Media Channels' Rory O'Connor Covers 911 Conspiracy of Incompetence
While I don't agree with the "Incompetency Argument," this article is sympathetic to the truth movement and certainly raises valid questions regarding intelligence community links with Al Qaeda.
Before it becomes too late, and the case too cold, is it still possible to determine what happened on 9/11—and why? Did some version of the MIHOP or LIHOP conspiracy theories actually take place? - Rory O'Connor
Article below:
The 9/11 Conspiracy of Incompetence
What if I told you that a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle operated with impunity within the United States for years before September 11? That despite being an ardent and avowed jihadi, he managed to become a naturalized citizen, to join the US Army, to get posted to the Special Warfare Center where Green Berets and Delta Force train, and to work with both the CIA and the FBI? And all the while he was a top al Qaeda operative, hosting its second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri when he traveled to the US in the 1990's to raise money, and training both bin Laden's personal bodyguard and radical Muslims who would go on to assassinate Jewish militant Meir Kahane and detonate a truck bomb at the World Trade Center? Would you take it as evidence that our so-called intelligence community was abjectly incompetent and dysfunctional in the months and years before 9/11? Or would you see it as further proof that the powers-that-be were the powers behind 9/11, either "making it happen on purpose", or alternately "letting it happen on purpose?"
With time running out on the lame duck Bush Administration (now well on its way to becoming a "comma," as the President might phrase it) our chances of getting to the bottom of the signal event of the Bush years—the unsolved murder of nearly three thousand people, the worst terror attacks ever on US soil, the "day that changed everything," the iconic 9/11—are also rapidly fading.
Even as the misnamed "war on terror" continues to heat up, the crime that precipitated it has somehow become a cold case. The only federal prosecution directly associated with the attacks—that of Zacarias Moussaoui—ended in a plea bargain and with an FBI agent accusing his superiors of "criminal negligence." Meanwhile, in the absence of a truly unfettered investigation, amidst calls from victims' families for a reopened, non-partisan inquiry, and with many major questions still unanswered more than five years after the fact, it is unsurprising that faith-based theories continue to pour into the information vacuum and assume, at least for some, an aura of truth.
Numerous polls indicate that few Americans now believe they have been told the truth about 9/11. According to one conducted recently for the New York Times and CBS News, more than eighty percent think the Administration is either ?mostly lying? or at least "hiding something." Before it becomes too late, and the case too cold, is it still possible to determine what happened on 9/11—and why? Did some version of the MIHOP or LIHOP conspiracy theories actually take place? Or were our leaders and their minions in the intelligence community simply so incompetent that they missed dozens if not hundreds of pre-attack "threat assessments," warnings, signs and indications that, as the notorious PDB of August 6, 2001 bluntly informed the president, Osama Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike in US?" If so, did they then conspire to cover up their "criminally negligent" incompetence?
Count author Peter Lance, an Emmy-winning former reporter and producer for ABC News, among those who believe in the "9/11 Incompetence Conspiracy Theory." Lance's new book, Triple Cross, tells the amazing story of an al-Qaeda superspy named Ali Mohamed. As Lance writes, "In the annals of espionage, few men have moved in and out of the deep black world between the hunters and the hunted with as much audacity as Ali Mohamed."
Mohamed's fundamentalist proclivities were no secret to US intelligence. As early as 1989, he turned up in FBI surveillance photos, conducting weapons training of followers of the Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheikh" now imprisoned for his role in a plot to blow up the United Nations and several bridges and tunnels into Manhattan. The sheikh's followers would later be involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, but Ali Mohamed not only avoided arrest but managed to become an FBI informant, even while smuggling bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, writing much of the al Qaeda terrorist manual and helping to plan attacks on American troops in Somalia and U.S. embassies in Africa.
"The FBI allowed the chief spy for al Qaeda to operate right under their noses,'" Lance says in amazement. "They let him plan the bombings of the embassies in Africa right under their noses. Two hundred twenty-four people were killed and more than 4,000 wounded because of their negligence."
While some contend that Mohamed's intimate relations with the FBI and CIA are proof of government involvement in a 9/11 plot, Lance says that it was instead embarrassment and ass-covering on the part of Justice and Pentagon officials over the mishandling of Ali Mohammed that led first to a conspiracy of silence and then to a conspiracy to cover up their incompetence and deception. He believes that chagrin over the fact that bin Laden's spy stole top-secret intelligence (including, for example, the positions of all Green Beret and SEAL units worldwide) led to a decision on high to bury the entire Able Danger intelligence program, which identified the Al Qaeda cell active in Brooklyn months before the 9/11 attacks, and also identified Ali Mohamed as a member of bin Laden's inner circle as early as March 2000. Lance further states that then-Assistant US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was "hopelessly outgunned by Mohamed," and covered up key al Qaeda intelligence as far back as 1996.
Although Fitzgerald called Mohamed "the most dangerous man I've ever met," he left him on the street for years, which allowed Mohamed time to help plan the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7th, 1998, in which 224 died and more than 4000 were injured. Fitzgerald, who later became both U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and Special Prosecutor in the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame CIA leak probe, finally arrested Ali Mohamed after the bombings in 1998. But Fitzgerald then cut a deal that allowed Mohamed to avoid the death penalty and enter witness protection. Although Mohammed was kept in Federal custody for three years, Fitzgerald and his FBI and Justice Department associates were unable to extract any information from him about the looming 9/11 plot. Finally, in October 2000, after having tricked the US intelligence establishment for years, Mohammed admitted in Federal court his involvement in plots to kill US soldiers in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, US ambassadors in Africa, and American civilians "anywhere in the world." Despite these admissions, he has never been sentenced, the details of his plea agreement remain secret, and his whereabouts today are unknown to all but a few.
Given the many mistakes and apparent government deception obvious from even a cursory examination of the Ali Mohamed case, along with related miscues involving the Central Intelligence Agency (see The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, and State of Denial by Bob Woodward,) the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and high officials at Special Operations Command, Central Command, and yes, the White House. It's no wonder that conspiracists see evidence—if not outright proof—for their "loose change" theories of what happened on 9/11. But in writing his brilliantly researched, highly detailed, exhaustive (and at nearly 500 pages, exhausting!) account of how Osama bin Laden's master spy "triple crossed" the CIA, the Green Berets and the FBI, Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service. The media and the government's national security apparatus may have failed to "connect the dots," but Peter Lance certainly has in Triple Cross.
Was there a government conspiracy behind the attacks of 9/11? Or did the true conspiracy begin only after the attacks, in a desperate but thus far successful attempt to avoid scandal and obscure the truth that our intelligence agencies had suppressed critical intelligence and bungled their jobs? Whatever your faith and belief, the Ali Mohamed story seems key to understanding the full truth of 9/11. "Could the attacks have been prevented?" Lance asks. "If so, who in our government should be blamed for the failure?" And finally, and most importantly, "have our intelligence agencies undergone sufficient reform to prevent future assaults on America?"
- mandrake's blog
- Login to post comments
I disagreed about...
Incompetence when I shared the floor with Rory at the Cherry Hill Public Library two Saturday's ago.
This Administration CLEARLY wanted to invade Iraq prior to "winning" the first election. 10 days after his inauguration, Bush asked his principals to "go find me a way to do this."
Then, Dick Cheney headed the Energy Task Force that planned how best to use Iraq's oil.
Then, in July 2001, plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were being talked about for October of 2001.
These invasions were COMPLETELY dependent on a paralyzing, and catalytic event, like a New Pearl Harbor.
They could NOT have done either without 9/11.
So then were they planning for these invasions hoping something like 9/11 would take place, or did they have a hand in the event itself?
They wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and managed to do both.
They stole two elections.
They have managed to make BILLIONS for their corporate friends.
They managed to take control of all three branches of Government (at least until last Tuesday).
They managed to pass legislation that is completely unconstitutional.
They managed to do basically everything they ever wanted.
These people are not incompetent. They are evil, sick, fascists, and they should never be underestimated.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Well, yeah
As I said here and in the past, I don't agree with that argument for the reasons you stated above. I just thought I'd share it because it was somewhat sympathetic to the movement. I don't see much of that on the liberal sites. Coverage usually falls into two categories: "ignore vs. attack."
I was just trying to keep my eye out for any little bit of sympathetic coverage, MIHOP/LIHOP/whatever and post it here.
I think it's a waste of time. I think I'm wasting your time and mine.
I wish all of you luck and hope you will prevail. I'm checking out of this scene. And I DID try to share the truth here in my own community. And that, too, was a waste of time, energy & tears.
I'm sorry...
To see you go... but I guess that's what happens when you get pushed out of the movement by people who feel that focusing on Beams, Pods, Mini-Nukes, Missiles, A-3 Sky Warriors, TV Fakery, Controlled Demolition, etc... is more important than say.... focusing on the fact that the family members are calling for a new investigation, or that the first responders are sick and dying. Two things that can open this thing WIDE OPEN, but NO ONE focuses on it because of the almighty Controlled Demolition.
When did this movement lose it's focus? When did this movement forget about the family members?
WHEN?!?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
I think it's a little
I think it's a little disingenuous of you to lump in CD with tv fakery and space beams. The latter two theories are obviously disinformation, whereas controlled demolition is about as rock solid as anything we have. There's actually a name for this in newspeak: "bracketing". Inserting plausible or factual information between absurd conjecture. The original tabloid (National Enquirer) was founded by the CIA for this very purpose. Not that I'm accusing you of intentional misrepresentation, but in future you may want to avoid this fallacy.
As for the family members, calling for a new investigation is not enough. We've already engaged in an investigation. The verdict's in. It was an inside job. Anyone with an internet conection or a DVD player can adduce this. Family members have to call it as it is. Military families in particular may have access to inside information which can propel 911 truth into the stratosphere and preempt the next preemptive war. No doubt, most of the military victims assumed they were taking part in a drill, only to have it go live. Family members must loudly proclaim this.
You're right, Jon. It's
You're right, Jon. It's time we focused on the stuff we can demonstrate to be true, the families, the responders. The CD side of 9/11 truth is so popular because it's cold and mechanistic and ultimately ineffective rhetorically.
Jon, I remember you being
Jon, I remember you being less thought police-ish regarding CD. In my experience, WTC 7 in particular is a VERY effective way of making people skeptical of the official story. CD is one of the strong arguments; those that you list are also strong arguments. Different people will find different evidence compelling.
But...
It's not about evidence anymore. It's about doing everything that you can to make sure there is a new investigation. That means calling your local media everyday. That means calling state and local representatives as often as possible. That means flyering your local neighborhoods every weekend. That means burning DVDs and handing them out to people. That means having showings of 9/11 movies in your neighborhood. That means having MASSIVE marches the likes of which have never been seen before on the grounds of Washington D.C. That means the time for fighting AMONGST OURSELVES on the internet is OVER. There is an activism section that dz was working on. Use it. There are several pages listed on 911Truth.org that give you ideas of things you can be doing. Whatever it is that you have to do, you do it.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Figures...
That would be voted down.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Who's fighting?
How are efforts to get a real investigation prevented by people pursuing theories they think valid? It's you that is fighting. Your efforts are very much laudable. Perhaps you're right, I could do more on the activism side, but I have not figured out for myself what happened and will keep pursuing any line of inquiry I think valid.
Of course it is about evidence. It always will be. I happen to think physical evidence is far more reliable. I also think evidence like that in Rory's article can too easily be spun into incompetence theory, which the physical evidence shows is wrong.
Who's fighting?
How are efforts to get a real investigation prevented by people pursuing theories they think valid? It's you that is fighting. Your efforts are very much laudable. Perhaps you're right, I could do more on the activism side, but I have not figured out for myself what happened and will keep pursuing any line of inquiry I think valid.
Of course it is about evidence. It always will be. I happen to think physical evidence is far more reliable. I also think evidence like that in Rory's article can too easily be spun into incompetence theory, which the physical evidence shows is wrong.
Fight for the truth
Although I am relatively "new" to the scene and share your frustration, I think we can only be optimistic. I am confident that the truth will prevail.
9/11 was an inside job. The first reaction of many is to reject this conclusion. This conclusion can only be arrived at when you are aware of all or most of the facts. This is our challenge—to present the most conclusive and damning facts. Those who reject logic and overwhelming evidence supporting any conclusion can only be called intellectually dishonest.
Certain people want us to know little of these facts; trying to obscure them through denial, obfuscation, and outright lying to create their “own reality”. They are not going to get away with it. The truth is more powerful than any words that can be spoken by these shameless cowards.
We can't afford to stop the fight for the truth. If we don't expose this arrogant and disgusting murder for what it really was, they will be arrogant enough to try another stunt like this. We should all refuse to let this happen again.
The Reason 9/11 Truth Has The Stigma It Does
Is because *actual* truth seems more covered by a heaping pile of fiction. I've been an ardent 9/11 activist for a couple years now, not afraid to take on even the rabid of debunkers. I still maintain, that those focused on "debunking" the so called "theorists" are in fact some of the most mean spirited and nasty people online next to neo Nazis and gay bashing fundamentalists. They do not care about truth.
That said, who can ya trust information wise? There are some truly gifted investigators, some of th em very young...who are researching 9/11 pro bono. But then there are people, who have a fetish for intentionally creating diversionary crackpot theories at the drop of the hat. I almost fell over laughing when someone told me the new "no plane" thing was beam weapons. I was like "...oh goodness".
People get so extreme...it's like if you DONT believe the "Zionists" did 9/11 with fake planes and fake Arabs, OMG you're a shill. And then the people convinced there is no coverup(which is absurd, there can be no argument about IF there is a coverup of some sort) will bend over backwards to claim there's no unanswered questions.
And somehow the truth gets buried. Case in point: Many in the 9/11 truth movem ent BASHED Press For Truth as "too weak", and then "debunkers" called it a conspiracy theory movie. WTF? Which is it?
The FACT both the extremists in 9/11 truth and the debunkers dont EVER address unrefutable
things like air quality coverup, obvious Pakistani ISI control of the hijackers, the Saudi Embassy 'standdown', WF-199I, the now admitted 9/11 panel lies, Sibel Edmonds, etc speaks volumes.
It's either "melting points and pentagon holes!" or worse: "what plane?" ...or "9/11 was all incompetence, just accept it"...why so polarized? Where's the people who try and look at the evidence and facts unbiased? I myself will never claim "jet fuel and gravity" brought down the towers or WTC7 or that there were no explosions(I however absolutely reject these fake planes/pentagon missile theories)
But why the focus on it? As someone said, IT IS the exact same thing as JFK researchers spending 4 decades on JFK's head tilt RATHER than the solid research showing how it wasnt Oswald alone.
It'd be nice, if FOR ONCE someone could connect the 9/11 dots from 1998 til 2001, really investigate who Khalid Shaek Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were, and just what the hell the ISI was doing involved in the plot as far back as 1999. People say "9/11 is an inside job"...well, dont just say "Oh, Marvin Bush once served on some company directors who ended up doing security at one of the towers" or "Rumsfeld changed some lines in air force protocol". Thats not p rosecution worthy. WHAT IS, is saying
"so and so, recieved money on behalf of so and so, directly related to a coverup"
:yawn: still the same act i
:yawn: still the same act i see.
RE: "...if FOR ONCE someone
RE: "...if FOR ONCE someone could connect the 9/11 dots from 1998 til 2001." -- they're connected in "911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA" - see my reference below: "...an opening"
Pockybot, you said: "The
Pockybot, you said:
"The FACT both the extremists in 9/11 truth and the debunkers dont EVER address unrefutable
things like air quality coverup, obvious Pakistani ISI control of the hijackers, the Saudi Embassy 'standdown', WF-199I, the now admitted 9/11 panel lies, Sibel Edmonds, etc speaks volumes."
I don't think you can be sure that a lot of that evidence is reliable, nor that witnesses will go south on you if it comes to trial.
Incompetence is not crime, and corruption is not murder, even if leads to deaths. 9/11 was a crime.
Your assumption that everyone who questions the planes thinks the "Zionists" did it is unfounded.
I have looked at the papers in engineering journals that purport to show that the planes could have slid into the towers like they did. I think they show just the opposite, through faulty assumptions designed to make the results meet the videos.
If you thnk I'm going to stop my inquiry because you think it impedes you from doing what you think is right, you are sadly mistaken. You can talk about Sibel Edmonds all you want, but don't ask me to talk to people about it, because I think it is a dead-end in nailing the perpetrators.
How do you Pakistani ISI involvement? As far as I know, the intelligence services of India is the source It may well be true, but you don't know whether that can be proved. And as hard as sounds to believe, I bet a relatively innocuous explanation could be found for the Pakistani general wiring money to Atta. Double- triple-agenting that backfires is considered an occupational hazard, apparently, as seen by the Special Forces guy Rory talked about in his article. Incompetence? Reasonable risk? Complicity? Who knows?
Let me rephrase
Incompetence is not crime, and corruption is not murder, even if leads to deaths. 9/11 was mass murder.
Oxymoron
"Conspiracy of incompetence" is an oxymoron. Conspiracy implies conscious intent among a group. Incompetence implies the inability to carry out an action effectively. It's sad that this post even made it up without being torn to pieces.
A horrifying video of a UCLA student being Tasored over & over
again, originally for not showing his ID as he was LEAVING the library, and then for not standing-up immediately after each time he was repeatedly Tasored! The victim’s screams are blood-curdling throughout!
The goons who perpetrated this torture need to be brought up on serious charges immediately!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106torturedid.htm
Why does a student who is already handcuffed need to be Tasered
at all, let alone about 6 times???
There is an opening here
RE (for example): "The FBI allowed the chief spy for al Qaeda to operate right under their noses,'" Lance says in amazement."
This is an opening to the whole shadowy world of patsies and moles essential to false flags ops like 9/11. It needs to be made clear. Al Queda is Gladio for the Middle East, and the War of Terror is the Strategy of Tension for the 21st Century.
Tarpley has this nailed: the notion that al Queda inserted moles into the FBI and CIA is preposterous. The alphabet spooks (including MI-6) have run al Queda right from its emergence from the Mujahidin and the War of Terror has been a stunning intelligence success, not an "intelligence failure" as Woodward writes.
All these books, interviews and accusations now streaming through the corporate media on the "incompetence" of the alphabet spooks are heavy disinfo limited hangouts. Tarpley has suggested they reveal a struggle amongst the oligarchs over the direction, the timing, perhaps even the concept of the War of Civilizations, implemented in full force after the 9/11 putsch.
If Lance's new book, "Triple Cross" gains an audience, it may clear the way for a much broader breakthrough of "911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA." I think there is an opening here. Why not we all send a copy of "911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA," along with Steele's Amazon review, to at least one of our representatives in congress, with a note to the effect that herein are answers to the unanswered questions in "Triple Cross."
I've been pressuring my local progressive community radio station to review "911 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA" and to interview Webster, preferably right before they air Democracy Now. And so far with no luck, but "Triple Cross" may open that door.
I can see this
A great example is the alleged hijackers partying at the strip club the night before, paying with credit cards, talking about Amerricans going to die, and leaving a Quran on the bar. That is obviously an attempt to be remembered. Doesn't mean they got on a plane the next day; more likely means they didn't.
So right on, blog dog, I agree, but this is all the more reason for people that want to pursue physical evidence inquiries to do what they think best, and other people who want to focus on the people to do that.
The only agreement that needs to be reached, in my opinion, is that this was a false flag operation. But I can't force that on anyone. Nor will I be part of a movement if I see it leading toward a "limited hangout." We'll only get one chance; after that, history will be set in stone.