Who Is Harry Samit?

Thanks to www.cooperativeresearch.org

1999: FBI Headquarters Delays Check on Terrorist Trainer for 9 Months, Tries to Block Warning for National Guard
FBI Minneapolis agent Harry Samit learns that an unnamed man plans to travel from the US to Afghanistan to train militants there, and that one of his relatives has applied to join the Minnesota National Guard. Samit wants to run a check on him and notify the National Guard, as he is worried because guardsmen have access to local airports. However, he is blocked for several months by Michael Maltbie, an agent in the Radical Fundamentalist Unit at FBI headquarters, who becomes “extremely agitated” and says this is “just the sort of thing that would get the FBI into trouble.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 3/21/2006; Knight Ridder, 3/21/2006; Hearst Newspapers, 3/21/2006] Samit and Maltbie will later have another running disagreement over the Zacarias Moussaoui case (see August 15-September 10, 2001, August 20-September 11, 2001, August 27, 2001, and August 28, 2001).

August 15-20, 2001: Minneapolis FBI Immediately Suspects Wider Airline Hijacking Plot
Immediately after learning of Zacarias Moussaoui’s suspicious behavior, Minneapolis FBI agent Harry Samit, one of the agents who arrests Moussaoui (see August 16, 2001), suspects he is preparing to hijack an airliner. He writes to a colleague, “That’s pretty ominous and obviously suggests some sort of hijacking plan.” [St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/4/2006] Interviews with Moussaoui after his arrest will reinforce the Minneapolis FBI’s suspicions that he is involved in a wider terrorist plot against airliners (see August 16-17, 2001). And after interviewing Moussaoui’s associate Hussein al-Attas as well (see August 16, 2001), Samit is unequivocally “convinced… a hundred percent that Moussaoui [is] a bad actor, [is] probably a professional mujaheddin and this [is] not a joyride, that he [is] completely bent on the use of this aircraft for destructive purposes.” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 114-5, 120-2 pdf file] In the main initial memo from Samit to other FBI units, Samit describes Moussaoui as “extremely evasive” and “extremely agitated.” Samit also writes that Moussaoui appeared to by lying when he denied he had weapons training. Samit says, “Minneapolis believes that Moussaoui is an Islamic extremist preparing for some future act in furtherance of radical fundamentalist goals.” Samit expresses his belief Moussaoui is planning something with a 747-400. He is aware Moussaoui’s plan probably involves co-conspirators and writes “Moussaoui, al-Attas, and others yet unknown are conspiring to commit violations of [Federal anti-terrorism statutes],” and “there is reason to believe that Moussaoui and al-Attas are part of a larger international radical fundamentalist group.” Samit even suspects Moussaoui of two of the offenses he will eventually be charged with and plead guilty to (see April 22, 2005). The e-mail accompanying the main memo concludes, “[p]lease let me know a soon as [the Department] gives the go-ahead. We’re all counting on you!” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 120-2 pdf file; Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/4/2006]

August 16-17, 2001: Moussaoui Interviews Raise Concerns for FBI Agents
After Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested, he consents to be interviewed on the day of the arrest and the next day by FBI agent Harry Samit. However, the interviews only alarm the FBI more, as Moussaoui makes a number of suspicious statements and his answers are extremely evasive: [CNN, 9/28/2002; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006]

  • Moussaoui says he does not want the French consul to be informed of his arrest, which makes the FBI think he is a criminal or an Islamic militant;
  • Although Moussaoui says he works for a British company called NOP, he cannot remember what the letters stand for, neither can he recall his salary, job description, or any details of the business; [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006]
  • He says he works as a “marketing consultant” for Infocus Tech, a Southeast Asian technology company, but also fails to provide information about that company; [MSNBC, 12/11/2001; US Congress, 10/17/2002; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006]
  • When asked about his $32,000 bank balance, he initially says it is his savings, but then admits it was given to him by friends and associates, but he cannot remember their names;
  • Moussaoui’s passport, which indicates he spent two months in Pakistan shortly before arriving in the US, is new and he tells the FBI his old one was destroyed in the washing machine, which the agents know is a common lie for international criminals.

When Samit asks Moussaoui about his trips to Pakistan and tells Moussaoui his story does not add up and they are suspicious, Moussaoui requests an attorney and the interview ends. [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006] Moussaoui’s associate Hussein al-Attas is also interviewed around this time and makes several statements indicating Moussaoui may be linked with a militant group (see August 16, 2001).

August 20, 2001: Moussaoui Associate Bailed Out of Custody by Subject of Counterterrorism Investigation
Hussein al-Attas, an associate of Zacarias Moussaoui, is released from an immigration detention center on bail. Al-Attas was questioned and detained shortly after Moussaoui’s arrest (see August 16, 2001 and August 16, 2001). His bail is paid by Mujahid Abdulqadir Menepta, who was investigated by the FBI over terrorism suspicions. When agents from the Minneapolis field office investigate Menepta, they find that he knows Moussaoui and attended the same mosque as him in Norman, Oklahoma. They also discover that he has an extensive criminal history and was the subject of a New York criminal-terrorism related investigation. Minneapolis agent Harry Samit writes in a memo to FBI headquarters that he thinks Menepta may be involved in whatever Moussaoui is plotting. Samit explains that he told immigration officers that he traveled to Pakistan in 1989 as part of a missionary effort. Samit says the international Islamic organization that sponsored the trip has been linked by the FBI to the recruitment of militants. Samit also reports that Menepta wasn’t entirely truthful with the INS. Samit says Pakistan apparently issued him a visa in April 1990, something he failed to disclose to the INS. Additionally, Menepta told immigration officers that he is al-Attas’ roommate, but al-Attas has been living with Moussaoui and another man for one month at an address different than the one indicated by Menepta. Samit says that the the explanation that he flew to Minneapolis to post al-Attas’ bond so that al-Attas can return to teach children at the Oklahoma mosque seems “farfetched.” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 135-6 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 pdf file]

August 21, 2001: FBI Headquarters Blocks Criminal Investigation into Moussaoui
Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) denies a request from the Minneapolis FBI field office to seek a criminal warrant to search the belongings of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested on August 15 as part of an intelligence investigation (see August 16, 2001 and August 16, 2001). Minneapolis agents believe they had uncovered sufficient evidence that Moussaoui is involved in a criminal conspiracy, and want to obtain a criminal search warrant instead of a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But because they originally opened an intelligence investigation, they cannot go directly to the local US attorney’s office for the warrant. In order to begin a parallel criminal investigation, they must first obtain permission from the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) so they can pass the information over the “wall.” [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006] Harry Samit, a Minneapolis FBI agent on the Moussaoui case, calls Dave Frasca, the head of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters, to discuss the request. Samit tells Frasca that they have already completed the paperwork for a criminal investigation, but, according to Samit, Frasca says, “You will not open it, you will not open a criminal case.” Frasca says that argument for probable cause in seeking a criminal warrant is “shaky” and notes that if they fail to obtain a criminal warrant, they will be unable to obtain a warrant under FISA. Samit, who has only been with the FBI since 1999, defers to his superior, and writes on the paperwork, “Not opened per instructions of Dave Frasca.” Samit then tells his Chief Division Counsel, Coleen Rowley, about the conversation, and she also advises him that it would be better to apply for a warrant under FISA. When the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) interviews Frasca after 9/11, he will claim he never spoke to Samit about this matter, and that the conversation was with Chris Briese, one of Samit’s superiors. However, Briese will deny this and the OIG will conclude that the conversation was between Samit and Frasca. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 128-132 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file] To get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui’s belongings the FBI must now show there is probable cause to believe Moussaoui is an agent of a foreign power. [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006] A criminal warrant to search Moussaoui’s belongings will be granted only after the 9/11 attacks (see September 11, 2001).

August 22, 2001: French Connect Moussaoui to Chechen Rebels, FBI Headquarters Still Refuses Search Warrant
Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who assisted the FBI with the Moussaoui case.Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who assisted the FBI with the Moussaoui case. [Source: Michel Lipchitz / Associated Press]After arresting Zacarias Moussaoui, the FBI’s Minneapolis field office asks French authorities if they have any information on him. The French then provide the US with intelligence indicating that Moussaoui is associated with a radical militant who died fighting for the Chechen rebels in 2000 (see Late 1999-Late 2000). The French interviewed one of this militant’s associates who said he had been recruited by Moussaoui to fight in Chechnya and described Moussaoui as “the dangerous one.” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 140-1 pdf file] French authorities attempt to gather additional information by talking to Moussaoui’s mother. Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France’s lead investigating magistrate in charge of counterterrorism affairs, also provides information. “Let’s just say that Zacarias Moussaoui was well-known by the French security service…,” Bruguiere later recalls in a 2004 interview with CBC. “When the names come from abroad, we usually have a file, and it was the same with him. He was a well-known personality. He lived in France and then left here to go to England.” Bruguiere will also say that the French provided US authorities with information on Moussaoui’s activities in both France and England (see 1999 and August 21, 2001-September 13, 2001). [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 3/16/2004] Upon reviewing this information, Mike Maltbie of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit at FBI headquarters will inform Minneapolis that it is not enough for a search warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because, even though the French sent information about Moussaoui, Maltbie objects that the Moussaoui the French are talking about may not be the same one Minneapolis has in custody. The result of this is that FBI staff are sent on what Minneapolis agent Harry Samit will later call a “wild goose chase”—they are asked to spend days poring through French phone books to make sure they have the right Moussaoui. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 8/27/2001 pdf file; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 8/28/2001 pdf file; Newsday, 3/21/2006; Los Angeles Times, 3/21/2006] For a search warrant to be granted there must be probable cause to believe Moussaoui is an agent of a foreign power. Maltbie claims that the Chechen rebels, who have never been treated as a foreign power before for a FISA warrant, cannot be treated as such, because they are not a “recognized” foreign power, only dissidents engaged in a civil war, and are not hostile to the US. In fact, the FBI has already received information indicating a close relationships between Chechen rebels and bin Laden (see, e.g., 1986-March 20, 2002 , August 24, 2001, and (October 1993-November 2001)) and that the two groups are working together on a strike against US interests (see Before April 13, 2001). Maltbie says that even if the Chechen rebels are a foreign power, then it will take some time to develop this information to the point where a FISA application can be submitted. Previous to this, Maltbie had only once advised a field office it was not going to get a FISA warrant. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 141-4 pdf file] The French provide more information on Moussaoui a few days later (see August 30, 2001).

August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters
In the wake of the French intelligence report (see August 22, 2001) on Zacarias Moussaoui, FBI agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, are “in a frenzy” and “absolutely convinced he [is] planning to do something with a plane.” Agent Greg Jones tells FBI headquarters that Moussaoui might “fly something into the World Trade Center.” [Newsweek, 5/20/2002; US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 153 pdf file] Minneapolis FBI agents become “desperate to search the computer lap top” and “conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects,” especially since Moussaoui acted as if he was hiding something important in the laptop when arrested. [Time, 5/21/2002; Time, 5/27/2002] As the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters has already blocked an application for a criminal warrant (see August 21, 2001), the FBI’s Minneapolis field office must apply for one under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Minneapolis agent Harry Samit completes an application for a warrant to search Moussaoui’s belongings on August 25. To obtain the warrant, he has to show there is probable cause to believe Moussaoui is an agent of a foreign power. The memo states that Moussaoui recruited a fighter for a particular Chechen rebel group connected to al-Qaeda, so he is connected to al-Qaeda through the Chechens. However, the RFU at FBI headquarters believes that the Chechen rebels should not be described as a foreign power and that the link between the Chechens and bin Laden is not strong enough. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 128-132 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file] However, earlier in 2001 the FBI had received information indicating that this Chechen group and bin Laden were planning to attack US interests (see Before April 13, 2001). Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley later sums up how the Minneapolis agents feel at this point, when she says FBI headquarters “almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks” and undermine their efforts. Headquarters personnel bring up “almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.” One of Jones’ e-mails to FBI headquarters says they are “setting this up for failure.” That turns out to be correct. [Time, 5/21/2002; Time, 5/27/2002; US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 161 pdf file]

August 24, 2001: CIA Backs Minneapolis’ Request for Search Warrant
After being contacted by FBI headquarters (see (August 20, 2001)) and the local Minneapolis field office (see August 24, 2001), the CIA offers an opinion on the Moussaoui case. In response to French information linking Moussaoui to the Chechen rebels (see August 22, 2001), a CIA officer tells Minneapolis agent Harry Samit that this is “highly interesting,” adding, “[I] am not sure why this is not enough to firmly link Moussaoui to a terrorist group—Ibn Al-Khattab is well known to be the leader of the Chechen mujaheddin movement and to be a close buddy with bin Laden from their earlier fighting days. From a read of the [French] info, Moussaoui is a recruiter for Khattab. I can confirm from our own info that in fact the dead guy [Masooud Al-Benin] in fact was a fighter for Khattab who perished in Chechnya in April 2000” (see Late 1999-Late 2000). In a document submitted to court, the CIA officer will state “[T]he connection between Ibn Khattab and Osama bin Laden had been known for years at the CIA… it was crystal clear that Khattab and [bin Laden] were intricately tied together and they had clearly shared funding operations and training… it was no leap of faith to connect Khattab to [bin Laden] and there was lots of information connecting the two groups… the FBI informed [me] that French information discerned that Moussaoui had recruited for Khattab, clearly establishing his connection to Khattab, and thereby his connection to [bin Laden].” However, FBI headquarters, which is aware that bin Laden and the Chechen rebel leader are plotting together against the US (see, e.g., Before April 13, 2001), will refuse to apply for a search warrant for Moussaoui’s belongings, saying that the connections between Moussaoui and the Chechen rebels, and the Chechen rebels and bin Laden are not strong enough to justify one (see August 20-September 11, 2001 and August 28, 2001). [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 pdf file]

August 27, 2001: Conflict between Minneapolis and FBI Headquarters Comes into the Open
FBI agents at the bureau’s Minneapolis field office have been arguing with the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) over whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings (see August 20-September 11, 2001). The tensions surface in a call between Minneapolis agent Greg Jones and Supervisory Special Agent Mike Maltbie. This is a partial reconstruction of the conversation based on Jones’ notes: Maltbie: “What you have done is couched [the request] in such a way that people get spun up.” Jones: “Good. We want to make sure he doesn’t get control of an airplane and crash it into the [World Trade Center] or something like that.” Maltbie: “[T]hat’ not going to happen. We don’t know he’s a terrorist. You don’t have enough to show he is a terrorist. You have a guy interested in this type of aircraft—that is it.” Jones also asks whether the warrant request has been shown to Section Chief Michael Rolince yet, and Maltbie replies it has not. [US Congress, 10/17/2002; US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 153-5 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file] Another Minneapolis agent, Harry Samit, also contacts Maltbie and expresses his frustration with RFU’s position that they do not have enough evidence. In an interview with the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General he recalls telling Maltbie: “… if you’re not going to advance this the FISA route, or if you don’t believe we have enough for a FISA, I shudder to think—and that’s all I got out. And [Maltbie] cut me off and said, ‘You will not question the unit chief and you will not question me. We’ve been through a lot. We know what’s going on. You will not question us.’ And that could be the mantra for FBI supervisors.” [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 155 pdf file]

August 29-September 4, 2001: Minneapolis Memo to FAA Warning of Moussaoui Is Blocked by FBI Headquarters
Harry Samit, an agent at the FBI’s Minneapolis field office, drafts a memo to the FAA summarizing the facts of the Zacarias Moussaoui case. In it, he writes, “Minneapolis believes that Moussaoui, [his roommate Hussein] al-Attas, and others not yet known were engaged in preparing to seize a Boeing 747-400 in commission of a terrorist act. As Moussaoui denied requests for consent to search his belongings and was arrested before sufficient evidence of criminal activity was revealed, it is not known how far advanced were his plans to do so.” He also mentions Moussaoui’s physical and marital arts training and expresses concern that France, where Moussaoui will soon be deported, may not be able to hold him or his property for long. But Mike Maltbie of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) instructs the Minneapolis field office not to send the memo because he is also drafting a memo on the Moussaoui case that will be sent to the FAA and other agencies. However Maltbie’s memo lacks a threat assessment and does not mention Minneapolis’ suspicions that Moussaoui might be planning a terrorist act involving a hijacked airplane. The memo does not result in any FAA action. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 174-7 pdf file; Los Angeles Times, 3/20/2006] A meeting between Samit and a Minneapolis FAA officer will also fail to produce any FAA action (see September 4, 2001).

(August 30-September 10, 2001): FBI Plans to Deport Moussaoui So Belongings Can Be Searched in France
Following the collapse of the FBI’s attempts to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings (see August 28, 2001), the FBI begins working on a plan to deport him to France so his belongings can be searched there. The French ask that a law enforcement officer from the US accompany Moussaoui. The FBI’s Minneapolis field office and the FBI’s assistant legal attache in Paris ask that Minneapolis agent Harry Samit and an INS agent go to France with Moussaoui to brief the French and await the results of the search of his belongings. Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) chief Dave Frasca opposes this plan. Michael Rolince, head of the bureau’s International Terrorism Operations Section, opposes it as well, later claiming that he thought Samit might try to obtain information from Moussaoui on the journey. For several days, Frasca and one of his subordinates, Mike Maltbie, continue to haggle with Minneapolis over whether Samit can accompany Moussaoui. But when the French and the assistant legal attache insist, they drop their objections. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 171-3 pdf file] Minneapolis is highly unsatisfied with this solution and would have preferred to obtain a warrant to search his belongings. Samit writes before 9/11 that deporting Moussaoui “was a distant third in my list of desired outcomes, but at this point I am so desperate to get into his computer I’ll take anything.” [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/10/2001 pdf file] Samit will later accuse the RFU of “criminal negligence” because they were trying to “run out the clock” and deport Moussaoui, instead of prosecuting him. [Washington Post, 3/21/2006] The 9/11 attacks occur before the deportation can take place (see September 11, 2001).

September 11, 2001: FBI Agents Obtain Warrant for Moussaoui Too Late
Two pages from Moussaoui’s notebooks mentioning Ahad Sabet (Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s alias), plus phone number and mention of his residence in Germany.Two pages from Moussaoui’s notebooks mentioning Ahad Sabet (Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s alias), plus phone number and mention of his residence in Germany. [Source: FBI]Within an hour of the attacks of 9/11, the Minnesota FBI uses a memo written to FBI headquarters shortly after Moussaoui’s arrest to ask permission from a judge for the search warrant they have been desperately seeking. After the WTC is hit for the first time, Mike Maltbie of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters calls the Minneapolis field office and talks to Coleen Rowley. When Rowley says it is essential they get a warrant to search Moussaoui’s belongings, Maltbie instructs her to take no action, because it could have an impact on matters of which she is not aware. Rowley replies that it would have to be the “hugest coincidence” if Moussaoui were not related to the attack. She says that Maltbie replies that coincidence is the right word. Maltbie will later say he does not recall using the word “coincidence” in the conversation. Maltbie then consults an FBI attorney, who says Minneapolis should seek the warrant. While Rowley is waiting for Maltbie to call back, one of her colleagues, Chris Briese, talks to RFU chief Dave Frasca. According to Briese, Frasca initially says there is not enough evidence for a criminal warrant, but when they find out the Pentagon has been hit Frasca consents. Frasca says that he consents immediately. [Time, 5/21/2002; US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 178-9 pdf file] Briese later tells Samit that Frasca also initially claims it was just “a coincidence.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/4/2006] A federal judge approves a criminal search warrant that afternoon. [New Yorker, 9/30/2002; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006] The Radical Fundamentalist Unit at FBI headquarters had previously blocked requests for criminal and intelligence search warrants (see August 21, 2001 and August 28, 2001). Minnesota FBI Agent Coleen Rowley notes that this very memo was previously deemed insufficient by FBI headquarters to get a search warrant, and the fact that they are immediately granted one when finally allowed to ask shows “the missing piece of probable cause was only the [FBI headquarters’] failure to appreciate that such an event could occur.” [Time, 5/21/2002] After the warrant is granted, the belongings are then rushed to an evidence response team, which discovers documents linking Moussaoui to eleven of the hijackers (see August 16, 2001). Rowley later suggests that if they had received the search warrant sooner, “There is at least some chance that… may have limited the September 11th attacks and resulting loss of life.” [Time, 5/27/2002]

March 6-May 4, 2006: Zacarias Moussaoui Stands Trial
Zacarias Moussaoui becomes the first and only person charged in direct connection with the 9/11 attacks to stand trial in the US. [Associated Press, 3/17/2006] He was preparing to hijack an aircraft and fly it into a target when he was arrested 26 days before 9/11 (see August 16, 2001 and April 22, 2005). Although there has been disagreement whether Moussaoui was to take part in the actual attack of 9/11 or a follow-up plot (see January 30, 2003), the prosecution alleges that Moussaoui had information related to the attacks (see August 16, 2001) and facilitated them by lying and not disclosing everything he knew to the FBI. He is charged with six counts, including conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy. [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 12/11/2001 pdf file] The trial receives much media coverage and the highlights include the playing of United 93’s cockpit recorder (see April 12, 2006), a row over a government lawyer coaching witnesses (see March 13, 2006), and testimony by FBI agent Harry Samit (see March 9 and 20, 2006), former FBI assistant director Michael Rolince (see March 21, 2006), and Moussaoui himself (see March 27, 2006). Moussaoui is forced to wear a stun belt, controlled by one of the marshalls, under his jumpsuit. The belt is to be used if Moussaoui lunges at a trial participant. [New York Times, 4/17/2006] He has already pleaded guilty (see April 22, 2005) and the trial is divided into two phases; in the first phase the jury decides that Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty, but in the second phase it fails to achieve unanimity on whether Moussaoui should be executed (see May 3, 2006). [Associated Press, 4/3/2006; New York Times, 4/17/2006]

March 9 and 20, 2006: FBI Agent Testifying at Moussaoui Trial Blames FBI ‘Criminal Negligence’ for Not Stopping 9/11 Plot
FBI agent Harry Samit testifies at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (see March 6-May 4, 2006). Samit was one of the main agents involved in Moussaoui’s arrest and bombarded his superiors will messages about the danger Moussaoui posed (see August 21, 2001 and August 21, 2001). Under direct examination he relates what happened in August 2001 (see August 22, 2001). The prosecutor asks Samit several times what he would have done if Moussaoui had told the truth, and Samit is usually allowed by the judge to say how it would have helped the investigation and made 9/11 less likely. [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 3/9/2006] However, under cross examination Samit says he was not fooled by Moussaoui’s lies and that he immediately suspected him of preparing to hijack an airplane, but that the investigation was thwarted by FBI headquarters, and the Radical Fundamentalist Unit in particular. He admits that he told the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General that FBI headquarters was guilty of “obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism” and that its opposition blocked “a serious opportunity to stop the 9/11 attacks.” [Associated Press, 3/20/2006] Similar charges were made by one of Samit’s colleagues, Coleen Rowley, after 9/11 (see May 21, 2002). The Los Angeles Times will comment “His testimony appeared to undermine the prosecution’s case for the death penalty.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/20/2006]

September 2006: Moussaoui Agent Prevented from Speaking at Forum and Reassigned, then Moved Back
Michael Tabman, the Minneapolis FBI field office’s special agent in charge, prevents Harry Samit from speaking at a national security forum about the Moussaoui case and removes him from counterterrorism investigations. Samit was an important figure in the Zacarias Moussaoui investigation just before 9/11 (see August 15-September 10, 2001, August 16, 2001 and August 20-September 11, 2001). Unlike his former colleague Coleen Rowley (see May 21, 2002 and February 26, 2003), Samit has never gone public with his criticism of the FBI’s handling of the case. Tabman has been working at the Minneapolis office only since 2005. After Samit files a complaint, FBI headquarters will reassign him to counterterrorism and send Tabman back to headquarters. [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/23/2006; Associated Press, 1/10/2007]

Cheers for this

How about Tom Wilshire next time? Or Michael Rolince?

Robert Wright...

Is next, followed by Coleen Rawley, and Indira Singh. There will be more. Thanks for the input.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Lets not forget

LT. Col. Anthony Shaffer. The man's career was ruined and the 911 Commission report does not even mention him.


It's good to see these posts

It's easy to forget how new people coming onto this site haven't had the same exposure to the overwhelming range of anomalies in the official account, and how well documented they are. I think it's a great idea to regularly post digestible sections of Paul Thompson's Timeline here.

Thanks for the effort – many out here do appreciate it.


How is this news?

Interesting read.

How is this news though?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Jon has no say as to what

Jon has no say as to what gets put in the "News" section. This is more a "blog" piece but it is probably News to a lot of people on the site. I know Jon likes to write to the "newbies".

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Hi Jon, Did You...

Ever consider that much of this information was planted before and after 9/11 to support the official "IslamoFacsist" conspiracy theory? If we do agree that 9/11 was some sort of inside job then wouldn't it make sense that the official story was prepared far in advance?

Seems more likely that these guys were patsies and high level officials are planting the seeds of the official conspiracy by ignoring the guy and claiming that 'red tape' prohibits them from acting on it's own inteligence...which is bascially how the US Government covered it's ass after 9/11...

so much red tape....

But lucky for us....even without the Moussaoui Circus Freak Show we still have building 7!

An obvious, in your face, controlled demolition.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

There is more to 9/11...

Why would someone vote this down?

Someone doesn't believe there is more to 9/11 than controlled demolition? Seriously? You don't think looking at the 9/11 Commission and its report has any value as a form of protest?

C'mon, guys. Quit hounding Jon, and just accept 9/11 Truth in its many forms.

why someone might vote it down

well , maybe because Jon didnt answer the question.
i think jpass brought up an important point that is definitely worth considering. and i dont see how Jons answer helped to 'solve' the issue or to understand his position at all.
reason enough to vote it down imo.

My position is this...

There is a concerted effort within the movement, and within the media to make "Controlled Demolition" the focal point of this movement, and I am doing everything within my power to make sure that doesn't happen.

There is more to 9/11 than "Controlled Demolition."

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

And I for one commend

And I for one commend you...

9/11 is vast and to get to it we need real names of government officials involved in the setup and coverup. The CD aspect proves 9/11 was an inside job, but I doubt your ever going to find a living soul that put the charges in those buildings. Can't try and convict dead men.
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Ok Jon, but

what does this have to do with the question jpass was asking ? We all know that this is your opinion, but i can't see how this matters in the context of the concerns that were at hand here...

why should anyone feel obligated

to respond to speculation? do you have proof this research was 'planted'?

is Jon responsible for providing proof it wasn't?

i don't think so.

i think the burden of proof is on you to provide facts - not speculation and opinions.


JohnA, i dont think its about being 'obligated' to respond. As you can see, there WAS a response. Just a pretty silly one.
Heres what a possible answer to the point at hand could have looked like:
"I dont think this is planted in any way at all. That just makes no sense to me".
That would have been easy, no? And as far as i can tell trough the fog this is what you think.
Instead, we got the typical 'this is not the CD movement - and i bravely fight against the CD interruptors who are responsible for us being painted as crazy loons by the mass media' type of crap .

If people feel his response

If people feel his response is typical that means you have seen it is a response to that type of question, over and over again.
So if that is going to be his response, as it is Typical, why ask the question in the first place then pick a fight because of the expected answer??

That just makes no sense to me.
The 9/11 Truth B-Team


first, it was more than one person. 2nd, what do u mean by 'that type of question'? care to explain what u mean by 'type of' ? Could it be that you mean 'a question that does not agree with JG' by 'that type of' ?
so, in essence, you are saying 'why do you disagree with JG when u do in fact know that you'll get the typical no-answer and 'you are the church of CD' type crap from him.

Is that correct?

first - i prefaced my

first - i prefaced my statement by using the word "People" to set the context of the pronoun "you", its a bit clumsy but you is used in the plural sense as was prefaced.
2nd - There have been many different people who have poked at Jon from many different angles because he tends to focus on portions of the 9/11 Myth other than Controlled Demolition, so by "that type of" I mean setting up the argument where none exists.

There were patsies, they were critical, without them there would be no connection to allow wars of aggression. Without them there would be no need fool people into letting the Government destroy the bill of rights. So again 'that type of' question is referring to the needling of Jon to illicit his predictable response, which is a no-answer.

Its tiresome and I am sure Jon is tired of it (hence his no-answer).

And for FYI, we are probably NEVER going to find out exactly who did the dirty work, we need to get NAMES of people who can be questioned under oath before a grand jury, separate them individually from their cloak of anonymity which they desperately need in order to function. That is exactly what Jon is doing, highlighting the functionaries that made this happen, either by documenting them specifically, or the actions of honest men and women trying to do their jobs and who blocked them.

CD is proven, but it alone is not going to get convictions.

There IS more to 9/11 then Controlled Demolition.
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

you express opinions

not facts.

speculating that this information was 'planted' is a theory - not a fact - and IMHO a quite silly one at that.

no one in this movement is obligated to sign on to any one theory. those who continually seek to divide us by talking about LIHOP vs. MIHOP are doing a great disservice to our collectively shared goals - ACCOUNTABILITY.

Furthermore, i could take your approach and stand it on its head.

For example: doesn't it make sense that the government would seek to discredit and silence legitimate facts and research by planting people in the movement to apply peer pressure in favor of continually pointing the movement away from these facts - and back to controlled demolition - which is then used by the media to attack us as loonies?

Bill Maher quote: "Stop asking me to cover this ridiculous issue on my show, and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for YOU"

(much laughter and applause)

your speculation about 'pre-planted evidence' is divisive. why do you do it?

you set up a false dichotomy between CD and non-CD research - as if we are all obligated to choose between the two.

you have no proof that these facts were 'pre-planted' - and it is a very sad state of affairs when 911 Truth activists seek to supress some of the most hard-fought-for research available to us - in favor of personal opinions and speculations.

it is a sad state of affairs when legitimate research is simply voted down because someone decides it was 'planted'. it is irresponsible.

we have enough of a hard time educating people on this subject without people floating un-corroborated accusations aimed at silencing some of our best researchers.

If I drank, I'd drink to

If I drank, I'd drink to that. Thanks for the input.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info



Hold on one second turbo....

I'm not suppressing anything or anyone. Jon is free to post what he wants. I offer some counter points. It seems like Jon and you just want to post shit willy nilly with no follow up from others. If that is the case, go start a blog where you can post shit till the the cows come home and disable comments so you are free to post without input from others.

If my simple comments, my alternate scenarios, and my written observations about Jon Gold's whacky antics are out of line and somehow threaten the message he is trying to present...then I feel sorry for the Jon Gold Truth Movement. I'm just some guy who has some of the facts. If I can threaten your message with a few comments then Jon might want to refine his message.

You are suggesting that I'm suppressing Jon Gold's message with hardly any effort at all. Laughable.

Jon Gold's attitude and the way in which he carries himself on these topics is so fucking suspicious it's not even funny.

And for JohnA to call ME divisive for suggesting alternate explanations to Jon's blog....is ridiculous....when Jon Gold' himself has declared a fuckin fatwa' on anyone who thinks that the obvious demolition of WTC 7 should be a flagship argument of 9/11 truth....What's up JohnA....isn't THAT divisive enough to deserve a comment from YOU?

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

I didn't vote on your blog or your comments

But since you've gone off the topic I will continue the trend and express my 'concern' about the movement and Jon Gold more specifically.

Why is it that you post information and when anyone engages you beyond comments of support for your blog entry....you quickly fall back into the 'me vs. them' mentality?

I asked a few questions directly related to the material you provided and you are now on your "this is the Jon Gold Movement...not the Controlled Demolition Movement" schtick.

I say the "jon gold movement' because you have created a scenario of opposition where whatever you are saying is apparently in compitition with the controlled demolition theory. I did add my snooty comment about wtc 7 but that is my beleief . The obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7 is the golden egg.

But it's not against you Jon. I don't quite understand your resentment for anyone who engages you on your information beyond simple comments of support.

Does the Jon Gold movement allow debate on Jon Gold's information blog content or not?

By the way, I didn't vote on yoru content or your comments here.

Cry baby.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

Most of what you say...

Is either meant to instigate a fight, or is filled with opinions that I neither have the time for or the inclination to engage. Mostly opinions I disagree with.

You admit that you are the one that brought up "Controlled Demolition" with your "snooty comment about wtc 7", and I called you on it, yet I'm the one that made "this is the Jon Gold Movement...not the Controlled Demolition Movement" schtick.

jpass... don't expect me to respond to you again. You're nothing but a waste of time.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks


JG - "don't expect me to respond to you again. You're nothing but a waste of time"

If I didn't know your modus operandi I would not expect you to respond. But we've been through this. I ask legitimate questions about your content. To blame your lackluster response on my one line about WTC 7 is a bit of a stretch.

It doesn't matter if the information you provide is accurate or just a bunch of main-stream media bullshit planted by someone on the inside, it ultimately leads to one conclusion...that these 'islamo terrorists' are indeed patsies who were being guided every step of the way by higher-ups.

I can't imagine 'real' under-cover terrorists would act so conspicuously while training and planning their evil plot of destruction.

Sorry for calling you a cry baby.

BTW, if you have a problem with the obvious demolition of WTC 7 being the flagship 9/11 Truth issues for success.... you should write up your own blog explaining the collapse and then write another that explains what you are saying should take it's place as the flagship 9/11 truth issue for success.

Can't Stop 9/11 Fever

your logic fails on a few key points

Jon has simply posted some research. it is you who chose to editorialize on the validity of this research by claiming it may have been 'planted' to forward the myth of "islamofascism".

this is speculation of the highest order. it is simply an opinion. and while opinions are always welcome - i think it is inappropriate to give opinions for which you have no factual evidence to support.

your excuse for doing this is to, yet again, challenge Jon with a completely unrelated line of research - CD - which you know full well is a highly contentious issue for Jon. this is baiting. This blog has nothing to do with CD - and your insistence in inserting it here is contentious - to the extreme.

now - unless you have some facts to offer regarding the Harry Sammit case - i would suggest let this drop. i see no real value from making this personal. your response above is further suspect in that you accuse Jon in a very personal way. this is again a hallmark sign of disruption. this is again pushing buttons.

you have offered nothing here in the way of research. you have offered nothing in the way of facts. yet - this message board now appears to descend into a conflict of your making. i would suggest dropping it.

you hit on it, he goes out

you hit on it, he goes out of his way to bash controlled demolition and create division where there really is none. and above he went so far as to engage in guilt by association yet again. listen to the language, a "concerted effort by both". the MSM AND "some in this movement" want CD to be the only focus.(by the way, whos saying it should be the only focus?) if CD is dropped by all in the movement the MSM will NOT all of a sudden talk about Pakistan or whatever they want them to and the MSM has yet to give CD a fair shake anyway. please Jon,DHS, John, imgstacke, the whole crew, please show me one instance where CD has gotten a fair shake. how many lines in that History Channel farce did Steve Jones get? exactly. im not against presenting information other than CD and in fact encourage people to give more than just that but i will never understand the tendency by some to lash out at those who push CD as if they are "hurting the movement". the facts are on our side, how stupid would it be to drop it and ignore them because the MSM pretends to "debunk" it? they only confront CD because they have to, its visual, its in your face and fairly obvious to many so they HAVE to at least pretend to debunk it. they also confront it because its the very thing that brought many people to question 9/11 in the first place. somehow these facts are lost on some. i guess we would have "won" by now if Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Gage etc. never did their work and everyone in this movement put CD on the list of unmentionables huh? isnt this about waking as many people up as possible to the reality that the official story is a fraud and we need answers? doesnt CD prove that its a fraud on so many levels? CD shouldnt be presented alone but it should never be left out, that makes no sense. there is much more to 9/11 than CD but proponents of CD shouldnt be accused of hurting the movement, thats ridiculous and the facts show flat out wrong. whatever though, let this circle jerk continue. for the record i didnt vote this blog down either.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Two questions...

1) Who brought up CD in this blog?
2) Where did I bash "Controlled Demolition" in this blog?

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

guilt by association.

guilt by association. "concerted effort by the media and some in the movement", talking about "fighitng that" as in your going to fight back against CD proponents etc. im done with it.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


Isn't that criticism against certain individuals and not "Controlled Demolition?" Yes Chris, it is.

And to answer the second question for you, it was jpass that brought up "Controlled Demolition." Not me.

Now that you're "done with it", I'll say my goodbyes. Good bye.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

sorry, one last thing...

still waiting on an answer to that question:


Good bye.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I'll tell you what Chris...

I'll give you the opportunity to speak to me face to face. Since we live in the same area, I'm guessing that's not a problem. Email me at Gold9472@comcast.net so we can work out a time to get together.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

simple question still not answered. why?

is that a threat Jon? thats not like you.......

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I didn't threaten you...

I asked you to meet me face to face. Since we live in the same area, I figured that wouldn't be a problem. Talking is a helluva lot easier than typing. Why you would think that was a threat, I have no idea.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

for what purpose exactly?

we dont need to meet in person for you to answer that one simple question you keep ducking for some strange reason do we? would you really want to meet me in person? what would you gain from that? thats why i took it as a threat, that and based on your sort of aggressive online persona. and i thought I had anger issues......(seriously Jon, i tried to say i was done with you, im moving on now. its clear you dont wanna vouche for the credibilty of camera. you should have just admitted that from the start.)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

It's not my site...

And I've never seen it before today. Why on Earth should I vouch for it? I posted a report that said the Ariel Sharon quote was fabricated. You can either believe that report or not. Just like I can choose to believe whether or not you're sincere in regards to this cause. I figured we could get together, chat, take a load off, and give me the chance to get to know you and gauge whether or not I think you're sincere. Your online persona doesn't give me that impression. wolfowitz is the one that said he doesn't like mainstream sources, so I gave him one that wasn't, and now you're questioning the validity of that report? I wish you people would make up your minds.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Jon Gold questioning if im

Jon Gold questioning if im sincere? gee, that hurts considering you dont do that a lot or anything. i actually prefer mainstream sources over sources with a clear agenda like camera. so the "you people" comment doesnt work here. camera has a clear agenda whether you admit it or not. i have to admit im floored by the fact that you would want to meet me to "gauge if im sincere" though. i dont even know what to make of that one. how exactly would you gauge that? what could you possibly get out of meeting me? im sorry, it just sounds like some sort of vague threat to me. and you really havent heard of camera before today? read the site for a bit, you'll probably reconsider using that as a source in the future.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

the camera agenda

Positive commentary by Camera:

Fox News: "Launched in 1996, Fox News entered the field with the proclaimed goal of providing "fair and balanced" news reporting. True to its credo, Fox News offers a large variety of viewpoints and its reporters do not shirk from calling a terrorist a terrorist."

In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Mitchell Kaidy writes that "CAMERA depicts Middle East issues in black and white, with no gray areas of doubts or complexity. According to CAMERA, Muslims are the villains, because they are Muslim; they hate Jews because they are Jewish. Have historians therefore been consistently wrong in concluding that Islam, which honors many Hebrew prophets, has been more tolerant of Jews than Christians have been? CAMERA thinks so."[19]


this is just from the wikipedia page. camera has a long history of lying and distorting the facts to fit its anti-muslim, pro-war agenda. camera is directly connected to AIPAC and the ADL which have both long been criticized for distorting facts themselves and engaging in witch hunts against anyone who levels legit criticism at Israel. not a good source at all, that was my point. now vote me down, facts are scary.(but would you still vote me down if i replaced Israel with Pakistan? and does talking about Pakistan make you "anti-Pakistani"? just wondering....)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Jon - would be cool to meet

Jon - would be cool to meet you one day - am surprised ANYONE would think your invitation to meet face to face is a threat, makes no sense at all.
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Who has time for this?


I explained my reasoning, but that wasn't good enough for her. She's deliberately trying to make it into something it's not. Again, who has the time for this, and why does she care so much about what Jon Gold does?

casseia's "motivations" are a mystery to me. I never understood why people allegedly within this movement care more about attacking others than actually accomplishing something to benefit it.

A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

It's humor

I'm sure that your desire to meet him has to do with your belief that some people are only "allegedly" within this movement and that you are the arbiter of their sincerity, just as you try to be the arbiter of whether individuals are "accomplishing [anything] to benefit it."

But thanks for reading RT's blog despite your time crunch!


why not take this elsewhere?

This blog is not about CD - and really looks like you are attempting to force the issue onto these pages.

thanks for the advice. not

thanks for the advice. not forcing the issue at all, i was just responding to Jon's guilt by association tactic. im moving on.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I think I'll interrupt...

... this shitstorm with a relevant observation.

There is an urban myth that the warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings (which probably would have stopped 9/11) was prevented by the "wall". However, this is a load of old cobblers.

The first request was for a criminal warrant and had to be pre-approved by Dave Frasca, the chief of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit, but Frasca said that the warrant request could not be submitted. He later said that the main reason he denied the request was because he thought it did not establish probable cause for a search warrant - it was "shaky." Both Maltbie and Samit said that this is what he told them at the time. A secondary reason for this denial was that, if a criminal warrant were denied, then a subsequent request for an intelligence warrant may be denied by the FISA court, because a criminal warrant had previously been applied for. This is related to the "wall" provisions for complicated reasons I won't go into here. Therefore, the "wall" was a SECONDARY reason for the denial of the FIRST warrant request. This warrant request was granted on 9/11, so it was not shaky - that is just Frasca's BS.

As the investigation of Moussaoui was an intelligence investigation, the "wall" had nothing to do with the non-forwarding of the second warrant request, which was for a FISA warrant - there is no "wall" between an intelligence investigation and a FISA request. The second request was not forwarded because Maltbie, Flack and Frasca failed to provide the gatekeeper attorneys with the relevant documentation. Flack even read the Phoenix memo, but them jammed it where the sun don't shine and didn't tell anyone about it, despite they blindingly obvious connection between the memo and the Moussaoui case. At one point Moussaoui's imam, in a call monitored by the FBI, said that Moussaoui wanted to go "on jihad," but Frasca's response is that "this word can mean many things in various muslim cultures." On the other hand, the relevant DOJ attorney, James Baker (not that James Baker) said he "would have tied bells and whistles" to the jihad comment in a FISA application, but he never got to hear about it. In the key meeting about passing the request to this attorney's office, Spike Bowman said that Maltbie was "adamant" that the request should not be passed for review. That killed the warrant.

The Moussaoui case is not about Moussaoui or the hijackers, it's about Frasca, Maltbie, Flack, Rolince and the ubiquitously malign Mr. Wilshire.