To Conspiracy Theorists: What do you believe happened on 9/11/01?

[Ardent15]

I'd seriously like to know, since the "official story" is supposedly a lie or a cover-up.

[SDuderstadt]

1. I predict no serious responses from "truthers" on this one...

instead, you'll probably get your motivation dragged the mud, reminded that this is DEMOCRATICunderground and accused of helping cover-up Bushco crimes. On top of failing, after nearly 8 years, to find a single smoking gun, the "truth movement" continues to falter when pressed for anything resembling a concrete, coherent alternative theory. You'd think they'd wise up.

[noise]

3. The secrecy has continued for nearly 8 years n/t

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

34. You know, if I'd spent the last eight years producing a big fat zero in...

smoking guns, I'd be cranky too. I feel your pain.

[Kalun D]

36. OCT

""if I'd spent the last eight years producing a big fat zero in smoking guns, I'd be cranky too. I feel your pain.""

Of course the OCT is cranky, they never produced a smoking gun that showed Al CIAduh did it. Weren't they going to present that before they attacked Afghanistan? What happened?

how come the FBI never mentions 911 on Bin Laden's most wanted page?

How come the FBI director said they had no evidence directly linking the 19 "terrorists" to the planes?

[SDuderstadt]

38. No offense, but I am not responding to any post that includes the word....

"Al CIAduh". It's a waste of time.

[Kalun D]

40. REPLY

So how come you can't reply to other parts of the post?

Like the part where the FBI doesn't mention 911 on his most wanted page

or are you saying the FBI is presenting "falsehoods" like the accurate Al-CIAduh reference?

Just exactly why is the FBI not going along with the OCT that Bin Laden did it? Is there some kind of lack of evidence?

[SDuderstadt]

42. You may want to save yourself some embarrassment by noting that...

the way you get on the list to begin with is by being INDICTED. Last I checked, the FBI doesn't indict people.

[Kalun D]

46. The Path of Justice

""You may want to save yourself some embarrassment by noting that the way you get on the list to begin with is by being INDICTED. Last I checked, the FBI doesn't indict people.""

So your saying the reason 911 isn't mentioned on Bin Ladens most wanted page is because the FBI doesn't Indict. So how come the Aug 7 bombings are mentioned if the FBI didn't indict him for that?

So you agree Bin Laden is on the list, the only reference the FBI gives is Aug 7 bombings.

So are you saying he was never INDICTED for 911? How could that be?

I thought the path of justice was Evidence-Indictment-Trial-Conviction?

How exactly did we get to Conviction without Evidence-Indictment-Trial first?

How can you be guilty if you're not indicted?

The largest crime in the history of the country. How come it's not listed on the supposed perp's most wanted page?

[SDuderstadt]

47. Because the Bush administration decided to pursue a military response....

duh. Your argument seems to be because it isn't mentioned on the FBI list, he's innocent.

He was ALREADY wanted in connection with numerous other events. If you think this is so nefarious, why don't you ask the fucking FBI?

[Kalun D]

51. Evidence

""Because the Bush administration decided to pursue a military response""

I thought they said they were going to present the case of Bin Laden/ Al Quida's guilt BEFORE they went to war? What happened to that?

So since we attacked Afghanistan that establishes Bin Ladens guilt?

So you have gone to a murder suspects house and attacked him, that establishes his guilt?

we don't need no stinking evidence, or indictment, trial, conviction. Bin Laden is guilty because Bush says so.

""Your argument seems to be because it isn't mentioned on the FBI list, he's innocent.""

I thought only communists, dictators and fascists convicted people without proving their guilt?

I didn't know the court of public opinion was qualified to hand down a death sentence.

""He was ALREADY wanted in connection with numerous other events.""

How does that work in a court of law? Is he guilty of A because he's merely suspected of B? Or are we not a nation of laws?

""If you think this is so nefarious, why don't you ask the fucking FBI?""

Do you think they will respond? Actually there's just as much chance of them giving a credible response as anyone here.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Well, then...you're basically fucked...

I doubt if you'll find many DUers who aren't convinced of bin Laden's involvement.

[Kalun D]

56. What is *ucked?

What is *ucked, a system that convicts by a court of public opinion and not a court of law?

or someone that dares to mention it?

or all the sheep that buy what the corrupt corporate TV is selling?

good job SDude, you replied to my post without answering ANY of the 8 or so points.

[SDuderstadt]

57. I'm not playing your rope-a-dope "truther" bullshit game, Kalun...

Eventually, you'll take a hint.

[Kalun D]

61. Dope A Dope,

""I'm not playing your rope-a-dope "truther" bullshit game, Kalun...""

that's why you've gone back and forth with me 10 times on this sub-thread alone.

LOLZ!!!!!!

[MrMickeysMom]

91. Tis kind of funny, isn't it?

But, it's such an over-done thing here, you tend to cluck your tongue more than lol...

:eyes:

[noise]

2. Nice authoritarian construct

Implying that anyone who doubts authority is a conspiracy theorist (in the derogatory sense).

The whole point of a cover up is to prevent people from knowing the truth. So to answer your question I don't know what happened on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Please show where the OP does that...

thanks.

[MrMickeysMom]

90. plus this one, baby

I don't know why we get these types of "questions", all you "conspiracy theorists"!

Why don't you ask the question this way-

"If you don't think the events of Sept 11, 2001 have been properly investigated, WHY NOT?"

I believe the majority of posts here attempt to point to the reasons behind that.

Can anyone offer a good explanation as to why Sibel Edmonds has been "gagged" for this long? What states secrets keeps her testimony from being taken?

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Ah, gee, you have to drop the Sibel Edmonds being gagged rhetoric now. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

96. Ah, gee... such a goooooood obther-BA-thon!

Ah ... YUP! Ah-huh, ah-huh!

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

98. Can anyone decipher...

wtf MMM is babbling about here?

[BuddyBoy]

102. Your goofy, silly claims and nonsense, most likely.

It certainly can't be anything substantive, since you don't do substantive.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Now we need someone to decipher...

BB's post.

[BuddyBoy]

106. He's pointing out that you waste time & try to divert attention ...

because what you are selling is a defense of the Official Conspiracy Theory, aka a fairy tale.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Do you typically refer to yourself in the third person? n/t

[BuddyBoy]

114. Who sentenced you to post thousands of BS messages?

What was your "crime" that merited such a punishment, or is it simply one of the steps required to become a full-fledged
OGCTheorist. "You must earn your bones and prove your fidelity to the cause by posting thousands of messages designed to
divert the attention of those who are seeking to learn the truth. Everyone in "The OGCT Community" has to do that."

[SDuderstadt]

116. Dude, I'm not going to waste Sunday...

trying to reason with a "no-planer" who stupidly claims that the parents of children who perished in the crashes are aware of a government "plot" and have been bought off. Your lack of decency is a serious problem.

[backwoodsbob]

118. what?

can you link that for me?

I have no one on ignore but he will be my first *a virgin ignore* if he said that

[SDuderstadt]

119. This is just one post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=261151&mesg_id=261286

Read the thread and you'll see all the despicable statements this "member" made about the subject. Personally, I believe they have no place in a progressive discussion forum. Maybe if everyone puts him on ignore, he'll wander off and embarrass some other discussion board.

[backwoodsbob]

121. thanks

I believe the government knew more than they let on but MY GOD..what a scum..He's on ignore

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

120. If a serious discussion

is really to be had here, there are at least 2 people all who enter here need to put on Ignore.

[MrMickeysMom]

122. Yeah, I tried that for a while...

It looked like...

Comment
|
(ignore)
.......... Comment
.............|
...............(ignore)

You get the idea....

I think it rhymes with pooderstat and doe-doe-muffin

[SDuderstadt]

123. It's an honor to be ignored by you, MMM...

seeing as how you have fits when someone kicks your ass on the facts. Your claim about Johnny Brewer which was blown out of the water by Brewer's affidavit comes to mind.

[MrMickeysMom]

125. Why, I don't have YOU on ignore at all!

How could I, SDuderstadt? You're too sensitive and silly and goofy yourself. I mean, just listen to how you go on about kicking everyone's ass.

No, I don't have you on ignore anymore... I just smile when I read the stuff you think happened.

Interesting, what I see when I lift up the rocks in this dungeon. I get to see all the little bugs scurry about, getting in their defensive posture, trying to harpoon the big bad "truthers".

I have already realized that some don't like it when they're taken to school. But go to school, they must! :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

126. MMM...you claimed that the DPD was called to the Texas Theater because...

Oswald entered the theater without paying. I provided you with Johhny Brewer's affidavit that the reason he followed Oswald to the theater in the first place is because Oswald was acting very suspiciously and Brewer suspected he might have killed Tippit. If you don't think that's getting your ass kicked, what do you think is?

It'd be great if you could provide an example of you taking someone "to school". Go ahead and take your time. You'll need a lot of it. Hopefully it won't interfere with you being one of all of 2,000 people who tune into "Black Ops Radio".

[MrMickeysMom]

127. That wasn't as you say, "kicking ass" at all...

Would somebody get SDuderstadt a big pillow so he could punch his little fists into it before breaking down an sobbing like a Momma's boy?

Anyone who searches your posts see hows many permutations of your highjacking threads is supposed to deflect the poster who doubts the original theory of anything, this time, the joker who calls himself McAdams over the subject of all 28 volumes of the Warren Commission. What a flat earther that guy is! Almost as bad as Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum.

You follow this jerk who has cherry-picked any interview within the Warren Commission destined to fabricate the single bullet theory. Following this guy's is like putting on a set of blinders... yet one more person you are fooled again, thinking he can kick ass in support a single bullet theory. You introduced that diversion with the fellow (spelled correctly, it's Johnny) Brewer and his affidavit.

The biggest reason you got your ass kicked in the discussion of JFK when I suggested you step up to the challenge of someone on BOR who would use fair debating rules, and would challenge anyone about the single bullet theory.

Wow! We all got to see how fast you ran away from THAT one! I and other people said that you SHOULD call in to BOR and debate Jim DiEugeno. Then. we all had to put our hip boots on for your (ahem) response!

Whoah, quit while you still have your bad boy reputation. No one wants to be known as a fucking pussy who got his ass kicked twice, do they? Naah... I didn't THINK so... :hide:

[SDuderstadt]

128. You and your silly straw debate challenges.....

with all of BOR's 2,000 monthly listeners across the US. No one takes your challenge seriously.

And, you can try to spin your little gaffe concerning Brewer, but you continued to push the notion that the DPD was only called to the Texas Theater because he "failed to pay for a ticket" but, even after I provided Brewer's affidavit showing that Brewer actually followed Oswald because Brewer suspected that Oswald killed Tippit, you continued to yammer on about it.

Seriously, dudette. It's been 46 years since the JFK assassination. Are you close to solving it? What afre you waiting for?

Looking for one of these:

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rollingrock]

4. The official story is a conspiracy theory.

and a pretty laughable one at that.

[whatchamacallit]

6. The "official story" should be changed to the "official's story"

A story made up by official's of the Bush administration to cover their asses.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. official's of the Bush administration

I suppose now the Obama administration's officials are well breifed on keeping the OCT under wraps and on track right?

Cuz ANYONE who works in public service is an amoral, unethical, sociopath. :eyes:

Either that or they are fucking retarded...and no I am not refering to an actual medical handicap.

[lovepg]

73. yeah as we all know Obama is gonna throw all the criminals who broke the law

In the BUSH administration in jail. I mean Thats soooooooo obvious how could anyone fail to see how OBAMA is just changing everything!

[SDuderstadt]

7. So far, my prediction is coming true...

not one post responsive to the OP. Predictable.

[noise]

8. The OP doesn't appear to have a single concern with the

government's 9/11 explanations. Why is that? Why are government officials held to such a low standard of conduct? Why don't government officials respect the victims of 9/11?

[hack89]

19. We were hoping the Truth movement could provide an alternative

Ok - the OCT is completely false. So what actually happened? Why can't the Truth movement put forward a narrative that weaves all their different theories into a single plausible story? You have spent 8 years nibbling around edges - why can't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us what happened?

Aren't you the ones letting down the victims of 911? You can prove without a doubt that the OCT is false and but your failure to advance a plausible scenario that will grip the publics imagination and have them demand the truth has relegated this important matter to the back waters of the internet.

[Kalun D]

60. Theories

""We were hoping the Truth movement could provide an alternative""

no you're not

""Ok - the OCT is completely false.""

That is absolutely correct, thank you for pointing that out.

""So what actually happened? Why can't the Truth movement put forward a narrative that weaves all their different theories into a single plausible story?""

How do you expect people with full time jobs to drop everything and go on a comprehensive investigation especially when the evidence has been hidden/removed/destroyed and it would require a huge amount of resources? It's a straw man, you know no-one can give any concrete proof, that's why you keep asking for it. And there are some good theories out there that try to connect the dots, if you haven't seen them you aren't looking. The complete 911 timeline has documented almost all the dots, you can put them together for yourself, and clue, it doesn't come close to the OCT.

""You have spent 8 years nibbling around edges - why can't you get to the heart of the matter and tell us what happened?""

Uhh, the government spent 8 years and how many $Millions? And they haven't told us whether building 7 had explosives or not, and they haven't given us any evidence of why Bin Laden and Al Qaida are guilty. Why do you expect individuals to go any further with magnitudes less resources? CLUE, you know their not going to. So your request is phony and false.

"Aren't you the ones letting down the victims of 911?"

that would be who ever ignored, removed, destroyed and hid the evidence. That would be the perpetrators and those who support them. The same death-skulls that are letting them down now are the same death-skulls that killed them in the first place.

""You can prove without a doubt that the OCT is false""

Most certainly with circumstantial evidence and a thorough timeline.

""but your failure to advance a plausible scenario that will grip the publics imagination and have them demand the truth has relegated this important matter to the back waters of the internet.""

It doesn't grip the public's imagination because it's not on the corrupt corporate perpetrators TV. It's apparently still very alive and well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all this phony hullabaloo from the OCTers saying it's not.

[SDuderstadt]

62. If your claim were true...

you could produce solid evidence of it, not retreat into the typical "truther"

How do you expect people with full time jobs to drop everything and go on a comprehensive investigation especially when the evidence has been hidden/removed/destroyed and it would require a huge amount of resources?

This has become absolutely comical and is beginning to rival the self-implosion of the GOP.

[Kalun D]

63. Proof

""If your claim were true you could produce solid evidence of it,""

Gravity is a theory also. I can produce solid evidence of the EFFECTS of gravity but none of gravity itself.

The inside job of 911 has a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Court cases have been won on purely circumstantial evidence, but the perps would never allow a real investigation and court case.




""This has become absolutely comical and is beginning to rival the self-implosion of the GOP.""

where's your evidence/proof of that? You must have taken some kind of poll or something? Show us some numbers.

From what I've seen the story is alive and well. I actually attended a symposium for the first time ever. People in the mainstream are starting to open their eyes. Firemen, engineers etc are doing a 180 degree turn, and that's a big accomplishment. All the OCTers have to do is try to hold them in the direction they're already going. When a Truther gets them to take a 180 turn that must really chap the OCTers hide. LOLZ!!!

And the fact that the OCTers are putting out phony claims that it's dying out is just further evidence it's got them worried. LOLZ!!!

[SDuderstadt]

64. "Gravity is a theory also"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Apparently Newton didn't get the memo. Stupid claim, Kalun. Bye.

[Kalun D]

65. Gravity

Yes we know that gravity causes bodies to be attracted to each other according to Newton's law of universal gravitation.
we know how the force acts, but we don't know what the force is. We don't know what causes it.

[wildbilln864]

9. Which conspiracy theorists are you referring to? nt

:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

24. Surely the ones who believe a conspiracy of 19 men with a handful of dispatchers did the whole thing

[wildbilln864]

25. funny how they can believe that scenario but...

can't believe a more resourceful and powerful group could have done it. :crazy:

[noise]

10. Have Alec Station officials explained their conduct?

Scheuer's contradiction

The CIA had a unit dedicated to tracking Bin Laden/al Qaeda since 1996! The FBI had an 18 person unit for the same purpose (the UBLU) which I believe was formed in 1999.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Can any of you actually address the OP?

Do none of you really have a clue as to what you actually think happened that day? At least Boise admits he/she doesn't know.

[wildbilln864]

12. I addressed the OP. nt

[SDuderstadt]

13. No, you didn't, Bill...

just one of your typical drive-bys...no surprise there.

[wildbilln864]

23. yes I did!

I wanted to know if he was addressing my side or your side of the issue. After all, you too are a conspiracy theorist whether you accept that fact or not!

[whatchamacallit]

16. No reason to be smug over being an easy sell

Just because we can't provide all the answers at the drop of a hat doesn't make your account superior. Remember you are simply regurgitating spoon-fed state propaganda. It doesn't take a whole lotta brains to do that.

[SDuderstadt]

17. You can't provide ANY answers....

that's the problem...and the "you are simply regurgitating spoon-fed state propaganda" is the ultimate cop-out and an example of the "genetic fallacy". It's pretty stupid to claim the only sources of info about 9/11 are "state propaganda".

Why can't you provide a single answer?

[whatchamacallit]

21. Ha, you don't have any real answers

you just have the stories and lies that were fed to you. You think they are answers because they came from "the man". If we had a true inquiry into 9/11 the answers would send you tuck-tailed from whence you came.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Again, you have no idea where the fuck I get my information from...

so this is just more of your silly "guilt by association" bullshit.

[leftofthedial]

14. I don't know what happened precisely.

I do know that the official story makes no sense at all.

I also know who benefited from the events and from the official mythology.

[Ardent15]

15. How exactly does the "official story" make no sense?

Please, enlighten me.

[jakeXT]

18. The "supposedly" can be left out

Product Description
The story that John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, tells is one of monumental bureaucratic failure encompassing our entire government. Farmer exposes "the story behind the story", as the false congressional testimony given by an array of agencies and individuals, as well as misleading reports in the media culminated in the Commission staff's dawning recognition that the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks. What emerges with painful, stunning clarity is that "at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened." The implications of this are profound.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0151013764

[SDuderstadt]

20. I thought the 9/11 Commission was ''part of the cover-up''...

Now it appears, in the words of Farmer and others, that the 9/11 Commission was NOT ''controlled by Bushco'' as ''truthers'' would have us believe. I believe the ''truth movement'' owes the Commission an apology which, by the way, will probably never come.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Not monolithic

I believe the (purposely flawed) commission was empaneled with the dual objectives of placating the public *and* obscuring the truth. Some members may have been there in the spirit of true inquiry, others (fixers) no so much. Why is everything so binary with you?

[SDuderstadt]

30. When you have proof of that, let us know...

n/t

[rschop]

87. When you have proof of that, let us know...

See post #85. All of the information on that post comes from the DOJ IG report, the 9/11 Commission report the web site for the Moussaoui trial or other official US government web sites and sources.

This information is proof that the 9/11 Commission took part in a cover up. To repeat what this post says:

The 9/11 Commission stated that:

"We could never understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But the testimony of Tom Wilshire to the DOJ IG investigators, in particular his email on July 5, 2001 and July 23, 2001 in the DOJ IG report and in "the Substitution for the Testimony of John, aka Tom Wilshire on the Moussaoui web site, at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, would have rendered this conclusion inaccurate.

In these emails Wilshire clearly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ knew was just about to take place inside of the US. It is also noted that he sent those emails to his CTC managers back at the CIA, managers who had to include Cofer Black and George Tenet.

The testimony of Corsi shows that the CIA, and FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the attack on 9/11, an attack both the CIA and FBI HQ knew would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

The 9/11 Commission was set up to make sure no one was blamed for the failures at these intelligence agencies that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

But since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena powers and had access to all of the DOJ IG reports that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they must have been already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud.

From the prior post:

I believe the ''truth movement'' owes the Commission an apology


No the 9/11 Commission owes the American people an apology for deliberately hiding information that now clearly points to the culpability of both the CIA and FBI HQ in allowing the attacks on 9/11!

[SDuderstadt]

88. That's your interpretation....

dude. Sorry, you're a long way from proving your claim. Hyperbole seems to be your middle name.

[noise]

26. Do you approve of Farmer's conduct?

We have to buy his book to learn the truth about 9/11? In another five years will another commission staffer write a book stating that Farmer's book was also far from the truth. That is was agreed that 7+ years was too soon for any real truth so Farmer put out a book pretending to tell the truth.

When does the nonsense stop? How full of shit are the members of the 9/11 Commission?

[rschop]

85. I believe the ''truth movement'' owes the Commission an apology

I believe the ''truth movement'' owes the Commission an apology

I don't GOD DAMN THINK SO:

Testimony in the DOJ IG report shows that FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire were both aware that Khallad Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi well before the now famous New York June 11, 2001 meeting between the FBI HQ and CIA, with the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

In spite of having this horrific information, Corsi, Wilshire, the CIA and even FBI HQ managers, including even FBI Director Louis Freeh, kept this information a complete secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. They even kept this a secret when these investigators, including FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt directly asked CIA officer Clark Shannon at that June 11, 2001 meeting attended by both Corsi and Shannon, when shown photos of Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing, who are these people in these photos, and what do they have to do with our investigation of the Cole bombing? And, why are you asking us (the FBI Cole bombing investigators) if we recognize anyone in these photos?

They were told by Shannon and Corsi that they could not be given this information due to the wall, a wall we now know was a complete fiction, only used to hide CIA information from FBI criminal investigations.

Since Wilshire had been moved over to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May 2001 from his position as deputy chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA it is now clear he had been specifically moved over to the FBI by top CIA management only to find out if the FBI Cole bombings investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the fact that Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Walid Bin Attash had attended this meeting to plan the Cole bombing, information the CIA had been keeping as one of their most deep dark secrets from January 4, 2001 when Bin Attash was positively identified in a photo taken of him at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

On July 5 2001, according to the DOJ IG report, Wilshire sent email back to his CTC managers indicating that he felt that the people who were at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi the al Qaeda terrorists on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon, were now connected to the massive warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been receiving since April 2001. SEE the DOJ IG report, July 5, 2001.

In July 13, 2001 email back to his CTC mangers, Wilshire requested permission to transfer the information he had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

In his July 23, 2001, email on the same site, Wilshire clearly stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part on the next big al Qaeda operation. He also asked why no one had responded to his July 13, 2001 request to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. See “Substitution for the testimony of John” July 23, 2001.

So it is now clear that in July 2001 when the top CIA managers were aware that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, they had forbidden Tom Wilshire at least twice from turning over the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, they very information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11.

At almost the exact same time that Tenet and Black held an extremely urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clarke on July 10, 2001 indicating that a huge al Qaeda attacks was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, that had forbidden Wilshire from turning over this information to the FBI? One week later Tenet and Black at Rice’s request, gave this same information to both John Ashcroft, the very head of the DOJ and the FBI, and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire sent his email to his CTC CIA managers, which must have included Cofer Black and George Tenet, indicating Mihdhar would take part in the next big al Qaeda attack, both Wilshire and Dina Corsi were told US by FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI agent at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were found by the INS to be inside of the US. It is now clear that both Wilshire and Corsi knew immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

On August 24, 2001, Wilshire was in email contact with Maltbie and finds out that others in the FBI were sabotaging Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui. See Defense Exhibits 939, Substitution for the Testimony of John aka Tom Wilshire, on the Moussaoui web site, August 24, 2001 email.

It is clear that on August 24, 2001 Wilshire knows that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, and also knows Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI in Minneapolis thought he was an terrorist trying to learn how to fly a 747 in order to hijack a large airliner and fly it into the WTC Towers. He has it all but just somehow fails to alert anyone at the FBI criminal investigating units or even in the US government to the threat of these horrific al Qaeda attacks, actions somehow never explained by either the FBI HQ or the CIA or the 9/11 Commission.

Wilshire and Corsi forced the investigation of Mihdhar away from Bongardt by urgently requesting the head of the FBI intelligence unit in New York, Craig Donnachie, to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar. They did this knowing that the CIA had been hiding from the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators, the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, the very photograph that clearly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the actual planning of the Cole bombing, so that Bongardt could have no solid evidence that would allow him to start a criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But FBI Agent Steve Bongardt found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US when FBI supervisor at the New York office, John Liguori, accidentally send Corsi's EC to him on August 28, 2001. When Bongardt called Corsi and demanded that the investigation and search for Mihdhar be given to him and his team, Corsi told him that since the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi had come from the NSA and the NSA had caveats on this information required written permission before it could be sent to FBI criminal investigators, he was forbidden to have any part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

From DE #681, also found on the Moussaoui court official web site, email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori (the FBI manager at the New York FBI field office), Dina Corsi says:

"John (Liguori),

I think I may have caused some unnecessary confusion with this issue. The EC on al-Mihdhar I sent to Craig( Donnachie), via email marking it as a draft so that he could read it before he went on vacation. ”There is material in the EC from which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him (Steve Bongardt) and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

But Defense Evidence #448, on the same web site, is the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, and shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001.

This release clearly said that the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, was cleared by the NSA to be sent to the “FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York”, FBI Steve Bongardt and his team. When Corsi tells Bongardt that this information had not yet been approved and is not cleared for criminal investigators, it is clear she is lying to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

After being told he could not take part in the investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, to see if he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar, since he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. Bongardt could not see any connection to any FISA warrant when the NSA had obtained this information and felt that the NSA and NSLU would readily approve this information going to him and his team.

But Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 that she had consulted NSLU attorneys, and that they had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar.

From evidence item #682 also on the same site.

Email from Dina Corsi to Steve Bongardt 8/29 7:44 AM

Steve,

Rod and I spoke with National Security Law Unit (NSLU) in order to confirm that our recommendations were accurate. And get answers to the questions you posed. They responded as follows:

Al-Mihdhar should be opened as a FFI. If Mihdhar is located the interview must be conducted by an intel agent criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. The case is entirely based on intel. If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures.

Email, Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we
discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III. Whatever has happened to this - someday someone will die - the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain "problems". Let’s hope the National security unit will stand behind their decisions...

Email, Corsi back to Steve, Aug 29, 2001 9:27 AM

Steve, I do know how you feel about this. I don't think you understand that we at FBIHQ are all frustrated with this issue. I don’t know what to tell you. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this to you. These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up and neither does UBLU.

But it is now clear that FBI Agent Bongardt was right. From page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling, and that Attorney Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Sabol even told Corsi, if Corsi was still confused about this issue she could go herself to the NSA herself and get a release from the NSA caveats. It is clear that Corsi withheld the fact from Attorney Sabol that she had already obtained a release from the NSA on August 27, 2001, two days earlier!

But Corsi also knew full well that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing attacks and had even taken part in the east Africa bombings. So there was already plenty of evidence “ indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime” by both Mihdhar and Hazmi. So it is clear that there was absolutely no valid reason for Corsi to shut down FBI Agent Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But, since both Corsi and Wilshire had criminally obstructed his investigation of the Cole bombing numerous times, and they both knew if Bongardt continued with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and then obtained the photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi along with the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing, the photo the CIA sent to the FBI on August 30, 2001, he would have immediately known that the June 11, 2001 meeting set up in New York City had been a CIA sting on the FBI and his team, set up only to find out if the Cole bombing investigators had somehow discovered the fact that Mihdhar, Hazmi and Bin Attash had attended the al Qaeda planning meeting to plan the Cole bombing.

It is now also clear that this huge criminal conspiracy first to withhold information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from the FBI Cole investigators and then to finally shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar went way beyond either Corsi and Wilshire.

Tenet and Black had forbidden Wilshire twice from giving the very information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting attended by Mihdhar and Hazmi, and Bin Attash to the FBI criminal investigators, when at the almost the exact same time they were having an urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clark, on July 10, 2001, describing a huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

When Tenet was aware of this huge al Qaeda attack in 2001 his own testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 indicated he was clearly hiding his meetings in August 2001 with the President of the United States from the American public.

At this hearing, 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer asked the question: "If you, (George Tenet), knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were about to mount a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President in August?"

Tenet answered that he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford Texas, and that is “why he had not told the President”.

Then Roemer asked why did he not pick up the telephone and call the President and give him this horrific information.

Tenet in answer said he had not called the President in August but just could not go beyond this as an explanation. He simply could offer no possible explanation at all of why he had not called the President of the United States and given him this horrific information, and main stream media seemed unusually uncurious about this.

But Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman came out after Tenet’s testimony and said Tenet had misspoken, which is CIA speak for lied, and had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and has seen the President in Washington on August 31, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11. So it is clear that he had plenty of opportunity to tell the President of the United States about this huge al Qaeda attack.

The 9/11 Commission stated that:

"We could never understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But this testimony of Wilshire to the DOJ IG investigators, in particular his email on July 5, 2001 and July 23, 2001 would have rendered this conclusion inaccurate. The testimony of Corsi shows that the CIA, and FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of Bongardt even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 an attack both the CIA and FBI HQ knew would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

The conclusion that the 9/11 Commission reached that the CIA and FBI were not criminally involved in allowing the attacks on 9/11 was a conclusion the 9/11 Commission was set up to make since their primary job was to make sure no one was blamed for the failures at these intelligence agencies that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Much of this information was in fact withheld from the public until after the 9/11 Commission had reached their conclusions.

But since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena powers and had access to all of the DOJ IG reports that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they must have been already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud.

From the prior post:

I believe the ''truth movement'' owes the Commission an apology


No the 9/11 Commission owes the American people an apology for deliberately hiding information that now clearly points to the culpability of both the CIA and FBI HQ in allowing the attacks on 9/11!

[SDuderstadt]

89. "They were told by Shannon and Corsi that they could not be given this information due to the...

wall, a wall we now know was a complete fiction, only used to hide CIA information from FBI criminal investigations".


Sorry, dude. You're only displying your ignorance of the wall and it conveniently helps your "theory". Do you know the origins of "the wall"? Can you tell us why it is important in prosecutions?

[noise]

92. After all only ignorant people

question authority. Right?

When will Corsi have the guts to explain WTF she was doing? Or Middleton? Or everybody at Alec Station. Or Hayden?

The wall was not applicable. The 1998 indictment of Bin Laden for the embassy bombings gave US intel the legal authority to track/apprehend/deport al Qaeda linked suspects. And if that wasn't sufficient, the USS Cole bombing investigation linked Cole suspects to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar who were ID'ed as al Qaeda by the NSA when they monitored the Yemen hub which was associated with previous al Qaeda attacks.

Sorry dude but you are employing a double standard which is common among 9/11 debunkers. It's authoritarian. An unwillingness to question authority. All excuses for government conduct are welcome.

Again, when do the officials stop hiding behind "national security?"

[rschop]

130. "They were told by Shannon and Corsi that they could not be given this information due to the...

In case you were not aware of this information.

The wall refers to the reasons FBI HQ agents and the CIA officers gave to FBI criminal investigators for why they could not have certain intelligence information prior to this information being approved and sent over the wall. There were procedures in place to allow this information to be passed over the wall when enough information was developed to show a crime had been committed.

The wall was reinforced inside of the NSA with caveats on the front of almost all NSA documents that said that information in this document could not be given to FBI criminal investigators without prior written permission from the NSA unless persons or property were in imminent danger.

This caveat was added to these NSA documents because the NSA information in the document might have been obtained using a FISA warrant. If the FBI criminal investigators received this information it could possibly taint any chance this information or any information derived from this information could be used as evidence in a US court of law.

All NSA documents carried this caveat on the front regardless of whether that information had been obtained with a FISA search warrant or not, due to bureaucratic laziness to determine which documents actually needed this caveat and which documents did not require this caveat.

FISA warrants required a less burden of proof than a general search warrant. The FISA warrant only required that the criminal investigators who wanted the warrant had probable cause that the target of the search warrant was a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organization. A criminal search warrant requires probable cause that the target of the search warrant had committed a crime or is about to commit a crime. Since the burden of proof is less with a FISA search warrant, any information obtained with such a warrant would be excluded in a criminal trial by the presiding judge.

The wall was fiction with respect to the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi for several reasons.

The wall was first used as an excuse to with hold information from the FBI Cole bombing team on Mihdhar and Hazmi at the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York City between the FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Clark Shannon and the FBI Cole bombing investigators, including FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, Special Agent Steve Bongardt. After being shown three photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting while they were planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, CIA officer Shannon asked Bongardt and his team of FBI investigators if they recognized anyone in these three photos.

When Bongardt asked who are these people, and what do they have to do with the Cole bombing and our investigation of the Cole bombing, both FBI Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Clark Shannon told FBI Agent Steve Bongardt that they would not give him any information on the people in these photos due to the wall.

But this was just a ruse for the following reasons;

First the CIA and the FBI HQ not only had ample proof that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the east Africa bombings, but knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were part of the Bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist organization. Since the east Africa bombings were a crime that had killed over 200 people including many Americans, and Bin Laden had already been indicted for this crime, any NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi could have gone to the FBI Cole investigators with no restrictions. The FBI already had a warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest based on information from the east Africa bombings.

Second both the CIA officer Clark Shannon, and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi knew that Walid Bin Attach had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting on January 5-8, 2001 planning the Cole bombing with both Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi tells the DOJ IG investigators that she was made aware that Bin Attash had been at that Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar even before the June 11, 2001 meeting with the Cole bombing investigators which tied Mihdhar directly to the mastermind of the Cole bombing. Email in the DOJ IG report shows that both Clark Shannon and Tom Wilshire, the CIA officer that actually set up the New York meeting, and in fact many people at the CIA, were also aware that Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing and knew that all three were long time al Qaeda terrorists.

The bombing of the USS Cole was yet another crime that had resulted in the deaths on 17 American US Navy sailors. This meant that there was no reason what so ever at the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York to withhold any information known by the CIA or FBI HQ on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators, particularly the investigators on the Cole bombing. Since whatever intelligence information on Mihdhar, Hazmi and bin Attash had resulted in now well documented evidence by the CIA of a crime, the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole, there was no longer any reason that any information on these three terrorists could not be turned over to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing investigation.

Walid Bin Attash had been positively identified by the CIA in January 4, 2001 in photos taken of him at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, by the CIA/FBI joint source and the CIA and FBI HQ knew that Bin Attash had already been identified by the FBI Cole bombing investigators as one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing.

Mihdhar and Hazmi had already been identified in photos also taken at the same meeting, and the NSA information given to the CIA, information from people connected to the east Africa bombings and to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, had stated that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to this al Qaeda planning meeting. This clearly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. Corsi, Wilshire and Shannon and the CIA were aware of all of this information prior to the June 11, 2001 meeting with the FBI Cole bombings investigators. Even if information could legally be withheld from the FBI criminal investigators until evidence that a crime had been committed, once it was established that crime had been committed there was no longer any legitimate reason to hide this information from the FBI criminal investigators investigating that crime. In fact withholding material information on the criminals that have taken part in a crime from the FBI criminal investigators investigating this crime is itself a crime.

Third, a written request was sent to the NSA on August 27, 2001 to get a release for the Kuala Lumpur information for the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York by someone acting for FBI Agent Dina Corsi on August 27, 2001, and was approved in just a few hours. This release from the NSA said that the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were traveling to the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 was approved to be given to “the FBI criminal investigators in New York on the Cole bombing”. In spite of the fact that this release from the NSA was not required it was obtained even before Corsi told Bongardt he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar due the fact the information came from the NSA.

Forth on page 301 of the DOJIG report it says:

On August 30, 2001, the CIA sent a CIR to the FBI outlining the identification of “Khallad” from one of the Kuala Lumpur surveillance photographs in January 2001 by the source. The first line of the text stated the information should be passed to Rob, aka Ron Middleton. This CIR even included the very photo of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur.

So on August 30, 2001 Dina Corsi’s boss Rod Middleton knows that Walid Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing and has photographic proof of this information.

But page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi , and Rod Middleton engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s blessing ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him that if one piece of paper ever surfaces at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name he is through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

But once Rod Middleton, Corsi’s boss received the photo of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and knew that Walid bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi, a horrific criminal act, there was no longer any legitimate reason why he did not immediately contact FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and let him start a criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. On August 28, 2001 he had already been on the phone with Corsi blocking Bongardt from starting a criminal investigation of Mihdhar. He could have called Bongardt and undone the damage he had done on August 28, 2001, by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. From the DOJ IG report we know that Corsi had known about this photo of Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting since August 22, 2001, and had known that the CIA had been deliberately hiding this photo from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing when she told Bongardt he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Fifth, in email from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt backs up his understanding that no legitimate restrictions on NSA was required due to the fact the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant:

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when Corsi told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to fucking Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when told Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that both these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

The Justice Department’s office of inspector general and the 9/11 Commission will later back Bongardt and say the investigation should have been a criminal investigation, as the “wall” procedures did not apply. The inspector general will comment that Bongardt “was correct that the wall had been created to deal with the handling of only (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) information and that there was no legal barrier to a criminal agent being present for an interview with Almihdhar if it occurred in the intelligence investigation.” (US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 351)

The 9/11 Commission: “Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information (Corsi) possessed could not have been shared with Bongardt.” …Because Almihdhar was being sought for his possible connection to or knowledge of the Cole bombing, he could be investigated or tracked under the existing Cole criminal case. No new criminal case was needed for the criminal agent to begin searching for (him). And as the NSA had approved the passage of its information to the criminal agent, he could have conducted a search using all available information.

Sixth, when FBI Agent Dina Corsi asked FBI NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol about whether the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi could be given to the FBI criminal investigators, and if Bongardt can take part in an investigation and search for Mihdhar, Sabol says, on page 538 of the 9/11 Commission report, that this NSA information can be given to the FBI criminal investigators in New York since it had no connection to any FISA warrant. Sabol further tells Corsi that if she is still confused she, Corsi herself, can request this release from the NSA unaware that she had already gotten a written release two days earlier. But Corsi fabricated Sabol’s ruling and told Bongardt he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Seventh, the caveat said that this information required written permission from the NSA unless persons or property were in imminent danger and both FBI HQ and the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack. This immediately negated any requirement on the caveat to get any written permission at all prior to handing this information off to FBI criminal investigators.

Corsi continued to withhold this information from Bongardt in spite of getting a written release from the NSA and the opinion from Attorney Sherry Sabol that the NSA information could be passed to Bongardt, and even her own boss getting the photo taken of the mastermind of the Cole bombing, Walid Bin Attash, at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi

It is clear that with respect to the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and their participation in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, the wall then was nothing but a fiction used by the CIA and FBI HQ agents they were working with to criminally with hold material and critical information from FBI criminal agents on the Cole bombing.

Withholding this information and shutting down FBI Agents Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi directly lead to the deaths of almost 3000 people on 9/11.

To repeat so there is no mistake, almost 3000 people paid with their lives for the withholding of the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators in New York.

Corsi, Wilshire, Shannon and even many if not most of the top managers at both the CIA and FBI HQ knew that shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans in an al Qaeda attack that they had been warned about since April 2001. See DE # 792 below:

From a FBI document on the US official web site for the Trail of Zacharias Moussaoui:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /

Defense Exhibit 792,

April 2001; The FBI HQ released a threat assessment which said:

"Bin Laden Khattab Threat Reporting

This note is to advise you of recent threat reporting deemed significant and urgent by the US Intelligence Community

The US government has received information indicating that serious operational planning had been underway since late 2000 with an intended culmination in late Spring 2001. These plans are being undertaken by Suni extremists with links to Ibn al Khattab, an extremist leader in Chechnya and to Usama bin Laden.

Multiple sources also suggest that UBL's organization is planning a terrorist attack against US interests.

The UBL unit, (with FBI Supervisor Rod Middleton and FBI IOS agent Dina Corsi), is preparing an EC for all field offices and Legats."

This threat reporting went to Michael Rolince, who was head of the ITOS over the RFU and UBL units, and to Rod Middleton of the UBL unit, among others. In spite of receiving this warning David Frasca and Michael Maltbie, in the RFU, also shut down FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui in spite of this threat reporting connecting Khattab to Bin Laden and Samit connecting Moussaoui to Khattab.

[rschop]

147. K&R

[noise]

27. What is the correct view one should have of the 9/11 attacks? n/t

[Kalun D]

37. Sheep

""What is the correct view one should have of the 9/11 attacks?""

If by "correct" you mean the OCT,
you have to imagine it from the view point of a sheep

[SDuderstadt]

39. Yeah, when you can't win the argument on the evidence...

because you have none, just imply anyone who doesn't buy your bullshit is a "sheep".

[Kalun D]

41. Since The Dawn Of Time

the masses are usually sheep and the corrupt governments depend on it.

In order to buy the OCT, you have to believe everything the TV tells you.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Are you going to start going back down this...

"if you don't buy my goofy arguments, you must support the 'OCT' " bullshit?

[Kalun D]

48. Goofy Arguments

Incompetent looking Arabs from dirt training camps armed with boxcutters strongarmed Vietnam Marine Vet pilots and got by a multi $Billion dollar defense with over 1 hours warning time.

building 7 fell, looking just like a controlled demolition, it was claimed spot fires and minor damage caused the collapse so testing for evidence of demolition was never done

now THAT's a goofy argument

[SDuderstadt]

49. Another one of your stupid strawman arguments, Kalun...

No need to respond further.

[Realityhack]

83. Kindof racist too. n/t

[rschop]

150. re: What is the correct view one should have of the 9/11 attacks

Let me give you a short summary:

The documents listed below are from the Zacarias Moussaoui evidence web site maintained by the US Federal Courts, which is the official US government web site for the Moussaoui trial located at:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

DE #939 is the Substitution for the Testimony of John, aka Tom Wilshire, the Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit, who had been moved over to the ITOS unit as liaison to FBI manager Michael Rolince in mid-May 2001 just after the CIA received the official request from FBI Agent and lead investigation on the Cole bombing, Ali Soufan, for any information the CIA had on Walid bin Attash or a al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January a 2000

DE # 469 is the EC to start investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi wrote up that accidentally went to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 28, 2001

DE #448 is the NSA release approved by the NSA on August 27, 2001 and sent to Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001.

DE #792 is the FBI Threat warning issued in April 2001, sent to Michael Rolince which was turned into an EC by the Bin Laden unit with Rod Middleton as supervisor over FBI Agent Dina Corsi. The account of FBI agent Ali Soufan that proves that when the CIA withheld information from the FBI official requests, this was a criminal act and not merely "the CIA not sharing information with the FBI".

Summary of the book “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” is the book I wrote on the time period prior to the attacks on 9/11 to try to explain what had gone wrong at the US intelligence agencies that had allowed these attacks to take place.

This information was compiled over about 4-5 years staring with very detailed times lines from the DOG IG report, with the holes in this information filled in from the 9/11 commission report, the Joint Inquiry report, the actual hearings for the Joint inquiry and 9/11 commission, the CIA IG report, the information in the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, the web site for the exhibits for the Moussaoui trial, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, and interviews with some of these authors, FBI Agents, the 9/11 Commissioners and the investigators for the Joint Inquiry. This book is as complete as is possible in an attempt to put the story on 9/11 back together again. It turns out that today there is more than enough information in the public domain to be able to do this. It wasn’t that the government reports were in general wrong, but they had carefully left out important and critical details so it was not possible for the reader to see the whole picture.

The killer document is DE #939, “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit, the CIA officer who had been moved over to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May 2001 to be liaison to Michael Rolince head of this unit:

It is clear from the “Substitution for the testimony of John, that Tom Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, Richard B, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and George Tenet, he states that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire had already indicated in his July 5, 2001, email to his CTC managers, found in the DOJ IG report, that he thought that the people at Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving about a huge al Qaeda attack since April 2001.

It is clear from this document, DE #939, that Wilshire had been forbidden twice from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators, by his CTC managers at the CIA, Richard B, Cofer Black, and George Tenet, on July 13, 2001, and again on July 23, 2001.

So it is clear the instructions to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators came from the very top of the CIA management at the very same time, that they, Tenet and Black, were holding meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 17, 2001 warning them a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. According to Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, Tenet had also held a meeting with Richard B. and other CIA managers in July to ask where they all thought the massive al Qaeda attack they were being warned about would take place and the room went silent when Richard B stated, “They are coming here!”

On August 22, 2001, FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit finds out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and takes this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Note on July 24, 2001 Gillespie had already found the CIR on Mihdhar’s travels to Kuala Lumpur and his US multi-entry visa that specified New York City as his destination, written up by FBI IOS Agent Doug Miller at the CIA Bin Laden unit. This CIR that had written on the bottom; “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief” (of the bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire). August 22, 2001, was less than one month after Wilshire’s July 23, email to his CTC mangers on Mihdhar. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”

After Wilshire took the investigation of Mihdhar away from Gillespie and gave it to Corsi, Corsi and Wilshire started to put together the EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar. Document DE#469 is the actual EC written up by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, that actually connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar accidentally on August 28, 2001 he called Corsi to demand that the criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi go to his FBI Cole investigating team. Corsi tells him that he cannot investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi due to the restrictions on NSA information going to FBI criminal investigators.

But it is clear from DE #448, the release from the NSA, that the NSA had already given FBI Agent Dina Corsi written permission to pass the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators in New York, on August 27, 2001 a release that was sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. The release even listed the recipients as “The FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators in New York”, Steve Bongardt and his team.

Page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi , and Rod Middleton, (Corsi’s boss), engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s concurrence ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him, as described in the September 20, 2002 public hearings for the Joint Inquiry of 9/11, that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name, he was through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between the NSA information to any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the legal unit at FBI HQ on this issue, to see if he and his team could take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when she told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to fucking Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when he found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

The Justice Department’s office of inspector general and the 9/11 Commission will later back Bongardt and say the investigation should have been a criminal investigation, as the “wall” procedures did not apply. The inspector general will comment that Bongardt “was correct that the wall had been created to deal with the handling of only information and that there was no legal barrier to a criminal agent being present for an interview with Almihdhar if it occurred in the intelligence investigation.”
The 9/11 Commission: “Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information possessed could not have been shared with .” …Because Almihdhar was being sought for his possible connection to or knowledge of the Cole bombing, he could be investigated or tracked under the existing Cole criminal case. No new criminal case was needed for the criminal agent to begin searching for . And as the NSA had approved the passage of its information to the criminal agent, he could have conducted a search using all available information.

But from Sherry Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, it is clear that Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi had contacted, had ruled in fact just the opposite from what Corsi had told FBI Agent Bongardt, 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. Corsi ruled and told Corsi that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar since the information on Mihdhar that came from the NSA had no FISA connection and said if Corsi was still confused she, (Corsi) could go and get a ruling from the NSA, unaware Corsi had already obtained a ruling to transfer the NSA information over to the FBI two days earlier on August 27, 2001. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, 9/11 Commission report p 538, footnote 81.

DE #792 is also the threat warning that went to the ITOs unit and was written into an EC in April 2001 by the FBI Bin Laden unit, which included both Rod Middleton and Dina Corsi.

According to information from a FOIA, the FBI ITOS with the RFU and Corsi’s Bin Laden unit held a meeting on July 9, 2001 with 35 Federal agencies warning them of a huge al Qaeda attack that could take place inside of the US.

So it is clear when Corsi and Wilshire shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar on August 29, 2001 they both were clearly aware of a massive al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US, and both had to know their actions to block Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would prevent Bongardt from stopping this attack.

At this time, August 29, 2001, but unknown to Sabol, and to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, it is clear from the DOJ IG report, that Corsi had been aware since August 22, 2001, and even before that, that Khallad Bin Attash had been identified in a photograph that she knew the CIA had been hiding from the FBI of Khallad taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000, see DOJ IG report page 301-302, and “Summary of Book” at www.eventson911.com. This photograph connected, Khallad the master mind of the Cole bombing, to both Mihdhar and Hazmi and to the planning of the Cole bombing at this meeting, since all three had been photographed at this same meeting.

The three photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi presented by Corsi at the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York were sent over to the FBI New York office by Wilshire and the CIA on August 23, 2001, just one day after FBI Agent Gillespie found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and this information given to Corsi and Wilshire.

It was my conclusion that when Gillespie told Wilshire, that the INS had confirmed that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, Wilshire knew that Gillespie had created a un-erasable paper trail from the CIA Bin Laden unit to the INS, linking the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the meeting in Kuala Lumpur directly to this CIA unit. This was the very information that the CIA had been keeping secret from the FBI, since January 5, 2000 when Wilshire first blocked FBI Agent Doug Miller’s cable on Mihdhar from going to the FBI.

Khallad had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photographs by the FBI/CIA joint source on January 4, 2001. But the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting was not sent to the FBI until August 30, 2001, one day after Corsi, Wilshire and the CIA had ensured that the investigation of Mihdhar would be kept away from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators.

It is now clear that if that photograph of Khallad had come over to the FBI New York office at the same time as the photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 23, 2001 and had been given to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, Bongardt would have immediately known that the meeting that Corsi and Wilshire had set up in New York City on June 11, 2001, with the CIA and his team of investigators, had been a sting on the FBI.

At this June 11, New York meeting Corsi presented three photos of Mihdhar, and Hazmi taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA, to show to Steve Bongardt and some of his Cole bombings investigators. When CIA officer Clark Shannon asked Bongardt and his team if they recognized anyone in these photos, no one on the Cole bombing investigation knew who any of these people were. See DOJ IG Report and Account of Ali Soufan.

Because of this strange request from Shannon, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt asked Corsi and Shannon who these people were, and since they were asking this question of the Cole bombing investigators, what did these people have to do with the Cole bombing?

At this meeting Wilshire, who actually set up this meeting but was not present, Clark Shannon and even Dina Corsi knew that Bin Attash, according to the DOJ IG report, had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with the very people in the photos being shown to Bongardt, actually planning the Cole bombing. Shannon and Wilshire in fact actually knew that Hazmi had already entered the US and that Mihdhar and had a multi-entry visa for the US. Corsi was also aware that Mihdhar had a multi entry visa for the US. See DOJ report.

Bongardt would have known had he seen the photo of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, that Corsi, Wilshire and even CIA officer Clark Shannon who had been at that June 11, 2001 meeting, and perhaps many people at the CIA had criminally obstructed his investigation of the Cole bombing by hiding the fact that the CIA and FBI HQ agent Corsi clearly knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting on January 2000 with Khallad actually planning the Cole bombing.

The inescapable conclusion that I had come to was by keeping Bongardt off of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Corsi and Wilshire and others at the CIA hoped to keep their criminal obstruction of his investigation of the Cole bombing a complete secret, and to stay out of prison.

The DOJ IG report on page 301 says:

On August 30, 2001, the CIA sent a CIR to the FBI outlining the identification of “Khallad” from one of the Kuala Lumpur surveillance photographs in January 2001 by the source. The first line of the text stated the information should be passed to Rob, (aka Ron Middleton). This CIR even included the very photo of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur.

So on August 30, 2001 Dina Corsi’s boss Rod Middleton knows that Walid Bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing and actually had photographic proof of this information.

Once Rod Middleton, Corsi’s boss received the photo of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and knew that Walid bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi, a horrific criminal act, there was no longer any legitimate reason why he did not immediately contact FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and let him start a criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. On August 28, 2001 he had already been on the phone with Corsi blocking Bongardt from starting a criminal investigation of Mihdhar. He could have called Bongardt and undone the damage he had done on August 28, 2001, shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. The DOJ IG report details that Corsi had known about this photo of Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting since August 22, 2001, and had known that the CIA had been deliberately hiding this photo from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing when she told Bongardt he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Bongardt was never even aware that this photograph of Khallad existed until long after the events on 9/11 and was never made aware that when Corsi told him to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and destroy all of the information he and his team had on Mihdhar, that she knew this photograph existed, and even knew that the CIA had been hiding this photograph from him and his team. She clearly knew that this meant the investigation of Mihdhar should have gone to him and his team.

It is now clear that the criminal activities at the CIA to hide the fact from the FBI criminal investigators that Khallad had attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi, had started even before the identification of Khallad on January 4, 2001 by the joint FBI/CIA source.

According to the account of Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, Soufan first asked the Yemen CIA station in November 2000, if the CIA had been aware of any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, or had any information on Walid Bin Attash, Khallad. He was told there was no information at the CIA on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Bin Attash. But just after Bin Attash had been identified on December 16, 2000 by the FBI/CIA joint source in the passport of bin Attash, Soufan attached to his request, according to the DOJ IG report, “CIA overseas personnel” requested photos from the CIA Bin Laden unit of Bin Attash and Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting to be shown to the FBI/CIA joint source. While no one has ever identified the “CIA overseas personnel”, described in the DOJ IG report, it appears this was most likely the Yemen CIA station or another CIA station closely connected with the Yemen station.

So while Soufan was told the CIA had none of this information it is clear they did and that this information was kept secret from the Cole bombing investigation in a criminal conspiracy by the Bin laden unit and the CIA Yemen station.

Once the photo of Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting was identified by the FBI/CIA joint source on January 4, 2001, the CIA knew they would appear to have been culpable in the Cole bombing for having photographed all of the al Qaeda terrorists at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and then allowing them to walk away to carry out the Cole bombing 9 months later.

When Soufan received no information from the Yemen station to his request, he asked FBI Director Louis Freeh, in November 2000 if Freeh would make a formal request to the CIA and George Tenet directly for any information the CIA had on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Walid Bin Attash, Khallad. But Soufan again was told the CIA had none of this information. See account of Ali Soufan.

But The DOJ IG report says:

“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. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000.”

The 9/11 Commission report page 181 says;

“The Counter terrorism center had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on ... to the Director Freeh and others at the FBI...”

So it is clear that FBI Director Louis Freeh knew about the meeting in Kuala Lumpur at the very time of Soufan's request in November 2000 and then had criminally obstructed his own FBI investigation of the Cole bombing, an investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 from the very information Freeh was withholding from them.

When all of this information is now in the public domain the big question is why has the mainstream media been keeping all of this still a secret from the American people even to today.

I have confirmed all of my conclusions listed above with conversations with FBI investigators, some who are still at the FBI and some who have left, or more likely were invited to leave, like Coleen Rowley.

It is my conclusion from combining all of the information from the government reports on 9/11, that the CIA, working with units at FBI HQ withheld information on the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the people who attended this meeting from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy, that involved the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Bin Laden unit, the management of the CIA CTC center, the handler for the FBI/CIA joint source, and likely ever the very top managers of the CIA, and also included the FBI Bin laden unit, the ITOS unit, and even the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh himself.

I believe that this criminal conspiracy was primarily intended to hide the culpability of the CIA in the al Qaeda bombing of the USS Cole. After April 2001, the FBI HQ and CIA were receiving warnings of a horrific al Qaeda attack, and then knew in July 2001 that this attack was aimed at a target inside of the US, and that Mihdhar and Hazmi would take part in this attack. On August 22, 2001 when the CIA and FBI HQ knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, they clearly knew shutting down the only criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would prevent the FBI criminal agents on the Cole bombing from stopping this attack.

They clearly put their desire to stay out of prison ahead of the lives of thousands of Americans they knew would perish in these al Qaeda attacks.

One can perhaps understand but not forgive the desire of the CIA not to appear to the American people to be culpable in the Cole bombing, but after they knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack in July and then learned on August 22, 2001 that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US to take part in this attack, with holding this information and even using nefarious means to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi is almost impossible to understand.

What started out as a simple conspiracy first to hide the name Khalid al-Mihdhar from most of the FBI, and then to hide their culpability in the Cole bombing turned into a agency wide criminal conspiracy to obstruct the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing. Fear of criminal prosecution and being sent to prison for years appears to have lead to them shutting down the only FBI investigation that could have found Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

It is clear that this conspiracy went to the very top of both the CIA and FBI, and why these top CIA and FBI mangers withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing is unknown. Why Wilshire blocked the cable on Mihdhar on January 5, 2000 from going to the FBI is also unknown, particularly when FBI Director Freeh himself had already been given the information blocked from going to the rest of the FBI by January 4, 2000.

It is equally hard to understand when this information is now all in the public domain why main stream media and even alternative media has kept this all quite to this point. Surly other people have found this information and connected these dots.

Don’t the American people deserve to know why three thousand of their fellow citizens were brutally murdered on 9/11?

Are we ever going to be safe until we learn the brutal lessons of 9/11. What can happen when a country builds a criminal organization in order to keep itself safe?

Perhaps the lesson is if you keep a rattle snake for a pet, you are quite likely to get bitten!

All of this information is now carefully detailed in the book Prior Knowledge of 9/11. What is so horrific is that it is clear that the 9/11Commission and even the DOJ IG investigators had access to all of the information found on this web site but either buried this information in their report or in many case did not add it to their report at all.

[SDuderstadt]

151. For the love of mike....

would you please spare us these ponderously long, stream-of-consciousness posts? BTW, I think it is a violation of DU rules to flog your book here, dude.

[sofa king]

28. I wish I had time to tell it.

Here's what I'm pretty sure of. Somewhere well before September 11, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz got wind of the operation from Mossad and everyone else (including the Russians). Mossad was already watching the hijackers, possibly for the CIA, which is not supposed to be spying within our own borders. One reputed Mossad agent was sitting across the aisle from the hijackers on one of the planes, and was among the first to be murdered.

One guess as to when they knew comes in the days shortly after the PDB bulletin headlined "bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.," which I believe came out in mid-July, 2001. Shortly after that date AG Ashcroft stopped taking public planes in his travels. After the attacks, it was Ashcroft's job to make sure that subsequent investigations into al Qaeda's finances were stymied, I'm guessing because it was the same donor list as that enjoyed by George Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he amassed an enormous campaign war-chest.

Another way of guessing when they knew it was coming would be to find out when the plan was made to send the doofus out of town that day, and who planned it. Bush is neither smart nor stable enough to be entrusted with such information, and I'm pretty sure he was kept out of it. Once the attacks went down, Bush could be shuffled safely out of the picture without having to risk him making a stupid decision. And he was: Air Force One wandered around the country that day, and its state-of-the-art communications center was apparently not available to the President at that time, or the President was convinced to turn everything over to Cheney.

Rumsfeld, in the meantime, was busy warning key Members of Congress that morning that an attack was coming and he was going to need a lot more money and no oversight. The night before, he had publicly disclosed the disappearance of over a trillion dollars from DOD accounts. The accountants, meantime, had been conveniently moved to the newly refurbished wing of the Pentagon, along with the leadership of the DOD's counterterrorism division. That seems to suggest to me that not only did Rumsfeld know roughly when the attack was coming, but exactly where Flight 77 was intended to hit.

Plenty of others were around to watch the events in DC, including Poppy Bush, the head of Pakistan's ISI, members of the bin Laden family, and others.

On the New York front, a clever chap by the name of Jerome Hauer was sewing everything up tight there. John O'Neill was making trouble and was given by Hauer a new job on the top floors of the World Trade Center. All sorts of records were being consolidated just across the street at WTC-7, along with 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel. WTC-7 may have been pulled, then again maybe not. I used to think so, now I wonder if it might be just one of those myriad coincidences, all of which broke Bush's way.

Once the attacks began, Rumsfeld, who had the initial duty to arrange for the finding and interception of the remaining aircraft, "disappeared" into his office with Wolfowitz to watch the events unfold on TV, and was unavailable. Dick Cheney, in the meantime, was also making sure nothing would be done, except possibly with the last one. Once the plane hit the Pentagon, Rumsfeld made sure he was seen at the impact site, helping.

In the aftermath of the event, those who benefited most from the crime were the Bush Administration. Nobody ever asked where that trillion dollars went, or another two trillion after that. Dr. Zelikow was placed within the 9/11 Commission so that specific touchy subjects were confused beyond recognition. The Bush Administration had the luxury of rebuilding the accounting and counterterrorism offices in their own criminal image, and used 9/11 as an opening to torture and murder tens of thousands.

There. There's my conspiracy theory. No bombs, no spaceships or pods or nacelles or remotely piloted vehicles. Nothing that doesn't spawn from the best guesses I can make from the thousands of lies and counter-lies told by the Bush Administration. I've said before time and time again that when the authorities for the information you need are known to be lying and obscuring the evidence, you must make your guesses outside of the legal definitions of "proof." There will never be proof, but I know they were in on it, and the rest of you should know that, too.

Edit: This is really low, leaving a completely un-cited and haphazard explanation behind when nobody else has. But I gotta go, and won't be back for days. Consider it a tale for your amusement until I sit down and try to write it out, with links.

[LARED]

31. "Consider it a tale for your amusement "

There was never a doubt

[wildbilln864]

35. Very good!

Thank you and I look forward to reading more of your ideas. :hi:

[sofa king]

68. Semi-Citations for paragraph 1.

Here's what I'm pretty sure of. Somewhere well before September 11, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz got wind of the operation from Mossad and everyone else (including the Russians). Mossad was already watching the hijackers, possibly for the CIA, which is not supposed to be spying within our own borders. One reputed Mossad agent was sitting across the aisle from the hijackers on one of the planes, and was among the first to be murdered.

Five Israelis detained for "puzzling behavior" after WTC tragedy
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/09/WTC.html

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

One of the first victims on AA Flight 11 was reported by flight attendants to be Danny Lewin, an "Internet entrepreneur" and former member of Sayeret Matkal (not (officially) Mossad, as I claimed above). Lewin was sitting in seat 9B. Mo Atta was sitting in seat 8D, and two other hijackers were in rows 8 and 10.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/ST00001A.pdf
(.pdf document. See page 4 paragraph 1.m.)

As a known example of cross-spying, or using another sovereign nation to spy on your own citizens for you, I offer ECHELON, an offshoot of the original BRUSA Agreement of 1943. It is a reasonable assumption that the United States has similar intelligence-sharing and cross-spying agreements with Israel, as recently asserted by NSA expert James Bamford. In his previous work, The Puzzle Palace, Bamford traces the intelligence-sharing relationship between NSA and Israel to well before the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

On September 12, 2001, Russian news service Izvestia published this article reprinted at the link below, then subsequently edited it to remove the first paragraph:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/izvestia_story_pic.html

"September 12, 2001 (14:15) Yesterday at the headquarters of Central Intelligence Service in Langley a confidential meeting between one of the Deputy Directors of CIA and a special messenger of Russian Intelligence Service took place. According to NewsRu sources he delivered to his American colleagues some documents including audio tapes with telephone conversations directly relating to terrorist attacks on Washington and New York last Tuesday. According to these sources, Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened."

So there you go. There's one paragraph cited, not particularly well, from sources which are not totally disreputable (Michael Ruppert is merely reprinting the Izvestia story, and therefore is not a source.) Does anyone have a problem with those assertions in that first paragraph?

I have to warn some of you that I'm not going to go through all this all over again, teasing each source out to its original source. So you can have fun with what I've offered here, but I may not deign to reply to messenger-killing.

Edit: I should add that none of the citations above state or even suggest that Israel and the U.S. share human intelligence, the product of actual spies. However, that's an assumption we can make because there is every indication that the Israelis were shadowing the 9/11 hijackers before the attacks, that the CIA wasn't interested in those Israelis, and that the FBI--supposedly the agency responsible for counterespionage in the U.S.--most certainly was interested in them, briefly, until that sector of the investigation was killed. Wayne Madsen--not a reputable source in my book--asserts that an FBI investigator by the name of Michael Dick was pursuing the investigation of the Israeli "art students" and other potential Israeli spies within the U.S. both before and after the attacks, and that Dick was removed from that investigation by Michael Chertoff sometime after the attacks. Other sources suggest that Dick was friends with and a co-investigator to John O'Neill, to whom I will have to return to in another post. I have been unable to independently verify either of these assertions.

I should also clearly state that I believe Israel's connection to the 9/11 attacks is simply one of observation, with (some) U.S. knowledge and consent. However, Israel has an explicit duty to protect its citizens wherever they are, which could explain the curious goings-on with the notorious Odigo instant-message warnings and the odd web of disinformation which surrounds the question of how many Jewish people died in the 9/11 attacks. I am not an anti-Semite and I am not saying that Israel facilitated the attacks in any way, except through an assumed secret information conduit which I believe was mis-used by a tiny group of co-conspirators concentrated in the White House and before that in the PNAC.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. As someone who questions the official "story" , I think there has been a cover up

of evidence.

I mainly feel this way, due to the way the Bush administration drug their feet, kicking and screaming into agreeing to a committee, then headed it with a clearly biased group of individuals, left out testimony.

I wondered why it was not treated like the criminal scene it clearly was, as was the question in the Kennedy assassination. I'm highly suspicious of the way all buildings, in particular, bldg 7 fell, and most of all, I'm flabergasted that our Pentagon would not have had more video.

Cheney is a complete other story line, but I leave this for starters.

[Kalun D]

44. CORRECTION

To Conspiracy Theorists (including OCTers): What do you believe happened on 9/11/01?

I'd seriously like to know, since the "official story" is SURELY a lie AND a cover-up.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Start your own fucking thread, Kalun...

the OP makes it clear who is being asked to respond...

[Kalun D]

50. Sorry

If my response is not appreciated, but that is my response.

this question has been asked and answered numerous times

do a search

[Liberal_Dog]

53. And Who The Fuck Are You?

This isn't your thread. If the Original Poster has a problem with Kalun's post, then it is up to him/her to respond.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Make me...

since when do you "truthers" run this place?

[MrMickeysMom]

93. What a dopey response...

Sounds like a cowboy riding into town... "We run this heeeah town, ya heeah?"

[BuddyBoy]

95. You do have to admit that it wastes time, diverts attention...

and might discourage casual visitors to this forum from wanting to learn the truth about 9/11. OGConspiracy Theorists
might not mind those things but who knows.

[MrMickeysMom]

97. ...

:-)

[SDuderstadt]

99. "Truther logic"...

spirited debate discourages people from wanting to learn the truth.

[BuddyBoy]

100. OCGTheorist logic ...

Divide and conquer where possible. Where not possible, demand answers to stupid questions, try to discourage through insults,
try to paint truth seekers as "enemies" of truth, make demands for evidence that isn't available to the public, sprinkle as many
posts as possible with liberal doses of conservative-style BS platitudes, focus on irrelevancies and relatively unimportant details,
label unpleasant truths as Bullsh**, imply that truth seekers are unpatriotic if they question or charge anyone in Gov't with
intentional wrongdoing, charge truth seekers with being unwilling to debate, avoid answering questions, evade issues, attempt to
diminish unpleasant evidence and logic by labeling them as "goofy", "silly claims", "truther logic" etc., make every effort
to get posts and threads deleted and posters banned, and above all...never acknowledge anything except that they TOO have
"some" questions and concerns, but never say exactly what they have questions and concerns about. But wait, there's so much
more. OCGATheorists demand explanations but don't give them. Label explanations as being "truther logic" or merely unproven
theories.

Other than those things, most OGCTheorists are happy to engage in "debates" and a search for the "truth"...as long as the
search ends with the OGCTheory being the ultimate truth and any alternatives being seen as unworthy of consideration.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Dude, if your characterizations are true...

why is it that you never provide support for your claims and your opponent typically does?

[BuddyBoy]

103. They ARE true. That's why they hurt your cause.

Live it or live with it.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude, if they were true...

You could provide proof of them.

[BuddyBoy]

107. The truth is dangerous to the OGCTheory.

How much proof does anyone need to know THAT?

[SDuderstadt]

110. Great. When you find some ...

let us know.

[BuddyBoy]

111. Do you have a reading problem or a comprehension problem?

n/t

[SDuderstadt]

113. your conjecture isn't "proof"...

dude.

[BuddyBoy]

108. Are you the only OGCTheorist assigned to trade insults? n/t

n/t

[SDuderstadt]

112. Point to the "insult"...

dude.

[BuddyBoy]

115. Literally thousands of 'em. Take your pick.

OGCT dudester.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Then point to just one in the post you were...

referring to. The fact that you can't reveals just another of your tactics to distract from you getting your ass kicked on the facts.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Why is it so hard for "truthers" to answer this question?

This is why the "truth movement" is a moribund, dying "movement" on the verge of extinction.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Show me where I ever said that a ''truther''...

was out of their mind. Then define the "OCT" and show me where I have ever remotely defended it. Do you understand the difference between a mere conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy? I would love for you to show me where I have ever attacked a "truther" as opposed to "attacking" their goofy theories or their inability to provide concrete evidence of said goofy theories.

I kinow it must really suck to be part of a moribund, dying "movement". In parting, I'm sure you've seen me notify some "truthers" that I'm not interested in playing along with their rope-a-dope "truther" bullshit. You were the inspiration for that. You're in great company. Adios.

P.S. I'd also love for you to show me where I have ever called a "truther" loony one time.

[vincent_vega_lives]

66. Yup the Truther round-up will begin soon

Now that the FEMA camps are well stocked with orange jump suits. And why do you think Obama is so intent at clearing out Gitmo?

[aldo]

69. OK, here's my take

First off let me say that I have no wish to engage drones from the Borg hivemind nor to frighten those with their heads hidden in the sand, however for any humble truth seekers here's how I see it.

1. Back in the 90s, neocons and other fascist forces started planning for their "new Pearl Harbor" -- see the famous PNAC letter.

2. To have enough power over the many facets of government, power and justice they first pulled off the electoral coup of 2000.

3. The incompetent Cessna pilots were only a front for those who wanted to be fooled. All cons depend on the target's cooperation.

4. The World Trade Center planes were probably flown as drones perhaps from a KC135, one of which seems to have been picked up by the Fox feeds; or perhaps from the bunker at WTC7.

5. The second WTC tower hit came down first because the flames were almost out, the flames had turned black. The conspirators had to "shit or get off the pot" so they pulled it.

6. Both towers came down due to controlled demolitions. Buildings do not fall at freefall speed, nor do they pulverize into dust, nor are nano-thermites natural occurrences.

7. No fullsize Boeing hit the Pentagon, nor is there a shred of evidence that such occurred. From the circular hole is was likely a drone or cruise missile.

8. The plane over Shanksville was probably shot down by a conscientious Air Force pilot acting on his own judgement. Thus they couldn't show any plane debris and declared it disappeared into a strip mine, mineshaft or some such nonsense.

9. This created a problem, I suspect it was supposed to hit WTC7, which had to come down due to the bunker headquarters of the operation and/or to destroy banking computers.

10. They had no choice but to pull WTC7 with the Commission not even daring to try to explain that one.

11. To those who say the government wouldn't do anything so evil, how come they let the first responders sacrifice their health and their lives?

[greyl]

70. "those who say the government wouldn't do anything so evil"

Please cite an example of anyone, anywhere, saying that.

Also, please don't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I agree with everything else you posted.

[Realityhack]

71. On the plus side you have not sited the use of nuclear weapons.

On the minus side just about everything you said is factually wrong. You got a hit on #2 but that is about it.

[tiny elvis]

72. One wise man among a thousand have I found

[chrisa]

131. Response

"1. Back in the 90s, neocons and other fascist forces started planning for their "new Pearl Harbor" -- see the famous PNAC letter.

2. To have enough power over the many facets of government, power and justice they first pulled off the electoral coup of 2000."

It's not impossible. It's just not likely.


"4. The World Trade Center planes were probably flown as drones perhaps from a KC135, one of which seems to have been picked up by the Fox feeds; or perhaps from the bunker at WTC7.

5. The second WTC tower hit came down first because the flames were almost out, the flames had turned black. The conspirators had to "shit or get off the pot" so they pulled it."

Why not just plant bombs? Doesn't creating the appearance of planes hitting buildings seem a little complex when a bomb to fullfill the conspiracy would suffice?

"6. Both towers came down due to controlled demolitions. Buildings do not fall at freefall speed, nor do they pulverize into dust, nor are nano-thermites natural occurrences.

7. No fullsize Boeing hit the Pentagon, nor is there a shred of evidence that such occurred. From the circular hole is was likely a drone or cruise missile."

Both are impossible talking points. First of all, the fact of whether or not the building fell at freefall speed is completely irrelevant. What does it prove? Demolition? Well, it wouldn't fall at freefall speed with controlled demolition anyways.

As for the Pentagon, a cruise missile just can't fly that low. A cruise missile attack would have struck from an upward angle. The object hitting the pentagon struck low to the ground, and hit the ground before it hit the Pentagon. This would be impossible for a cruise missile. Not impossible for a drone, but it's impossible that a drone would ever do that much damage.

"8. The plane over Shanksville was probably shot down by a conscientious Air Force pilot acting on his own judgement. Thus they couldn't show any plane debris and declared it disappeared into a strip mine, mineshaft or some such nonsense."

That's possible, but unlikely.

"9. This created a problem, I suspect it was supposed to hit WTC7, which had to come down due to the bunker headquarters of the operation and/or to destroy banking computers."

Data is backed up. Destroying a building probably wouldn't wipe out sensitive information, since corporations have their data backed up in external sources. That's why, if a hurricane hit, for example, a corporation wouldn't have to create everything from scratch again.

"11. To those who say the government wouldn't do anything so evil, how come they let the first responders sacrifice their health and their lives?"

Because they were brave people. It's a firefighter's job. They go in all sorts of placing risking their lives. If the government had told them it was too dangerous and to let everybody in there die, some probably would have gone in to help anyways.
The government, however, is completely capable of pulling off false flag attacks, but I don't believe 9/11 was one of them.

[lovepg]

74. I will attempt to answer the posters question seriously.....

First I must say I do not know what exactly happened on 911. I have never claimed to know. But I have some very serious doubts about the veracity
of the official story which has been brought forth to explain the events of that day.
My best guess based purely on what evidence I have seen over my lifetime of our government in action and my knowledge of the players involved would be some kind of involvement in the days events.
This could be nothing more than Cheney giving a stand down order to not shoot down the pentagon plane to involvement of certain black opp elements of the government facilitating certain peoples movements or the financing needed to pull off the attack. Too many clear warnings were given to too many people for those involved to have been completely surprised ,as Condi Rice claimed they were after the attack.
When looking at evidence you have to look at the preponderance of the evidence to see the pattern. It is clear from the way the war in Iraq unfolded, lying and manipulating of evidence was well within the realm of experience for this administration. The fact is that a new Pearl Harbor event was pined for by certain important players and the fact is that war profiteering involving billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of former Bush and Cheney associates has occurred on a grand scale. The ruthless nature of Bush and Cheney is well established with the Valarie Plame affair risking the lives of all who were connected to her work for their political advantage. I find it odd no one brings up the billions of dollars flown into a war zone only to vanish. Money on this grand a scale has been enough to send countries to war with each other. Combined with the amassing of power 911 precipitated for those in the administration to the illegal wiretaps that could allow blackmailing on a grand scale for the political opponents of the administration. Well the motive hangs heavy in the air.
Too many lies coincidences and down right convenient occurrences combined with unanswered questions make me want another investigation.

[Mist]

75. 911 and mounting suspicions that the official story wasn’t true:

911 and mounting suspicions that the official story wasn’t true

You will notice that I don’t have a full-out “story” to counter the government’s story. That’s because I’m not playing that game. Because I don’t believe the government’s story does NOT oblige me to provide an alternative. In order to get a working, fairly seamless alternate story going we would have to have an investigation (a real one). What I have are a series of noticeable anomalies that prevent me from believing the government’s story (the “Official Conspiracy Theory”).

What I have is a series of mounting questions and doubts that have not been officially dealt with to this day.

From September 11 on, I never stopped wondering “Where was our air defense?”

The way the buildings came down—my friend and I (watching TV news on various channels for 12 hours or so) both thought at the time that the buildings fell too neatly. We still think so. But no real suspicions kicked in so early. We just thought it was weird.

I thought it odd how the government and news people seemed certain so very soon after that it was Osama bin Laden. How did they know so soon? With no investigations? If it was “known” that Osama was so dangerous, why wasn’t he watched more closely?

A few days after 911, the steel from the towers was sold as scrap metal, with no forensic tests being done on it. I remember experiencing shock over this.

A few days after 911, I saw Cheney being interviewed on TV (Russert, I think). Cheney was asked about giving an order for interception of the jets, and managed to confabulate “intercept” with “shoot down.” He had to have done this deliberately. I knew perfectly well that “intercept” meant “fly along side of, and try to contact,” NOT “shoot down.”

I remember thinking it odd that we saw no pictures or film in the media of the Pentagon, but saw endless replays of the WTC tapes. I thought maybe it was because it was the Pentagon, and there were protocols of national security to follow, but I thought it odd we didn’t see anything for quite a while. When I finally did see some pictures, I was incredulous at how tidy and undamaged the lawn near the impact area was, and how small the hole in the Pentagon wall was.

Nearly everything in the towers but the steel beams seemed to have disintegrated (the many miles of electrical wiring, the many miles of plumbing, virtually square miles of office carpeting, and all that office furniture—for the most part reduced to dust and particles).

No one could seem to find the blueprints of the towers—they simply were not to be found. At the same time, there was a lot of jabber in the media about “the towers were built with no cores, so once a few columns were breached, they HAD to fall.” I heard “no cores” by the metric shitload. Then, on a friend’s computer, I saw a photo of the towers being constructed:



At some point I became aware of the fact that the chain of command in a national emergency had changed, and the Secretary of Defense was the “go-to guy,” not the President. This was done in July of 2001. Why? It was yet another anomaly. Also, technically, when there’s an air threat, the President (or his delegated stand-in) doesn’t need to take the initiative—air defense is set up to react on their own (kind of like when there’s a fire in your town, the mayor doesn’t have to initiate a response—the fire department responds as necessary).

I was aware from the first that buildings that size would have a minimum of 5,000 or so people in them, per tower, in the morning, even before 9:00 AM (New York City has practiced “flextime” for decades, to reduce the number of passengers taking commuter trains and subways at the same time in the mornings and evenings). Sorry if this sounds crass, but how is it that only just under 3,000 died?

How did Arabs in Afghanistan know how to carry all this off? Who were their contacts inside the government who could give them important information, such as the fact that fake crisis scenarios were being conducted on 9/11? Oh, wait, we didn’t have any inquiry into that, did we?

In fact, we’ve had no serious inquiry to this day, no detecting, no forensics, no examination of why fighter jets weren’t sent up to see what was going on. But I suppose if one “KNOWS” who did it, one wouldn’t have to bother with any of that.

No single anomaly brought me to the conclusion that 911 was a false flag operation. Each new realization or question bothered me, but I think it was just the weight of all the anomalies that pushed me to the conclusion that our government had “produced” 911.

I think it was around Thanksgiving of 2001 that I realized I thought that. Another “convincer” was that that same government was bizarrely eager to embrace being called “incompetent.” Who in hell has ever absolutely welcomed being called “incompetent”?

My snobbery (if that’s what it is) on this single issue has informed who I think is worth taking seriously and who isn’t. I may smile and act pleasant to your face, but if you seem to have bought the government’s “official conspiracy theory” (far loonier than other theories), I’m thinking to myself “OK, this is an idiot I can’t have a decent conversation with about much of anything.”

Oh, to answer your question “What do you believe happened on 9/11/01?” I’d say “Whatever happened, it didn’t happen the way the government said it did.”

[BuddyBoy]

76. Excellent post. I have a few comments.

I think the perps focused so heavily on the false notion that the twin towers COLLAPSED because they wanted to frame the
story as one of "collapsed" buildings, not controlled demolition. That's one reason why I think it's important to accurately describe
what photos show: tons of DEBRIS being blown out and falling to the ground. That's a whole lot different than saying
the towers COLLAPSED. The recent news & video of a hotel FALLING into a river in China is an example of what the perps want the public to think is what happened to the WTC towers. The hotel fell down. The twin towers were blown up and the resulting
DEBRIS fell to the ground.

Also, I think the REAL purpose of what you called the "fake crisis scenarios" was to help sell the Official story. Leaking
news about military exercises that involved airplane hijackings etc. was a sales tactic designed to reinforce in the minds of
the public that airliners were hijacked on 9/11, REAL planes crashed, and due to incompetence & negligence OBL & the Gang of 19
angry Arab fanatics were able to pull off the entire thing.

[Mist]

77. Yes, the fake crisis training scenario was certainly designed to lend credence

to the OCT. Problem is, in many decades of running crisis training, I'm sure that there were always some air responsers in place, on the job, while the training was going on. Except, they would have us believe, on 9/ll.

I hadn't heard of the Chinese hotel falling into a river. No doubt the OCTers will be telling us that this is yet something else that "happens all the time."

[BuddyBoy]

78. Doesn't matter since there weren't any hijacked planes

"I'm sure that there were always some air responsers in place, on the job, while the training was going on."

I've mentioned the Chinese hotel incident before (video of it has been on the internets & teevees), but the OGCTheorists
have only pretended to not be able to distinguish between a building that collapsed/fell down and one that was blown up.
THAT kind of thing (pretending there's no difference between a building falling down & one that has been blown up) does indeed happen
all the time in OGCT-land.

[Poll_Blind]

80. I don't read a lot of posts in this forum but yours was probably one of the best...

...I've seen in years. Probably about 3 years. I have questions as well. I don't subscribe to any particular line of thinking, per se, but I do have questions.

Apparently, a shitload of Americans have questions. I wish they could see a post like yours so they could better frame the discomfort that I think a lot of us feel over the matter. With Bush in charge, an incident like this naturally draws even more speculation than if it were, say, Bill Clinton or even George Bush, Sr. who was at the helm. Shit, even Nixon I'd cut more slack to, knowing both George W. Bush's and Nixon's track records now.

PB

[vincent_vega_lives]

81. Fell too "neatly"

The way the buildings came down—my friend and I (watching TV news on various channels for 12 hours or so) both thought at the time that the buildings fell too neatly. We still think so. But no real suspicions kicked in so early. We just thought it was weird.

Why is it that every joe is convinced they area experts on building collapses? How many collapses have you studied? (not including on TV). And why is your perception informed in any way/

I thought it odd how the government and news people seemed certain so very soon after that it was Osama bin Laden. How did they know so soon? With no investigations? If it was “known” that Osama was so dangerous, why wasn’t he watched more closely?

You do know he tried to do pretty much the same thing in 1993 and nearly suceeded right?

A few days after 911, the steel from the towers was sold as scrap metal, with no forensic tests being done on it. I remember experiencing shock over this.

You'd better tell NIST that, cuz they are the ones who did the testing on the steel.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

From September 11 on, I never stopped wondering “Where was our air defense?”

Doing the same thing they had been doing for years. Monitoring the skies from external ADIZ intrusion from unknown aircraft and maintaining about 20 alert aircraft for CONUS. No hijack scenario ever fit this profile before.

Nearly everything in the towers but the steel beams seemed to have disintegrated (the many miles of electrical wiring, the many miles of plumbing, virtually square miles of office carpeting, and all that office furniture—for the most part reduced to dust and particles).

Forces involved were much greater than any demolition charges.



This is a picture of a portion of three floors of the WTC compressed together by shear force.

Keep up with the complete missunderstanding of what happened that day.

[BuddyBoy]

79. Why won't they release ALL of the NYC videos?

Broadcast Quality Footage

Ordinarily, television news stations keep archives of all significant news events. For a standard fee, clips are available to use in such things as documentary movies. However, broadcast-quality copies of 9/11 airplane videos appear unavailable at any price. In March 2008, I contacted WNYW television and requested to license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5 for use in my upcoming documentary film. Isaura Nunez, head of public affairs for WNYW, confirmed that their archive department did have the footage, but declined my request, saying only “Unfortunately, we will be unable to participate in this project”.

It’s not just me. Broadcast-quality Chopper 5 footage has never appeared in any documentary, or anywhere at all after 9/11. The two copies that survive are both home-recorded lower quality versions posted on the internet. Broadcast-quality would allow even better analysis than what has been presented here. If you are still inclined to be skeptical about no plane crashes, I ask you: Why would the media conceal the best versions of these videos, if not to cover-up evidence of digital compositing?

The non-availability of a proper Chopper 5 is consistent with the compositing hypothesis, in that it indicates a “mens rea” (guilty mind) on the part of WNYW FOX 5. Other than cover-up, no explanation has emerged for this behavior. It is therefore inconsistent with the real plane hypothesis.


http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=4343&st=0&#last

I can't remember who wrote the above, but anyone interested can just click the link and find out.

[Mist]

82. Yes, and we're still waiting on credible Pentagon tapes--the Pentagon itself, the

Sheraton tapes, the gas station tapes, and the VA Dept. of Transportation tapes. Seems an awful lot of speculation would be ended by simply releasing those damn tapes...

[spooked911]

84. my 9/11 overview

http://911overview.blogspot.com/

[BuddyBoy]

86. The "official story" is a conspiracy theory.

It is NOT a conspiracy FACT, rather it's a lie. 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy and that IS a fact. Not a theory.

[Realityhack]

124. Not only did you fail to answer the question in the OP

You also made an unsubstantiated claim that 9-11 was an inside job.
Can you back that up?

[BuddyBoy]

132. Why didn't YOU answer the question in the OP?

Do you no longer support the OCT? If you no longer support the OCT, then what conspiracy theory DO you support? You surely
don't claim it was the work of a Lone Nut, do you?

[Realityhack]

134. Your dodging the question again.

And for the record the OP was clearly not addressed to me.

[BuddyBoy]

146. Be a Pretender. I think you can do that.

What would you say if the OP WAS clearly addressed to you?

[Realityhack]

148. Post an OP aimed at the so called 'OCTers' and you may find out n/t

[BuddyBoy]

133. There were two conspiracies

1. The actual operational conspiracy. This included video fakery, explosions, controlled demolitions, fly-over planes, pre-recorded phone calls, planted evidence etc. Pentagon attack may have well have involved patsies who became collateral damage.

2. Cover-up conspiracy - including on-going efforts (disinformation etc.).

There is, in my opinion, much overlap. E.G. media participation.

[Realityhack]

135. Could you elaborate on those?

Do you have some details, scenario, even specifics as to what 'fly over planes' you are referring to etc.

[BuddyBoy]

136. You want to know more about the fly-over planes?

There's a ton of info about the fly-over planes, helicopters (e.g. "Pat"/Chopper 5) etc. I suggest using the search function here
at DU. There are plenty of places to find info as well, and I'm sure you know about them (forums, blogs etc.).

Once you become even more informed that you might already be, we can discuss your particular interest.

[Realityhack]

137. Buddy I am very well aware of what has been posted here

What I asked was for more details about what YOU think took place. You made the barest attempt at answering the question posed in the OP and I was pointing out that answering it required more specifics than you provided.

So can you explain to us what YOU think happened SPECIFICALLY?

[BuddyBoy]

138. You want me to lay out how it all went down?

Now, why in the world would you want me to do that? Go to all that trouble for a hard OCT partisan to take pot shots at and
hurl insults back in response?

Since those of us who are objective, sincere analysts and truth seekers post almost all of the "how it happened" kind of
stuff, why don't YOU make the magnanimous gesture of giving us your detailed description of how planes glided into buildings
(and partially out of at least one), why video fakery was used, how the remains of alleged FL 77 victims came to be found
inside the Pentagon when there wasn't even a scheduled FL 77 on 9/11, how OBScapegoat and 19 other angry Arabs were able to defeat
the entire U.S. defense strategy (and why THEY could do that, but it would take what, 100's or 1000's of insiders to accomplish
the same thing), why the families of 9/11 victims should just shut up their complaining about the U.S. not pursuing OBL to the
ends of the earth, and, well, you know what I'm asking.

Hop to it.

[Realityhack]

139. Slow down.

"You want me to lay out how it all went down?"
That is in fact actually the question posed in the OP.

...What do you believe happened on 9/11/01?...

If you want other people to explain things to you why don't you start a thread about the subject?

[BuddyBoy]

140. Quacking again, Rh?

Look UP! Wow, that was close, wasn't it? Quick thinking saved the day again for you.

[Realityhack]

142. There seems to be a failure of communication here.

I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about. I read your post several times and I can't make heads or tails of it.
Maybe you could rephrase/reword it?

[Realityhack]

141. Now for the rest of your garbage.

"Since those of us who are objective, sincere analysts and truth seekers post almost all of the "how it happened" kind of
stuff, why don't YOU make the magnanimous gesture of giving us your detailed description of how planes glided into buildings"
Who said anything about gliding?

"(and partially out of at least one),"
According to your straw man

"why video fakery was used,"
Unsubstantiated at best

"how the remains of alleged FL 77 victims came to be found inside the Pentagon when there wasn't even a scheduled FL 77 on 9/11,"
Same

"how OBScapegoat and 19 other angry Arabs were able to defeat the entire U.S. defense strategy"
Fairly well established. People on all sides agree mistakes were made with this.

"(and why THEY could do that, but it would take what, 100's or 1000's of insiders to accomplish the same thing),"
Only in your straw man.

"why the families of 9/11 victims should just shut up their complaining about the U.S. not pursuing OBL to the
ends of the earth,"
Who the fuck do you think in your twisted little brain said that? Are you seriously accusing me or anyone else on this board of saying that the families of 9/11 victims should 'shut up' about the US not pursuing OBL as actively as they could?
I ask you to either substantiate that claim or take it back. If you do neither you will look all the more foolish for your attempt at character assassination.

"and, well, you know what I'm asking."
Yes you are asking me to explain 'what I think happened' but presupposing that a bunch of things happened that I don't agree did.
You then go on to make a number of errors in critical thinking and finally try to vilify me.

[BuddyBoy]

145. Could you please elaborate?

I'd be interested in hearing what you think happened. You've given some indication of things that you don't believe
happened, so how about you give your view of what you believe DID happen?

If you can't do so without making a number of errors in logic and critical thinking, I'll still read it, and if you
surprise me by actually making a reasonably reasonable case, I'll let you know that too.

I'm particularly interested in your views about the Pentagon, FL 77, the Olsons etc. I think the key to unraveling the
whole hoax begins with figuring out and understanding what happened with regard to those things.

What I'd like for you to pay particular attention to, Rh, is giving an explanation that fits with the known evidence.
For example, you don't need to try and prove to me that Ted Olson received a phone call in which his then wife said
"______". What I'd like you to prove (if you can) or explain (if you can't prove) is why you think they had an
actual live, two-way conversation. I'm sure we agree that the alleged cell/airphone/Pentagon land line calls were
important. Maybe you agree that there's good reason to doubt that they were live conversations.

Video fakery is unsubstantiated? Explain the fade outs at critical moments,weird background colors, different plane angles from t the same alleged camera angles etc. I think the evidence is overwhelming. Even for live composites being made right
from inside Chopper 5 ("Pat").

Thanks, Rh.

[Realityhack]

149. Than I suggest you start a thread on that. It would be OT here. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

144. Dude...you're asking us to...

prove your case for you. Do you know how ridiculous that is?

[SDuderstadt]

143. I'd love to become informed...

can you provide the list of witnesses who saw the "fly-over plane"?