Support 911Blogger


Transcript: John Farmer on Malloy Show with Brad Friedman 9/11/09

Transcript by Erik Larson- John Farmer, guest of Brad Friedman on Mike Malloy Radio Show, Sept 11, 2009

Brad Friedman- … John Farmer is the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, he served as the Attorney General of New Jersey, Chief Counsel to Governor Christine Todd Whitman, he’s now the Dean of Rutgers University Law School… and he joins us here tonight… very happily so- he is the author of a new book, ‘The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11’- John Farmer, welcome to the Mike Malloy program.

John Farmer- Thanks Brad, I really appreciate it- thanks for having me.

BF- Sure- really glad to have ya here, particularly on today, of all days. Alright- in your book and in the publicity for the book, you note that- ‘what government and military officials told Congress, the 9/11 Commission (on which you served), the media and the public was, quote- “almost entirely and inexplicably untrue”’. That’s some pretty heady allegations there, and before we find out what was ‘inexplicably untrue’- it occurs to me that with a claim like that, from a Senior Counsel on the 9/11 Commission, you must be barraged with media requests- 60 Minutes, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC- is that true; are the media paying attention to such an extraordinary claim, as you’re making here?

JF- It’s been a busy week! Let me put it that way.

BF- Has it been as much as you would have expected?

JF- Yeah-

BF- Good!

JF- -I think I’ve done probably 30-plus interviews this week-

BF- Good!

JF- -so there has been interest in the book, and I hope the book makes a contribution to settling a lot of the speculation that’s occurred out there.

BF- Fair enough, alright, so lets jump in to some of the key points, and you detail some of them, I know you’ve got what you describe as ‘Whiskey Tango Foxtrot’ moments, in other words known as ‘WTF’ moments- I think a lot of people listening will understand what that means! But what are the key points here which you found in your investigation, really, after the 9/11 Commission put out its report- what was almost entirely and inexplicably ‘untrue’?

JF- Well, glad you point out that- my function with the 9/11 Commission was to lead a team to put together an account of the nation’s reaction to the attacks- in other words, reconstruct the events of the day of 9/11. And there are obviously many components to that, from what the President was doing, the Vice President, to what the Pentagon, was doing, what the firefighters and police in New York were doing, to what was happening virtually all over the country- so, very daunting task when you have basically a year and a half to put it together. So, going into it, I really thought that the air defense side of that story would be the easiest part to put together, simply because the story had been told so many times, in so many different forums. There had been testimony before Congress, there had been major networks news specials dedicated strictly to the air defense story, there had even been early Commission hearings dedicated to that subject, so the story was out there, and it had been told numerous times, so I actually started writing an account of the day based strictly on the public sources, figuring, well, we’ll get all the primary sources and we can simply validate what’s already been told. But to my, uh, ‘disappointment’, to put it mildly, when we, uh, started getting access to the primary sources, which ultimately took a subpoena to the FAA and Department of Defense, we couldn’t verify the public account that had been given. And to summarize what that account was- it basically overstated the efficacy and the efficiency of the government’s response. Specifically, what we had been told after 9/11 was that by the time of the 3rd flight- American 77, which ultimately hit the Pentagon- the national command structure had recovered from the shock of the two flights that hit the World Trade Center and had reestablished itself essentially, and had scrambled planes from Langley Air Force Base to protect the capital, and those planes narrowly missed intercepting American 77, but were certainly in position by the time United 93, uh, hijacking, and when that turned toward Washington they were certainly in position that they could’ve taken the plane out if they had to, uh, as it approached Washington. And what we found happened in fact, when we went through the records and through the tapes and the different logs that were kept, they told a very consistent story, which was, in fact, the uh military had had basically a minute’s notice that American 77 was missing, with no location given, um, and they had actually no notice of United 93 until four minutes after the plane crashed, so they were never able to even locate that flight on radar. The planes were scrambled from Langley, but it was not in response to either of the last two flights, it was in response to a mistaken report that had come across the radio that the first flight, American 11, had actually not hit the Trade Center at all, but was still airborne, heading south for Washington. So, in other words, the, uh- and to just to finish the story, the authorization to intercept and potentially shoot down planes, came from, um, came from the national command structure, from the President and Vice President about thirty minutes after United 93 had already crashed- so, that particular authorization was never passed to the pilots, because at that point there was no target.

BF- Interesting, hold the thought there, John…. (break) …John, you were speaking of, before the break about some of the things that you were told and the public was told and the Commission was told that were, quote, “almost entirely and inexplicably ‘untrue’”; you refer to the fact that, uh, the claim that they could have ‘taken out’ Flight 93 if they had wanted to, that they had within their sights, and so on and so forth- why would- why do you suspect some of these stories would have been told, that were so wildly inaccurate, as you describe them?

JF- I think there was an effort to, um, uh, to make the government look ‘better’ than it was that day- to make the national command structure, um, seem, uh, like it was more in control than it was in those critical moments, and I think in doing that, one of the unfortunate byproducts was that they obscured some of the really important lessons from that morning, among which are- you know, how critical decisions are actually made in a crit- in a cataclysmic situation like that, and the essential estrangement of the top levels from the people on the ground who actually had to improvise the national defense- was important, because we saw replicated a few years later in Hurricane Katrina- completely different kind of event, uh, in fact not a surprise at all, something that had been planned for, for years- but when it actually hit, the same kind of dynamic occurred, where people on the ground in New Orleans were waiting for word from the upper levels of government and there was a disconnect in communications and difficulty communicating, they didn’t have the authority to make critical decisions, and I think one of the things that comes out of this study that I think is important, is the imperative that we actually plan to deal with these crises the way they’re actually experienced, as opposed according to some, uh, you know- organization chart.

BF- Right. And we seem to have re- we constructed an organizational chart after 9/11, in response to 9/11, and then as you point out in the book, it doesn’t seem we paid much attention to it when it came to Katrina- so it’s unclear that we even learned anything from 9/11, frankly- and I wonder- the uh, effectiveness of the Commission- you guys did not have subpoena power early on, and how badly do you think that ended up crippling the final report that was released by the 9/11 Commission?

JF- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found. But what’s different is, you know, in this account is, I think, by telling it structurally differently- in other words, in the Commission Report we told it flight by flight, as much for the sake of clarity as anything else, so you could understand with each flight what happened. That’s not the way it was lived, though, by the people who had to respond, and that’s what this book does- it tells the story, uh, almost from their perspective- when everything’s flying at them at once. And I think the value of that is that you can see that, uh, taken as a whole, you can see that the real enemy of preparedness is bureaucracy, and that’s tough nut to crack but I think it’s the one we have to, if we’re gonna be better in the future.

BF- And you’ve broken that all down in a timeline in the back of the book, in painstaking detail based on the radio transmissions and so forth that did exist, even though they originally said they didn’t…. (break) …I have a number of questions for you, John- let me start here, let’s get right to the accountability thing. Given what the Commission was told that appeared to be untrue, and one of them that you write in your book about, that you had direct access to was the NORAD’s North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS)- you were told there were not tapes of radio transmissions, and in fact there were tapes of radio transmissions, as you later learned. Given the various ‘lies’ that were given for whatever reason- how can it be, in your opinion, that when George Bush and Dick Cheney were interviewed themselves about their response, about their readiness, their preparation and anything else, that they were allowed to testify together, not recorded. Now, you’re the former Attorney General of New Jersey; can you explain to me that you allow two folks involved in an investigation to be interviewed together, like that?

JF- Well, that was a decision that was reached in, uh, negotiation with the White House, a negotiation I was not personally involved with, so I can’t really relate the details of it, but that was a negotiated, uh, agreement with the President and Vice President and it was, uh, detailed notes were taken, I was not part of that interview, so, again, I can’t really comment on the specifics of it-

BF- As an Attorney General, how do you feel about it- you didn’t take part in the negotiations, I understand, but in an investigation, how do you feel about, oh, two people involved in that investigation would like to speak together, and would not like to have any of it recorded.

JF- Well, it depends- it really depends on the context- I mean, you know, in certain types of criminal investigations you wouldn’t want to have that happen, but I’ve been involved in corporate internal investigations where it’s easier to get to the truth doing it that way, ‘cause they play one against- one off- against the other, so, uh, you know, it- it really depends on the context.

BF- So you have no problem with that, in general?

JF- Not in general, I don’t- it really depends on the individual circumstances- it could be problematic, and it might not be. I think we did a good job pointing out areas in which, you know, we had- we took issue with, uh, the version of events that they recounted.

BF- Do you think there was proper accountability brought to the folks who did drop the ball before 9/11?

JF- Well, you know, I think, again, if you read the book as a whole, I think if there’s a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains, but it’s- it’s bureaucracy itself. And I don’t think enough has been done to sort of ‘reinvent’ government, that was the term used in the 90’s, and it was a recognition that, you know, in the post cold-war period, the threats were likely to arise asymmetrically and there was a need to reconfigure government, and there were efforts being made but they didn’t go far enough and they were not effective, so, uh- the answer to your question, in my view, is I think a lot more needs to be done, and it has to be at a very, very fundamental level because bureaucracy is the enemy of preparedness- and if I were gonna state one conclusion from the book, that’s what it is.

BF- So, it was, as you see it, it was bureaucracy- incompetence, perhaps- not necessarily malfeasance or misfeasance by these folks?

JF- Well, you know, if you had, for example, one agency that was- that was really responsible for the whole thing, and it totally screwed up- and- and- and I could see, then, you know, wanting to ‘let the heads roll’ kind of mentality. But when you see, as I detail in the book, in agency after agency, in department head after department head of varying degrees of abilities- and across departments- across crises, ‘cause you had the same thing Katrina- different departments- you realize they all had one thing in common, and that it an inability to cope with this creature that- that, you know, we’ve come to call bureaucracy- and when you have failures on that scale, I don’t think it really benefits anybody to start scapegoating people, because I think that actually, uh, lets bureaucracy off the hook.

BF- Well, you know, there’s a difference between ‘scapegoating’ and ‘accountability’- I mean, when people are warned, time and again, and as we understand the Bush Administration was warned do you feel that they- your feeling is that didn’t respond to those warnings from Richard Clarke and so forth, simply because, oh, it’s such a big bureaucracy out there?

JF- I think you have to go before that- you can go- by the time that President Bush took office, remember, that the Al Qaeda conspirators had essentially ‘run the gauntlet’ of our trillion dollar early warning system. They had managed throughout the 90’s to elude detection by the NSA, the CIA, by one of the hundreds of military bases that we have stationed around the world to provide early warning. They had managed to go through- get through customs, they had managed to get into the country- so that by the time the summer of 2001 came along they had basically run the gauntlet through every better-funded department than FAA and NORAD, and at the end of the day, we had probably two of the least well-funded organizations in the government that ended up having to fight the war that day.

BF- But at the top of the government, one of the best funded agencies in the government- the White House- there was very clear warnings, was there not?

JF- Listen, there’s no question about it, and, and- look, I think that- I think the failures are so, um, ‘pervasive’, and so wide-spread, uh, you know, they had- after the millennium there was an after-action report done that basically pointed out that our preparations domestically for a terrorist event were very lax, and, and that report was out there- and in fact, it’s that report that, uh, Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, actually took copies of, and stole from the National Archives before he was scheduled to testify before the Commission, hid them in a construction site and then destroyed them.

BF- And was there accountability for that?

JF- Well, he plead to a misdemeanor.

BF- OK. And was there accountability anywhere else in the government, that you see?

JF- Well, there was, as a consequence of the referral of the credibility story to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation, there was a Department of Transportation employee disciplined as a result of ‘failing to be forthcoming’-

BF- A Department of Transportation employee…

JF- Yeah, well, someone from the FAA, essentially…

BF- OK. But nobody from the Bush Administration, whose job it was to protect against this sort of thing?

JF- Well, if there was, I’m not aware of it.

BF- Yeah. OK. Well now, let me get to some of these questions that, uh, Glenn Beck, you may have heard, was able to railroad this guy, Van Jones, the President’s Green Jobs Advisor out of a job because he signed onto a statement along with 50 family members of 9/11 victims asking certain questions- and he highlighted a number of those questions and- John Farmer, I’m sorry to make you the victim, somewhat, of Glenn Beck, but he highlighted about four of these twelve questions that all seemed reasonable to me. And I’ll note that I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I just want to know what the hell happened. So I’d like to ask you the four questions that he found so outrageous, and you may or may not be able to answer them, I don’t know, but I’m gonna go ahead and toss ‘em out here, John. The first one- I’ll go though in order-
“Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?”

JF- Well, you know, there’s been a lot of speculation about, you know, why President Bush continued to sit in the classroom after he was advised the nation was under attack- um, I think that, uh, you know, this is just my opinion, but I think he was trying to, (A) assimilate the information, um, uh, it was kind of ‘startling’, and at the same time, because he knew he was being filmed, I think he was trying to project an image of ‘calm’, that he was not going to be ‘rattled’ by this, and he was going to, uh, leave in an appropriate time, and he made that judgment.

BF- And are you offended that I asked you that question?

JF- No.

BF- Thank you. Alright, let me ask a few more that Glenn Beck highlighted that he found so unbelievable that he couldn’t imagine that Van Jones would even be allowed near the President for having signed onto some of these questions. Alright-
“How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?”

JF- Well, it’s not clear that the military possessed superior radar for- [garbled] the first- is the first answer to that, but second answer is that, you know, it does- it does appea- it did appear- there was- there was an area in the country where there was a gap in radar coverage, in the mountains um uh and so it was off radar for a while, and it did appear as a primary radar track, not a- not a beacon signal which would have clearly indicated which flight it was, but it was, you know, but you have to understand that in the radar picture with primary tracks, uh it’s really, it’s an ocean of- of primary tracks, and unless you know exactly what you’re looking for, it’s hard to pick it out. Um, and, we, uh-

BF- For forty minutes, though? It could disappear like that? Behind the mountain?

JF- The controllers, um, were, once it actually vanished from radar they were- and it had been heading west- the controllers inda- in Cleveland were actually looking, uh, looking west for it, and couldn’t find it, and ultimately they started looking back the other way, but they simply didn’t pick it up.

BF- OK. And you’re not offended by that question, are ya, John?

JF- No! Not at all.

BF- OK, thank you. Let me get one more here before we gotta go to a break, then we’ll have some more Beck questions and your calls, and John, you’re invited to stay around as long as you like tonight, ‘cause there’s a lot of folks who want to ask you a lot of questions-

JF- Well, actually, I have a 10 o’clock appointment in the East, so I’ve got another 15 minutes, then I gotta go.

BF- Then we’re gonna move quick here-
“How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?”

JF- Well, the, the uh, it’s a complicated story, but the Bureau, the Bureau at least, and to a lesser extent the CIA, was actually looking for um, uh, several of these people in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11- um, and hadn’t located them, but when they saw the passenger manifests from the flights, uh, it wasn’t hard to figure out who was who. Uh, so, uh, you know, this is one of those, um, areas where, you know, it’s- it’s- when you look at it from the outside, well, how could they have been looking for them and not found them? But they didn’t. Unh, and, uh, that’s one of the tragedies of 9/11, and that’s one of the areas in which the barriers for information sharing between the two agencies really prevented them from finding them.

BF- I’m glad to get your answer to that on record, and once again- you’re not offended by that question, right?

JF- Nope, not at all.

BF- OK.... (break) … OK, one more question from Glenn Beck…
“Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?”

JF- I don’t know whether that’s true. I can’t comment on that- that’s- you know- I don’t know.

BF- Have you heard that allegation before?

JF- God, no, I haven’t.

BF- Do you think, if it is true, is it an appropriate question to ask, and to get an answer to, from someone?

JF- Uh, if it’s true, absolutely.

BF- OK. Fair enough. Alright, Jeannie Dean in the chat room says she’s concerned about the NORAD ‘failures’ and the contradictions in the NORAD related testimony, I know that was your beat on the Commission here- why was it completely overlooked by the Commission- she feels that the NORAD failures were overlooked, when it was the most damning evidence to date that there is something that demands further investigation here- the family members requested a follow up investigation, but what happened there?

JF- Well, the short answer is that it wasn’t uh, the failures weren’t, uh, ignored, they were actually highlighted in Chapter One of our- of the report. Uh, originally that- that chapter was supposed to be, uh- uh, Chapter Nine, it was supposed to come, you know, sort of in sequence, umm, uh, but the uh Commissioners decided to move it up to the front because we had discovered these discrepancies, so they were actually highlighted in the report!

BF- And are you satisfied, finally, with the answers to those discrepancies and why they existed, why NORAD did fail on that day?

JF- Well, you know, I think you have to distinguish between what they actually did that day and what they- and, and what the- the government told people they did, uh, because, uhv, you know, y-y-once you- and what the book does, at a level of detail the Commission couldn’t because the material was still classified at the time the Commission Report came out, and has since been declassified- it lays out exactly who said what to whom, and how the reaction took place, uh, and you basically are left with a lot of empathy for these folks, um, in NORAD, who had to react on the fly- to a situation they were not really trained to react to.

BF- OK, let me get to Keith here in Norwalk, California- Keith, as quickly as you can ask your question, ‘cause we’re gonna have to lose Mr. Farmer at the top of the hour- Keith:

Keith- Uh, no problem- as far as the Kean-Zelikow cover up that you’re involved in goes, I would like to ask you- how were the FBI able to confiscate the Citgo gas station’s tapes so quickly, and where are those photos, I’d like to see ‘em.

BF- Thanks, Keith. Yeah, and did you get to look at those tapes from the Pentagon, John?

JF- Yes, we did, and- and, uh, I know there’s been a lot of speculation about, um, about, you know- w-whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon- I can assure you that it did. And, um, and they were actually able to reconstruct, uhh, uh, large components of the plane, and actually someone who was a member of my team, uh, was a naval intelligence officer in the Pentagon that morning, uh, was severely burned, and in fact everybody in his unit was killed, and, and, had uh, permanent lung damage from inhaling jet fuel- he has, he has no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon.

BF- But why was there no debris field, really, out there in Pennsylvania, and why have no pieces of the plane showed up from the Pentagon crash?

JF- Well, pieces of the plane do exist from the Pentagon crash. Uh, um, and I would take issue with the Pennsylvania remark, too- I mean I think the Pennsylvania, uh um uh, uh- situation is accounted for by the fact that the angle at which the plane hit the ground was almost directly perpendicular, and I think that accounted for how deep the crater was, uh, and the other question to ask yourself, with respect to this, is- well, if American 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, what happened- what happened to- what happened to American 77? And what about the passengers who were calling from the plane, saying they were coming back to Washington?

BF- OK, and just to be clear, ‘cause we’re hittin’ the clock here, John- you have seen ‘tapes’ of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

JF- Well, uh, no I haven’t seen tapes- pictures of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon, but there were eyewitness accounts, uh and as I said, there were- there were- pictures of a plane in the vicinity-

BF- John- and I gotta get out- John Farmer, author of ‘Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11’, I do thank you for your time tonight, John- much appreciated.

JF- Thank you. Thanks for having me.

BF- You bet.

End.

Proofreading appreciated- Audio and alt transcripts here:

EDIT:

Bradblog page for the entire 3 hour show:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7409

Bradblog has posted a version of the transcript with some 'ums' edited out and a different formatting (which you may find more readable):
http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=7416

I've posted a version at my blog with links, [notes] and certain significant statements by Farmer in bold:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-mal...

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Thank you...

For doing this. I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to transcribe audio.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

i look forward to the day

when cheap software can search audio, and make transcriptions automatically- it's coming...

Accelerating Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Contact Information

Farmers got a LIE for every question.
http://www.johnfarmerbooks.com/contact.html

Contact Information

Author
John Farmer
Email: john@johnfarmerbooks.com

Publicity and Media Inquiries
Katie Grinch
Riverhead Books
375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014
Phone: 212-366-2574
Email: katie.grinch@us.penguingroup.com

General Information and Comments
Email: info@johnfarmerbooks.com

Hard work

I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to transcribe audio.

Tell me about it.

Anyways, thanks loose nuke. This sort of hard work deserves a lot of respect. Now Farmer's words are searchable and that is what we need.

But ... he didn't really see the tapes ...

"BF- Thanks, Keith. Yeah, and did you get to look at those tapes from the Pentagon, John?

JF- Yes, we did, and- and, uh, I know there’s been a lot of speculation about, um, about, you know- w-whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon- I can assure you that it did. And, um, and they were actually able to reconstruct, uhh, uh, large components of the plane, "

But ... on second thought ... he didn't really see any video ...

"BF- OK, and just to be clear, ‘cause we’re hittin’ the clock here, John- you have seen ‘tapes’ of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

JF- Well, uh, no I haven’t seen tapes- pictures of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon, but there were eyewitness accounts, uh and as I said, there were- there were- pictures of a plane in the vicinity- "

This is so disturbing. The guy who has the inside scoop says he saw the videos and photos of a plane hitting the Pentagon, but then recants, dancing past his earlier statement to highlight eye witness accounts?

Wouldn't objective photos trump subjective eye witness accounts?

He says the official story was "almost entirely and inexplicably untrue" but then in his interview he defends anyone who should be responsible, and the official story.

How can you rely on what he says?

good point

What the hell was Farmer thinking- was that a deception or brain fart?

Good on Brad for following up on that statement, whereupon Farmer changed his story- all on the record.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Bush / Cheney interview

I am very dissatisfied with Farmers acceptance of Bush /Cheneys joint interview. On the day in question they were in two different places with Cheney apparently supervising the response and Bush reading a child's books or flying around in Airforce One. What ever either one contributed to the event they would have had very different perspectives. And of course Farmer makes the assumption along with the rest of the commission that Bush/Cheney had no culpability to hide that could be exposed by separate testimony

i agree

getting Farmer's opinion about that on record is very useful, imho, as it reduces his credibility/appearance of being 'independent'.

Not only did they appear together (prompting many 'ventriloquism' jokes) and it was not recorded- it was not under oath, and the notes Framer is quick to point out the Commissioners were allowed to take were confiscated before they left, and subject to review and censorship before they could be relied on for the report- which the Bush Administration reviewed and edited prior to its publication- with no notation made of their edits, unlike the redacted version of the JICI report.

And you're right- Farmer's pretending there was no possible culpability to be exposed. Apparently, when Bush/Cheney were interviewed, they weren't even asked for their own answers to questions- they would simply take turns answering the mostly soft ball questions- so what Farmer said about the potential to play them off each other, didn't happen.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Maybe farmer can explain!

From the interview:

“BF- Then we’re gonna move quick here-
“How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?”
JF- Well, the, the uh, it’s a complicated story, but the Bureau, the Bureau at least, and to a lesser extent the CIA, was actually looking for um, uh, several of these people in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11- um, and hadn’t located them, but when they saw the passenger manifests from the flights, uh, it wasn’t hard to figure out who was who. Uh, so, uh, you know, this is one of those, um, areas where, you know, it’s- it’s- when you look at it from the outside, well, how could they have been looking for them and not found them? But they didn’t. Unh, and, uh, that’s one of the tragedies of 9/11, and that’s one of the areas in which the barriers for information sharing between the two agencies really prevented them from finding them. “

Well maybe Farmer can explain why when he claims that the CIA and FBI was looking for several of these people in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, why did the CIA working with the FBI HQ not only withhold this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the fact that they knew these two long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US and even knew they were here in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, and why did they shut down FBI Agents Steve Bongardt’s’ investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when Bongardt accidentally found out these two al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US and also knew they were here to take part in a massive attack.

The CIA and FBI HQ even knew when they shut down Bongardt's investigation that thousands of Americans were going to perish in these attacks as a direct result of their actions to shut down this investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists.

Maybe, just maybe Farmer can explain that.

Since Farmer was right in the middle of the 9/11 Commission investigation, and had access to all of this information, information that the 9/11 Commission must have had and that is now public, if he can’t explain this, it would prove that he was also part of the cover up of this horrific information.

questions and evidence

These are important facts that need to be investigated:

"the CIA and FBI was looking for several of these people in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, why did the CIA working with the FBI HQ not only withhold this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, the fact that they knew these two long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US and even knew they were here in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack, and why did they shut down FBI Agents Steve Bongardt’s’ investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when Bongardt accidentally found out these two al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US and also knew they were here to take part in a massive attack."

This statement, though:

"The CIA and FBI HQ even knew when they shut down Bongardt's investigation that thousands of Americans were going to perish in these attacks as a direct result of their actions to shut down this investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists."

What is the evidence that those you named KNEW that was going to happen? Please quote, cite sources, etc.

Considering what's already in the public domain, the negligence/incompetence excuse strains credulity. The whole body of public evidence circumstantially indicates some people probably knew the details of the plot, and took steps to move it forward and obstruct investigations that might have interfered. However, what is the PROOF that those you name KNEW?

Thomas Frields, the FBI Squad Supervisor who reportedly blocked anything from being done with the Iranian asset's April 01 report about Bin Laden/Al Qaeda plans to attack 4-5 US cities with planes in a few months and operatives were already in the US, and told Behrooz Sarshar, 2 FBI Agents and Sibel Edmonds to keep quiet about it after 9/11 may well have known what was going to happen- certainly he needs to be investigated, and interviewed under oath about his actions.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=thomas_frields_1

Farmer may know more about what was covered up than he's telling, and he can toss out whatever BS he wants on a radio show. Under oath it might be a different story. As a Sr. Counsel and Team lead, he could have been privy to all sorts of info. However, he can also claim plausibility about the alleged hijackers in the US, as that wasn't Team 8's area of investigation; it was Team 6's:

"Team 6 Files-closed - Team 6 was created to investigate law enforcement an intelligence collection inside the United States. This series has yet to be processed."
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-series.html

Members of Teams 1-5 may also know a lot more about what happened with the failure to disrupt the alleged hijackers and plot outside and inside the US, than wound up in the report. And Zelikow, who had access to everything, ought to know it all.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

For the proof that the CIA

For the proof that the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack see DE # 939 located at www.eventson911.com, in email of former CIA officer Tom Wilshire back to his CTC mangers ion July 23, 2001. This email says that Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

One paragraph later it says that FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie tells Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US.

So what do Wilshire and Corsi do with this information. First they keep in completely secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of FBI Cole bombing investigators. When Bongardt accidentally find out that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US, and even knows that are here to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack they shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi first tells Bongardt that because the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi came from the NSA, and they have restrictions on giving this information to FBI criminal investigators, he is not allowed to undertake any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. But Corsi had already gotten a written release from the NSA on August 27, 2001 the day before she shuts down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. See DE 448 on www.eventson911.com, NSA approves sharing information.

When Bongardt protests because he cannot see any connection to a FISA warrant and this information and asks Corsi to get a ruling from the FBI NSLU attorneys at FBI HQ. Corsi tells Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the attorney she had consulted said that Bongardt could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But from the 9/11 Commission report, page 538, footnote 81, it says that Sherry Sabol the attorney Corsi contacted told Corsi that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant and if Corsi was still confused she (Corsi) could get a release from the NSA herself unaware that Corsi had already gotten a release two days before.

But we have a major problemo here:

The DOJ IG report on page 307 says:

“According to Donna (aka Dina Corsi), she subsequently contacted the NSLU attorney who we call "Susan" (aka Sherry Sabol), on August 28, and she and Rob( Rod Middleton her supervisor) discussed the issue with Susan(Sabol). It is unclear how she presented the matter to Susan, (Sabol) because there were no documents about the conversation and she and Susan(Sabol) had little or no recollection of the specific conversation. Donna, (Corsi) told the OIG that she provided the EC to Susan (Sabol). According to Donna(Corsi), Susan (Sabol) agreed with her that the matter should be opened as an intelligence investigation. Donna (Corsi) said Susan (Sabol)also advised that a criminal agent should not be present for an interview of Mihdhar if he was located. During an OIG interview, Susan (Sabol) said she could not specifically recall this matter or the advice she gave. Rob (Rod Middleton)told the OIG that he did not recall the specifics of this consultation, but he stated that the NSLU opinion was supportive of FBI Headquarters' determination that the case should be opened as an intelligence investigation.

Yes we have a major problemo:

It appear that the testimony in the 9/11 Commission report on what Sabol said to Corsi is 180 degrees out of sync from the DOJ IG report says of the same conversion, with the added caveat that in the DOJ IG report, Sabol seems unable to remember what her ruling was to Corsi over whether Bongardt can take part in an investigation of Mihdhar. In the 9/11 Commission report of Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, FBI agents, on November 7, 2002, Sabol can clearly recall her words very well on what she had said to Corsi, but in the DOJ IG report she had little or no recollection of the specific conversation. It looks like the DOJ IG, Glenn A. Fine had obfuscated his own DOJ IG report and even turned the testimony of Sabol 180 degrees. It looks like he did not even read the 9/11 Commission report which came out in July 2004 in order to fix the lies in his May 2006 release of the un-redacted DOJ IG report. It looks like he may have had so many lies he just can’t keep them all straight.

But the DOJ IG report is riddled with can’t recall, unable to remember, particularly by people connected with CIA former deputy chief of the CIA Bin laden unit, Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. So if it was possible to find a horrific lie in this one case what about these other cases.

But these lies appear to been made to cover up what are clear deliberate and intentional actions at the FBI HQ that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murdered almost 3000 people on 9/11.

OH DEAR!

This might be looked at differently if it had not directly lead the allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. In fact it is impossible to believe that when Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire were shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they did not know that thousands of Americans were about to be killed as a direct result of their actions.

But this also makes DOJ IG Glenn A. Fine equally guilty of the crime of “accessory after the fact” for hiding this horrific information.

very interesting

i went thru some of the stuff on your site, but what do you mean by "DE 448" and "DE #939"- please describe where these are located, or provide direct links.

From what i verified, you've made a compelling case that certain figures in the FBI/CIA have a lot to answer for, it seems an investigation, even a criminal investigation is justified. Quite possibly/probably the reasons of some of the people involved in obstructing the investigations was to prevent disruption of the 9/11 plot- to facilitate its success.

However, i don't know that a jury, from what you cited so far, would be persuaded that:

"In fact it is impossible to believe that when Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire were shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they did not know that thousands of Americans were about to be killed as a direct result of their actions.

But this also makes DOJ IG Glenn A. Fine equally guilty of the crime of “accessory after the fact” for hiding this horrific information."

Certainly it's possible these people were criminally complicit, and the 9/11 Commission as well, actively worked to obfuscate and conceal this information. A full investigation is in order.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Where is DE #448 and DE #939 on www.eventson911.com

Sorry for not being more clear.

DE 448 is item #3, the release from NSA caveats, and DE #939 is item #2, the Substitution for the testimony of John, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006.

The DE #939 has Tom Wilshire's email dated July 23, 2001 that says Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack,.

The next paragraph says that "Mary" aka FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie gives him and FBI HQ agent Dina Corsi the information that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US on August 22, 2001.

At this time both Corsi and Wilshire know that the CIA has been hiding the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to keep Bongardt from being able to start any investigation of Mihdhar. This photo directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000.

"Certainly it's possible these people were criminally complicit, and the 9/11 Commission as well, actively worked to obfuscate and conceal this information. A full investigation is in order."

You hit the nail on the head here.

And ask yourself, if I could find all of this information and put it all back together again, with no subpoena power, on a zero dollar budget, why could the 9/11 Commission not have done the same thing. This makes no sense.

.

found the 2 Defense Exhibits you're referring to

you said, "The DE #939 has Tom Wilshire's email dated July 23, 2001 that says Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack,."

The only thing i saw in DE 939 in reference to 'John's July 23, 2001 email says:

“On July 23, 2001, having seen no action, John e-mailed a CTC manager inquiring as to the status of his request to pass information to the FBI. In the e-mail, John noted that, “When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre, Khalad will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Midhar [sic] should be [of] very high interest anyway, given his connection to the [redacted].””

Which seems to be different from what you've said; am i missing something?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

What exactly does Wilshire's July 23, 2001 email mean?

“On July 23, 2001, having seen no action, John e-mailed a CTC manager inquiring as to the status of his request to pass information to the FBI. In the e-mail, John noted that, “When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre, Khallad will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Mihdhar [sic] should be [of] very high interest anyway, given his connection to the [redacted].””

You have to be able to read and understand what is called “CIA Speak”. It is also clear that the redacted has to be “Cole bombing”. Wilshire was well aware that Mihdhar had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at Kuala Lumpur meeting. The CIA knew when Khallad had been identified in a photograph taken of him at the Kuala Lumpur meeting that this meant that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that al Qaeda planning meeting planning the Cole bombing with Khallad, a fact that meant withholding this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators was a crime.

This says that when the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack is carried out, Khallad will be nowhere near the attack site, but Khalid al-Mihdhar should be of "very high interest", i.e. he will be involved in this upcoming attack if not actually at the location of this attack. Why would Mihdhar be of high interest to the CIA unless he was going to be either at the attack site or actually planning this attack.

This came true when Mihdhar was on the plane that hit the Pentagon, and he had taken part in not only the planning of this attack but part the attack itself committing suicide in the process..

This also clearly says that Khallad, who was known to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing will not be found at the attack site, i.e. the CIA did not think because of his leadership position in al Qaeda, he was likely to commit suicide in the next big al Qaeda terrorist operation, but people who had direct access to him, like the people who committed suicide in the Cole bombing, were the ones to focus on when whatever attack Khallad was planning was carried out. Many CIA documents read like this.

Wilshire had also stated in July 5, 2001 email back to his CTC managers that the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning in January 2000 were connected to warnings of a horrific al Qaeda attack that CIA had been receiving. This again confirms exactly what Wilshire meant in his July 23, 2001 email. Who were the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting besides Khallad, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. In actuality whether Mihdhar took part in the big al Qaeda attack the CIA knew was about to take place inside of the US or was just part of the planning, it made no difference, had Bongardt been able to start an investigation and search for Mihdhar, regardless of his role in this attack, he could have prevented the attacks that took place on 9/11.

Both the July 13, 2001 email, and the July 23, 201 email were in the “Substitution for the testimony of John”, but the while the July 13, 2001 email was in the DOJ IG report, the July 23, 2001 email was stripped out of this report. But both came from the testimony given to DOJ IG investigators by Wilshire and both were clearly part of his testimony, so it is clear that even the DOJ IG investigator knew exactly how explosive the July 23, 2001 email was and deliberately left it out of the DOJ IG report.

This meant that the CIA/FBI HQ had allowed the murder of 3000

This message meant nothing less than the CIA and FBI HQ had intentionally allowed the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.

It is possible for someone to not understand this message if they did not already know the context surrounding CIA offer Tom Wilshire and his many crimes against the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

CIA officer Tom Wilshire at the time he wrote this email already knew that:

Nawaf al-Hazmi was already inside of the US

Khallad al-Mihdhar had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing with Hazmi and Khallad at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Khalid al-Mihdhar had taken part in the failed attack on the USS the Sullivans

A horrific al Qaeda attack was just about to take place because of all of the warnings the CIA had received in the spring and summer of 2001

This attack we going to take place inside of the US. His boss Richard Blee, chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, had just told Tenet and Black in a July 2001 meeting that the al Qaeda terrorists were coming here.

Tenet and Black had gone to Rice on July 10, 2001 and told her and Richard Clarke that a massive al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans

The people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack, that was to take place inside of the US, see his July 5, 2001 email in the DOJ IG report.

So when he writes:

“On July 23, 2001, having seen no action, John e-mailed a CTC manager inquiring as to the status of his request to pass information to the FBI. In the e-mail, John noted that, “When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre, Khalad will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Midhar [sic] should be [of] very high interest anyway, given his connection to the [redacted].”” it is clear what he means.

Let me simplify this text:

“When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre” = “When the next al Qaeda terrorist attack takes place”

Khallad will be nowhere near the attack site, because he is too high up in the command chain at al Qaeda to commit suicide

That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Midhar [sic] should be [of] very high interest anyway,…

This means that Khallad will be hard to located when the next al Qaeda attack occurs but Mihdhar is very likely to be at the very location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire clearly knew Mihdhar was a long time al Qaeda terrorist who had been connected to the east Africa bombings and in had been Nawaf al-Hazmi’s travel companion who was already in the US

When Margaret Gillespie found from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, what else did he need to know to be aware that they were here in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack that he and the CIA had been warned about since April 2001.

Perhaps some could say they did not understand what Wilshire knew by his July 23, 2001 email, but when he was told on August 22, 2001 that Mihdhar was in the US, it is very clear what he meant in that earlier email and what he knew on August 22, 2001, that Mihdhar was inside of the US for no other reason than to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack.

This fact alone will ultimately bring down the entire CIA and even the FBI HQ units that were involved in hiding this information and deliberately allowing the terrorist to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and both the CIA and the FBI HQ are aware of this fact.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure this one out.

Wilshire, and even FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, even knew at the time they found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, that the CIA had deliberately been hiding the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi, a photograph that connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing, so that Bongardt would not have any evidence that would allow him to start an FBI investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

The fact that he kept this horrific information from Bongardt and then allowed Corsi, his assistant at the FBI HQ to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar is perhaps the most horrific event of this century!

Almost 3000 people were murdered by the actions of CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi, who were clearly under the control of powerful managers at both the CIA and FBI HQ.

When he and Corsi were making sure Bongardt was blocked from investigating Mihdhar and Hazmi there is now way they do not know that literally thousands of Americans are going to be killed because of their actions. (IMHO).

The big questions is when this information is so horrific, why is this information not thrown into the face of every person who says we do not need another investigation of 9/11.

GOD ONLY KNOWS!

This information has to be known by almost everyone on the 9/11 Commission investigation, the DOJ IG investigation and likely many people in the US Congress. In addition to the CIA and FBI HQ intentionally allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 Americans on 9/11, all of these people, including many in the US Congress are now also implicated in this horrific crime by hiding this information from the American people.

FBI says no hard evidence linking Bin laden to 9-11..

'JF- Well, you know, I think, again, if you read the book as a whole, I think if there’s a villain in the book, other than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who are- we can never forget are the principal villains'

Thats not what the FBI says:

'On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623

SO John Farmer is lying...This is the Hitler technique of telling a lie over and over till people begin to believe it.

the principal villains

Some have made an issue of Bin Laden not being on the FBI's Most Wanted list for his alleged 9/11 connection; the reason, which Haas' report, and especially this WaPo article makes clear, is that Bin Laden hasn't been INDICTED in connection with 9/11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR200608...

Which is a really sick joke; 'evidence' good enuf to fool the American people into supporting a war, but not good enuf to indict.

This is one more proof the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud- it had a $15 million budget, about a year to work (after the delays and extension), previous investigations to build on, and according to the MSM and Republocrats, it's 'case closed'; Bin Laden did it- but their report doesn't document 'evidence' good enough to indict.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org