Support 911Blogger


An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

by Philip Shenon, the Daily Beast

In a new documentary, former 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.

With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks only a month away, former CIA Director George Tenet and two former top aides are fighting back hard against allegations that they engaged in a massive cover-up in 2000 and 2001 to hide intelligence from the White House and the FBI that might have prevented the attacks.

The source of the explosive, unproved allegations is a man who once considered Tenet a close friend: former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who makes the charges against Tenet and the CIA in an interview for a radio documentary timed to the 10th anniversary next month. Portions of the Clarke interview were made available to The Daily Beast by the producers of the documentary.

In the interview for the documentary, Clarke offers an incendiary theory that, if true, would rewrite the history of the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the White House and FBI in 2000 and 2001 that two Saudi-born terrorists were on U.S. soil—terrorists who went on to become suicide hijackers on 9/11.

Continue reading here.

Washington Post covers it as well...

Clarke airs suspicions over Sept. 11 intel failures. Richard Clarke, who served in two administrations as a White House counter-terrorism adviser, said he now suspects the CIA hid its knowledge that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers had entered the United States - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/clarke-airs-suspicions-over-sept-11-intelligence-failures/2...

A shamefully poor substitute for investigation.

A huge unjustified leap is made early on--- that 19 terrorists were responsible for everything seen on 9/11. Clarke works backwards from there to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together. He is able to find evidence of CIA surveillance of two of the 19 in Malaysia that are lost before they get back into the USA. He finds evidence that the two are being aided by a Saudi in San Diego. This supports the assumption that they became part of the four teams of pilots that commandeer the jets that did the damages.

Case closed.

I want to ask Richard Clarke about tangible proof these men were on the planes. I want to ask him about the problem of these men delivering the planes to their targets without any assistance from air traffic controllers in the most traveled airspace on the planet. I want to ask him about the symmetrical collapse of WTC7 eight and a half hours after these alleged pilots flew their planes into the World Trade Center towers.

And finally, I want to ask how these terrorists managed to place tons of military grade nanothermite and previously molten iron microspheres into the dust found after the towers were destroyed.

Nah, Mr. Clarke, this goes way beyond your friend George Tenet. These two alleged terrorist/pilots had to have a lot more help than one Saudi in San Diego. The other 17 patsies, supposed Al Qaeda members, must have had equally placed benefactors.

You, Mr. Clarke should be ashamed for beginning with an unsubstantiated assumption and for not conducting a proper investigation. I'm not buying it Mr. Clarke, when you say there were no operatives within Al-Qaeda. Everybody, but you, knows Al-Qaeda was a product of the CIA.

What kind of counter terrorism expert are you anyway?

Have you ever heard of P2OG, Mr. Counter Terrorism?

Clarke's Problematic Conspiracy Theory

"A huge unjustified leap is made early on--- that 19 terrorists were responsible for everything seen on 9/11. Clarke works backwards from there to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together."

Bingo.

While Clarke's information might yield other clues to the discerning researcher, most others will be lead far away from the other evidence that 9/11 was the inside job it most probably was.

P2OG indeed !

Richard Clarke was involved in counter terrorism for over 30 years.

Someone needs to ask him on camera if he knows what a false flag operation is and if, perhaps, 9/11 could have been one.

He should also be asked if he's ever heard of Ali Mohamed.

Thanks for the comment kawika.

Edit: I don't agree that the case is closed, however, as there are way too many unknown elements within this false flag operation.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Cheers!

Is this Richard Clarke's encore?

Seriously, this is the same ridiculous part in the 9/11 theatre of the absurd that Clarke has been performing for years. He is quite obviously a key conspirator.

This is clearly a limited hang-out at best and at worst yet another attempt of cognitive infiltration. It reminds me of John Farmer's book but with better timing.

And who are these two guys interviewing Clarke? It is like they were dressed-up to be Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas or Korey Rowe. But that "low card" ball cap is a little too much.

The clincher is the immediate response from George Tenet and pals... bravo!

Pass the popcorn...

Those two guys

are the creators of 9/11 Press for Truth. You just snitchjacketed them, because in actuality, you know preciously little about 9/11 Truth, in contrast with your big mouth.

Well, at least if you think Richard Clarke did 9/11 then you agree with Dick Cheney. Great minds think alike.

Key conspirators

bofors said...."Seriously, this is the same ridiculous part in the 9/11 theatre of the absurd that Clarke has been performing for years. He is quite obviously a key conspirator."

I would say......The "truth" movement has outed Richard Clarke, Anthony Shaffer, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Keith Wheelhouse, Bob Graham as key conspirators and also Coleen Rowley in some circles. What these people have in common is they all were willing to talk. They also have nothing to do with hijacking planes flying planes into buildings and blowing up skyscrapers. But I wont say that because it might be construed as sarcasm and my name isn't Aidan.

I would strongly urge any whistle blower to not under any circumstances talk with any representative of the so called "truth movement", but instead contact truthout (who also is "in on it") and to not have any association with elements of a so called "truth" movement because it is in reality an anti U.S. Government conspiracy theory movement.

I will change my stance on that as soon as the so called truth movement acknowledges that there is such a thing as Islamic religious fanatics, that planes did fly into buildings, and planes were hijacked as confirmed by phone calls that are not fake. In other words you are the punchline of a very sick joke.

Don't forget Sibel Edmonds

The same tactics were applied to her to create suspicion around her and lessen support for her amongst the truth movement. It didn't work so well, but no doubt it took a toll. You don't see it so much these days in regard to Edmonds, but if you look back in the archives a few years ago there's tons of it.

Rinse and repeat.
________________

9/11 Truth News

A shamefully short sighted comment.

"Case closed"

Yep seems like YOU have it all figured out. No need to use this new, credible, substantial outlet to encourage people to investigate a cover up.(Sarcasm)

Guess you think shooting the messenger is the way to go. Should we just ignore this incredible opportunity for proof of cover up to go unoticed?

You folks who like to attack people for giving us pieces of the truth astonish me. You would prefer people destroy their credibility in public by spreading YOUR theory about what YOU think brought down the towers. Have you been under a rock all these years? Everybody knows about CD theories, and yet it keeps leading us to a dead end. But since YOU have it all figured out I guess it doesn't matter. Why do we even need an investigation when kawika has it all figured out?

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as though Clarke's claims aren't credible.

Go ahead and try and convince the conspiracy theorists here that we should not use this awesome mainstream credible PROOF of cover up. You will fail. I and others will not let you protect the bad guys and fail to stop this new info from being spread to the masses. Funny how much those who love to expose "limited hangouts" love telling people to limit their knowledge of real live facts. I guess the truth is to boring for you? I assume you are constantly baffled (and possibly socially isolated) by people who simply ask for basic facts to back up your super interesting sexy conspiracy THEORY.

Do you find Clarke's analysis to be complete

and the most plausible explanation of the known facts?

If not, then how is he and his analysis "credible"?

A bit of food for thought, eh?

Distraction du jour?

Clarke theorizes that CIA brass tried to recruit two alleged hijackers and turn them over to our side, but were unsuccessful. And then realized they failed. Clarke reveals that Coffer Black was appalled that there were "no sources in Al-Qaeda," thereby undermining the notion that there was a connection between our government and Al-Qaeda members.

This is at tension with Sibel Edmonds' claim that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative all the way up until 9/11. If Clarke provided information supporting Edmonds in this capacity, that there was a working relationship between the CIA and Al-Qaeda, including the leader himself, I would be elated. Instead, he bolsters the notion that AQ is wholly separate from the US government and 9/11 was a wholly A.Q. operation/attack, which occurred because of "intelligence failures." (The official story.)

Clarke offers, by way of theory, a slightly different slant on the 'failure of the CIA & FBI to communicate being the cause of 9/11" scenario. He also admits that he and George Tenet were close friends but that he has never asked George Tenet or Coffer Black about any of this.

Are Clarke's allegations a distraction to reinforce the official story?

Squabbling about intelligence failures and 'who knew what when' is a distraction that might further reinforce the whole War on Terror paradigm and the need for more draconian security measures. And it doesn't deal with the matter of who actually EXECUTED the attacks that killed 3,000. It's time to deal with this head-on as we mark the 10th anniversary.

The plane crashes killed about 800 and the demolitions killed about 2,200. (+1,000 more later)

Let's deal with who carried out or assisted in these two operations if they were in fact separate. Or bring to justice the perpetrators of the single operation.

Air defense failures & explosive residues are better avenues for justice. The science is not a distraction.

Cover-up? Please...

Umm... if you think that 9/11 was about some cover-up for the CIA failing to report to the FBI and Clarke that two of their "al-Qaeda" clowns were in California and being chaperoned by Saudi intelligence, I have some bad news for you and it is called treason.

Moreover, if you think that Americans, or the people of any other nation, our going to get up in arms over the fact that their government is covering-up something so trivial, I suggest you wake up and smell the beans.

Perhaps you are so naive as to fall for this obvious ruse of misdirection from ringmaster Clarke, but some of us are not.

The arguments for controlled demolition in WTC 7 and the twin towers, which murdered thousands, are trivial and irrefutable.

"Bad news"

We don't know this is treason? Is that what you're saying? What have YOU done to expose this treason, rather than doing everything in your power to obstruct like you are doing now? What we don't need right now is pretentious, foolhardy, rhetorical tripe oozing fallacious reasoning and more awful, asinine incarnations of the "9/11 litmus test". Controlled demolition is not some goddamn clobbering tool to push your narrow-minded, defective 9/11 narrative, which is fodder for constant ridicule, on everybody else.

What are your stellar achievements in the realm of sub-pixel tracing of WTC 7 roof movement from CAM #3? Please enlighten the forum. I'm sure you presuppose that those of us who support pre-9/11 intelligence research are all ignorant about CD research. If that's the case you have another thing coming.

"Moreover, if you think that

"Moreover, if you think that Americans, or the people of any other nation, our going to get up in arms over the fact that their government is covering-up something so trivial, I suggest you wake up and smell the beans."

Trivial? Wow, tell that to the victims families. What an insult. You should be ashamed.

"The arguments for controlled demolition in WTC 7 and the twin towers, which murdered thousands, are trivial and irrefutable."

Maybe thats a typo cause you got so excited to call me naive, but you said here that arguments for CD are trivial. I disagree. However attacking people that don't fully embrace your little theory is more backwards logic which ends up helping the people who carried out 9/11 (and I don't care if you 'mean' it, it doesn't matter). No one here is saying Richard Clarke is giving us the full story...DUH However, he is giving us a peak into some inner workings of deep cover-up. He is chipping at a dam of information right before the 10th anniversary. So what is your point? That since he isn't coming out with a huge conspiracy theory (which YOU somehow KNOW) we should just ignore his FACTS about COVER-UP? You don't think cover up upsets people? Have you ever watched the news here? Cover-up and scandal are perhaps the most seductive stories dominating the media.

Your logic is backwards and childishly insulting towards people who have invested large amounts of money and time to getting truth and justice for 9/11. If you don't shape up your attitude and analysis you protect the criminals (whether you mean it or not). Here please read this from SnowCrash:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7272&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
".... This is the sole reason researchers like Duffy & Nowosielski as well as Kevin Fenton, etc. are viewed with suspicion by a sizable contingent of the Truth Movement. Because they believe the false dilemma is a true dilemma. They believe they must choose between (A) Controlled Demolition and (B) ("LIHOP" )

Members of this group believe (with astonishing similarity in expression) that if A is true, B is false and that if B is true, A must be false. It took me a while to figure it out, but watch closely; interestingly, when pressed, every truther who believes this will explain that the explosives in the building require a no hijacker/remote control scenario, and therefore, all research involving intelligence, FBI, and what they knew about the 9/11 hijackers is null and void, worse yet, manipulative propaganda assembled from a complex, interconnected set of completely fictional events, a limited hangout, a deliberate diversion, a red herring, an insidious, subtle reinforcement of the "official conspiracy theory", which of course must be rejected completely and totally, at all cost: the fewer similarities between information presented by the 9/11 TM and the generally accepted story, the more credible and factual, seems to be the line of reasoning.

Really, please consider and contemplate how this thinking works, because it's the key to why Jon and others keep running into all this irrational suspicion, innuendo and mistrust. It does NOT matter where you stand with respect to CD; what matters is that THE root cause for this movement's hostility is the notion that 9/11 hijackers, piloting manually into WTC 1 and 2 themselves AND CD are mutually exclusive. This argument is false: it is a false dilemma fallacy. The subsequent argument that plotters must fly the planes with computers because otherwise they would "jeopardize the demolition plot by imperfect aircraft control" is an example of the Perfect Solution Fallacy.

I should add that it is illogical to reject a large body of evidence on behalf of a false choice, rather than reject the false choice which is based on speculation. Actual fact and evidence prove that the choice is false; after all; reality has caught up with speculation and has shown that coexistence between two phenomena is possible ...with amusing disregard for fallible human beliefs that it is not. The best conclusion obviously isn't to dispose of half of reality to protect half fantasy. I find it... shall we say... utterly beyond bedlam that most actually DO dispose of reality because they think they can cherry pick evidence and factual research. Given seemingly conflicting but reliable research, this just isn't going to be as easy as making a shopping list.

So... Which author is most likely responsible for this widely held, but mistaken belief? I'd guess DRG.

When confronted with new research and new information such as what Jon just posted on 911blogger, rather than accept that both pillars of evidence are not mutually exclusive after all, but can co-exist, most will actually choose to reject the new information and keep the old, cherished belief intact: Controlled Demolition + no hijackers or double agent hijackers from Israel + remote control + modified, empty 767's at the WTC & plane swap (Northwoods) + no plane at the Pentagon + no plane in Pennsylvania + no Al Qaeda + dead fake CIA Bin Laden.

In closing: many truthers who believe in a Northwoods/Controlled Demolition scenario, are willing to accept some information about the hijackers which appears to be "out of order" (i.e. pork eating Atta), but when research is presented which implicitly allows for actual hijackers who could have been stopped but weren't, then the first mental barrier erected is the EITHER nanothermite OR hijackers choice; a false dilemma. The average truther will then choose to reject the pre-9/11 intelligence research in favor of nanothermite and controlled demolition + Northwoods, which also allows for DRG's books to emerge unscathed.

This, I think, is how the psychology works."

All facts are facts.
Whether they fit your favorite theory or not.
Don't let your theories prevent you from accepting reality.
Reality is how we form a team who all use unbreakable, invincible swords of truth.
Theories which are stated as fact not only dull and bend every blade in our arsenal but also serve to destroy us from within.

The truth shall set you free, and the truth means nothing but the truth.
Love is the only way forward, and love means letting go of your personal anger and expressing empathy towards those who refuse to latch on to ANY theory that hasn't been proven as fact.

healthy

>>You should be ashamed of yourself for acting as though Clarke's claims aren't credible.

Fascinating.

But seriously, let's please try to avoid claims like "you should be ashamed of yourself" -- that's a toxic claim that no one needs to hear leveled against them. No one on here who is genuinely trying to make a difference in exposing the truth has any reason to be "ashamed", and most certainly not for questioning the claims of Richard Clarke.

From an FB post --

"In February, 1999, it was Richard Clarke who voted down the plan to strike a camp where OBL was hunting with Clarke's good friends in the UAE royal family. And the next month it was Clarke who warned his UAE royal friends to stop visiting OBL, enabling the failure of yet another CIA attempt to capture OBL."

>>your super interesting sexy conspiracy THEORY.

"These aren't theories, these are facts."

While we can all disagree on our opinions of the evidence, we all have a reasonable basis to feel skeptical of Clarke, and more than being shameful, it's actually healthy and normal.

Victronix, what is shameful

is discouraging people from spreading this new information. Trying to create a false dilemma?:

You either A should ignore Richard Clarke because you are infinitely skeptical of him
Or B, those who spread this information are ignorant people who assume Richard Clarke is infinitely credible when he has taken part in suspicious behavior for years

If you assume B, you are simply being insultingly naive.

There is just more to it than this black and white view of the situation. If people hold back on spreading this info and doc while claiming to want to spread and get the truth out about 9/11, I think they should be ashamed. I think the actual people who carried out the attacks LOVE IT when people running around crying 'limited hangout' till no one wants to hang out with them. I'm frankly trying to a middle ground in facts which is what I thought we were all after.

simply naive

>>is discouraging people from spreading this new information

So you're saying I should hide the historical facts about Clarke so people can listen to him without having their judgement clouded by the facts?

People who are skeptical of Clarke may need to be won over. Perhaps I'm one of them. But you can't win people over by clubbing them. Just like some demolition advocates can't win others over by clubbing.

So describing people who don't share your views with descriptions like "they should be ashamed" and claiming they are "insultingly naive" typically doesn't win people over, but turns them away. If you want to make Clarke's case, do it in a positive and informative way, allow people to be skeptical and ask questions. Make your case.

"Shame on you" isn't about facts, it's a subtle yet toxic personal attack suggesting that one person knows what's best for everyone else. Is that what you intended? In many cases, it is not -- people just say it out of habit. The point is to notice it and ask if that's the best way to get your information across.

There is no reason or need to trust Clarke

There is no reason or need to trust Richard Clarke. For whatever reason, Clarke has presented to the world a major, high level contradiction within the government's story that should be exploited for all it is worth towards the goal of legitimate inquiry into 9/11. There is no need to lionize Clarke or obscure his shady connections in order to do this.
_______________
9/11 Truth News

trust

Yes, to clarify, when I say win people over, I'm talking about getting people to consider the information's relevance, not trust Clarke. Claims that Clarke is different now, has a good reason for this, feels such and such, must be doing this because of that, etc. will typically only trigger normally skeptical people to be even more skeptical.

It would also be helpful to take the contradiction to it's logical conclusion, to show it's value, in simple terms.

"This major high level contradiction shows xxx, which leads to xxx, and which therefore means that xxx."

Not necessary, but can be helpful to win people over.

"A shamefully poor substitute

"A shamefully poor substitute for investigation.", one of the first comments by someone else at the top of the thread is where the use of the word came along. It would indeed be a shame if this story failed to spread. It would be a completely wasted opportunity for the 9/11 justice movement.

Also, I was saying it is a false dilemma to frame the situation as ONLY those two views are available on the situation. Shame on Clarke for things he has done in the past? Sure but that's not the point. The point is what is implied to the average American when they see interdepartmental conflict and cover-up. The point is also to turn more people on to 9/11 press for truth. The point is to show that asking questions about 9/11 does NOT automatically make you a theorist. To welcome thoughtful people to a thoughtful community of justice seekers. I do NOT assume, that you assume that everyone who says we should spread this story are ignorant of Clarke's background. It is insulting to me personally that others have embraced this 'false dilemma' view of things. I personally have been a hard critic of his for years. But like I said, that's not the point...

Didn't mean to make this personal.

Framing this Clarke story ...

Returning to what I think Victronix's original point was...

If you were to write a headline (or make a sign, which I do quite often) for this story, how would it read?

Clarke claims Tenet could have prevented 9/11

or

Clarke blames CIA for not preventing 9/11

or ??

Thanks.

Reply to "Framing this Clarke story ..."

How about the head line:

Clarke claims Tenet, Black and Blee, intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place!

This should be the real headline.

All of the evidence, now in "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" proves this. This book even includes almost all of the actual official government documents where this proof comes from.

This is the headline one should get out of the Clarke story, plus the fact that this horrific information has been intentionally and deliberately covered up by the Joint Inquiry Committee on 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission investigation, as Clarke himself has stated. It is a shame Clarke did not say what he is saying today before the 9/11 Commission. The fact that he does not know why the CIA hid this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi, and even says this but speculates as to their reason is irrelevant.

The book “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” actually found the real reasons the CIA had with held this information, not from the FBI, but the FBI Cole bombing investigators, and even from Clarke himself.

It turns out that FBI HQ, including HQ managers and agents Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, knew by August 30, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew they were directly connected to the planning of the Cole bombing, yet never gave this information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, so these investigators would have the evidence they needed to start an investigation for these terrorists. The CIA including Wilshire, actually knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US for no other reason than to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack at targets inside of the US.

The CIA and FBI HQ knew when they allowed Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that thousands of Americans would be murdered in the upcoming and imminent al Qaeda attack that they had been warned about since April 2001.

Why make a sign? And going beyond the evidence is damaging

John, I don't think this info is appropriate for a sign, though you can do as you wish. It is useful for educating the public about dubious and false elements of the official conspiracy theory.

rschop, your sign slogan is sensational, but it's not true; Clarke has not claimed "Tenet, Black and Blee, intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place!"

He's only claimed the info was deliberately withheld, and presented a theory about why it was withheld, and admits he can't prove it. There's a significant amount of evidence indicating Blee and/or Wilshire realized their withholding of info would lead to an attack, but no documentary evidence showing that Tenet or Black were aware. They may have been aware. They should have been aware. If they weren't aware beforehand, they should have been asking afterward, and they should have outed whoever withheld the info that led to the mass murder of 3000. Instead, they covered it up. All these things need to be investigated.

I've read many of your comments and assume your book is similar; the info you present raises legit questions, but, imho, some of your conclusions are not clearly supported by the evidence, and over reaching undermines your case. The info that is public is already damaging enough, and screams for a full investigation. The fact that the Establishment and MSM are pretending everything is fine when the OCT is so clearly full of holes also indicates something is seriously wrong w/ the status quo.

I don't plan on making any signs about this,

as I don't think there is a quick and easy way to present this to the public, which is my main point (and I think this was also the point Victronix was trying to make when some felt the need to shut her down).

That is one of the main problems with this entire story for activists, there is no quick and easy way to frame it for the information overloaded public without it appearing that we are nitpicking fine points ... yet again.

That's why I asked kdub to frame it, perhaps he can see a good way to do it that will catch the public's attention.

I never put up signs that are factually incorrect, nor do I put up signs that take more than a few seconds to read and understand.

I think some of the proponents of this story should take it out into the public and test market it, as I have, and see what kind of response they get.

What I get are blank looks and comments like "they all lie" and "everybody covers their ass, so what's the big deal".

IMO, this is a research issue and a possible cause for legal action when we have non-corrupt courts (hey, I can dream, can't I?).

I see no practical way of presenting this to the public as an activist, it is way too complicated and convoluted.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have value and I'm not denigrating the very fine work of people doing research.

I've been researching the criminal networks within the intelligence world since Iran Contra, this is my bread and butter, so I put a very high value on the research of people like Paul Thompson and Kevin Fenton. Where we may disagree is on the analysis of the information, but that is normal and to be expected when one is dealing with a puzzle as large and incomplete as the 9/11 false flag operation.

The 9/11 false flag operation was very carefully compartmentalized, most of the compartments have compartments within them. Thus, deconstructing absolutely everything as fully as possible is critical to understanding the entire operation, identifying all the participants and their roles, and achieving something close to justice (or reconciliation, for those of us inclined to that model).

If I have been unclear in any way here, please ask for clarification.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Reply to loose nuke, about Blee, Black and Tenet

If you read the book I wrote, “Prior Knowledge of 9/11” it clearly makes the case that Tenet and Black were involved in all aspects of hiding the Kuala Lumpur information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators and from Clarke.

There are also many documents that prove (with circumstantial evidence) that the CIA, and Tenet, Black and Blee, by intentionally and deliberately withholding this information from the FBI had intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

When Walid Bin Attash was identified by the FBI/CIA joint source on January 4, 2001, we now know that this information went to the CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA Yemen station and was known by the CIA Pakistan station. When FBI Agent Ali Soufan, head of the FBI Cole bombing investigation, flew out to Pakistan on February 1, 2001 and had the FBI/CIA joint source re-identify the Yemen provided passport photo of Walid Bin Attash again, this photo had already been identified by the FBI/CIA joint source on December 16, 2000, Soufan was standing right next to the CIA Pakistan alat who had been at the January 4, 2001 identification of Walid Bin Attash from his Kuala Lumpur photo. This January 4, 2001 identification directly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who the CIA had also identified and photographed at this January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing at this meeting. Yet the CIA Pakistan Station alat, the Yemen station, who was also aware of this January 4, 2000 identification and the CIA Bin Laden station, headed by Richard Blee, never told Soufan or any other FBI criminal investigator about this January 4, 2001 identification of Bin Attash or the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. The only common denominator amongst these CIA units is George Tenet.

The fact that the CIA Bin Laden knew about this identification of Walid Bin Attash, also directly connects both CIA Bin Laden Chief Richard Blee, and CTC head, Cofer Black to this criminal conspiracy to hide the Kuala Lumpur information from Soufan and the rest of the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. It is clear that this criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing started in earnest right after this January 4, 2001 identification of Bin Attash from his Kuala Lumpur photo and involved many groups at the CIA in what is now clear an attempt to hide the CIA’s culpability in allowing the al Qaeda bombing attack on the USS Cole. The CIA had photographed all of the attendees at the January 6-8, 2000 Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, identified most of them and then let this all walk away when they knew that meeting had been set up to plan future al Qaeda attacks. Since these attacks had been aimed in the past at US interest, the CIA had to know this important al Qaeda planning meeting would plan attacks against US interests, or even the US itself.

July 10, 2001, Tenet, Black and Blee tell Rice, Clarke and Hadley that a huge al Qaeda attack is about to take place inside of the US and cause mass US casualties.

July 13, and July 23, 2001, just after this July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, Blee, Black and Tenet refuse to give Tom Wilshire permission to give the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI, including the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. Even at this point Blee, Black and Tenet had to know they were allowing the huge attack that they had warned Rice, Clarke and Hadley about, to take place by denying FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators the information they needed to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

In his July 23, 2001, in email back to his CTC managers, Blee and Black, and I am sure this also went immediately to Tenet, Wilshire says Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorists attack. See DE #939 entered into the Moussaoui trail on March 11, 2006

August 22, 2001, Margaret Gillespie finds that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US. Gillespie and takes this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and ITOS Deputy Chief Tom Wilshire.

August 23, 2001, Gillespie has the CIA Bin Laden unit issue an alert, to the rest of the CIA, State Department and the FBI. This alert would have to have been approved of by Richard Blee, before being sent to these other Federal agencies. It unknown where this information went inside of the FBI, but it is clear that Corsi and Wilshire did everything they could to keep this information away from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators, even though both Corsi and Wilshire know that the CIA has a photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, know this directly connects both of these al Qaeda terrorists to the planning of the Cole bombing and even know that the CIA has been keeping this photo secret to prevent Bongardt and his team from having the evidence they needed to start any investigation of Mihdhar or Hazmi. It is also clear that the alert had to be approved of by CIA Bin Laden chief, Richard Blee. We know from the Harpers January 2007 article that Blee and Black were close so it is inconceivable that this information that Midhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, did not immediately go to Black. But Black was also close to Tenet, so it is also inconceivable that this information did not also go right to Tenet.

[NOTE: the fact that the FBI request to a low level CIA officer for help with the Moussaoui investigation, went right up to Tenet in just days shows that information at the CIA traveled very quickly up to the top of the CIA]. So Tenet would have been aware that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. The fact that Tenet flew down to Crawford, Texas for a 6 hour meeting with the President on August 24, 2001 and then lied to the 9/11 Commission to not only keep this meeting secret but to block Roemer from asking him, ”What did you tell, the President at this meeting on August 24, 2001?”, shows that Tenet had something to hide from Roemer and the rest of the 9/11 Commission, about what he knew on August 24, 2001. If Tenet did not have this horrific information why did he lie in the very public 9/11 Commission hearings about attending this August 24, 2001 meeting with the President, particularly when this meeting had been described right in a White House press release. If he had nothing to hide, why lie in a public forum that would so easily prove that he committed perjury. This would have made no sense.

The fact that these high level CIA managers all also knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US and knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack, from Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email, and then said nothing to alert anyone about this horrific information when they found out Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and even continued to allow Wilshire, with Corsi and Middleton, to shut down Bongardt's investigation, when both Corsi and Middleton knew they were criminally blocking this investigation is further proof of Blee, Black and Tenet’s deliberate actions to block any and all FBI criminal investigations of these al Qaeda terrorists. When they did nothing to prevent Corsi and Middleton from blocking Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, these high level CIA managers had to know that they were in effect blocking the one and only investigation that could have prevented the upcoming al Qaeda attack.

When you look at this evidence nothing else makes any sense. Incidentally this information here is just the tip of an enormous mountain of evidence in “Prior Knowledge of 9/11”, that provides even more compelling proof of this.

This summarizes what people knew and what did they do with this information:

April 2001 CIA gets FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s request for any information the CIA has on Walid Bin Attash and any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

Mid-May 2001 This request goes to Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, and Clarke Shannon, a CIA officer in this Bin Laden unit. The CIA moves Tom Wilshire over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, the FBI unit in charge of all terrorists investigations in the world

Wilshire knows at this time , according to the DOJ IG report, that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole, bombing , but in spite of the fact he is number two in the chain of command at the FBI ITOS unit, and is actually in charge of the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing, and as liaison between the FBI and the CIA, he is suppose to provide CIA information for use in FBI criminal investigations, he never gives this horrific information to FBI Agents Ali Soufan FBI Agent Steve Bongardt or any other agent on the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing.

Instead of providing Soufan and Bongardt with the information they have requested, the CIA has Wilshire set up a meeting with Soufan’s own people, in order to find out what they know about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. The CIA wants to know if the FBI Cole bombing investigators had uncovered the information that the CIA had been keeping secret, the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash at that Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Late May 2001 Wilshire enlists FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi to set up this meeting in New York City for June 11, 2001, aware that it might set off alarm bells if he or the CIA itself had set this meeting up, and has her present three photos of Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur to Bongardt and his team, three photos that Wilshire has obtained from the CIA. At this point CIA officer Clarke Shannon asks Bongardt and his team if they recognize anyone in these photos. Since one photo only has Mihdhar and Hazmi in it, it is clear that the CIA only wanted to know if Bongardt and his team had found out information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Walid Bin Attash. Incredibly Wilshire and Shannon both know that Hazmi is already inside of the US in order to take part in an al Qaeda terrorist attack and know Mihdhar has a multi-entry visa for the US in order to join Hazmi in this attack. Both know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. Yet when Bongardt asks Corsi and Shannon, “who are these people and why are you asking us, we are the FBI Cole bombing investigators”, neither Shannon nor Corsi give any of this information to Bongardt and his team even though it is a serious federal felony, of obstructing a FBI criminal investigation, by not providing information that they were already aware of.

July 13, 2001, and July 23, 2001, Wilshire sends email requests to his CTC managers, Blee, Black and Tenet, requesting that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the Kuala Lumpur meeting, be given to the FBI. He is denied permission both times, for his requests to pass this information to the FBI. Blee, Black and Tenet know that they are all criminally obstructing the FBI Cole bombing investigation by refusing to give Wilshire permission to pass this information to the FBI. [See DOJ IG report DE #939, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006]

August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Gillespie finds that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US. She gives this information to Tom Wilshire and FBI Agent Dina Corsi. Wilshire knows immediately that these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the only in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack. This information is sent to the rest of the CIA and Blee, Black and Tenet the next day. In spite of having this horrific information, all of these CIA managers and FBI agents and managers keep this information secret from Bongardt and the rest of the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing. Corsi even admits to the DOJ IG investigators that by August 22, 2001, she already knew that the CIA had a photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew that the CIA was hiding this photo from Bongardt to keep him and his team from investigating Mihdhar and Hazmi, and even knew that this photo meant that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi should immediately have gone to Bongardt and his team!

August 27, 2001, someone on behalf of Dina Corsi requests a written release from the NSA caveats for the NSA information in her EC that Mihdhar and Hazmi had traveled to Kuala Lumpur for an important al Qaeda planning meeting, this request is granted in a matter of hours.

August 28, 2001 Bongardt accidentally gets Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, when Craig Donnachie gives Corsi’s EC to his boss John Liguori, and Liguori thinks that this EC ties Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Cole bombing. Bongardt calls Corsi to request that this investigation be given to him and his team, so they can find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they have time to carry out an al Qaeda terrorist attack. Corsi and her boss, Rod Middleton, tell Bongardt that the NSA information in her EC means that he must destroy her EC and have nothing to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, in spite of the fact Corsi already has been given a release from the NSA and knows that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, a criminal act that renders the wall null and void. Bongardt requests that Corsi get a ruling from NSLU, the legal unity at FBI HQ since he cannot see any connection between the NSA information and any FISA warrant, the only real reason a release would be required.

August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the Attorney Sherry Sabol had ruled the he cannot take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Sherry Sabol later tells the DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, that she, Sabol had ruled and told Corsi that since the NSA information in her release had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt can take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi's lies about the NSA release and the ruling by Sabol has cost 3000 people their lives on 9/11. But is clear Corsi and Middleton were being directed by Tom Wilshire, and Wilshire was directly under the control of powerful CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet.

September 4, 2001, Tenet and Black do not tell anyone at the Principles meeting at the White House about this imminent huge al Qaeda attack or the fact that thousands of Americans are just about to be killed in this horrific attack, in spite of the fact that this is the very first White House Principles meeting on the al Qaeda terrorists.

September 5, 2001, Corsi tells Robert Fuller, the inexperienced FBI Intelligence Agent who had taken over for Bongardt when Bongardt was not allowed to investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi, that he is denied permission to ask Saudi Arabian Airlines for Mihdhar’s credit card information in spite of the fact that Fuller tells Corsi he has gotten nowhere in his investigation of Mihdhar in the FBI data base and he needs that credit card number to make further progress in this investigation.

August 9, 2011 Richard Clarke claims that Tenet, Black, and Blee had intentionally withheld information from him and the FBI about Mihdhar and Hazmi, and this allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. It is clear that if you accuse Blee, Black and Tenet of deliberately withholding the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI, when the CIA knew by doing so it would make all but impossible for the FBI Cole bombing investigators to have the evidence they needed to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and you also know these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack then you are deliberately allowing this attack to take place.

Clarke said he has absolutely no information on why Blee, Black, and Tenet hid this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from him. Clarke thought that Tenet had been a good friend, and is still puzzled today on the reason Tenet had withheld this information, which Clarkes felt would have prevented the attacks on 9/11, from him.

evidence

I'm not surprised that people are reacting with a lot of skepticism and concern, given Clarke's long history. To some extent, as I've already mentioned, I think the complexity and volume of the discussion on this issue is off-putting to average people, and needs to be reduced and clarified.

In general we should take what info we can and find a way to use it to our advantage. But it's not surprising when some are hit over the head with story after story about Richard Clarke's claims that they are annoyed.

We won't all agree on this issue, but let's be careful not make it into the old chestnut that some would like to divide us all with -- "CD vs everything else", "MIHOP vs LIHOP", etc.

Those are tools which are regularly used to try to divide and conquer our movement. We can easily steer clear of them.

Given the number and frequency of the CIA's role in treasonous actions (i.e., torturing people to death in cells in Iraq), with no consequences, it's not all that surprising that people are skeptical now when some are promoting Richard Clarke's version of events as important evidence.

It may be that it is important evidence, we don't know. But let's try to stay focused on the evidence itself, its presentation, its implications, and not the activists and viewpoints which we share or differ on. We won't all agree on everything.

Do Know

Victronix said..."It may be that it is important evidence, we don't know."

Actually some of us do know. Some of us are aware that it is very important evidence that the former head of counter terrorism has just confirmed the main point of Kevin Fenton's book that the CIA deliberately withheld information, in short, protected known terrorists from the FBI, and not just the FBI but the head of counter terrorism himself which might explain why he isn't real pleased with that because it would have prevented the 9-11 attacks. Some of us do know how important that is.

I wonder what Clarke's theory on this is.......

"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

And

"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

and

"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."

"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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5

I don't recall reading any of that in the 9-11 commission report. I do recall reading this....

"In the early summer of 2000, the Hamburg group arrived in the United States to begin flight training. Marwan al Sherri came on May 29, arriving in Newark on a flight from Brussels." - page 223
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

some

>>Actually some of us do know.

Of course you do. Thank you for your contribution.

Wow

Where's the sarcasm cop when we really need him?
________________

9/11 Truth News

Commending and complementary observations

Dear Kevin Fenton,

I just finished reading your excellent book, “Disconnecting the Dots.” When I say it is excellent, I do not necessarily mean that I agree with all your conclusions (or even assertions). I mean it contains a wealth of important documents, thoroughly cited and intelligently analyzed. The book represents, in my opinion, a valuable contribution to the study of 9/11 and more generally of US covert operations. You deserve serious recognition for this meticulous work.

Your conclusions imply that a certain number of people, particularly within the CIA, conspired to enable the attacks of 9/11. Such conclusion assumes that the attacks were carried out by members or sympathizers of Al Qaeda, inspired by Usama bin Laden and led by Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. To be fair, the book did not actually focus on their guilt, but on the deliberate efforts by US agencies to protect the Al Qaeda operatives that presumably planned to carry out the attacks. I believe that you could have profited from taking into account the following facts which strongly suggest that no Al Qaeda member or sympathizer actually planned, nor participated in the actual attacks of 9/11, thus relieving to some extent the terrible suspicion that your book attributes to a few CIA officials:

(a) There is no evidence that the 19 “terrorists” named by the FBI actually boarded the four flights that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 and crashed on the known landmarks (see my detailed study on this matter)
(b) The FBI has admitted that it has not positively identified the wreckage of the aircraft that crashed on 9/11. No crash investigation was allowed. No one saw the debris of flight UA93 and those of flights AA11 and UA175 were extremely sparse, if any.
(c) At least two 9/11 flights (UA175 and UA93) were positively found by Pilots for 9/11 Truth to have been in the air after their official crash times.
(d) There is no hard evidence that any of the 19 alleged hijackers had the motivation to carry out a terrorist operation, let alone a suicide operation. Whatever evidence has been produced to prove a criminal intent is tainted by its dubious sources and remains, at most, extremely circumstantial. Their reported conduct within the United States indicates, on the contrary, that they enjoyed life, sex and even alcohol. Even 9/11 Commission Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton expressed his puzzlement regarding the motivations of these individuals.
(e) No plausible scenario has yet been offered about the way four-five slender terrorists with short knives could take over airliners with 60-80 passengers without the passengers being even aware of the hijacking. This is what both flight attendants from AA11 claimed in their calls. Yet they said that the "hijackers" stabbed two flight attendants and slashed to death a former Israeli veteran fighter, without any passenger noticing. None of the callers from the four aircraft explained how the hijackers got into the cockpit, let alone overcame both pilots in each case before the pilots could punch in the Mayday code.
(f) Professional pilots express doubt that amateur pilots could hit the World Trade Center with 500 mph, a feat they say even professionals would have difficulty to master, particularly the South Tower. Even more difficult, if not impossible, they say, would have been the feat to crash horizontally the Pentagon at 20 feet altitude with 450 mph with a Boeing 757. Apparently the pilot of that airliner could hardly keep a one-engine Cessna in the air (according to his teachers).

All of the above facts, none of which is in dispute, indicate that the individuals protected by the CIA (and FBI) in the United States did not participate in the attacks of 9/11, but were patsies, whose role was to move around the United States and leave a trail of travel, rentals, financial transactions, telephone calls and flight courses, that would later become part of the 9/11 legend. Their overt conduct and their lack of concern to be detained by police (for too fast driving or other offenses) or even complaining to the police for being mugged, suggests that they knew they enjoyed protection and had no reason to act in a conspirative manner. Perhaps some of them did board the death flights but not in order to carry out a hijacking operation. They were most probably exterminated, together with the other passengers, at some undisclosed location. The operation was "necessary" to secure U.S. world leadership for an entire century. Only a full investigation can clarify what became of the passengers and the patsies.

I tend to believe that their handlers within the CIA and FBI were not told that they were protecting individuals preparing for a terrorist attack, but told they were simply protecting assets participating in a classified operation. If the above listed facts are correct, it would not have been necessary for any CIA official to possess foreknowledge of the attacks. In fact, it would have been risky to reveal the true purpose of the operation to individuals likely to testify.

The various cover-up operations transcending those listed by you, suggest that Operation 9/11 was conceived and authorized at the highest level with only a handful individuals possessing the full knowledge of the plot.