sent a letter to the director of the C.I.A., formally ask*ing for information about Khallad, and whether there might have been an Al Qaeda meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia before the bombing. The agency said that it had nothing. Soufan trusted this response; he thought that he had a good working relationship with the agency."

From the DOJ IG report: Pages 238-239:

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. In early 2000, the NSA analyzed what appeared to be related communications concerning a "Khalid." The NSA's reporting about these communications was sent, among other places, to FBI Headquarters, the FBI's Washington and New York Field Offices, and the CIA's CTC. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

From the 9/11 Commission report, page 181:

“The Counterterrorist Center,(CTC CIA was headed by Cofer Black) had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on to Berger, the NSC staff and to Director Freeh and others at the FBI.”

It is clear that Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, knew about the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur that took place in January 2000, and even the first names of the several of the people who were to attend this meeting because the CIA had given him this very information in January 2000, before FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s request. In fact the CIA had photographs of Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and even Walid Bin Attash (the mastermind of the Cole bombing) that had been taken at that meeting, and even knew at this time that they had been actually planning this al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole at this meeting. This was because Soufan had already given the passport photo of Bin Attash to the CIA Yemen station earlier in November and had identified Bin Attash as the master mind of the Cole bombing. When the CIA compared this photograph to the one they had taken at Kuala Lumpur, they immediately knew that Bin Attash had been at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi and that if this came out the CIA would look culpable in this attack.

Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information. Freeh not only withheld this same information from FBI Agent Soufan, but even knew that the CIA had actually given him the very information Soufan was asking for. When Freeh withheld this information from Soufan, his own lead Cole bombing investigator, in November 2000, this was clear evidence that FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the CIA, had criminally obstructed the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing by withholding the critical information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Had this information been passed to the Cole investigators, they could have had the enough time to have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators already knew that Walid Bin Attash had flown to Bangkok, on January 8, 2000 from Kuala Lumpur. By checking the flight manifest for this flight, Soufan would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi sitting right next to Bin Attash, using one of his aliases, on this flight, since they already had had Mihdhar and Hazmi's first names.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators also already knew that Fahad al-Quso had been blocked from continuing his travels in Bangkok while trying to deliver money to Bin Attash in Kuala Lumpur, and that he had stayed at the Washington Hotel in Bangkok. Had Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators checked the Washington Hotel they would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had both stayed at this hotel, the week after January 8, 2000 just before they flew to the US.

It is highly likely that Soufan could have saved the lives of the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11 had Freeh given him the very information he was asking for and which he was in possession of. Unfortunately this was not to be and this criminal obstruction by Freeh and the CIA of the Cole bombing investigation and the murder of 17 US sailors has never been explained.

[aggle-rithm]

Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11.


And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.

[Furcifer]

The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.


This is just your bias showing.

If I remember correctly the CIA wasn't sharing information with the FBI and they lost track of 2? high level suspects when they entered the US.

Why is it the conspiracy theorists always seem to be racist or communist? They either expect the government to keep track of "all them there terrorist types" or they expect the government to rewrite the laws and take away civil liberties and freedom on a whim.

The shortest way to an Orwellian policed state is to listen to conspiracy paranoids. Thankfully they're few in number and don't actually vote.

[JihadJane]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.

Interesting theory.

[Horatius]

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.



Indeed. Even in small bureaucracies, stuff gets missed. Just today, one of my trainees at work had to track down why one of his requests (for someone to do something) from May had gotten lost. One stage had been done, and the next stage was just sort of sitting there. And this is in an organization with maybe 1000-1500 people, that does a very focused job, in which we all use the exact same computer system to monitor our workflow.

The CIA/FBI organization is guaranteed to be orders of magnitude more complicated than we are.

[JihadJane]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?


According to Assange (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38493475/ns/us_news-security/)these documents were available to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

If 9/11 were facilitated by a small cabal then their information would not be available to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

[Scott Sommers]

I think the really important questions are being ignored here. The issue is not that there was a coverup and who covered it up. What I presume most here are questioning is who did these things that were covered up? For example, I want to know,

1. Where was the large amount of thermite and other explosives made? I am told this thermite has special properties and could not be made in someone's basement. The making of it would involved highly trained experts. There would be a limited number of people with the knowledge to make this. Who are they?

2. Who transported it to the WTC buildings? I would like the name of a firm and drivers.

3. How was the thermite and other explosives put into place. It is often claimed that the controlled demolition of a building is a difficult task taking weeks of preparation. Answers to this question have not included methods that demolition experts believe would destroy a building. We need a believable explanation.

4. Who were the people that put the thermite and other explosives in place? It's not just that they did or even that they could have done it (which I doubt). I want to know who THEY are. Give them names. I know who the Watergate burglars are. Who are the WTC thermiters? Once again, this use of thermite to demolish buildings seems to be a unique skill not fully understood in conventional demolition circles. There would only a limited number of people who have this skill and they should be easy to identify.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

I'll even make you a bet. If you can give me credable answers to these questions, I will become a Truther. I will give up my life and join the Truth Crusade. I will seel my house, leave my wife, quit my job and join AE911 as a full-time volunteer. I will donate the proceeds from the sale of my house to AE911.

I swear this is a real promise.

[TruthersLie]

From the prior post:



To look deeper into whether my web site is a "idiotic nut case web site of woo", I am listing one of the more important facts from this site that shows the information on this web site, where it came from and what interpretation I made from this information. The material is transcribed directly from US government web sites and sources, without edit or modification other than being shortened to fit this post:

The following is found in the Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan: page 66-67 THE NEW YORKER, JULY 10, 2006. This information was given to Lawrence Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan's assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was vetted by John Miller, information officer at the FBI.

"In November, 2000, a month after the Cole bombing, Soufan sent the agency (the CIA) the first of several official queries. On Soufan's behalf, the director of the F.B.I. sent a letter to the director of the C.I.A., formally ask*ing for information about Khallad, and whether there might have been an Al Qaeda meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia before the bombing. The agency said that it had nothing. Soufan trusted this response; he thought that he had a good working relationship with the agency."

From the DOJ IG report: Pages 238-239:

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. In early 2000, the NSA analyzed what appeared to be related communications concerning a "Khalid." The NSA's reporting about these communications was sent, among other places, to FBI Headquarters, the FBI's Washington and New York Field Offices, and the CIA's CTC. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

From the 9/11 Commission report, page 181:

“The Counterterrorist Center,(CTC CIA was headed by Cofer Black) had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on to Berger, the NSC staff and to Director Freeh and others at the FBI.”

It is clear that Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, knew about the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur that took place in January 2000, and even the first names of the several of the people who were to attend this meeting because the CIA had given him this very information in January 2000, before FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s request. In fact the CIA had photographs of Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and even Walid Bin Attash (the mastermind of the Cole bombing) that had been taken at that meeting, and even knew at this time that they had been actually planning this al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole at this meeting. This was because Soufan had already given the passport photo of Bin Attash to the CIA Yemen station earlier in November and had identified Bin Attash as the master mind of the Cole bombing. When the CIA compared this photograph to the one they had taken at Kuala Lumpur, they immediately knew that Bin Attash had been at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi and that if this came out the CIA would look culpable in this attack.

Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information. Freeh not only withheld this same information from FBI Agent Soufan, but even knew that the CIA had actually given him the very information Soufan was asking for. When Freeh withheld this information from Soufan, his own lead Cole bombing investigator, in November 2000, this was clear evidence that FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the CIA, had criminally obstructed the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing by withholding the critical information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Had this information been passed to the Cole investigators, they could have had the enough time to have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators already knew that Walid Bin Attash had flown to Bangkok, on January 8, 2000 from Kuala Lumpur. By checking the flight manifest for this flight, Soufan would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi sitting right next to Bin Attash, using one of his aliases, on this flight, since they already had had Mihdhar and Hazmi's first names.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators also already knew that Fahad al-Quso had been blocked from continuing his travels in Bangkok while trying to deliver money to Bin Attash in Kuala Lumpur, and that he had stayed at the Washington Hotel in Bangkok. Had Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators checked the Washington Hotel they would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had both stayed at this hotel, the week after January 8, 2000 just before they flew to the US.

It is highly likely that Soufan could have saved the lives of the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11 had Freeh given him the very information he was asking for and which he was in possession of. Unfortunately this was not to be and this criminal obstruction by Freeh and the CIA of the Cole bombing investigation and the murder of 17 US sailors has never been explained.

See... here is the issue.
What did members of the US government know, and when did they know it.
There is very credible information that shows that many parts of the US intelligence KNEW something was happening. Unfortunately there is nothing to show it was a concerted effort to LET it happen.

It would really help if you looked into the great works like Spying Blind, and the Looming Tower. They outline how much was known and how it was juggled and lost in the bureacracy and political turf wars inside the FBI.

What you need to show is that the US government LET IT HAPPEN. There is NO evidence that they purposefully did so. There is plenty of evidence that there were some seriously incompetent folks who had NO idea how to protect the US from terrorism....

So instead of trying to spin a LIHOP .... just recognize for what it was. FUBAR and SNAFU.

[TruthersLie]

OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

Feel free to build a case. Piece by piece using the US government websites taht you seem to understand better than the rest of us.

Provide links, page numbers and quotations. Show this web of evil.

[TruthersLie]

This is just your bias showing.

If I remember correctly the CIA wasn't sharing information with the FBI and they lost track of 2? high level suspects when they entered the US.

Why is it the conspiracy theorists always seem to be racist or communist? They either expect the government to keep track of "all them there terrorist types" or they expect the government to rewrite the laws and take away civil liberties and freedom on a whim.

The shortest way to an Orwellian policed state is to listen to conspiracy paranoids. Thankfully they're few in number and don't actually vote.

Yes.

The books Shadow Factory and Spying Blind outline exactly what happened and how it happened.

In Shadow Factory they start talking about this FUBAR on page 16 through page 20. It is very indepth and well researched.

The CIA lost track of 2 known terrorists who came into the US who were later then hijackers on 9/11. They dropped them and lost them.

It is also funny because both of them were LIVING with an FBI informatnt who THOUGHT his handlers KNEW they were there.
(this part starts on page 22 and runs through the next 5 chapters).

LIHOP is the only scenero in which truthers have ever made me wonder.... but there is NO EVIDENCE that the government KNEW and LET IT HAPPEN. There is plenty of evidence that the many different parts of the government KNEW and dropped the ball through incompetence, political infighting, and turf wars.

PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.

[TruthersLie]

According to Assange (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38493475/ns/us_news-security/)these documents were available to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

If 9/11 were facilitated by a small cabal then their information would not be available to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

Oh JJ.

Fine. Please provide an alternative theory of what happened on 9/11. Include all of the relevant individuals necessary inside of this "small cabal."

We have done this dance before, and I loved it when you provided your "one person" theory. It made my day and made me laugh my ass off.

Provide a coherent theory that explains what happened, and who was involved.

[TruthersLie]

I think the really important questions are being ignored here. The issue is not that there was a coverup and who covered it up. What I presume most here are questioning is who did these things that were covered up? For example, I want to know,

1. Where was the large amount of thermite and other explosives made? I am told this thermite has special properties and could not be made in someone's basement. The making of it would involved highly trained experts. There would be a limited number of people with the knowledge to make this. Who are they?

2. Who transported it to the WTC buildings? I would like the name of a firm and drivers.

3. How was the thermite and other explosives put into place. It is often claimed that the controlled demolition of a building is a difficult task taking weeks of preparation. Answers to this question have not included methods that demolition experts believe would destroy a building. We need a believable explanation.

4. Who were the people that put the thermite and other explosives in place? It's not just that they did or even that they could have done it (which I doubt). I want to know who THEY are. Give them names. I know who the Watergate burglars are. Who are the WTC thermiters? Once again, this use of thermite to demolish buildings seems to be a unique skill not fully understood in conventional demolition circles. There would only a limited number of people who have this skill and they should be easy to identify.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

I'll even make you a bet. If you can give me credable answers to these questions, I will become a Truther. I will give up my life and join the Truth Crusade. I will seel my house, leave my wife, quit my job and join AE911 as a full-time volunteer. I will donate the proceeds from the sale of my house to AE911.

I swear this is a real promise.

Scott. That isn't fair. You are really asking for too much (it is some sort of logical fallacy IIRC, but I can't remember the name).

It won't take me too much to shift to trutherville.
1. Provide me a coherent theory of the events of the day. A full theory with names and faces not some "shadow cabal."
2. If it was any form of nanothermite/thermite/thermate, then show me thermite (Or any derivative) cutting through verticle steel columns. It should be easy.
3. Then show me the #2 across multiple steel columns all supporting the same load and have the whole thing collapse in a relatively short time... (say withing 2 to 5 seconds).

That is it. I'd be willing to embrace trutherism if they could just show me 2 of the 3.

[Scott Sommers]

Scott. That isn't fair. You are really asking for too much (it is some sort of logical fallacy IIRC, but I can't remember the name).

It won't take me too much to shift to trutherville.
1. Provide me a coherent theory of the events of the day. A full theory with names and faces not some "shadow cabal."
2. If it was any form of nanothermite/thermite/thermate, then show me thermite (Or any derivative) cutting through verticle steel columns. It should be easy.
3. Then show me the #2 across multiple steel columns all supporting the same load and have the whole thing collapse in a relatively short time... (say withing 2 to 5 seconds).

That is it. I'd be willing to embrace trutherism if they could just show me 2 of the 3.

I think you're a borderline Truther. That it could be done doesn't mean that it was. If they want my house, they have to show me that it was done. Asking questions after 9 years don't cut it. They have to give me some names.

[Furcifer]

LIHOP is the only scenero in which truthers have ever made me wonder.... but there is NO EVIDENCE that the government KNEW and LET IT HAPPEN. There is plenty of evidence that the many different parts of the government KNEW and dropped the ball through incompetence, political infighting, and turf wars.


Yah, this is the real reason to be pissed off at the US government. The CIA and the NSA were following these guys movements and phone calls in Yemen and they still managed to get VISA's from the state department. Then they spent something like 2 years in San Diego without the FBI being notified.

The icing on the cake though was Mihdhar and Hazmi staying in a Holiday Inn about a mile from the NSA headquarters.

This is the fine tuned super secret agency that pulled off the most elaborate hoax in human history to ensure $100 barrels of oil. :rolleyes:

[Oystein]

...
The icing on the cake though was Mihdhar and Hazmi staying in a Holiday Inn about a mile from the NSA headquarters.

That's straight out od Loose Change 2, and I always thought that Dylan was treating me as a fool for selling of this stupid argument. Did I not grasp anything there? Does the NSA look into everybody's pants who come within a few miles of headquarters?

This is the fine tuned super secret agency that pulled off the most elaborate hoax in human history to ensure $100 barrels of oil. :rolleyes:

Huh?

[SezMe]

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.
Can you be a little more precise than "shortly"? Gimme a date.

[Furcifer]

Huh?

Just a comment on the disconnect Truthers have from reality. The allegations that somehow the FBI or CIA could carry out a Controlled Demolition on the WTC with empty drone planes and fool the entire World is hysterical. They can't even coordinate their own agents to do what they are supposed to let alone a secret black op task force of 1000's.

[Scott Sommers]

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

I dare you. And don't give me a list that says Dick Cheney and George Bush. I want to know who made the nano-thermite and where this was manufactured. I want to know how it was transported in huge amounts to the wtc and who did it; who actually drove the truck. I want to know who carried it through the WTC and how they did this. And while you're at it, how long this took and where they got their lunch.

Tell me how the FDNY didn't clue into this on 911 or name me the names of fire fighters and police who keeping your secret.

Otherwise I've heard it all before and so has everyone here.

[SezMe]

...where they got their lunch.
Mort's Deli and Porn Shop. Corner of Broadway and W. 23rd. I thought everybody knew that.

[TruthersLie]

I think you're a borderline Truther. That it could be done doesn't mean that it was. If they want my house, they have to show me that it was done. Asking questions after 9 years don't cut it. They have to give me some names.

Scott.

I am just a skeptic who dislikes the US government. I disliked what they did in the aftermath of 9/11 so much I moved out of the US.

I detested the neocons and GWB in the 2000 election, and was sure that GWB had "pulled a fast one" to get to be president.

So maybe I would be sympathetic to trutherisms... after all if they were right, it would confirm my hatred of the neocon agenda, and my dislike for the US government.

Unfortunately, there is NO proof that it was an inside jobby job. So I have to defend a group I wouldn't cross the street to piss on if they were on fire. And the cognative dissonance is a bitch. :p

I don't demand perfection though. Just show me that it was POSSIBLE. I really am sympathetic to the IDEA that the 'big bad evil gubmint' could/would do something like 9/11. Look at all the other things they have done, the people they have hurt intentionally (syphallis testing, exposing folks to fallout and the rest).

I just wanted to point out that you seem to be doing a trutherism of the demand for perfection logical fallacy (like asking for 100% recreated flight 77/flight 93, or asking to see 110 floors pancaked from the towers).
I don't demand perfection... just show me the plausibility and ability to have done it. I really am not asking for much.

[TruthersLie]

That's straight out od Loose Change 2, and I always thought that Dylan was treating me as a fool for selling of this stupid argument. Did I not grasp anything there? Does the NSA look into everybody's pants who come within a few miles of headquarters?

Well when I was about 5 miles away from their headquarters, everything inside my pants was "inspected" by a very cute redhead who told me she was a spy... I enjoyed that NSA inspection so much I married her....

:cool:

[TruthersLie]

Mort's Deli and Porn Shop. Corner of Broadway and W. 23rd. I thought everybody knew that.

They make the BEST cucumber sandwiches laced with nanothermite
:eye-poppi

[Oystein]

They make the BEST cucumber sandwiches laced with nanothermite
:eye-poppi

Hmm how about a a chili burger, with nanothermite burning? Hottest treat in NYC! :cool:

[TruthersLie]

Hmm how about a a chili burger, with nanothermite burning? Hottest treat in NYC! :cool:

Oh speaking about that, I have to go and make my world famous nanothermite laced chili for dinner....

[JihadJane]

Oh JJ.

Fine. Please provide an alternative theory of what happened on 9/11. Include all of the relevant individuals necessary inside of this "small cabal."

We have done this dance before, and I loved it when you provided your "one person" theory. It made my day and made me laugh my ass off.

Provide a coherent theory that explains what happened, and who was involved.


Grow up.

Stay on topic.

[TruthersLie]

Grow up.

Stay on topic.

We are staying on topic.

You strayed into the "small cabal" territory. So please provide a coherent theory that uses a "small cabal." It should be easy.

It should be fantastically easy to lay it out.

Why can't any truther EVER do that? (besides for the wonderful antisemites who blame it all on the jews, we never get anything near a coherent theory....)

[aggle-rithm]

Interesting theory.

Anything you'd like to add to that?

[aggle-rithm]

Indeed. Even in small bureaucracies, stuff gets missed. Just today, one of my trainees at work had to track down why one of his requests (for someone to do something) from May had gotten lost. One stage had been done, and the next stage was just sort of sitting there. And this is in an organization with maybe 1000-1500 people, that does a very focused job, in which we all use the exact same computer system to monitor our workflow.

The CIA/FBI organization is guaranteed to be orders of magnitude more complicated than we are.

When we have a problem with our computer system, I sometimes run a trace on the database activity to troubleshoot. Within a few seconds, there are thousands of commands recorded in the trace. I know the answer is in there somewhere...but where?

And this is when I KNOW there's a problem. Imagine having to sift through all that information to find something that MIGHT be there.

Again...this is a small organization.

[Furcifer]

Again...this is a small organization.

Don't you love how this all plays into the conspiracy mindset? The government is watching EVERYONE, so it's just impossible to fathom how they couldn't know where every suspected terrorist on the planet is and what they had for breakfast.

They know man, they know!

[JihadJane]

We are staying on topic.

You strayed into the "small cabal" territory. So please provide a coherent theory that uses a "small cabal." It should be easy.

It should be fantastically easy to lay it out.

Why can't any truther EVER do that? (besides for the wonderful antisemites who blame it all on the jews, we never get anything near a coherent theory....)

Irrelevant to the OP.

Do you think Wikileaks has damaged alternative 9/11 theories?

Do you think the information available to only small cabal on a need-to-know basis, would be as widely available as that contained in the recent document release?

[jammonius]

Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

Greetings Walrus,

Thanks for posting this topic. I think it has importance. It is to be recalled that one of Wikileaks' earliest massive postings involed 9/11 pager messages:

"9/11 pager messages
On 25 November 2009, Wikileaks released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages from the day of the September 11 attacks.[131] Among the released messages are communications between Pentagon officials and New York City Police Department.[citation needed"

That data is good to have in the public domain.

There exists evidence of a certain bias at the helm of Wikileaks, including the statement attributed to Julian Assange, as follows:

""I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Source: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

That statement may serve to slow or even thwart Wikileaks' ability to be fair and unbiased with respect to other 9/11 data submittals it might receive.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, but it is doubtful that Wikileaks can be of use to 9/11 Whistleblowers.

Even more disquieting about Wikileaks' ability to publish 9/11 disclosures in future is the change from the original policy that allowed anyone to post anything. For a time, at least, there were no obstacles that would prevent 9/11 WHISTLEBLOWERS from posting their data at Wikileaks.

For what it is worth, the way in which to submit information to Wikileaks is:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Submissions

But, that was then. Now, there is a huge and significant limitation in effect at Wikileaks:

"However, Wikileaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest".[47] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records."[48] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, as the original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous Wikileaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it. [...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity."[49] After the 2010 relaunch, posting new comments to leaks was not possible any more.[50]"

47.^ "WikiLeaks' submissions page". Wikileaks.org. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Submissions. Retrieved 2010-06-17.
48.^ "Wikileaks and untracable document disclosure". Secrecy News (Federation of American Scientists). 3 January 2007. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/wikileaks_and_untraceable_docu.html. Retrieved 21 August 2008.
49.^ "What is Wikileaks? How does Wikileaks operate?". Wikileaks. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-05-04. http://web.archive.org/web/20080504122032/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About#What_is_Wikileaks.3F_How_does_Wiki leaks_operate.3F. Archived by the Internet Archive on May 4, 2008 from the original.
50.^ Dave Gilson (May 19, 2010). "WikiLeaks Gets A Facelift". Mother Jones. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/wikileaks-assange-returns. Retrieved 2010-06-17.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

When Assange's stated bias is coupled with the editorial policy, it is very clear that an alternative to Wikileaks is needed. Something entitled, perhaps, 9/11leaks based on use of the same sort of software that Wikileaks is based on should be set up forthwith.

Accordingly:

Now is the time for all true patriots to come to the aid of their country... :)

[Furcifer]

For a time, at least, there were no obstacles that would prevent 9/11 WHISTLEBLOWERS from posting their data at Wikileaks.


Now it's just old age. :cool:

The pager messages were yet another nail in the proverbial Truther coffin. Especially for the "no planers". You should give them a perusal.

[jammonius]

Now it's just old age. :cool:

The pager messages were yet another nail in the proverbial Truther coffin. Especially for the "no planers". You should give them a perusal.

I have given the data a perusal, which is not to say a thorough analysis. How thorough has your analysis been?

Perhaps that data may be best discussed in a separate thread? From what I remember about the data is that it was similar to the valid witness statements; i.e., lots of uncertainty about what happened with the main report being that of "an explosion."

Do you recall the data you reviewed as being different from what I recall?

[TruthersLie]

Irrelevant to the OP.

Do you think Wikileaks has damaged alternative 9/11 theories?

Do you think the information available to only small cabal on a need-to-know basis, would be as widely available as that contained in the recent document release?

You are the one who went off topic. YOu are the one which brought in the "small cabal" of insiders necessary (in your opinion) to do 9/11. I can link you to debuking911.com's list of several thousand individuals necessary to pull of 9/11 as based on the current truther theories.

so if you have a "small cabal" of individuals who would be in the know about 9/11 please identify them.

I think that Wikileaks is and has put the final nail in the rotting corpse that is the 9/11 truth movement. Watching how they have handled the US government over the state department papers and the afghan war papers shows us that any whistleblower who had inside information on 9/11 could EASILY leak those documents and be safe... yet no documents have been leaked. Go figure.

So again, tell me how "small" this "cabal" would be. Your ******** theory (which made me ROFLMAO) about only needing 1 person wouldn't work.

So first you need to develop ANY COHERENT THEORY that explains the events of the day. Then you need to show who this cabal is.

Personally I am reminded of the old saying "the only way to keep a secret between 3 people is if 2 of them are dead." Information LEAKS from EVERYTHING. US nuclear secrets, Missle launch codes, Mafia informers (we all know what happens to people who squeal, but they keep on squealing), heck good ole Billy Clinton couldn't keep a private affair with an intern secret... but we are supposed to believe that a "small cabal" of individuals, who would need massive amounts of "need to know" specialists, and yet not one has ever kept a document, an email, and none of them are smart enough to figure out what they helped do? REally?

so this is a plan created by a cross between the A team and Rainman... got it.

[Furcifer]

I have given the data a perusal, which is not to say a thorough analysis. How thorough has your analysis been?

Perhaps that data may be best discussed in a separate thread? From what I remember about the data is that it was similar to the valid witness statements; i.e., lots of uncertainty about what happened with the main report being that of "an explosion."

Do you recall the data you reviewed as being different from what I recall?

I went over several thousand last November. They're pretty mundane "Got to get pizza" kinda stuff. Hundreds referring to the planes that struck the Towers though.

I discovered the reference to the CIA "Acoustic Kitty" program, immediately after which wiki was edited, seen here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acoustic_Kitty&diff=330898893&oldid=328269121

It was subsequently edited out as being "trivial". Very unusual wouldn't you agree?


edit: here's the original post in that thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5347182#post5347182

[jaydeehess]

From the prior post:




The following is found in the Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan: page 66-67 THE NEW YORKER, JULY 10, 2006. This information was given to Lawrence Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan's assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was vetted by John Miller, information officer at the FBI.

"In November, 2000, a month after the Cole bombing, Soufan sent the agency (the CIA) the first of several official queries. On Soufan's behalf, the director of the F.B.I. sent a letter to the director of the C.I.A., formally ask*ing for information about Khallad, and whether there might have been an Al Qaeda meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia before the bombing. The agency said that it had nothing. Soufan trusted this response; he thought that he had a good working relationship with the agency."

From the DOJ IG report: Pages 238-239:

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. In early 2000, the NSA analyzed what appeared to be related communications concerning a "Khalid." The NSA's reporting about these communications was sent, among other places, to FBI Headquarters, the FBI's Washington and New York Field Offices, and the CIA's CTC. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

From the 9/11 Commission report, page 181:

“The Counterterrorist Center,(CTC CIA was headed by Cofer Black) had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on to Berger, the NSC staff and to Director Freeh and others at the FBI.”

From the above, you get:(?)

It is clear that Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, knew about the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur that took place in January 2000, and even the first names of the several of the people who were to attend this meeting because the CIA had given him this very information in January 2000, before FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s request. In fact the CIA had photographs of Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and even Walid Bin Attash (the mastermind of the Cole bombing) that had been taken at that meeting, and even knew at this time that they had been actually planning this al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole at this meeting. This was because Soufan had already given the passport photo of Bin Attash to the CIA Yemen station earlier in November and had identified Bin Attash as the master mind of the Cole bombing. When the CIA compared this photograph to the one they had taken at Kuala Lumpur, they immediately knew that Bin Attash had been at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi and that if this came out the CIA would look culpable in this attack.

Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information. Freeh not only withheld this same information from FBI Agent Soufan, but even knew that the CIA had actually given him the very information Soufan was asking for. When Freeh withheld this information from Soufan, his own lead Cole bombing investigator, in November 2000, this was clear evidence that FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the CIA, had criminally obstructed the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing by withholding the critical information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Had this information been passed to the Cole investigators, they could have had the enough time to have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators already knew that Walid Bin Attash had flown to Bangkok, on January 8, 2000 from Kuala Lumpur. By checking the flight manifest for this flight, Soufan would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi sitting right next to Bin Attash, using one of his aliases, on this flight, since they already had had Mihdhar and Hazmi's first names.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators also already knew that Fahad al-Quso had been blocked from continuing his travels in Bangkok while trying to deliver money to Bin Attash in Kuala Lumpur, and that he had stayed at the Washington Hotel in Bangkok. Had Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators checked the Washington Hotel they would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had both stayed at this hotel, the week after January 8, 2000 just before they flew to the US.

It is highly likely that Soufan could have saved the lives of the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11 had Freeh given him the very information he was asking for and which he was in possession of. Unfortunately this was not to be and this criminal obstruction by Freeh and the CIA of the Cole bombing investigation and the murder of 17 US sailors has never been explained.

I must be missing something. Freed supposedly with held info on the planning on the Cole bombing and had he not done so Soufan could have stopped the 9/11 hijackings?

Where is the actual connect between an investigation that leads to solving the Cole bombing , and the stopping of the multiple suicide hijackings in Sept 2001?

Furthermore, is the premise then a strict LIHOP senario in which the 9/11 plot was known by some (presumably Freed at least) but simply allowed to go through? That would allow for the exclusion of all drone planes, faked phone calls, thermite, explosives, space beams, decoy aircraft etc.

Paloalto?
Jihad Jane? (not your post but I forget, do you subscribe to a made it happen or a let it happen senario, or a bit of both?)

[SezMe]

Derail

I am just a skeptic who dislikes the US government. I disliked what they did in the aftermath of 9/11 so much I moved out of the US..

Moving from the USA to the UAE because of dislike of government is like jumping from the pot to the surface of the sun. Really?

/Derail

[paloalto]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.

This was clearly not the case of crucial information being missed because the FBI and the CIA are gigantic bureaucracies. This was out and out a criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh and by the CIA. Withholding material information from any ongoing FBI criminal investigation is a serious crime that can net the perpetrator or perpetrators years in prison. Both FBI Director Louis Freeh and the CIA knew this.

The act of withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators of the USS Cole bombing that had resulted in the murder of 17 US sailors was just the tip of a gigantic ice berg of continued criminal obstruction of the investigation of the USS Cole, by both the CIA and FBI HQ.

In addition the actions of both the DOJ IG Glenn Fine and the 9/11 Commission show that this was a serious crime, and that that official Washington knew that was a crime and that official Washington was trying to keep this information secret from the American public. Concealment is considered prima fascia evidence and proof in a court of law of intent to hide a serious crime. Both the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG kept secret and concealed the fact that FBI Agent Ali Soufan had made an official request to have the Director of the FBI, request from the CIA any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and any information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash.

This information never became public until the article in the July 10, 2006 edition of the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright. Does anyone believe that the DOJ IG Glenn Fine did not know who FBI Agent Ali Soufan was or that he did not know that Soufan had contacted the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh asking for this information in November 2000 and was told that the CIA had none of this information when in fact the CIA not had this information but even had photographs at that time of Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The DOJ IG had had access to all of this information including the official request from Soufan to Freeh and from Freeh to the CIA, in addition to having access to the information that was given to Freeh by the NSA and by the CIA in December 1999 and January 2000, and even had access to Freeh’s daily briefing papers where this information was also available. Since the 9/11 Commission had access to the information the DOJ IG investigators had there is also no way this criminal obstruction should not have appeared in the 9/11 Commission report. There was no possible way that the DOJ IG could have not have known that Freeh and the CIA had committed criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

[Sabretooth]

How thorough has your analysis been?

You should be careful with what you imply. I've yet to see you provide any data that suggests you have ever done as you inquire.

[Horatius]

This was clearly not the case of crucial information being missed because the FBI and the CIA are gigantic bureaucracies. .... Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh .... FBI Director Louis Freeh .... DOJ IG Glenn Fine ... DOJ IG .... the Director of the FBI, .... the DOJ IG Glenn Fine .....the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh .....The DOJ IG... to Freeh and from Freeh .... to Freeh ....to Freeh’s .... the DOJ IG .... the DOJ IG .... that Freeh ....


Do you really think that the heads of "gigantic bureaucracies" are aware of every single routine daily action that anyone in the department takes? Are you at all aware that many of their subordinates act in their name, as duly authorized deputies, to carry out the day-to-day functions of the Department?

Do you think the Director of the FBI personally vets every single request that goes out of the FBI to other agencies? That's not how "gigantic bureaucracies" work.

[TruthersLie]

Derail



Moving from the USA to the UAE because of dislike of government is like jumping from the pot to the surface of the sun. Really?

/Derail

I didn't move directly from the USA to the UAE. That would have been like jumping out of the pot onto the sun. We have sort of "ended up here."

Our first move was to central China to work in the oldest, poorest and most populated area of the country. From there we did some time in thailand, Japan and even Korea. In each of the places we have been, we have chosen to go and work and live in extremely poor areas where we felt we could do the most good.

We left because I was disgusted with the regime of the US.

After 3 other countries, we are now in the UAE. Where I also am extremely disgusted by the corruption, dishonesty and outright human rights violations.

I must say one thing for "leaving your country in disgust at the practices in them." It does wonders for making you actually love and realize the benefits of your country more.

[TruthersLie]

This was clearly not the case of crucial information being missed because the FBI and the CIA are gigantic bureaucracies. This was out and out a criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh and by the CIA. Withholding material information from any ongoing FBI criminal investigation is a serious crime that can net the perpetrator or perpetrators years in prison. Both FBI Director Louis Freeh and the CIA knew this.

The act of withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators of the USS Cole bombing that had resulted in the murder of 17 US sailors was just the tip of a gigantic ice berg of continued criminal obstruction of the investigation of the USS Cole, by both the CIA and FBI HQ.

In addition the actions of both the DOJ IG Glenn Fine and the 9/11 Commission show that this was a serious crime, and that that official Washington knew that was a crime and that official Washington was trying to keep this information secret from the American public. Concealment is considered prima fascia evidence and proof in a court of law of intent to hide a serious crime. Both the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG kept secret and concealed the fact that FBI Agent Ali Soufan had made an official request to have the Director of the FBI, request from the CIA any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and any information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash.

This information never became public until the article in the July 10, 2006 edition of the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright. Does anyone believe that the DOJ IG Glenn Fine did not know who FBI Agent Ali Soufan was or that he did not know that Soufan had contacted the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh asking for this information in November 2000 and was told that the CIA had none of this information when in fact the CIA not had this information but even had photographs at that time of Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The DOJ IG had had access to all of this information including the official request from Soufan to Freeh and from Freeh to the CIA, in addition to having access to the information that was given to Freeh by the NSA and by the CIA in December 1999 and January 2000, and even had access to Freeh’s daily briefing papers where this information was also available. Since the 9/11 Commission had access to the information the DOJ IG investigators had there is also no way this criminal obstruction should not have appeared in the 9/11 Commission report. There was no possible way that the DOJ IG could have not have known that Freeh and the CIA had committed criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

again and again you spew personal ignorance and personal incredulity.

You really should read some of the better books out there which cover what was know, who knew it and how it was missed.

Try
Looming Tower
Spying Blind
The Shadow factory

ONce you have finished those, feel free to come back and tell us what they got wrong.

[leftysergeant]

If 9/11 were facilitated by a small cabal then their information would not be available to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

This blows the inside jobby job out of the water.

It takes about twenty people to steal three aircraft and fly them into selected targets.

It would take several times as many to secretly make a couple hundred passengers disappear and to remotely pilot the planes into their targets. It would have to have been approved by at least a few dozen other functiuonaries within the government.

This gets ridiculously complicated when you start thinking of how they would then insure that none of this came to light.

When you finish with Occam's razor, all that remains of twoofishness is a pile of manure.

[JihadJane]

You are the one who went off topic. YOu are the one which brought in the "small cabal" of insiders necessary (in your opinion) to do 9/11. I can link you to debuking911.com's list of several thousand individuals necessary to pull of 9/11 as based on the current truther theories.

so if you have a "small cabal" of individuals who would be in the know about 9/11 please identify them.

I think that Wikileaks is and has put the final nail in the rotting corpse that is the 9/11 truth movement. Watching how they have handled the US government over the state department papers and the afghan war papers shows us that any whistleblower who had inside information on 9/11 could EASILY leak those documents and be safe... yet no documents have been leaked. Go figure.

So again, tell me how "small" this "cabal" would be. Your ******** theory (which made me ROFLMAO) about only needing 1 person wouldn't work.

So first you need to develop ANY COHERENT THEORY that explains the events of the day. Then you need to show who this cabal is.

Personally I am reminded of the old saying "the only way to keep a secret between 3 people is if 2 of them are dead." Information LEAKS from EVERYTHING. US nuclear secrets, Missle launch codes, Mafia informers (we all know what happens to people who squeal, but they keep on squealing), heck good ole Billy Clinton couldn't keep a private affair with an intern secret... but we are supposed to believe that a "small cabal" of individuals, who would need massive amounts of "need to know" specialists, and yet not one has ever kept a document, an email, and none of them are smart enough to figure out what they helped do? REally?

so this is a plan created by a cross between the A team and Rainman... got it.


'What is a conditional statement? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_conditional_statement)'

[jammonius]

...

I think that Wikileaks is and has put the final nail in the rotting corpse that is the 9/11 truth movement. Watching how they have handled the US government over the state department papers and the afghan war papers shows us that any whistleblower who had inside information on 9/11 could EASILY leak those documents and be safe... yet no documents have been leaked. Go figure.

The above portion of your post is of interest, as it is directly contrary to a post of mine, (poat # 44) also appearing on this page.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6211539&postcount=44

In addition to the obvious bias against 9/11 truth claims that the founder of wikileaks has displayed, there are a variety of other reasons that make your claim about the leaking of 9/11 information totally untenable.

For one thing, 9/11 was a massive psyop, unlike any of the matters for which leaked information have emerged. To date, wikileaks has received notoriety primarily because of a video depicting wanton slaughter in Iraq, a likely war crime; and, lots of chatter from Afghanistan, likewise detailing likely war crimes in a few instances out of a lot of otherwise banal and useless military and diplomatic chit chat.

There is a lot of 9/11 data that is comparable to that already in the public domain. For instance, Condoleeza Rice's claim that 'no one could have imagined hijacking of planes' was directly contradicted by the subsequent revelation that simulated hijackings were taking place on 9/11 at the time of the alleged hijackings.

The information concerning the military exercises on 9/11 is a key area where further leaks, when they occur, might well fracture the grip that the 9/11 psyop has upon the public's consciousness.

The list of people with military experience who have flat out said the common storyline of 9/11 makes no sense is, in and of itself, a form of whistleblowing.

The many disclosures by top ranking members of the 9/11 Commission or its staff are likewise sources of whistleblowing.

Clearly, then, your premise is factually untenable. When the facts are coupled with the bias exhibited by wikileaks' founder, we have a situation where the actual remedy needed is the formation of a website dedicated to "9/11 leaks" as wikileaks has obviously made itself an unworthy candidate for such leaks.



So again, tell me how "small" this "cabal" would be. Your ******** theory (which made me ROFLMAO) about only needing 1 person wouldn't work.

So first you need to develop ANY COHERENT THEORY that explains the events of the day. Then you need to show who this cabal is.

Personally I am reminded of the old saying "the only way to keep a secret between 3 people is if 2 of them are dead." Information LEAKS from EVERYTHING. US nuclear secrets, Missle launch codes, Mafia informers (we all know what happens to people who squeal, but they keep on squealing), heck good ole Billy Clinton couldn't keep a private affair with an intern secret... but we are supposed to believe that a "small cabal" of individuals, who would need massive amounts of "need to know" specialists, and yet not one has ever kept a document, an email, and none of them are smart enough to figure out what they helped do? REally?

so this is a plan created by a cross between the A team and Rainman... got it.

The above is awfully disjoined in my view and at variance with the actual state of development of the challenges to the common storyline of 9/11. Very few people actually advocate for the veracity of the common storyline; instead, the state of the art seems to be that the common storyline is still the beneficiary of something like a "plausibility standard" that it barely passes.

By and large, the common storyline is "believed" because the alternative to belief in it is too painful for many to deal with.

I personally think that is one reason why the reactions to evidence and information that I post up is usually of an emotional nature.

[twinstead]

Obvious bias against 9/11 truth claims? Are you KIDDING me? Is that how you rationalize it? More like he has an obvious bias against idiocy, jammonius.

[twinstead]

I personally think that is one reason why the reactions to evidence and information that I post up is usually of an emotional nature.

I personally think the reactions to your "evidence" is of an emotional nature because it is simultaneously breathtakingly stupid and stunningly caustic, but you can interpret it whatever way you want.

[jammonius]

Obvious bias against 9/11 truth claims? Are you KIDDING me? Is that how you rationalize it? More like he has an obvious bias against idiocy, jammonius.

Wait a minute, Twinstead, you've turned the concept of "rationalization" on its ear in your quoted post.

There is no reasonable basis for your having done that. The record on this is both clear and of recent vintage and forms the basis of the OP of this thread.

Julian Assange has stated as follows, as quoted by me, in post # 44:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Julian Assange may be the founder of wikileaks, but his opinion about what he calls "false conspiracies such as 9/11" is not an authoritative declaration about anything at all, much less a statement concerning what did or did not happen on 9/11.

What it does authoritatively establish is that the wikileaks founder has a bias against alternative theories concerning what happened on 9/11. If you disagree with this, would you kindly elaborate why you disagree and how, in coming to that state of disagreement, you can explain away Assange's stated and acknowledged 9/11 bias.

In addition, my post # 44 pointed out that wikileaks has an editorial policy where it can pick and choose what to publish and what not to publish. Given the announced bias of its founder, those who might like to post up leaks about 9/11 would be well advised to think twice before providing their information to wikileaks.

Unfortunately, that site, potentially useful though it may be, appears to have rendered itself totally useless in connection with 9/11 leaks.

That is too bad; but, at least we know what we're up against.

all the best

[jammonius]

I personally think the reactions to your "evidence" is of an emotional nature because it is simultaneously breathtakingly stupid and stunningly caustic, but you can interpret it whatever way you want.

Thank you for acknowledging that the reactions to my "evidence" is emotional. I appreciate that.

all the best :D

[TheRedWorm]

Thank you for acknowledging that the stuff you say can must be put in irony quotes.

[twinstead]

Thank you for acknowledging that the reactions to my "evidence" is emotional. I appreciate that.


LOL My pleasure. I think that disgust and bemusement are not the emotions you would prefer to get though.

[twinstead]

Wait a minute, Twinstead, you've turned the concept of "rationalization" on its ear in your quoted post.

There is no reasonable basis for your having done that. The record on this is both clear and of recent vintage and forms the basis of the OP of this thread.

Julian Assange has stated as follows, as quoted by me, in post # 44:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Julian Assange may be the founder of wikileaks, but his opinion about what he calls "false conspiracies such as 9/11" is not an authoritative declaration about anything at all, much less a statement concerning what did or did not happen on 9/11.

What it does authoritatively establish is that the wikileaks founder has a bias against alternative theories concerning what happened on 9/11. If you disagree with this, would you kindly elaborate why you disagree and how, in coming to that state of disagreement, you can explain away Assange's stated and acknowledged 9/11 bias.

In addition, my post # 44 pointed out that wikileaks has an editorial policy where it can pick and choose what to publish and what not to publish. Given the announced bias of its founder, those who might like to post up leaks about 9/11 would be well advised to think twice before providing their information to wikileaks.

Unfortunately, that site, potentially useful though it may be, appears to have rendered itself totally useless in connection with 9/11 leaks.

That is too bad; but, at least we know what we're up against.


Like I said. You're a poster boy for rationalization. You just say it with 10 times the number of words than most people do. Wikileaks ignoring you would make a rational person say "hmmmmmmm". That's far fewer words, but contains 1000 times the meaning of your typical word salad.

[Sabretooth]

For one thing, 9/11 was a massive psyop

Psyop? No.
SNAFU? Yes.

That you imply 9/11 is this colossal covert operation is just plain silly. The sheer amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding. And the fact that exactly ZERO of these “insiders” have yet to come forward with any tangible (ie: believable/legitimate/non-crazy) EVIDENCE after nearly 9 full years makes your argument nil. If you truly believe any of the BS you’re spouting, then I have some Applebee’s coupons that I’d like to email you.

For instance, Condoleeza Rice's claim that 'no one could have imagined hijacking of planes' was directly contradicted by the subsequent revelation that simulated hijackings were taking place on 9/11 at the time of the alleged hijackings.


The military practices for situations all the time that they don't always see as feasible, so Condy's throwaway comment is useless in your little campaign.

The military regularly runs simulations where the US is defended against attacks from Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Would you legitimately expect any of those situations to happen? If they did, I’d be the first to say that I didn’t expect it, despite the fact that we practiced for it.

[jammonius]

Psyop? No.
SNAFU? Yes.

Wait a minute, Sabretooth. I have just noticed that you are a relative newcomer; so, first things first: Welcome to the forum. Your participation is much appreciated for the value that it adds.

I have indicated that 9/11 is best understood and explained as a psyop. This thread, dealing with wikileaks, is only tangentially related to psyops per se, so for a more in depth discussion of psyops, you may wish to review the SAIC-ARA thread. I notice that you have been posting in the ALL43 video thread.

As to your claim 9/11 is a SNAFU, as you put it, would you care to elaborate on how you come to that conclusion? Mind you, you are not obliged to do that if you don't want to.


That you imply 9/11 is this colossal covert operation is just plain silly. The sheer amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding. And the fact that exactly ZERO of these “insiders” have yet to come forward with any tangible (ie: believable/legitimate/non-crazy) EVIDENCE after nearly 9 full years makes your argument nil. If you truly believe any of the BS you’re spouting, then I have some Applebee’s coupons that I’d like to email you.

Once again, I would refer you to the SAIC-ARA thread. There, mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.

9/11 is easily explained on that basis. People pushed buttons, made scripted calls, did this or that, as a part of an exercise simulating hijackings, no less, at the precise time that the events of 9/11 were unfolding, such that the question "is this exercise or is this real world" had to be asked; and such that people "did not know the origin" of calls they were receiving. I have elsewhere documented and sourced the claims made in this paragraph and I am not going to repost them. You can find them using the search function, if interested.

For our purposes here, each of the factors mentioned above, associated with the military exercises taking place on 9/11, combine to confirm that 9/11 was not only a psyop, but was also one that could unfold with few people actually knowing what was going on.

On that statement, I stand.

It is a huge fallacy, mistake of fact, and failure to apprehend the way military operations unfold to assert, as you have, that the "amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding." That claim of yours is wrong, to put it no more harshly than that.


The military practices for situations all the time that they don't always see as feasible, so Condy's throwaway comment is useless in your little campaign.

I don't think it very helpful to your point of view for you to have posted the above attempt at rationalization, justification and/or excuse making. In the first place, your excuse making is just that: An excuse. It is also speculative in nature; and, standing alone, it does not advance your claim very much, if at all.


The military regularly runs simulations where the US is defended against attacks from Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Would you legitimately expect any of those situations to happen? If they did, I’d be the first to say that I didn’t expect it, despite the fact that we practiced for it.

The same may accurately be said about your final excuse of the military exercises taking place on 9/11.

Here's the point worth considering, imho:

Wikileask might well be a perfectly appropriate source for more information about the exact nature and the precise extent, as well as the actual content of the MILITARY EXERCISES taking place on 9/11 to come out.

Come on people with knowledge about the 9/11 MILITARY EXERCISES:

Post what you know. However, think carefully about posting at Wikileaks, as that organization appears to be prejudiced against 9/11 truth claims.

Be aware

[TheRedWorm]

Word salad and nonsense.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

snip

The same may accurately be said about your final excuse of the military exercises taking place on 9/11.

What about the military exercise that S. Korea & the U.S. planned & carried out? It was a routine exercise & N. Korea didn't like it & said that they were prepared for war.

Are you a communist sympathizer Jammy? If you are, you're in a world of hurt!

[Sabretooth]

As to your claim 9/11 is a SNAFU, as you put it, would you care to elaborate on how you come to that conclusion? Mind you, you are not obliged to do that if you don't want to.

But of course. Is it safe to assume you know the meaning of the acronym "SNAFU"? Very well…

What I mean by “SNAFU” is drawn from the facts that I have read from creditable sources, for example the 911CR and creditable news agencies (ie: none of your acceptable sources). The facts are that upper CIA and FBI officials were well aware of the dangers of Al Qaeda in the years before 9/11 and even before the Cole bombing and 1993 WTC attack. Yet, they couldn’t get the proverbial head out of their a$$ to make any effective use of that information. Because this information never made it to the proper officials to filter to the proper channels, all of this data fell through the cracks in the system. In hindsight, the Gov’t could have feasibly put a stop to the 9/11 attacks had they not been (and, for arguments sake, continue to be) a bureaucratic black hole.

… mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.

Sure, but we aren’t talking about a “large” operation. According to your implications, the word “large” is an abysmally gross understatement. We aren’t talking Manhattan Project here…we are talking possibly hundreds of thousands of people that would have inside knowledge of a conspiracy.


9/11 is easily explained on that basis. People pushed buttons, made scripted calls, did this or that, as a part of an exercise simulating hijackings, no less, at the precise time that the events of 9/11 were unfolding …

Whoa. Where did that come from? Where is the documentation and/or witnesses to this? Yes, the US practiced the possibility of hijackings, but not DURING the events of 9/11. I’ve been looking online for a while and the only site that mentions that speculative piece of garbage is the Loose Change forums. I think that speaks for itself. Also, I would like to point out that those exercises of hijackings were also performed with the assumption that:

1) We would know that the planes were hijacked and why, and
2) know their destination with some level of advanced notice.

The report I read (which, ironically, is also posted at the LC forums) mentioned very clearly that the exercises were carried out with the notion that the hijackers gave their intentions of a destination and what they were to do when they got there.

It is a huge fallacy, mistake of fact, and failure to apprehend the way military operations unfold to assert, as you have, that the "amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding." That claim of yours is wrong, to put it no more harshly than that.

Why is my claim wrong? You just can’t blindly disagree just “because” (well, you could, if you were 4 years old). Give me a tangible explanation…I can’t imagine that is asking too much.

My claim is that, for this to be a military operation, all of the contractors, witnesses, personnel, employees, etc. that would have some knowledge that derails the typical understanding of events on 9/11 would range into the tens of thousands, if not more...and that's BEFORE we get into the public forum. The level of sophistication you are proposing that happened on 9/11 could NOT be carried out by a “couple of folks in a closet pushing buttons”.

I don't think it very helpful to your point of view for you to have posted the above attempt at rationalization, justification and/or excuse making. In the first place, your excuse making is just that: An excuse. It is also speculative in nature; and, standing alone, it does not advance your claim very much, if at all.

I have two things to say here:

1.The comment I made was justified in the paragraph that followed. It isn’t my fault that you couldn’t connect the dots. Condy’s comments do not advance your “theories” (I’m using that term VERY loosely) and I pointed out why. The US did not expect terrorists to fly planes into buildings in the same way as you don’t expect to get t-boned by a drunk driver while you’re out picking up your copy of Cosmo at the 7-11.

2.You have a lot of gall for blasting me about “speculation”. Every one of your opinions I have read are formed out of speculation, half-truths, comments out of context, misinformation, dubious sources, misinterpretations, and big old fat lies. And because you had the audacity to make such a comment, you can add hypocrisy to that list.


Post what you know. However, think carefully about posting at Wikileaks, as that organization appears to be prejudiced against 9/11 truth claims nutjobs.

Oh, and I fixed that for you...free of charge :D

[paloalto]

I must be missing something. Freed supposedly with held info on the planning on the Cole bombing and had he not done so Soufan could have stopped the 9/11 hijackings?

Where is the actual connect between an investigation that leads to solving the Cole bombing , and the stopping of the multiple suicide hijackings in Sept 2001?

Furthermore, is the premise then a strict LIHOP scenario in which the 9/11 plot was known by some (presumably Freed at least) but simply allowed to go through?

Mihdhar and Hazmi were on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon. Had Freeh let Soufan know about the meeting at Kuala Lumpur, and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were known to be going to the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Soufan and his team would have been able to monitor these terrorists in California, and find out that they were connected to many if not most of the other terrorists who later took part in the attacks on 9/11. Both the Cole bombing attack and the attacks on 9/11 were planned at the same Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. Had Soufan been able to run their names through the FAA, he would have found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had started flight training in San Diego, and even had told their instructors that they only wanted to learn how to fly large Boeing airliners. That alone would have revealed the plot for 9/11.

Freeh did not know at the time of Soufan’s requests that these terrorists were connected to the future 9/11. But he knew they were al Qaeda terrorists who were not only connected to the east African bombings that had killed over 200 people but were also connected to the planning of Cole bombing that had killed 17 US sailors.

While warnings of the attacks on 9/11 had been given to both the FBI HQ and the CIA since April 2001, both agencies knew on August 22, 2001 when both Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack these agencies had been warned would kill thousands of Americans. This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!

[Sabretooth]

This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!

Where did you find this info? Links and/or search string please?

[TexasJack]

This is all rubbish by a truther twisting the facts. The main reason information wasn't shared was because of "The Wall" that prevented the two agencies from cooperating with each other. The Wall has since 9/11 been broken down quite a bit. This is all explained in The Looming Tower, recommended reading for all interested in the subject.

[aggle-rithm]

Irrelevant to the OP.

Do you think Wikileaks has damaged alternative 9/11 theories?


I don't, because there aren't any.

Unless you have some...?

No...?

That's OK, I hadn't gotten my hopes up.

[aggle-rithm]

This was clearly not the case of crucial information being missed because the FBI and the CIA are gigantic bureaucracies. This was out and out a criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh and by the CIA. Withholding material information from any ongoing FBI criminal investigation is a serious crime that can net the perpetrator or perpetrators years in prison. Both FBI Director Louis Freeh and the CIA knew this.

The act of withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators of the USS Cole bombing that had resulted in the murder of 17 US sailors was just the tip of a gigantic ice berg of continued criminal obstruction of the investigation of the USS Cole, by both the CIA and FBI HQ.

In addition the actions of both the DOJ IG Glenn Fine and the 9/11 Commission show that this was a serious crime, and that that official Washington knew that was a crime and that official Washington was trying to keep this information secret from the American public. Concealment is considered prima fascia evidence and proof in a court of law of intent to hide a serious crime. Both the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG kept secret and concealed the fact that FBI Agent Ali Soufan had made an official request to have the Director of the FBI, request from the CIA any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and any information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash.

This information never became public until the article in the July 10, 2006 edition of the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright. Does anyone believe that the DOJ IG Glenn Fine did not know who FBI Agent Ali Soufan was or that he did not know that Soufan had contacted the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh asking for this information in November 2000 and was told that the CIA had none of this information when in fact the CIA not had this information but even had photographs at that time of Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The DOJ IG had had access to all of this information including the official request from Soufan to Freeh and from Freeh to the CIA, in addition to having access to the information that was given to Freeh by the NSA and by the CIA in December 1999 and January 2000, and even had access to Freeh’s daily briefing papers where this information was also available. Since the 9/11 Commission had access to the information the DOJ IG investigators had there is also no way this criminal obstruction should not have appeared in the 9/11 Commission report. There was no possible way that the DOJ IG could have not have known that Freeh and the CIA had committed criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

dr;ts

[carlitos]

mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.

So newspapers are acceptable evidence now.

[Furcifer]

While warnings of the attacks on 9/11 had been given to both the FBI HQ and the CIA since April 2001, both agencies knew on August 22, 2001 when both Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack these agencies had been warned would kill thousands of Americans. This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!

This is incorrect. Not only that but it has been explained. You're just being willfully ignorant.

[Sabretooth]

So newspapers are acceptable evidence now.

Only if it furthers the CT agenda. :D

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by paloalto
This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!
Where did you find this info? Links and/or search string please?

See DE #939, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, which has email from former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit , Tom Wilshire, back to his CIA CTC managers, Richard Blee, Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC unit and likely George Tenet, on July 23, 2001. This email said that Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the point of the next big al Qaeda attack. Wilshire in the DOJ IG report had also already stated in his July 5, 2001 email back to his CIA CTC managers that the he thought the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving since April 2001 of a huge al Qaeda attack aimed at the United States. These people would have been Mihdhar and Hazmi. Wilshire, as did the CIA already knew Hazmi had a US visa and was inside of the US, and knew Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa.

According DE 939, Wilshire was not given permission to his two requests on July 13, 2001, and July 23, 2001 to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though his CIA managers, Richard Blee and Cofer Black along with George Tenet were holding an urgent meeting, on July 10, 2001, with Rice and Clark in the White house warning Rice and Clark that the al Qaeda terrorists were planning an attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. see State of Denial by Bob Woodward. On July 17, Blee, Black and Tenet gave the same warning to Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Whatever the warning, Ashcroft quite flying commercial aircraft on AJ business on July 26, 2001 due to some still unexplained threat from the FBI?

Less than one month after his July 23, 2001 email back to Blee and Black indicating that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack, on August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margret Gillespie, aka Mary, working at the CIA Bin Laden unit tells FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire, working at that time as the FBI ITOS Deputy Chief, that the INS had discovered both Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US. It is clear that Wilshire and most likely Corsi know that that point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US to take part in the al Qaeda attack they are aware of that will kill thousands of Americans. It is clear that neither Corsi nor Wilshire raised any alarms with anyone at the FBI that was in a position to stop this attack. Instead they work together to shut down the only investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented this attack. See description of DE 061/062 below.

On August 23, 2001 Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit send out an alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and indicated that these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US. At that point anyone at the CIA who had received Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2001 email, or who were aware of the massive warnings of an al Qaeda attack inside of the US would also know that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to carry out the al Qaeda attacks the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

See the following webs sites; http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/ and www.eventson911.com.

In addition to DE 939, the most chilling of these is DE-0681 and DE 0682. In DE 681/682, FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi tells Bongardt on August 28, 2001, that he and his team must shut down any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information came from intelligence through the NSA. But on August 27, 2001 the day before, the NSA had already given Corsi written permission to give all of this NSA information to the criminal investigators on the Cole bombing investigation, see DE-0448 for this actual release from the NSA.
Corsi also tells Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that a NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi but per Sherry Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, in the DOJ IG report, it is clear that Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi had contacted, had ruled in fact just the opposite and had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

This was the exact argument that FBI Agent Steve Bongardt had raised when he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the FBI legal unit, to see if he could investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Bongardt even tells Corsi on August 29, 2001 as she is shutting down his investigation, that these terrorists are inside of the US to carry out yet another horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack, and people will die because of this ruling. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, aka Sherry S. 9/11 Commission report page 538, footnote 81.

Corsi also never tells Bongardt as she is shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that she is aware that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his Cole bombing investigating team, a photograph that directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were at the same meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing, see page 302 DOJ IG report.

[funk de fino]

Do you think the information available to only small cabal on a need-to-know basis, would be as widely available as that contained in the recent document release?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Too funny. Small cabal. Ye ye!

[funk de fino]

See DE #939, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, which has email from former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit , Tom Wilshire, back to his CIA CTC managers, Richard Blee, Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC unit and likely George Tenet, on July 23, 2001. This email said that Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the point of the next big al Qaeda attack. Wilshire in the DOJ IG report had also already stated in his July 5, 2001 email back to his CIA CTC managers that the he thought the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving since April 2001 of a huge al Qaeda attack aimed at the United States. These people would have been Mihdhar and Hazmi. Wilshire, as did the CIA already knew Hazmi had a US visa and was inside of the US, and knew Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa.

According DE 939, Wilshire was not given permission to his two requests on July 13, 2001, and July 23, 2001 to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though his CIA managers, Richard Blee and Cofer Black along with George Tenet were holding an urgent meeting, on July 10, 2001, with Rice and Clark in the White house warning Rice and Clark that the al Qaeda terrorists were planning an attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. see State of Denial by Bob Woodward. On July 17, Blee, Black and Tenet gave the same warning to Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Whatever the warning, Ashcroft quite flying commercial aircraft on AJ business on July 26, 2001 due to some still unexplained threat from the FBI?

Less than one month after his July 23, 2001 email back to Blee and Black indicating that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack, on August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margret Gillespie, aka Mary, working at the CIA Bin Laden unit tells FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire, working at that time as the FBI ITOS Deputy Chief, that the INS had discovered both Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US. It is clear that Wilshire and most likely Corsi know that that point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US to take part in the al Qaeda attack they are aware of that will kill thousands of Americans. It is clear that neither Corsi nor Wilshire raised any alarms with anyone at the FBI that was in a position to stop this attack. Instead they work together to shut down the only investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented this attack. See description of DE 061/062 below.

On August 23, 2001 Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit send out an alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and indicated that these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US. At that point anyone at the CIA who had received Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2001 email, or who were aware of the massive warnings of an al Qaeda attack inside of the US would also know that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to carry out the al Qaeda attacks the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

See the following webs sites; http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/ and www.eventson911.com.

In addition to DE 939, the most chilling of these is DE-0681 and DE 0682. In DE 681/682, FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi tells Bongardt on August 28, 2001, that he and his team must shut down any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information came from intelligence through the NSA. But on August 27, 2001 the day before, the NSA had already given Corsi written permission to give all of this NSA information to the criminal investigators on the Cole bombing investigation, see DE-0448 for this actual release from the NSA.
Corsi also tells Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that a NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi but per Sherry Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, in the DOJ IG report, it is clear that Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi had contacted, had ruled in fact just the opposite and had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

This was the exact argument that FBI Agent Steve Bongardt had raised when he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the FBI legal unit, to see if he could investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Bongardt even tells Corsi on August 29, 2001 as she is shutting down his investigation, that these terrorists are inside of the US to carry out yet another horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack, and people will die because of this ruling. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, aka Sherry S. 9/11 Commission report page 538, footnote 81.

Corsi also never tells Bongardt as she is shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that she is aware that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his Cole bombing investigating team, a photograph that directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were at the same meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing, see page 302 DOJ IG report.

How can you be so detailed yet miss the glaring point?

Whoosh indeed.

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by paloalto
While warnings of the attacks on 9/11 had been given to both the FBI HQ and the CIA since April 2001, both agencies knew on August 22, 2001 when both Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack these agencies had been warned would kill thousands of Americans. This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!
This is incorrect. Not only that but it has been explained. You're just being willfully ignorant.

Great then exactly what is the explanation of why the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

[paloalto]

How can you be so detailed yet miss the glaring point?

Whoosh indeed.
Maybe you can enlighten us on exactly what glaring point was missed, PLEASE!

[Furcifer]

Great then exactly what is the explanation of why the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

They didn't "know", they suspected. But that's what there job is to do. At any given point the NSA probably has thousands of "suspects" based on their intelligence.

In fact, right now if you put enough trigger words in a post or email it's possible you could become a suspect. That doesn't give the FBI or CIA the right to pull you out of bed and bring you in for questioning. And at the time it didn't give the CIA the authority to share intelligence with the FBI.

What you don't understand is the LAW. (I know I don't)

The law was in place at the time that prevented them from sharing intelligence. The law is there for a good reason and it has to be followed. Sometimes the law lets murders go free, sometimes it lets terrorists complete their plans. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than Anarchy.

[TruthersLie]

Maybe you can enlighten us on exactly what glaring point was missed, PLEASE!

You have been pointed to three very indepth books which detail what was known, who knew it, and how it was flubbed.

I know that the library you are posting from either has them or can get them for you.

Spying Blind.
the Secrets Factory
and
The looming Tower.

Go and educate yourself.

[JihadJane]

I don't, because there aren't any.

Unless you have some...?

No...?

That's OK, I hadn't gotten my hopes up.

Why are you participating in this thread, then?