Support 911Blogger


White House Terror Chief Alleges CIA 9/11 Malfeasance, Cover Up in New Interview: PBS Colorado’s Exclusive Ignites Battle Among

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 11, 2011 Press Contact: Robert Boutton (323) 300-5376 www.SecrecyKills.com In a never-before-seen interview, Richard Clarke, former White House Counterterror “Tsar” to Presidents Clinton and Bush, goes on record about what he believes happened at CIA in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, accusing then-CIA Director George Tenet and two of his deputies of deliberately not informing the White House, FBI, and Defense Department about two future hijackers inside U.S., then covering up from the 9/11 investigations. His comments air and stream Thursday, August 11, 2010 at 7 p.m. MDT on Colorado Public Television (CPT12) and simultaneously go live on SecrecyKills.com, along with CIA reaction.

News of the premiere set off attacks on Clarke from three of those he singled out. Tenet and former CIA officials Cofer Black and Richard Blee, chiefs of CounterTerrorist Center and Bin Laden Station respectively on 9/11, have issued a one-page joint statement to the producers calling Clarke’s comments “reckless and profoundly wrong.” Significantly, this is the only statement Blee has issued publicly since the intelligence failure of September 11th and, indeed, the first time his real name has been made public in the major media.

Filmmaker-journalists John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski conducted the interview in 2009 for a documentary to be released on the 9/11 tenth anniversary entitled “Who Is Rich Blee?”, promising further revelations from Commission Chairman Tom Kean and other gov’t insiders, produced by transparency advocates SecrecyKills.com in association with media company Globalvision, winner of the George Polk Journalism Award. They will be appearing live in-studio on Thursday night to introduce the footage and discuss.

CPT12 obtained world premiere rights after being the first PBS affiliate to air the filmmakers’ 2006 documentary Press For Truth, an event that brought the station both controversy and national attention. That movie received favorable reviews during its brief theatrical run and has aired on national public television in Spain, Norway, and Poland, also Al Jazeera and Australia’s History Channel, telling the story of four Sept 11th widows who battled the Bush White House for the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

CIA’s failure to tell FBI about the Jan. 2000 U.S. entry of Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi has been well-known since the Congressional Inquiry of 2002. Hazmi and Mihdhar allegedly served a leadership role in the 9/11 plot and were on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Richard Clarke now sheds considerable new light on the incident.

“To this day it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, the Director [Tenet] didn’t tell me, the Director of CounterTerrorism Center [Black] didn’t tell me, the other forty-eight people at CIA who knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over twelve months,” explains Clarke. “We therefore conclude that there was a high level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information.”

Tenet, Black, and Blee were each promoted or awarded after the attacks and went on to be connected to various Bush-era scandals. All have so far refused the producers’ requests to detail their sides of the story.

Joint Statement: George J. Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee

Joint Statement from George J. Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee
August 3, 2011

Richard Clarke was an able public servant who served his country well for many years. But his recently released comments about the run up to 9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong.

Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally withheld from him in early 2000. It was not.

He wildly speculates that it must have been the CIA Director who could have ordered the information withheld. There was no such order. In fact, the record shows that the Director and other senior CIA officials were unaware of the information until after 9/11.

The handling of the information in question was exhaustively looked at by the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the CIA Inspector General and other groups.

The 9/11 Commission quite correctly concluded that “...no one informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the case.”

In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time.

Since 9/11 many systemic changes have been made to improve the watchlisting process and enhance information sharing within and across agencies.

Building on his false notion that information was intentionally withheld, Mr. Clarke went on to speculate--which he admits is based on nothing other than his imagination--that the CIA might have been trying to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation.

Many years after testifying himself at length before the 9/11 Commission and writing several books but making no mention of his wild theory, Mr. Clarke has suddenly invented baseless allegations which are belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration.

We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn't know. We stand by that testimony.

EDIT: source: http://www.secrecykills.com/#joint_statement

correcting the record

Clarke finds it impossible to believe that Tenet and Black were in the dark about the efforts of Rich Blee and Tom Wilshire, w/ the help of some subordinates, to deliberately prevent the FBI from learning that Khalid Almihdhar had a US visa, and Nawaf Alhazmi and a "companion" had traveled to the US in Jan 2000. At the time, NSA and CIA had reason to believe these two were connected to Al Qaeda's communications hub in Yemen; the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa which had killed over 200; and a summit involving high-level Al Qaeda operatives that had just taken place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

However, as Kevin Fenton documents in his book Disconnecting the Dots, there is no public documentary evidence that Tenet and Black were made aware of the presence in the US of these two, prior to Aug 22, 2001, and they may, in fact, have been unaware - or at least, they may have indicated to Blee and Wilshire that they did not want any documentary record of their being informed.

"In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time."

It is false that "the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time." It is clear that Alec Station Deputy Chief Wilshire was aware of the significance of the data, because at the time it was learned that Almihdhar had a US visa, he instructed his subordinate, "Michelle", to tell FBI detailee Doug Miller, who had recognized the significance of the data and was preparing to inform the FBI in a cable, that he was not to pass the info on to the FBI.

Shortly after that, Michelle sent a cable to several CIA stations informing them the info had been passed to the FBI, though it had not. The normal procedure when CIA passes info to the FBI is that there is not only a record that it was done, there is a record that CIA checked to confirm receipt; this documentation doesn't exist, and CIA does not claim it does.

A CIA detailee to FBI, James, briefed two FBI agents, who were not CIA liaisons, about the Kuala Lumpur meeting - but failed to brief them on the only info that would be of particular interest to the FBI; that Almihdhar had a US visa. When another CIA officer was about to tell another FBI agent about these events, James briefed that FBI agent himself, and told the CIA officer he didn't need to brief him. James was clear in his report about what he did and did not say.

It is unclear who may have read CIA Bangkok station's March cable at the time re: Alhazmi and companion (Almihdhar) had traveled to the US, but the DOJ IG report notes a CIA cable in response that it had been read "with interest." Wilshire did read this in May 2001, during the beginning of the period when reports were mounting of an impending Al Qaeda attack, and did not pass the info to the FBI, or do anything else with it apparently, even though his own emails in July, which Blee almost certainly received, make clear he believed Almihdhar would be connected to the upcoming attack.

Clarke surmises the reason this info was deliberately withheld was to protect an illegal CIA operation to infiltrate Al Qaeda in the US. Tenet, Black and Blee flatly deny this, and they may be right; Kevin's documentation and analysis shows that the more probable explanation is that Blee and/or Wilshire were deliberate preventing the FBI from discovering and disrupting the 9/11 plot so that it could go forward. Even after the CIA began to pass on some info to the FBI in August 2001, Wilshire withheld other info and took steps to undermine FBI investigations.

"Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally withheld from him in early 2000. It was not."

Even if this is true, why was this info not shared w/ him after Aug 22, 2001 when Tenet, Black and the FBI were officially made aware of it?

This Tenet-Black-Blee statement is very carefully worded, but does not get to the heart of the issues, and does not get any of these people off the hook for their pre-9/11 'failures' and their obfuscations during the subsequent inquiries. They need to testify in public, under oath, with questions posed by an investigative body that is not compromised and riddled with conflicts of interest, the way the others were, especially the 9/11 Commission.

Interesting To A Point ... But Be Wary

If one does enough research, they will conclude that those who have occupied the highest federal positions are likely complicit accessories to the misdeeds and cover-ups they commit, aided by top-down appointments throughout all federal agencies by the corrupt executive branch. Is Clarke an authentic whistleblower or simply someone dispatched to mislead those pursuing what really happened on 9/11?

Will Clarke go further and admit the possibility that 9/11 was another of the many "black-ops" organized by western interests for decades or that the accused may have just been patsies in such a "black-op"?

Very doubtful.

Questions

Aidan Monaghan said..."Is Clarke an authentic whistleblower or simply someone dispatched to mislead those pursuing what really happened on 9/11?"

Perhaps he was hired as a lobbyist by the LIHOPERS (fake truthers) ?? Another question....Perhaps Richard Clarke and Bob Graham were the ones working the phones to the victims families using their nifty new voice morphing technology in order to "fool" people with "fake" phone calls? Just asking questions right? Perhaps some people suffer from a condition called paranoia and anyone with a government job is a suspect of 9-11? Just asking questions.

Curious Contradictions ...

How does one support the official conspiracy theory while claiming to seek the truth about 9/11?

More questions?

Aidan Monaghan said..."How does one support the official conspiracy theory while claiming to seek the truth about 9/11?"

Easy, and I've already said how.....

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-09/why-i-support-official-story

How does one support seeking the truth while falling for and promoting nonsense and BS conspiracy theories?

Authorities Regularly Prosecute Criminal "Conspiracies"

Perhaps one day there will be a Wikipedia page for "Truth Seeking Supporters of Official Stories".

Sounds sarcastic

Aidan Monaghan said..."Perhaps one day there will be a Wikipedia page for "Truth Seeking Supporters of Official Stories".

The truth shall set you free and the truth is that is a sarcastic remark

Love is the way forward and sometimes love means not making double standards so obvious (Please tone down the sarcasm, it is not appropriate anywhere on this site.

Thanks.)

BTW- The R Clarke interview is on youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bl6w1YaZdf8

Maybe..

Sounds more desperate than sarcastic to me.

Aiden takes his own paranoia and sculpts a very warped reality from it. His demeanor and line of inquiry are disgusting to me; they certainly match his disdain for *real* researchers and activists, but his whole display gives away his real motive: to discredit anything that doesn't fit into his sculpture. That's the difference between real researchers and conspiracy theorists. My advice would be to follow wherever the evidence leads, even if it doesn't fit exactly into ones exceedingly warped view of reality.

This is a very important development that activists and researchers should not ignore.

Yup

This --> "That's the difference between real researchers and conspiracy theorists. My advice would be to follow wherever the evidence leads, even if it doesn't fit exactly into ones exceedingly warped view of reality."

It's true that we've seen a constant stream of calm but actually quite nasty attacks by A.M. over the years, in threads relating to the Pentagon, remote control, CD, some personal feuds erupted, A.M. vs J.G. .. I hope we can leave all that behind us at some point, but hope as they say, is a disease. We're all human, and frustrations do mount between certain people and groups.

But this is the ... how many times now have pre 9/11 intelligence research postings been spoiled with these "no hijacker" discussions? It's A.M. full right to voice his disapproval, it's just getting a little old. Sorry A.M. I'm sure the feeling is mutual ;-)

Richard Clarke is the subject of this blog

Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

Jimd3100 -

Please tone down the sarcasm, it is not appropriate anywhere on this site.

Thanks.

John

I hope you realize that the predictable deprecation of what should be considered major breakthroughs is frustrating. How many good researchers have been dismissed like this simply because they did not deviate from the official story far enough?

We're ten years after 9/11 now. In order to move forward, we have to start snapping people out of the reflexive responses that anything that does not rhyme with no hijacker theory must be suspect. I see it the other way around: I feel no hijacker theories/hijackers alive theories are unsustainable. Many truthers would have known this had they have had the stomach to engage and read the material of the most prolific debunkers, to see if certain claims really pass muster. I have read articles about the hijackers family members, attempted to backtrack the lives of the 19 suspects and seen interviews with people who saw some hijackers board, and I don't accept that the phone calls were fake. For various reasons, but Erik Larson's piece speaks for itself. I'm happy he wrote it, but I'm not that happy about what that means for some 9/11 Truth Movement hobbyhorse claims, which have to be withdrawn and conceded, at the expense of - yet again! - our credibility as a single movement.

Nobody has even bothered to analyze the audio from Betty Ong and Ceecee Lyles. Yet we have the nerve to dismiss them as forgeries. Do we have the discipline to attempt to falsify anything other than the OCT, like our own work? Because if we succeed, that is a huge credibility blow, the magnitude of which is determined by the length of promotion times the pervasiveness, not to mention the leaders/personalities with whom such debunked claims come to be associated, permanently damaging reputations.

You see what happens when Erik Larson takes on these claims and shows them to be without merit. How many times do we have to go through that again? How much credibility hits can we take? Should I write an essay even half as capable and thorough, what impact would it have other than: seen it, don't believe it? I've seen enough of that with the Pentagon question. The level of cerebral denial is absolutely absurd. So much so that I'm inclined to just stop providing data and demand that the other side fulfill the onus which rests on their shoulders, not ours. Disbelief and rejection of data does not support specific alternative explanations, the best such rejection can achieve is uncertainty. Yet that is not what I and others see. We see declarative statements. By 'we' I mean a certain contingent of truthers which is concerned about the lack of research professionalism in certain quarters. That lack of professionalism, mind you, eventually makes its way onto street signs, stickers, Youtube videos, public statements by celebrity truthers and press interviews. And I reiterate: it causes a widespread hostility, both latent and blatant, towards researchers like John Judge, Robert Schopmeyer, Paul Thompson, Kevin Fenton, Jon Gold, John Albanese, Jeff Hill, Jimd3100, and others.

Beware of the false equivalence: theories are not created equal, they ought to be evaluated against certain evidentiary standards. Many theories still float around which fail this evaluation, but are still promoted as sound. The ultimate consequence is that these flawed or even flat out mistaken beliefs cause truthers to reject and ostracize the most important, most professional researchers we have. Should we reserve more criticism for the reflexive deniers who often insinuate, snitchjacket, ridicule and cast aspersions, baselessly? I think so. (I've been snitchjacketed so many times, I lost count) I understand Jim's frustration, because this is an endless recycling of stagnant discussion, and I'm far from impressed by the tunnel vision and narrow, myopic arguments which purport to 'expose' this excellent research as a 'red herring', 'limited hangout' or 'psyop diversion'.

source

I follow the 911-studies since years and never heart anything about that:
"seen interviews with people who saw some hijackers board"

Can you please provide a link to a study, which really make the case, that the attributed hjackers were the real hijackers on the hijacked planes.

"Will Clarke go further and

"Will Clarke go further and admit the possibility that 9/11 was another of the many "black-ops" organized by western interests for decades or that the accused may have just been patsies in such a "black-op"?

Very doubtful."

I agree, doubtful. However, admitting to that possibility isn't evidence that it was, and evidence is what's needed to convince rational people and convict criminals.

This episode is significant cuz Richard Clarke, a long-time Establishment insider who's never been partisan, is laying out "a set of facts" that is deadly to the official conspiracy theory. Then he's proposed what he says is the only explanation he can come up w/; that the CIA was conducting an illegal surveillance operation in the US, they screwed up and tried to cover their ass and 9/11 happened, then lied their way thru the official inquiries. As I said, Kevin has done a good job of showing why the infiltration theory falls short and that it's more probable that the FBI was blocked so the plot could go fwd; the CIA not sharing everything it knew and Wilshire/Corsi undermining the FBI agents who wanted to open a criminal investigation are evidence that Clarke is wrong.

Tenet-Black-Blee ignore most of the points Clarke raised, however, indicating they have no good answers to his facts and certain questions; the CIA allegedly discovered on 8/22/01 what had been in its records for a year and 1/2; Al Qaeda operatives connected to the 1998 embassy bombing, Yemen hub and Kuala Lumpur summit - and then the Cole bombing Oct 2000- were in the US and Wilshire believed at least one would be connected to the next attack - yet day after day after day after day until 9/11, this info was allegedly not shared w/ George "running around w/ my hair on fire" Tenet or Cofer Black, it was not shared w/ Clarke, or Rice or Bush or anyone else responsible for national security, and this was during a 'summer of threat' when a massive al Qaeda attack on US interests was expected.

Why? It's a huge question and the official inquires danced around or ignored it. Treason is the elephant in the room, just based on this. This alone is grounds for a full inquiry, and of course it should go everywhere evidence leads. But simply acknowledging the fraud of the OCT should be reason enough for people to support alternatives to the Dems and Reps and the corporations that own them.

Reply to loose nuke

This information was shared with Tenet, Black and Blee, on August 23, 2001. DE #939 proves this. The book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" first released in December 2006, describes every bit of this information, and even has information apparently still unknown by Clarke on Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It also turns out that this information was in fact given to the FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30, 2001, they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even though it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this information to Bongardt and his team.

Both the CIA and the FBI HQ knew by not sharing this information with Bongardt and his team, and by shutting down this one investigation that could have prevented the attacks these agencies knew were about to occur, that they were condemning thousands of Americans to be murdered by these al Qaeda terrorists.

questions for rschop

rschop: "This information was shared with Tenet, Black and Blee, on August 23, 2001. DE #939 proves this."

What in DE 939 proves this; i'm not seeing it: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/939.pdf

rschop: "It also turns out that this information was in fact given to the FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30, 2001, they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even though it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this information to Bongardt and his team."

What specific info are you referring to, that was given to FBI HQ?

What is the specific criminal offense involved in not giving this info to Bondgardt/team?

Reply to loose nuke

DE #939 says Gillespie, aka Mary, had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue an alert indicating Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, to the rest of the CIA on August 23, 2001. The Bin Laden unit was run by Blee, who would have had to sign off on this alert. Blee and Black were close, so this alert would have gone to Black, who was close to Tenet, so this alert would also have gone to Tenet.

The fact that Tenet tried desperately to keep secret his meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, even lying to the 9/11 commission is proof in my book that he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 24, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US to take part in the massive al Qaeda attacks the CIA had been warned about since April 2001. Incredible this meeting was announced right in a White House Press release.

"It also turns out that this information was in fact given to the FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30, 2001, they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even though it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this information to Bongardt and his team."

According to the DOJ IG report the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur was sent to Rod Middleton by the CIA on August 30, 2001. This photo was proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who the CIA and FBI HQ also knew were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. Hence Corsi, and Middleton who had shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28-29 knew Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in a crime, a crime which had rendered the wall null and void. When Corsi and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi they both clearly knew by August 30, 2001 that they had no legal right to do this and that they were criminally with holding material information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation. They both knew they were in fact committing a very serious federal felony, a crime that could send them to prison for years.

cont.

rschop: "DE #939 says Gillespie, aka Mary, had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue an alert indicating Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, to the rest of the CIA on August 23, 2001."

I'm not seeing that anywhere in DE939, which is slightly over 3 pgs; please provide a quote and pg #.

Considering Tenet's interest in this kind of info, it seems he would have wanted to know about Almihdhar/Alhazmi visas and US travel, and his subordinates should have known that he would be. The rebuttal statement doesn't say he wasn't informed of this info after Gillespie uncovered it Aug 22 2001, it only says it wasn't recognized as significant in Jan 2000, which isn't true, and that it wasn't intentionally withheld, which is questionable - this could be a lie on a number of levels; perhaps it wasn't withheld, perhaps he was unofficially briefed, perhaps, as Fenton suggests, Blee did this in conjunction w/ CIA alums and MIC allies and shut Black and Tenet out of the loop. I asked you about this before, and you didn't provide documentary evidence they were informed; you just argued that it isn't believable they didn't know.

Middleton learned Aug 23 that Almihdhar had traveled to the US and recalled it as an "Oh, shit" moment - but w/ Corsi going to bat for an intel as opposed to criminal investigation, Middleton signed off on that. Perhaps he'd thought it thru, he certainly should have, seems he was at least negligent in not doing so, but I don't see the evidence, let alone proof, that his intent was to obstruct a criminal investigation.

Crimes by Middleton and Corsi

“Margaret Gillespie has the CIA bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi:
The day after the meeting between Corsi, Gillespie, and Wilshire, Gillespie requested that another CTC officer draft a CIR to the (rest of the CIA), the State Department, the INS, the US Customs Service and the FBI, to place Khalid a-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salah Saeed Muhammed bin Yousaf, aka Khallad, on several of the watchlists that were available at that time.”: [DOJ IG p302]

This clearly went straight to Blee, Black and Tenet.

You are right, this is not in DE #939 but in the DOJ IG report page 302. I just misremembered where I had seen this information. No biggy, the information is still the same, it is just in a different location.

Middleton learned Aug 23, 2001 that Almihdhar had traveled to the US and recalled it as an "Oh, shit" moment - but w/ Corsi going to bat for an intel as opposed to criminal investigation, Middleton signed off on that. Perhaps he'd thought it thru, he certainly should have, seems he was at least negligent in not doing so, but I don't see the evidence, let alone proof, that his intent was to obstruct a criminal investigation.

Middleton and Corsi knew it was a crime to withhold material information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation. She even admits this with the following statement:

“At such time that there is substantial evidence of a federal crime, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi) this information will be passed over the wall." But both Corsi and Middleton knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were connected to the east Africa bombings, and knew that these terrorists had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur, an attack that had killed 17 US sailors. These are crimes. Middleton has the photographic proof of this when the CIA sent him the Kuala Lumpur photo of Khallad on August 30, 2001. At this point neither he, nor Corsi, who knew about this photo on August 22, 2001, had any legal way to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. So they used out and out lies, criminal obstruction, and withholding the fact that Corsi had already received a written release from the NSA caveats to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Both clearly knew it was major federal crime to withhold information from, mislead, delay, or obstruct any federal official in their official capacity or investigation. By not giving the information to FBI criminal Agent Steve Bongardt that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, they were knowingly criminally obstructing his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

for the record, that must be

for the record, that must be a quote from your book, but that info is on pg 302 of the DOJ IG report (except it says "after", not "day after")

I do find it incredible that Tenet was unaware:

"George Tenet followed all of the information about al-Qaeda in microscopic detail," Clarke told Duffy and Nowosielski. "He read raw intelligence reports before analysts in the counterterrorism center did and he would pick up the phone and call me at 7:30 in the morning and talk about them." http://www.truth-out.org/former-counterterrorism-czar-accuses-tenet-other-cia-officials-cover/1313071564

This seems so unlikely that it may not even be possible, though they are only claiming Tenet did not know; they don't name Black and Blee: "In fact, the record shows that the Director and other senior CIA officials were unaware of the information until after 9/11." http://www.secrecykills.com/#joint_statement

Middleton certainly should have known better, and is responsible for his actions. I'm not that familiar w/ the legal requirements, and it seems unclear what his level of understanding was; is there evidence the guy was generally on top of things and competent? Corsi, otoh, repeatedly acted to obstruct the criminal investigation, including by providing false info about what info sharing was permitted under law. Both should be investigated, along w/ many others - the inquiries into their actions appear to have been very superficial.

Reply to loose nuke

This alert was released in August 23, 2001, so I had used, "the day after" the meeting on August 22, 2001 to reflect that.

Middleton is just as guilty, maybe more so than Corsi, in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans.

Both were on the phone calls to Bongardt shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28-29, 2001. Middleton had actually been the one who wrote up the EC in April 20001 warning other high level FBI managers about the threat from Bin Laden and Khattab.

Clarke's Claims Seemingly Absolve Very Suspect WH, FBI & DoD

From original post:

Clarke accuses "then-CIA Director George Tenet and two of his deputies of deliberately not informing the White House, FBI, and Defense Department about two future hijackers inside U.S., then covering up from the 9/11 investigations."

If anything, Clarke's allegations seem to absolve the White House, FBI and DoD from liability or complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, the White House pre-9/11 was preparing to launch resource wars requiring a "new Pearl Harbor", FBI management was inexplicably blocking pre-9/11 agent investigations of Moussaui that could have at least interrupted the 9/11 operation by obstructing the accused and DoD's Rumsfeld was allied with the very suspect PNAC group.

Surprising that claims by anyone of Clarke's stature and proximity to suspect powers, could be so widely and quickly embraced by some within the skeptics community, especially in light of the contradictory nature of these claims. One is reminded of another administration figure Morgan Reynolds, who quickly gained a following by openly questioning the offical 9/11 account and later proved to be a most misleading figure.

Reynolds

was a suddenly blossoming no planer. He had little to bring to the table, his contribution to this movement was in his stature. There are more like him. Dick Clarke is not one of them, because he has stature but has also been personally touched and humiliated by the Bush administration, in fact, callously BLAMED for 9/11 by Dick Cheney.

What to expect from Clarke? He will not become a truther in the orthodox sense. Obviously not. He may even distance himself. But he is a piece of the puzzle, and a can opener which just might let the worms out.

Context

Aidan: "Clarke's allegations seem to absolve the White House, FBI and DoD from liability or complicity in the 9/11 attacks."

Sure; Clarke presents a limited set of facts and a theory based on those facts, which only throws Tenet, Black, Blee and up to 47 subordinates under the bus. Clarke says it's the only theory he can come up w/, based on that self-selected, limited set of facts; he apparently is unable/unwilling to consider the possibility the obstruction was done in order to facilitate the attacks - at least, if he considered it, he didn't bother to explain how/why he ruled it out, and, unfortunately, he wasn't asked about it.

Aidan: "Surprising that claims by anyone of Clarke's stature and proximity to suspect powers, could be so widely and quickly embraced by some within the skeptics community, especially in light of the contradictory nature of these claims. One is reminded of another administration figure Morgan Reynolds, who quickly gained a following by openly questioning the offical 9/11 account and later proved to be a most misleading figure."

Is this a very subtle form of snitchjacketing, or what are you getting at here, Aidan?

It's a fact that Clarke is a high-level Establishment insider w/ a decades-long career in govt. It's a fact that he's alleging there was an illegal CIA operation, and attempts to hide it from him/other principals directly contributed to 9/11. He's accused Tenet-Black-Blee of perjury. His statements undermine the official inquiries; the set of facts he's presented are not in dispute - as I noted above, Tenet-Black-Blee did not dispute that he wasn't informed, they focused on the early part of 2000 and what they said about importance not recognized is demonstrably false, and they ignored Clarke's charge that he and other national security principals were never briefed about it [EDIT: following Aug 22].

Who is claiming Clarke is trustworthy, or that a 9/11 investigation must begin and end w/ his allegations? No one here, that I see; so why are you implying otherwise? Do you think only WTC destruction and remote plane control should be investigated; that any crimes committed by people in the CIA and FBI should not? You've made some legitimate points, but much of your criticism is focused on points that aren't being made by people in this thread; you're making a strawman argument.

Strong But Limited Support For Clarke's Own Conspiracy Theory

Loose Nuke: "Sure; Clarke presents a limited set of facts and a theory based on those facts"

You have recently lectured me on the importance of "hard" evidence, but now lend great support to the conspiracy theories of ... Richard Clarke.

"Who is claiming Clarke is trustworthy, or that a 9/11 investigation must begin and end w/ his allegations? No one here, that I see; so why are you implying otherwise?"

A very big deal has been unnecessarily made of Clarke's problematic allegations by some here. Some have even characterized these as "explosive". Why?

"Is this a very subtle form of snitchjacketing or what are you getting at here"

Please ... the same could be said of this very question of yours. The comment you refer to speaks for itself.

It would probably be best

If Richard Clarke explained it to you himself. This isn't some "conspiracy theory".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6vIum4jUNA#t=44m20s

When you refer to "explosive", I presume you mean buildings exploding. Nothing else exists. You are obsessive and you are waging a vendetta.

The reality is, and this has been made abundantly clear by Duffy & Nowosielski, that it is equally likely that everything revolved around a protection net for the 9/11 hijackers. You know, those swell guys you folks allege are dead, fake, alive, Israeli double agents, horrible pilots and patsies at the same time.

So why is this explosive?

BECAUSE IT PROVES THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT A SHAMELESS FRAUD. THEY ALL LIED. UNDER OATH.

Questions for SnowCrash:

To Quote: "BECAUSE IT PROVES THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT A SHAMELESS FRAUD. THEY ALL LIED. UNDER OATH".

If the chief culprits in the 9/11 attacks were "al Qaeda" personnel with possible prodding by certain fuzzy, non-specific and indeterminate elements within the US intelligence/law enforcement/security community, as promoted in this and other recent similar threads, then:

* Why did the White House and the Pentagon lie, obfuscate and stonewall to the "Commission"
* Why did the 9/11 Commission elect not to challenge these lies?
* Why did Philip Zelikow hijack the so-called "investigation" from the start?
* Why was 90%+ of the evidence presented by the "Commission" excised from the final report?
* Why did the 9/11 Commission fabricate certain key architectural features of the Twin Towers, when the blueprints are a matter of public record?
* Why was the "investigation" starved of time, funds and resources?
* Why was the "investigation" delayed for 441 days after the attacks? Major national tragedies or scandals (such as the JFK assassination and the two Space Shuttle accidents) tend to get very prompt attention re. an inquiry... ie they get started/authorized within a few *days* of an event, not almost a year and a half afterwards. If it hadn't been for the "Jersey Girls" (and other activist 9/11 family members' efforts), there would likely have been no 9/11 Commission of any sort.
* Why was the Commission's interview with Bush and Cheney kept secret beyond all reasonable explanation? (no transcripts, no witnesses, no note taking, no cameras, etc etc)?

If it is the work of "al Qaeda" that was being "investigated", according to original post in this (and similar related threads), then why the hell did the 9/11 Commission prove to be such an all round screw-up? Whenever an investigation gets compromised, or jury-rigged, the prime object is to protect certain people who might come under scrutiny. If this was the work of al Qaeda and "militant Muslims" then who is being protected, by the deliberate derailing of the 9/11 Commission? More al Qaeda agents? More Islamists? People we haven't heard of yet?

Why was the 9/11 Commission "a fraud"? Why did "they all lie under oath"? Why did they get away with perjury?

Answer for bloggulator

Straw man argument. Very nice roasting of the 9/11 Commission though. Vote you up for it.

Please read this

Please read this if you haven't already. And if you have, please don't misrepresent my position.

Aidan, cont. The Clarke significance, etc.

"You have recently lectured me on the importance of "hard" evidence, but now lend great support to the conspiracy theories of ... Richard Clarke."

Not sure what you're getting at, but it appears you've misinterpreted and are misconstruing my comments. It's a FACT that Clarke has proposed a THEORY.

Who Clarke is (explained above) makes his publicly proposing this theory significant.

I have not endorsed his theory as being valid; in fact, I've explained why I think it's wrong, in more than one comment in this thread. Clarke is smart and experienced enough to know there are other possible explanations. Apparently he's lacking in imagination, somehow ruled out the more probable explanation for the obstruction; to enable 9/11 - or he's purposefully obfuscating for some reason. I don't know; perhaps this will come out at some point. Whatever the truth about that, it doesn't reduce the significance of his statements.

Perhaps by "lend great support" you mean my considering it highly significant - part of what's "explosive" about the entirety of his comments - and commenting on it here at 911blogger.

The implications of the set of facts he's laid out, regarding who knew and didn't know what when, are highly significant regardless of who's presenting them, though Clarke's got a unique insight on the facts and their significance. This subject has been dealt with only superficially in the public versions of the investigative reports, and in some cases w/ a great deal of obfuscation.

This event is a big deal, for the reasons I and others here have already explained, and which none of the critics here have refuted, including yourself. It is necessary for a truth and justice movement to analyze and call attention to this event. Those seeking to raise the profile and power of this movement towards a goal of compelling an honest investigation or truth and reconciliation commission would do well to drive this wedge into the Establishment which Clarke has set up.

Evidence that this is a big deal can be seen in the way the MSM are dealing w/ it, as YT noted below; most have ignored it, those that have commented on it are focusing on dismissing Clarke's theory, and have ignored the set of facts he's presented, and ignored the fact that Tenet, Black and Blee didn't address most of these facts, and made at least one demonstrably false statement.

It would've been better for Clarke's reputation if he hadn't presented a theory, if he had simply laid out the set of facts and raised the obvious, reasonable questions. Clarke's smart enough to know what the Establishment media would do w/ his statements; I'd like to know why he proposed it - did he really not know how it would be treated, or did he? He may decide to respond publicly to the way the MSM have spun this - he's gotten time and space in major media on many occasions, and these are sensational charges.

Loose Nuke: One of your better comments

This is one of your better comments, loose nuke, The significance of it all just hit me in a profound way, especially due to this part:

(...) the CIA allegedly discovered on 8/22/01 what had been in its records for a year and 1/2; Al Qaeda operatives connected to the 1998 embassy bombing, Yemen hub and Kuala Lumpur summit - and then the Cole bombing Oct 2000- were in the US and Wilshire believed at least one would be connected to the next attack - yet day after day after day after day until 9/11, this info was allegedly not shared w/ George "running around w/ my hair on fire" Tenet or Cofer Black, it was not shared w/ Clarke, or Rice or Bush or anyone else responsible for national security, and this was during a 'summer of threat' when a massive al Qaeda attack on US interests was expected.

Is it your opinion that Ali Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo? Or is this well known already? I just cross-referenced it on Wikipedia and it appears to be a (fuzzy) match.

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [redacted] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, (علي محمد) (born June 3, 1952) is a double agent[1] who worked for both the CIA and Egyptian Islamic Jihad simultaneously, reporting on the workings of each for the benefit of the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

Just wanted to verify that. If that's the case, I never knew until just now.

Ali and PDB

SnowCrash: "Is it your opinion that Ali Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo? Or is this well known already?"

I hadn't thought about that before let alone researched it, but it's possible and it would be useful to know the name of the operative - I'm unaware if anyone has come up w/ anything on this.

I would also like to know exactly what specific "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

afaik, that has not come out the suspicious activity could be what was in the Phoenix Memo, the intel Sibel Edmonds said the Iranian asset provided about Al Qaeda targeting US cities w/ planes and/or other info that has never come out - anyone got more info on this? It is somewhat related to the OP...

A primary source

Snowcrash said....."Is it your opinion that Ali Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo? Or is this well known already? I just cross-referenced it on Wikipedia and it appears to be a (fuzzy) match."

"And Mohamed was one of the primary sources for the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S."
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/unlocking911-1-ali-mohamed-911.html#_ednref1

Pinch me

Someone working for the CIA, FBI and Special Forces was Bin Laden's attack vector of choice to attack the USA?

Here's that line from the Aug. 6 PDB again:

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [redacted] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Ok.... Now....Let me adjust that sentence in the PDB to reflect reality a little better:

"An CIA/FBI/Special Forces asset told an Egyptian service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the CIA/FBI/Special Forces asset's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Do I have that about right? This is... has this ever been discussed at length Jim? I recall your piece about Ali Mohamed, but I can't remember this being mentioned. Very good piece though. I can't imagine this hasn't been written about by 9/11 researchers? Nafeez Ahmed?

This just takes my breath away. Literally. Erik, you didn't know this? Seems pretty important, how about Kevin?

Well, this QUITE explains why Ali Mohamed has vanished from the face of the earth, doesn't it?

very interesting, i didn't know.

In general, it's safe to assume I'm ignorant. That would be one hell of a coincidence if Mohamed was a PDB source, but not the source for that info.

8/7/98: US embassy bombings
9/10/98: Ali Mohamed arrested in Egypt

No/Yes

You're definitely not ignorant, but it appears Peter Dale Scott wrote about it and specifically mentions Ali Mohamed & the PDB.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fl0uD8l1qckC&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false

If he was, how did he got the info

it was reported in Oct. 1998 that he was arrested...see Historycommons: So trough whom and how could he still obtain new infos? The decision for 9/11 was made early 1999, as far as I know, written in the CR. However, our databank reveals that the US State Department once claimed the info was held secret for eight months, which would be after 9/11 plans allegedly had been made.:

Mohamed's arrest on September 10, 1998, was kept secret for eight months, apparently while he and the government attempted to negotiate a deal. However, he was publicly indicted in May 1999 and joined the four currently on trial, along with another defendant who will stand trial in July for attempted murder of a prison guard, in public arraignments and hearings. Nevertheless, Mohamed remained distant from the rest of the group, including remaining in solitary confinement after the others were allowed to rotate as cellmates.
Mohamed faces the possibility of life in prison. His sentencing date has been tentatively set for July 2001.
Created: 15 May 2001 Updated: 00 Dec 0000
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Ali_Mohamed.html

It seems to be a lie:

"Mohamed’s associate Khaled Abu el-Dahab, now living in Egypt, wil hear of Mohamed’s arrest and attempt to leave the country, but will be arrested in October 1998. He will be put on trial there and sentenced to 15 years in prison (see 1999)"

In the Historycommons they have speculation in it that Al Qaida lost trust in him at least since 1996.

"The notion that the US had moles within al-Qaeda runs counter to the usual official US position after 9/11 that al-Qaeda was nearly impenetrable."
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ali_mohamed

As legend, that the enemy does not know how much was infiltrated? Or as cover for the handlers and plotters to make 9/11 succeed?

Our databank reveals:
Moles in Al Qaida:
-Omar Nasiri (Alias) Maroccon, now living in Germany, shared infos with french, british and german intelligence
-Melvin or Marvin Lattimore, US citizen working together with Ali Mohammed
"Richter and AG Ashcroft knew that Lattimore had been used as an FBI provocateur together with Ali Mohammed in the 1993 WTC and the 1995 OKC bombing. They also knew that Lattimore was the roommate of 9/11 hijackers Moussaoui, AlShehhi and AlHazmi and had been with Mohammed Atta in Norman OK just before the 9/11 attacks."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick18.htm
True?? Would be a direct link to 9/11...

Undisclosed names of egyptian infiltrators:
ZAHN: And how would you characterize the level of your country's penetration of Al Qaeda?
MUBARAK: Look, we have so many agents there, and I think the United States is using these agents now. That's why we could make -- get the information from them. It's not a problem just to go there. As far as we used to have some people before the American attacks on Afghanistan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/07/ltm.03.html
Undisclosed names of french initiated infiltrators via DGSE:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2007/04/16/ce-que-les-services-francais-savaient-de-ben-laden-en-2000_896448_3224.html

And then Ali Mohammed. Who was protected and shielded his whole life long.

Author (Peter Lance, Tripple Cross): Bush nominee (Michael Mukasey) helped mask FBI’s pre-9/11 failures and kept al Qaeda’s infiltration of US intelligence from view (Ali Mohammed)
http://crazyrichguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/author-bush-nominee-helped-mask-fbis-pre-911-failures-and-kept-al-qaedas-infi...

But Lance will later note, “But that’s just what he did. Patrick Fitzgerald allowed Ali Mohamed to go free”—even though Mohamed firmly rejected the offer to cooperate.
Historycommons

Other interesting notes on defectors or informants
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0301max#a0301max
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0197mysteryinformant#a0197mysteryinformant
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a121199deeksings#a121199deeksings

And one especially for snowcrash
Niaz Khan
One FBI agent recalls, “We were incredulous. Flying a plane into a building sounded crazy but we polygraphed him and he passed.” [LONDON TIMES, 5/9/2004] A former FBI official says the FBI agents believed Khan and aggressively tried to follow every lead in the case, but word came from FBI headquarters saying, “Return him to London and forget about it.”
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0400niazkhan#a0400niazkhan

Hell yes!

Hoo hoo hoo! ;-)

Philly 9/11 Truth speaks with Richard A. Clarke

yeah.

Truthout...

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up

http://www.truth-out.org/former-counterterrorism-czar-accuses-tenet-other-cia-officials-cover/1313071564

Reader Supported News The Daily Beast

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge
In a new documentary, ex-national security aide Richard Clarke suggests the CIA tried to recruit 9/11 hijackers—then covered it up. Philip Shenon on George Tenet’s denial.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/142-142/6988-focus-clarke-alleges-cia-cover-up-prior-to-911

WOW

This is heavy! Please see the teaser vids from Secrecy Kills:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FF4Films#p/u

Also see this post by Kevin Fenton revealing "Richard Blee" back in 09:
"Identity Of CIA Officer Responsible For Pre-9/11 Failures, Tora Bora Escape, Rendition To Torture Revealed"
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-11/identity-cia-officer-responsible-pre-911-failures-tora-bora-escape-rendition-torture...

I am proud to say that Truth Be Told Comics has been able to secure a page in the 9/11 comic to promote the "Who is Rich Blee?" campaign and "Press for Truth"!

Ah how nice

to see the squirming ratchet up. Soon they will be beging for truth and reconciliation proceedings instead of treason trials.

explosive news?

I wonder if this is part of the explosive news jon gold was talking about. Looking forward to this broadcast.

dtg

quite sure it is

quite sure it is

Limited hang-out or distraction?

I don't know, there's something about the characters involved and the timing of this that strikes me as contrived and diversionary.

Richard Clarke versus Tenet/Black/Blee? Deep Insiders provide an interesting conflict that hooks and diverts attention on the 10th anniversary?

Convoluted, insider squabbling - who knew what, when? Lots of minutiae to keep everyone busy and wondering?

It seems

pursuing one conspiracy threatens the pursuit of another, and therefore the entire evidence record documenting these facts must be dismissed as fake. Actual hijackers? Heavens no. This truth movement MUST be centered around the Hollywood false flag scenario with all kinds of nifty evil empire gadgets, special effects, science fiction-like military technology deployed to fool us about every single aspect of 9/11. 70% (wild estimate) of History Commons MUST be a farçe. Let's not read it. Some of it contradicts cherished beliefs, and the right route is to reject as much of the official narrative as possible. The more you reject, the closer you are to the truth...Correct? Islamic terrorism does not exist, Al Qaeda does not exist, dead fake Bin Laden thawed from Alex Jones' freezer... it's not just that it's loopy, it's just not true. The only excuse for continuing to promote these memes is willful ignorance, belief perseverance, religious mental rigidity, lack of insight in skeptical philosophy and the historical method... and confirmation bias. Debunkers were right about requesting direct evidence: could have does not equate to must have.

For me, pursuing this information is a question of maturity. I don't have the luxury of dismissing everything I wish to ignore as fake anymore. Maturity, formed by years of research experience. Knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Knowing when the threshold for factuality has been reached and surpassed. This is not gullibility. This is maturity. There comes a point where you just have to stop and think: "What exactly would I have to deny, which witnesses would I have to involve in the plot, what insanely difficult hoops does my theory have to jump through to hold?" Is this really plausible? Realistic? Have I really considered all the caveats?

Yeah, nanothermite and hijackers can coexist. Not only logically, but that is what the evidence demands. It's about what you see in the evidence, both in CD research and in "hijackers and the FBI/CIA" research. I reject the rejection of one in favor of the other, because of the stubborn misconception that they are mutually exclusive. In order for this movement to make progress, this realization ought to find its way into the collective activist consciousness. If not, we will continue to see arguments like yours crop up and good researchers dismissed. Really, I understand some see this work as a threat, because it collides with David Ray Griffins oeuvre. Yet David's style is one of conjecture, and the risk is extremely high that this will result in a theory eventually fatally contradicted by the facts. It has happened, it will continue to happen, and unless you study the arguments of the other side with enough interest, then some day you will be taken by surprise, in the middle of a debate.

Demolition Plot Jeopardized By Imperfect Aircraft Control

"Nanothermite and hijackers can coexist. Not only logically, but that is what the evidence demands. It's about what you see in the evidence, both in CD research and in "hijackers and the FBI/CIA" research. I reject the rejection of one in favor of the other, because of the stubborn misconception that they are mutually exclusive."

Any plot would logically rely on the most reliable and available means of execution. GPS guided autopilot systems are more reliable and available than inexperienced hijacker pilots. What if any hijacker takeovers and cockpit intrusions had been thwarted? Any demolition plot could not have proceeded.

What evidence is there of hijacker control of the 9/11 aircraft? No witnesses, images, confessions or other valid evidence of them behind the controls. Just two Flight Data Recorders with critically important and absent inventory control serial numbers.

Evidence of hijacker control

Resides in the hijacker DNA found at the Pentagon, and the erratic flight movements after hijack in AA 77.

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of remote control in the case of the AA 11 and UA 175 hits, only reasonable disbelief. Disbelief and falsification can only achieve a state of uncertainty, it cannot, in this case as in others, provide direct evidence for a single highly specific alternative narrative.

Your pitfall: in debate, somebody claims Atta's approach was straight and easy, while Al-Shehhi simply 'got lucky'. Exactly how are you going to refute this? By citing your papers for the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies which demonstrate that remote control could have been possible, since all the necessary boundary conditions, such as availability of GPS guided systems, were present?

That's all well and good: your opponent might agree with you that it could have been technically achieved, but could have relates to a possibility, not an empirical fact. I have my doubts about UA 175's hit and I make no secret of that.

Also, I could likewise posit that the most logical plot would be one with patsies who actually believe in what they are doing and are unaware of the shadow assistance they are receiving. How 'beautifully' (in reality, obviously very ugly) does it all fall into place: you have panicky phone calls, hijacker DNA, you have martyr videos and a terrorist organization claiming responsibility.

If they miss, you remove the energetic materials in a post-attack fireproofing revision, due to "new circumstances and novel threat assessments", which "require additional strengthening of building safety features".

So yes, there is direct evidence of hijacker control of 9/11 aircraft, from DNA, radio transmissions, phone calls, and AA 77's FDR data, showing an inexperienced flight pattern. Did I forget UA 93's cockpit voice recorder? How could you have missed that?

Your response will be: I don't trust the chain of custody, it could easily have been faked, etc. etc. ... but this is all personal incredulity and distrust, and that does not constitute evidence for remote control, just evidence for your disbelief.

And just to be clear: I appreciate your work on the remote control topic. However, I sense an unwillingness in you to peruse the voluminous records that suggest actual hijacker involvement and flight training. Or would you like to explain how a non-existent, non-hijacker, non-training Hani Hanjour could possibly be used in a pro-9/11 truth argument to establish his poor flying credentials? Either you accept his existence or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

P.S. -- I did not vote you down. But I do disagree with you.

P.P.S. I accidentally overlooked that "inventory control serial numbers" remark. The FDR serial number argument is invalid. See rebuttal #2 here. This argument was put forth by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who didn't have a problem with the authenticity of AA 77's flight data recorder back when it seemed to indicate 'flyover'. But even then, logically, it could not have supported any other path than the one ending with the location where the FDR was found. Otherwise, the FDR would disprove its own finding location, prove itself fraudulent and hence all the data in it would be automatically worthless,

Evidence Or Allegations?

"So yes, there is direct evidence of hijacker control of 9/11 aircraft, from DNA, radio transmissions, phone calls, and AA 77's FDR data, showing an inexperienced flight pattern. Did I forget UA 93's cockpit voice recorder? How could you have missed that?"

- The DNA proves the accused were aboard the planes, it doesn't prove they were flying them.
- It has never been proven that the alleged cockpit radio transmissions originated from any of the 9/11 flights.
- As said already, AA 77 FDR data was obtained from an FDR not assigned with important inventory control serial numbers.
- UA 93's CVR recording was also attributed to a CVR with absent inventory control serial numbers.

The "evidence" of aircraft control by the accused amount to unsupported allegations.

Evidence.

- You ought to study the Pentagon impact. The plane hull telescoped inside out, leaving those at the cockpit at the front of the building, and those in the back near or at the punch-out hole. Guess whose DNA was found near the entry hole.
- Your personal incredulity. Prove the radio transmissions are fake. It has never been proven they originated from anywhere else, either. Besides, the phone calls came from the flights, Aidan.
- Nonsense, you just hope people won't read the explanation at Frank Legge's website.
- See above.

I'm sorry, I have to catch a breath here, I'm dizzy from all the spin.

The evidence of aircraft control and presence of hijackers STANDS until you come up with direct positive evidence for an alternative. The onus for proving Northwoods is on you, Aidan.

pentagon,9/11,fdr

Off topic

Please do not derail threads.

If you want to discuss the Pentagon, there are plenty of threads on which to do so.

If you have some new information regarding the Pentagon, please feel free to submit a blog.

Thank you for your consideration of the rules and guidelines of the site.

Show "Planet Of The Apes Fallacy" by BMAC

BMAC

Since any reply by me at this point is considered a thread derail, I request that you continue your point at this blog post.

I am inviting you to make your case there.

LeftWright, as you can see, I am making an attempt to move the discussion. Such attempts rarely have any effect. Yet the argument that Richard Clarke's disclosures are a distraction rests on few things, this is one them. Will you and others allow this discussion to take place or will you refrain from taking the discussion there and then use moderation to censor it?

Hijackers exist and Richard Clarke's information is important, because it implicates other high level "persons of interest".

Yes, SC, I can see that you are making a good faith effort

to move this discussion to an appropriate thread.

Thank you.

I think it is more accurate to say that "hijackers" exist, as the actual nature of the hijacking has yet to be determined. Reasonable people should be able to agree that 19 individuals later described as "hijackers" were almost certainly aboard the four aircraft which have been claimed to have been involved in the 9/11 false flag operation.

I would still like to see all of the evidence pertaining to these individuals presented in a court of law, however, as well as the evidence which positively identifies the four aircraft allegedly involved.

But that is an entirely different discussion and not appropriate here, as its relevance to this is a bit of a stretch, imo.

It is quite curious logic to state that the fact of WTC controlled demolitions is somehow in conflict with the presence of alleged "hijackers" on the planes, and I really don't understand why anyone would put so much energy into what I consider a spurious argument.

This is not a question of either/or, but rather both/and, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks again for your effort to return this thread to its proper tracks.

By the way

Many of you probably know about and have followed the regrettable discussion which took place here on 911blogger between some skeptics and prof. Jones.

I said I would withdraw support from his work. I do still believe that fake earthquakes and free energy are fruitless avenues of research. The former brings no hard evidence to bear and the latter: well, while joule thief circuits are interesting with respect to their remarkable efficiency, they cannot achieve 'overunity', because that would violate the laws of physics, laws which cannot be bargained with.

I also don't believe this simple circuit has unmasked a previously unknown source of energy, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be an overunity device, but an alternative energy source; sure it would be fascinating, and resolving our energy dilemma is probably the most urgent and important research topic, together with climate change. If we fail in either one of those, we are literally not going to survive. But overunity research is a well known pastime for the eccentric, widely regarded as pseudoscientific and has a long history of fraudulent inventions and inventors. And again, overunity is scientifically impossible. There are some other bones I have to pick w.r.t. some of prof. Jones claims, statements and methods, but overall I recognize his sacrifice and the importance of his research.

I might have gone ahead and said that I don't support the conclusions of the Active Thermitic Materials paper anymore. But I don't really believe that. There is something extremely awkward going on at the WTC site before, during and long after the WTC buildings' destruction. The paper's core claim is exceedingly simple. The material ignites and produces elemental iron, with oxygen molecules crossing over to the aluminum. That is a clear-cut case of thermitic reaction. To deny it would be unwise at this point, but it must be said that with or without the ATM paper, there are problems with the official account which must be resolved.

So, I accept facts from one line of inquiry (CD research), although much must still be discussed, and I also accept the existence of AQ hijackers. That latter is a form of blasphemy, apparently, and the reasoning is that the first line of inquiry invalidates the other. I still haven't seen a convincing argument why that is the case. Rather than accepting a fallacious false dilemma, I accept the reality that the positive evidence indicates that hijackers exist AND that energetic materials were inside those towers. Reality and evidence trump the 'ideal plot' argument. For reference, the 'ideal plot' argument could be a case of the Nirvana fallacy.

Richard Clarke is the subject of this blog

Please keep your comments on topic.

Thanks.

There is a deeper layer

Anything which appears to confirm the existence of hijackers is regarded with suspicion. Therefore, everything about Richard Clarke is regarded with suspicion. In order for people to stop rejecting the work of Kevin Fenton, Robert Schopmeyer, Duffy & Nowosielski, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Ruppert, Jon Gold, Jeff Hill, Jimd3100, John Judge, Paul Thompson and even Erik Larson, this issue should be confronted. This is a very, very serious matter. The treatment of Kevin Fenton et al. is nothing short of shameful.

I can't imagine someone

I can't imagine someone better to write that necessary article than yourself S.C.

Thanks

You have shown resilience in discussion. You're a man of character.

Clarke's Facade

It is cleary that Clarke's explanation is off. I thought it was great to hear Paul Thompson's comments on the live CPT12 broadcast after the clip aired. He openly showed his doubts in Clarkes explanation and how it didn't seem to fit with what we already knew.

A Richard Blee press conference

could clear up the questions in an hour. Yet for some reason he evidently doesn't believe he owes the public an explanation. The joint CIA statement is contemptuous and bizarre.

Here is a Cofer Black comment from a Men's Journal interview:

Do you wish you had done more?

A lot of people ask, Don’t you feel responsible for 9/11? Absolutely not. We were the only ones in the fight. We held the line and fought as hard as we could with the resources we had. Looking back, I can’t think of a damn thing we could have done that would have changed anything.

Cofer Black, Out of the Shadows

Reply to noise

I will post the reply I made to the Cofer Black article in Men' Journal three years ago, I think my reply is still relevant today.

Robert Schopmeyer Says:

October 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

From this report: “CB: Our assessment that morning was that “the ceiling was falling in,” an attack was imminent against U.S. interests and could very well be within the United States. There was no mystery; we fully expected to be struck, and struck hard. Director Tenet immediately recognized that things had taken a profound turn and there was a need for the upper levels of the U.S. government to appreciate this.

We’re about protecting America, not hoodwinking it.”

Then explain the following Cofer Black: Why then did you and Tenet forbid Tom Wilshire, the former [deputy chief] of the CIA Bin Laden unit from transferring over to the FBI the information the CIA had on Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi and the fact that these two long time al Qaeda terrorists had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting on January 5-8, 2000 with Tawfiq Bin Attash, Khallad, thought at that time by the FBI to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

Wilshire had sent his CTC managers, the group you headed, these requests on July 13, 2001 and again on July 23, 2001. This information would have alerted the FBI Cole investigators to these long time al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the attacks on 9/11, and would have focused their attention on finding them in time to prevent the attacks on 9/11. You knew when you forbid Wilshire from transferring this information to the FBI that Khallad had been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi, a fact you never communicated to the FBI until after the attacks on 9/11, not even to the FBI team investigating the Cole bombing.

Cofer, with holding material information from an on going FBI criminal investigtaion into the murder of 17 US sailors is a crime. Since the attacks on 9/11 and the attack on the USS Cole were planned at the very same Kuala Lumpur meeting, by withholding the information on this meeting from the FBI you allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. At first it might appear that you did not actually know that withholding this information would allow a huge al Qaeda attack to take place inside of the US.

But what is even more horrific is that Wilshire’s July 5, 2001 email to his CIA CTC mangers, says he is sure that the people at Kuala Lumpur were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack and in his email on July 23, 2001 Wilshire says that he is sure that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi will be found at the location of next big al Qaeda operation. At the time of this email you and Tenet had already told Rice and Clarke in the White House that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans

On August 22, 2001 FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie working in the CIA Bin Laden unit, a unit under your CTC group, found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, an FBI agent Wilshire had already recruited into helping him withhold the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from the FBI Cole investigators and criminally obstruct their investigtaion into the Cole bombing. It is clear that Wilshire was sure at that point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA already knew about. When Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue a world wide alert on August 23, 2001 for Mihdhar and Hazmi, this alert clearly went through out the CIA management hierarchy and right to both you and to George Tenet.

At that point not only did you know that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to carry a massive attack directed at some target inside of the US, but you had been warned that this attack would kill thousands of Americans. But not only did you, after learning this, not do anything to warn the FBI criminal investigators that could have prevented this attack, but you allowed Wilshire and Corsi to sabotage any chance that the FBI Cole investigators, including Steve Bongardt and his team, would have to investigate and find Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to stop the attacks on 9/11.

Of course you were aware that if Bongardt had continued with his investigtaion of Mihdhar, and the photos you and the CIA had been hiding from them of Khallad at the Kuala Lumpur meeting came over to the FBI, you and many people at the CIA would have been arrested for criminally obstructing the Cole bombing investigtaion. But with what you knew, there is no possible way that you were not aware that your action were going to result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, by allowing your own subordinate to sabotage the only investigtaion that could have found Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent this huge al Qaeda attack. You put saving your own worthless hide from going to prison for years above saving the lives of thousands of Americans.

Cofer, in your own words, you claim that: “We’re about protecting America, not hoodwinking it.” Then Cofer Black explain why you allowed you own subordinate, Tom Wilshire, on your orders, to criminally obstruct and then to shut down the only investigtaion that could have stopped this huge al Qaeda attack when you knew that this could have prevented the deaths of thousands of people in the US!

Paul Thompson's Comments

Hey Rightlight, what more did Paul say and what about Clarke's explanantion did not fit with what he knew? I have been trying to search for Paul Thompson's comments, does anyone have a link to his comments (CPT12 website just had Clarke interview)?

also directed at noise

I may be off because I am basically paraphrasing this from memory. Paul Thompson doesn't doubt that the CIA withheld information; I think that is clear. He just doubts the explanation that Clarke gave as to why the CIA decided to withhold information. Clarke seemed to think that the CIA withheld information for two reasons: to gain these terrorists as inside informants for the CIA and then when this failed to sheild their own asses for not informing the FBI and other outlets in a timely manner of the fact that these terrorists had US visas and where inside the country. Thompson seemed to doubt this for a few reasons and here is where I will begin to paraphrased based on what I recall Thompson saying. First of all he mentioned one incident where I believe an FBI agent was looking through databases for information regarding the terrorists. He was then disuaded to look into the credit card records of these individuals. He also mentioned a gap of time where the CIA lost the location and information of the terrorists for a while. Thompson also said during that time they supposedly had contact with a Saudi who could have had close ties with Bin Laden. At this moment the CIA should have informed other agencies. So clearly Thompson doubts the reasons why this information would be withheld. As I see it, Thompson may believe that these officals that witheld information were aware of the planned attack and wanted it to occur or they even may have had more involvement in the actual attacks than just foreknowledge. And noise I believe that if these individuals did speak honestly it would clear things up. I would be somewhat comfortable if their explanation fit Clarke's conclusions. At least then it would show that individuals were trying to do something good by gaining these terrorists as insiders but failed to inform anyone else so they could complete their plan and then hide their own asses. I believe they aren't speaking because they have something much more sinister to hide which is what I believe Thompson was hinting at on CPT12.

Clarke briefly mentions Prince Turki

Sen. Graham and Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan both discuss a Saudi support network for the hijackers in their recent books. They don't make a connection between that network and the conduct of US intelligence. Evidently we should believe US intelligence had no idea and all the obstructed investigations were just a coincidence.

One possible scenario is that high level US officials ordered US intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda. This is not farfetched as FBI agents like Robert Wright have complained of interference in relation to Saudi links to FBI terrorism investigations. Journalist Greg Palast reported that US intelligence was restricted from pursuing Saudi links to terrorism. Former CIA agent Robert Baer wrote a book which detailed corrupt high level dealings between US and Saudi officials.

To put it in stark terms 9/11 could have been business as usual for corrupt US officials. Their desire to keep the lid on corruption was more important than the possibility of a massive terrorist attack. After the attacks they were able to exploit a very corrupt system to turn an act of treason into an unprecedented power grab.

Calculations for impact

Last year it was the nationalist fervor of the Mosque at Ground Zero with images of screaming crowds, and the artificially media boosted event of the burning of the Koran by a preacher with no actual congregation, to keep everyone yelling about nothing on the 9th Anniversary.

This year it's Richard Clark appearing to suddenly decide -- almost exactly 1 month before the 10th Anniversary, despite having years to talk about this -- to throw a bunch of others under the bus about who knew what when about the attacks. Apparently it was decided that something less transparent, emotional, and more connected to reality needed to be dumped on the US public for the penultimate Anniversary.

There is only one 10th Anniversary.

These are calculated distractions that are also real events. It's best to keep both sides in mind.

The average American will have trouble walking into the house of mirrors of which official knew what when and why, which means that many will come away with one message from this, while it may actually be saying something else. It helps to boil things down to what advertisers do: Coke/Pepsi, Crest/Colgate, McDonalds/Burger King. How can the above info be deconstructed and simplified for reading on an iphone in about 1 minute?

Excellent comment!

Agreed, and THANK YOU (again).

Cheers!

To the best of my knowledge

To the best of my knowledge...The men behind the interview are friends of Jon Gold and the directors of 9/11 Press for Truth. They may have asked Clarke to wait for them to release it, I don't know... but what are you saying Vic? How was this decision solely in the hands of Richard Clarke and not in the hands of the directors?

I agree with you on the mosque BTW, I remember running into a fascinating article about CIA funding (seed money) for the "Ground Zero Mosque", and posting it on 911blogger. Got posted on 911truthnews too, and I vaguely recall some activists actually taking the information to the streets near GZ. The GZ mosque controversy seemed to me like an actual, honest-to-goodness psyop. If that was really the case, then the question is with what specific intent: was it some kind of vague ethnic/religious reconciliation project gone wrong, or was it a project designed to provoke another "helpful wave of indignation"?

Anyways, if you're actually snitchjacketing the creators of 9/11 Press for Truth by proxy.... but I don't believe that... I presume you simply distrust Clarke?

observations

I don't see making observations about the ability of Americans to digest information to be snitchjacketing. A chunk of hugely complicated information is suddenly eclipsing things that average Americans cannot make heads or tails out of. If anyone was complicating things it was Richard Clark himself.

This year it's Richard Clark

reply to Victronix -

you said:

This year it's Richard Clark appearing to suddenly decide -- almost exactly 1 month before the 10th Anniversary, despite having years to talk about this -- to throw a bunch of others under the bus about who knew what when about the attacks

Clarke did not come out "1 month ago".

He came out 3 years ago in 2009 to these investigative film makers. Maybe you missed that in the 2nd paragraph?

Filmmaker-journalists John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski conducted the interview in 2009 for a documentary to be released on the 9/11 tenth anniversary entitled “Who Is Rich Blee?”,

I think a lot of you are missing how hard it is to make something like this come together.

Most of you probably don't have1 professional camera; let alone the resources, the questions, the drive, the vision, the energy or the sheer mental ability to put something like this together.

Hint: Commenting on Blogger is not going to cut it for another 10 years.

>>He came out 3 years ago in

>>He came out 3 years ago in 2009 to these investigative film makers.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like it's the MSM's decision then, which is who, in the end, makes all decisions about what the 'public' sees and perceives.

This story is extremely complex and therefore can be shaped and / or ignored since people cannot figure it out. If the info is not made more simple, an opportunity is lost, if there is one.

Hint taken. Here's another

Hint: commenting on blogger increases blogger's ranking and traffic and public views = making a difference for the 10 year anniversary.

Victronix - This is

Victronix -

This is happening now because some young guys are giving it their best! They sent out Press Release statements and had a campaign ready to go with a specific mission.

The MSM news is picking it up because it is something they can get their teeth into.

These guys are awesome! Have you seen Press for Truth?

This revelation is the "MSM's decision" !?

That's why we're seeing this plastered all over CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, etc... right? Oh wait, we're not. So far, it's been picked up by a blog on the Washington Post website and CBS has done a hatchet+job on it. Raw Story is actively censoring the news. Haven't heard a peep about it on Democracy Now, etc.

So I'd say your assertion is flat out incorrect.

That's pretty careless considering the importance of this story and the fact that you're a moderator here.

Contact Raw Story and encourage them to give this story some coverage:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/contact-us

Thanks, I guess I'm just an

Thanks, I guess I'm just an idiot then. You sure know how to make someone feel like shit.

Really?

I'm sorry if I was unnecessarily harsh, that wasn't my intention and I don't think I was, but I also can't worry about tip toeing around someone's ego when trying to make a comment on what I feel is a matter of international importance. This isn't about your feelings, this is about 9/11 justice.

.

.

Ten years of commenting not going to cut it?

Why, you....

Blast! My evil plans are foiled.

Okay I'm going back to what I was doing before 9/11. Now... where was I?

Hmmm... ;-)

contributions

Yes, on the anniversaries, 9-11Research sometimes gets 50,000 unique visitors in one day.

Obviously making films is extremely important, books, websites . . . everyone does what they can. I've certainly felt frustrated with people who just sit on the sidelines and comment myself. Anyone who hosts an event knows how hard and draining that is to do. But, those are something too. Comments add up and drive traffic so ultimately do matter.

My point is that we need to re-tool the complicated stuff, boil it down to a message (to go along with the more complicated nuanced and real events) so average people who are maxed out on their social networking avenues can get it, digest it, and consider it.

Alright.

I have to say that I feel a certain reluctance to engage in activism until I have a relatively clear picture of (1) what happened and (2) how reliable the data is I'm basing my opinion on.

Also, I have to protest the notion that commenting is just "sitting on the sidelines"... e.g. my comments are so elaborate at times, one of them was sourced in Erik Larson's piece on DRG's fake phone call theories. (Profile of Ted Olson and his dirty dealings) Then there was the response (also a comment) to Rock Creek Free Press when they attacked this site, etc. etc. So there's a useful and a less useful way to use the comment function of this website, I've learned a lot from debate.

Actually I rather miss you and Jim on the scene. Your websites are still one of the better resources out there for technical research.

I take it you have your reservations about this information now brought forward by Duffy and Nowosielski, but I think it's a shame you had to phrase it as you did. This is not dis- or misinformation. This is a breakthrough, not a 'calculated distraction'. I always knew Clarke would one day up the ante. The man is upset, Vic. He was treated like garbage by the Bush administration and demoted. Why? Maybe because he was in the way and could have stopped 9/11 by raising hell through the right channels, provided he had the proper cabinet level access. But that never happened, Then, after 9/11 what did Dick Cheney do? He blamed Richard Clarke for 9/11... publicly. And you think Clarke would actually serve Cheney's agenda? I think not.

See from 1:45 onwards.

>>I take it you have your

>>I take it you have your reservations about this information now brought forward by Duffy and Nowosielski

I don't have reservations on the information, I'm commenting on the level of the complexity of the articles on this topic, which can serve as a barrier to relevant information, making it less likely to be inviting for average people and remaining in the realm of people with college degrees.

>>I think it's a shame you had to phrase it as you did.

I'm not perfect, as it turns out. Even relatively smart people can have knee-jerk reactions and be corrected, if that's the case.

>>This is not dis- or misinformation.

Yes, I know, it's real information.

>>This is a breakthrough, not a 'calculated distraction'.

Indeed, the information obviously is a breakthrough, new to the public, although I see some debate about its interpretation. Overall, I hope you're right. Were it a calculated distraction, applying levels of complexity is a useful tool to bury and distort what's really relevant, making it easier to shape for a purpose. But just because that's possible, doesn't mean it is occurring. It could occur, but we don't know. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. It happens.

An Independent Criminal Investigation of 9/11/01

SnowCrash said,
"I have to say that I feel a certain reluctance to engage in activism until I have a relatively clear picture of (1) what happened and (2) how reliable the data is I'm basing my opinion on."

I thought about this statement and the "what happened" part is what I want to address:

For almost 6 years I have investigated/researched the events of 9/11/01. During those 6 years I observed a lot of disagreements within the 9/11 Truth Movement. Researchers, writers, individuals, 9/11 truth organizations, websites, alternative newspapers & magazines, videos, internet radio programs and television programs of all types (local access cable, internet, MSM) have played a role in this. The one thing that most agree on is that an independent investigation of 9/11/01 is needed. I want to add a word and say an independent criminal investigation of 9/11/01 is needed. My understanding of a criminal investigation is that it has four distinct steps that need to be followed in order. They are: 1) Find out what happened 2) Find out how it happened 3) Find out who did it and 4) Find out why they did it.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, my hope is that those seeking the truth about 9/11 will focus most of their attention on that first step of a criminal investigation, finding out what happened by taking into account all the available evidence and the published explanations for that evidence. By doing it this way it became very clear to me, in my opinion, that there where a number of different energy sources and tactics used to create the destruction and confusion we observed on that fateful day. Back in 2006, one of the first 9/11 t-shirts I owned said, "Independent 9/11 Investigator". Maintaining that independence is important to me as I discover, first, what happened on 9/11/01.
Take Care Matt

"Set Up to Fail"

I agree, Vic. We should make it crystal clear to anyone that the so-called 'investigation' we got was a cover-up and we need a new one. The Commissioners themselves admit this.

So a very simple proof of cover-up from the horse's mouth combined with simple CD evidence.

There are some basic questions

Why did the CIA and FBI obstruct al Qaeda investigations during a period of high threat?

Why haven't key intelligence agents answered the questions in a public press conference?

Why is the media so deferential to government secrecy?

How does a cover-up honor the victims? In what way does a photo-op at a memorial make up for all the secrecy and endless exploitation of the attacks?

Why did the political/media establishment go along with the notion that the intelligence community needed vast new (illegal) powers to prevent terrorist attacks?

World Socialist Web Site, plus new Fenton article at BFP

1st and last 3 paragraphs:

Ex-White House counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers
By Bill Van Auken
13 August 2011

The former chief White House counterterrorism adviser in both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations charges in a recently released interview that the CIA deliberately concealed the presence in the United States of two Saudi members of Al Qaeda who subsequently participated in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
------
Had the information been provided even at that date, just a week before the terror attacks, the former counterterrorism advisor said, the two Al Qaeda members would have been arrested and the 9/11 plot likely disrupted. “There’s no doubt in my mind, even with only a week left,” Clarke said. “They were using credit cards in their own names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven’s sake … those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours.”

Whatever the validity of Clarke’s theory about the CIA trying to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the eruption of a bitter controversy between the former White House counterterrorism adviser and the former CIA director and other senior agency officials only underscores that, nearly a full decade after the attacks, there has been no genuine independent investigation of the terrible events of 9/11. Moreover, not a single US official has been held responsible for what ostensibly stands as the most catastrophic intelligence failure in American history.

This determined cover-up, begun by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, poses the most critical unanswered question. Was 9/11 the result of disastrous and potentially criminal miscalculations by those at the top of the CIA, or was it the outcome of a conscious decision by elements within the US state to allow a terrorist attack to take place on American soil with the aim of creating a pretext for implementing long-prepared plans to launch wars of aggression abroad and sweeping attacks on democratic rights at home?
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/clar-a13.shtml

Who at Alex Station knew what in August-September 2001?
By Kevin Fenton
Friday, 12. August 2011
Recent allegations made by former counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke against former CIA Director George Tenet and two other former CIA managers, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, have thrown one of the key unanswered questions of 9/11 into sharp relief. What happened at Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, after an officer there discovered that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, had entered the US?
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/12/oh-george-you-got-some-%E2%80%98splainin%E2%80%98-to-do/

Clarke's "Theory"

First, I think CPT12 and http://colorado911visibility.org/ deserve major kudos for this. I found Ray Nowosielski to be particularly impressive. As for Richard Clarke......

I thought it was in very bad taste and a bit offensive that Richard Clarke would use his appearance of testifying at the 9-11 Commission as a means to help sell his book which was timed to be released then. IMO I think he's as egotistical, and self centered as your average politician. However, having said that, he was the head of counter terrorism during a Democrat and a Republican controlled white house. He and John O'Neil (a friend of his) knew more about Al Qaeda than probably any other American. He is in fact an expert. He has just confirmed what several people, including members of this forum (Kevin Fenton and rschop to name two) have been saying for years. That is...it is a provable fact that the CIA intentionally kept from the FBI AND the head of counter terrorism Richard Clarke, that two known Al Qaeda terrorists who already were involved in killing people (the embassy bombings) were in the United States. Richard Clarke theorizes that the reason the CIA hid this information was to try and "turn" these operatives into informants. When that didn't happen they conducted a cover up because 3000 Americans had just been killed due to the CIA not sharing this info. No, I do not agree with Richard Clarke's theory because he also assumes that The President was kept from having this info as well. The President awarded the head of the CIA with the Presidential medal of freedom award. If the President wanted to give Tenet a higher award he couldn't because that is the highest award possible. Tenet was following orders, just as Blee was following orders. I have no doubt that Blee would be perfectly willing to be the scapegoat for it all if it comes to that because he probably considers it "patriotic" just as Tenet IMO considers it patriotic to lie under oath in order to protect the President.......

"August 25, 2001
THE PRESIDENT: The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there. You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010913060300/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010825-2.html

It's understandable that Clarke would come to the conclusion he has(as yet) because it's incomprehensible for him (and many others) to conclude that the President would want an attack to occur in order to carry out pre planed geopolitical objectives. It's an ugly thought that lots of people don't want to go. Frankly, he's being kind. So once again the so called "9-11 truth movement" can either applaud Clarke for his forthcoming and willingness to talk, and frankly confirm some aspects that people on this very forum have been trying to show, or as in the case of Anthony Shaffer, Keith Wheelhouse, Lloyde England, Mike Walter, Bob Graham,and so on point their finger while make unfounded accusations and burn bridges.

BTW it wasn't just Mihdar and Hazmi they knew about...

"Hamburg - The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had one of the September 11, 2001 terror pilots under surveillance as early as March 1999 after a tip from German security services, according to joint investigative reports in Germany.
The reports said the CIA had detailed information about Marwan Alshehhi, and the fact that he was from the United Arab Emirates and studying in Germany.
The CIA had his cellphone number and knew that he was in contact with Haydar, whom the Americans had suspected of being al-Qaeda's contact man in Germany."
http://www.news24.com/World/News/CIA-tipped-off-on-911-pilot-20030813

"In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him.
The name and phone number in the United Arab Emirates had been obtained by the Germans by monitoring the telephone of Mohamed Heidar Zammar, an Islamic militant in Hamburg who was closely linked to the important Qaeda plotters who ultimately mastermined the Sept. 11 attacks, German officials said.
After the Germans passed the information on to the C.I.A., they did not hear from the Americans about the matter until after Sept. 11, a senior German intelligence official said.
The Germans considered the information on Mr. Shehhi particularly valuable, and the commission is keenly interested in why it apparently did not lead to greater scrutiny of him.
The information concerning Mr. Shehhi, the man who took over the controls of United Airlines Flight 175, which flew into the south tower of the World Trade Center, came months earlier than well-documented tips about other hijackers, including two who were discovered to have attended a meeting of militants in Malaysia in January 2000.
The independent commission investigating the attacks has received information on the 1999 Shehhi tip, and is actively investigating the issue, said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission.
Close surveillance of Mr. Shehhi in 1999 might have led investigators to other plot leaders, including Mohammed Atta, who was Mr. Shehhi's roommate.
"The Hamburg cell is very important" to the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Zelikow said. The intelligence on Mr. Shehhi "is an issue that's obviously of importance to us, and we're investigating it," he added.
Asked whether American intelligence officials gave sufficient attention to the information about Mr. Shehhi, Mr. Zelikow said, "We haven't reached any conclusions."
The joint Congressional inquiry that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks was told about the matter by the C.I.A., but only a small part of the information was declassified and made public in the panel's final report in December 2002, several officials said. The public report mentioned only that the C.I.A. had received Mr. Shehhi's first name, but made no mention that the agency had also obtained his telephone number.
Officials involved with the work of the joint Congressional investigation made it clear that the publication of a more complete version of the story was the subject of a declassification dispute with the C.I.A. A former official involved with the Congressional inquiry acknowledged that having a telephone number for one of the hijackers was far more significant than simply having a first name."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5

(CNN) -- One of the September 11 hijackers was stopped and questioned in the United Arab Emirates in January 2001 at the request of the CIA, nearly nine months before the attacks, sources in the government of the UAE, and other Middle Eastern and European sources told CNN.

The CIA suspected Ziad Jarrah had been in Afghanistan and wanted him questioned because of "his suspected involvement in terrorist activities," UAE sources said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/cia.hijacker/index.html

Fenton: Analyzing the CIA's Response to Clarke's Allegations

This blog was originally posted on Keving Fenton’s 8/12/11 blog, “Analyzing the CIA Response to Richard Clarke’s Allegations: Who Knew What When,” which makes some great points about the inaccuracies and questionable statements made in the Blee, Black, and Tenet, rebuttal letter to Clarke’s interview. Given the lack of response to Kevin’s blog, I feel many of you are missing some important issues and spending too much worthless time squabbling on who’s theory is more correct than the other’s and missing the whole point of the truth movement. The fact of the matter is that there are a plethora of lies and inaccuracies around 9/11 that need to be investigated and we should not be criticizing one another’s work, especially when such hard work like Kevin’s and these film makers are involved.

As usual, some great points and analysis from Kevin Fenton, the foremost authority on the 9/11 intelligence failures. Although Clarke does not hold “smoking gun” evidence that Blee, Black, and Tenet, knew for sure that Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the US in 2000 and/or 2001, he pretty much states what most people with a thread of common sense already knew, that is, “how could they not have known?” And if they really really didn’t know (which is very unlikely), then who were the guilty person(s) who withheld this information from these very key individuals (given the information made public to date, it appears that "at least" Richard Blee had to know and definitely should have known)? Kevin astutely points out that all the investigations mentioned in the “Dubious 3’s” response letter, are inconclusive in one way or another and also do not present clear cut evidence that the Dubious 3 did not know Almihdhar & Alhazmi were in the US. BS investigations that do not hold anyone accountable and do not answer the most obvious of questions, cannot be used to exonerate the potentially guilty as Kevin has pointed out.

Unfortunately, the late timing of Clarke’s statements, coupled with his questionable theory as to why the Dubious 3 purposely protected the two hijackers (i.e., to turn them to US asset, which is ironically the most innocent of other potential alternative theories), will always leave a little bit of a question mark. However, Clarke has shown on several occasions the backbone and fortitude to buck the system and the official story, and I believe this interview was his personal attempt to try and set the record straight and to implicate three people that he knew were blatantly lying. Unfortunately, I’ve seen where only one US MSM even covered this story (CBS), and they only focused on Clarke’s “turn asset theory,” and did not even mention Clarke’s insider belief that the Dubious 3 had knowledge that Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the US, but refused to share the information with him and necessary others. So typical, so sad, such another pathetic cover-up of the US MSM.

When I look at Clarke’s statement, it reminds me of the December 2001 Fox News investigation of several dozens of Israeli art students with backgrounds in intelligence, electronic surveillance, and ordinance, who were coincidently found to be living in very close proximity to most of the 9/11 hijackers, including Almihdhar and Alhazmi. In that Fox investigation they talked to US intelligence agents who said, “They (US investigators) did not know how these apprehended Israeli’s could not have known about the 9/11 attacks.” Clarke is saying the exact same thing about the Dubious 3 (they had to know!), unfortunately most Americans do not want to think for themselves and rely on investigations that are heavily flawed and inconclusive. Kevin did a great job in this blog at pointing out those flaws and other inaccuracies. And although there is most likely a tie in with certain CIA officials and these Israeli spies also, this is another highly questionable case that has been classified with the story buried in the MSM after the Fox investigation.

Let’s face it truthers, there’s never ever going to be any reinvestigation of the 9/11 attacks or the WTC collapses, and for any of you who think there is, it's somewhat frighteningly delusional. The only way that all the lies and “more” of the real story will come out, is through hard work and solid research like Kevin Fenton and others. Hopefully, through everyone’s efforts, 9/11 will run a similar trend that the Kennedy assassination did, where only a minority initially disagreed with the Warren Commission’s findings (i.e., Oswald was lone gunman), to where an overwhelming majority now believe the contrary and that it was a conspiracy of some sort. Slowly but surely, we’re all chipping away at Philip Zelikow’s mostly fictional official story, and hopefully one day 9/11 will have the same success that the Kennedy assassination did in making people realize they were sold a false bag of goods in the official investigations and the riduculous "War on Terror" that was fought in 9/11's name.

Kevin: Not sure if you're still following this blog, but if you are, here's a couple of quick questions:

1. Were Richard Blee’s and Tom Wilshire’s interviews with the 9/11 Commission made public and were you able to glean anything from them or were they ridiculously redacted like most of the other intelligence interviews?

2. Do you know of any facts or information that would contradict Clarke’s theory that the Dubious 3 were just trying to turn the two hijackers to US assets?

good points, some answers

I doubt Kevin's following the comments at 911blogger, but your questions are covered in his book:

1. These interviews remain classified.

2. Kevin compares and contrasts the 'turn Al Qaeda operatives to CIA assets' and 'facilitate 9/11' scenarios, and concludes the 2nd is more probable, on pp. 376-8. I'll briefly summarize; in either case, they would have been under surveillance, and this would have led to discovery of the other operatives as well as info indicating the nature of the plot, such as the purchase of plane tickets.

Kevin notes that Wilshire/others may have been told things were under control, if they were getting nervous. But as of July 23, a Wilshere email indicates he believed Almihdhar would be connected to the upcoming attack on US interests, which was expected to be massive and spectacular. If Wilshere was privy to info from the off-the-books surveillance, he knew soon after July 5 that Almihdhar had returned to the US; this may be what prompted his 3 July emails, to warn Blee et al, cover his ass or make himself look prescient.

Wilshere certainly knew Almihdhar was in the US when Gillespie told him Aug 22, yet he didn't share what he knew w/ the FBI, and instead took steps, along w/ Corsi, to undermine FBI investigators; not the actions of someone who'd realized a CIA operation to infiltrate was not working and who wanted to prevent a rapidly approaching massive attack. The presence of these people in the US clearly indicates the attack was going to be in the US, not Malaysia, as Wilshere had been saying for over a year.

No evidence has been made public indicating an attack might happen in Malaysia; the only indication would be the Jan 2000 Kuala Lumpur meeting, which was used to plan the Cole and 9/11 attacks, and which the CIA and Malaysian intelligence had monitored, and may have bugged, though CIA denied they were able to bug it.

More on the massive criminal conspiracy at the CIA and FBI HQ

The public hearings of the Joint Inquiry Committee on 9/11 actually had Wilshire (aka unnamed CIA Officer hiding behind a screen) testify in public with FBI Agent Steve Bongardt (aka FBI Agent also behind a screen). That is the only testimony released for Wilshire, I have seen nothing on Blee, in fact Blee has been kept so secret his name was never released to main stream media until three days ago. Wilshire's photographs was actually taken at these hearings, the only photo I know of to date of Wilshire.

"Kevin notes that Wilshire/others may have been told things were under control, if they were getting nervous. But as of July 23, a Wilshire email indicates he believed Almihdhar would be connected to the upcoming attack on US interests, which was expected to be massive and spectacular. If Wilshire was privy to info from the off-the-books surveillance, he knew soon after July 5 that Almihdhar had returned to the US; this may be what prompted his 3 July emails, to warn Blee et al, cover his ass or make himself look prescient."

There is no evidence of any kind that Wilshire ever thought or was told things were under control. No one was notified when Mihdhar came back into the US on July 4, 2001. His July 5, 2001 email was warning his CTC managers that he thought that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA had received about a huge al Qaeda attack that was about to take place.

His statements to DOJ IG investigators after the attacks on 9/11 that he was concerned in May 2001 that this attack was going to take place in Malaysia was more Wilshire lies to these investigators in an attempt to account for why he was looking again at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. No one could have been so dumb to believe this Wilshire rational. First Wilshire already knew Hazmi was inside of the US and he even knew that Mihdhar had a US visa so he could join Hazmi in the US in order to take part in the al Qaeda attack the CIA had been warned about since April 2001. What was Wilshire thinking?

That these al Qaeda terrorists were going to go to the US for a little R&R before going back to Malaysia to carry out their terrorist attack. Perhaps they wanted to go to Disneyland?

This makes a lot of sense. It is impossible to even think that the DOJ IG investigators believed a word he said. The Malaysia story is just another one of Wilshire’s outrageous lies to throw the DOJ IG investigators off the trail of why he was looking at the people from the Kuala Lumpur meeting in May 2001. It turns out that there was in fact a real reason he was doing this.

He had, unknown to virtually everyone in the whole world, a copy of Soufan’s request that he had been given by the CIA, not the FBI. This April 2001 request had gone to the CIA and was an official FBI request for information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash and on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur. When the CIA got this request they went ballistic. They, including Blee, Black and Tenet thought somehow the FBI Cole bombing investigators had found out that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been uncovered by these investigators in their search for Walid Bin Attash. The information that the CIA had desperately been trying to keep secret from them was the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. In response to this request the CIA did several things furthering their criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

First the CIA moved Tom Wilshire over to the FBI to become Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit. His first job was to recruit a low level FBI IOS agent in the FBI Bin Laden unit, and have this agent set up a meeting with the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and show them photos of Mihdhar taken at the Kuala Lumpur planning meeting to see if they could recognize Mihdhar in these photos. If they could this would have tipped off that CIA that these investigators had already uncovered the information the CIA was trying to keep secret.

This is exactly what they did on June 11, 2001. Wilshire had FBI IOS agent Dina Corsi set this meeting up with a ridiculous rues that the CIA wanted this meeting to share information with Bongardt and his team. Wilshire had given Corsi three photos he had obtained from the CIA of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur. Incredibly the CIA did not even trust Corsi to ask the right questions or keep her mouth shut on what she knew about this meeting, so Wilshire recruited CIA officer Clark Shannon who had worked for Wilshire in the CIA Bin Laden unit to attend this meeting and ask Bongardt “do you recognize anyone in these photos, [of Mihdhar and Hazmi at Kuala Lumpur]?’ This meeting was nothing but a CIA ruse as part of their massive criminal conspiracy to keep secret, material information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, to hide the CIA's criminal culpability in deliberately allowing the attack on the USS Cole to take place.

There is absolute no evidence that anyone told Wilshire things were under control. In fact Wilshire requested twice in July permission to send the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, when he clearly first became aware that the people at that Kuala Lumpur meeting were now going to be connected to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda attack.

What is so horrific, is that Wilshire was told when he was forced to move over to the FBI that his job was just to spy on the FBI. In July he finds out that his real assignment is to make sure that the Kuala Lumpur information never gets to Bongardt, and his team, to criminally obsturct this investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors, for fear that many people at the CIA and even the FBI HQ will be indicted for criminally obstructing this investigation, and will go to federal prison for years for this obstruction.

While Wilshire is never told, "sabotage Bongardt’s investigation and make sure this attack takes place so that thousands of Americans will be killed in this attack", he was simply told, keep the Kuala Lumpur information away from Bongardt at all costs. But when he knows about this huge al Qaeda attack and he also knows Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US only in order to take part in this attack, he clearly knows as does Blee, Black and Tenet that withholding this information, will prevent Bongardt from having the very information he needed to start any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When Wilshire then allowed Middleton and Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists he, and the entire management of the CIA and many FBI managers are clearly aware that this will shut down the one and perhaps the only investigation that could have stopped that attack, and that thousands of Americans will perish in this attack.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler than this!

Incidentally all of this information is already in “Prior Knowledge of 9/11”, a book that was first released in December 2006, almost 4 1/2 years ago and has even today, perhaps the most complete account of this huge criminal conspiracy at the CIA and FBI HQ, that had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attack on 9/11.

Keep in mind that the USS Cole attack

was kind of inside job, too. E.g. FBI John O'Neill was suspicious why they know in advance what time the ship arrive in the harbour, and in make much more sense if we assume Midhar und Hazmi, old balcan fighters, were protected all along as own assets (remember they got their visas later in Jiddah, the CIA hotbed for own agents, according to Michael Springman). So one can say, ko keep the criminal conspiracy off the radar, beginning with the Nosair killing, in which Ali Mohammed was involved, too, this grew bigger and bigger and the proctection never failed.

All of the FBI field agents, who were on track of this criminal conspiracy, were sabotaged or their investigations shut down. Nancy Floyd got a job in the midwest. Robert Wrights investigations into money trails was shot down. John O'Neill was thrown out of Yemen, later his career was ruined and he left the FBI. Ali Soufans multiple requests were never addressed seriously, if you can see at rschop posts, it looks like the CIA wanted to keep the CIA off the trail at all costs. Harry Samit, Coloeen Rowley, Kenneth Williams...

All of these investigantions twarfed. This is no incompetence. It is active protective cover. Waterproof evidence for an inside Job proof.

9/11 Commission's Classification of Blee & Wilshire Testimony

Thanks for the feedback Loose Nuke, and if Kevin is the foremost authority on the 9/11 intelligence failures, you're a close second. Why am I not surprised that the government classified the entire 9/11 Commission interviews of Blee and Wilshire?? At least they could have redacted 99% of the interviews like they did with many other intelligence official interviews so they could have at least made some absurd claim to transparency. And you and Kevin are absolutely right, the "facilitate 9/11" theory makes so much more sense than the "turn asset" theory, the only question is did the treason stop at Blee, or were Black and Tenet also involved. Given all the facts and evidence in this case and the way intelligence works (e.g., back door communication of facts to avoid culpablility), I think it's a no brainer for anyone with a thread of common sense that Black and Tenet also knew. Just mine and Dicky Clarke's opinion, and not the one from American Band Stand. =)