"You can do an investigation, and if you don't really want to research an area, you just don't look at it. If you don't ask them all of the questions, or you don't let them tell you the whole story, ya know... then you can write a report based on half-truths." - 9/11 Family Member, September Eleventh Advocate, "Jersey Girl" Mindy Kleinberg
Hopefully, you remember the time right after 9/11. A time when we were told repeatedly that there were absolutely no warnings, and that no one had any idea something like that could happen. If not, feel free to browse the "9/11 Denials" section available at www.historycommons.org.
By Kurt Eichenwald
Published: September 10, 2012
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
This fast paced documentary revisits the partially excavated rabbit hole to examine the question; Just how deep does it go? Were we warned prior to the attacks of 9/11? Who knew, and knew what?
The New World Order Is Taking Over the Patriot and Truth Movements
April 13, 2009
We all know that there are infiltrators into the various patriot movements. Old news. But that is not what I discuss in this article. I may be wrong, but I think something far more serious is going on: I think that the biggest, strongest patriot movements (Alex Jones and the Truth Movement, Campaign for Liberty, etc.) are about to completely damaged or hijacked so that they no longer exist, and are completely destroyed. This is the New World Order tactic, so none of us should be surprised, just like I was not surprised when the Ron Paul Presidential run was run off the road and taken over almost effortlessly, it seems, before the first votes in New Hampshire were cast. So let’s get into this issue…
At what point does "criminal negligence" become so extreme that it can be considered "complicity" beyond a reasonable doubt? Shenon attempts to put the "incompetence", "ignorance", "failure to imagine", "system failure" and "covering up incompetence" spin on what he reports while essentially supporting the theory that Al Qaeda outwitted the dimwitted and incompetent US intelligence and defense establishments, but even what he does say seems like grounds for impeachment hearings to me.
visit the link above for the whole excerpt, choice cuts:
"The warnings were going straight to President Bush each morning in his briefings by the CIA director, George Tenet, and in the presidential daily briefings. It would later be revealed by the 9/11 commission into the September 11 attacks that more than 40 presidential briefings presented to Bush from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden.
[GW's comment: After readers pointed out the errors of this post, the author asked that the post be deleted. However, I think its wise to leave this post up for 2 reasons:
(1) If someone else makes the same claim, they can be directed to the debunking replies (so we don't have to reinvent the wheel); and
(2) It shows how free speech and research actually works: someone posts a hypothesis, and that hypothesis either stands up or is rebutted by facts and testing.]
from Veterans for 9/11 Truth News Features
THIS JUST IN....... PLEASE CIRCULATE....
ISRAELI AIRLINE HAS "NO FLIGHTS" DEPARTING NEW YORK ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 14: NOTE THEY AREN'T SAYING "NO SEATS AVAILABLE" BUT INSTEAD "NO FLIGHT"
Also, www.debka.com , an israeli news site , has posted a strange notice :
" Notice: From Sept 11, DEBKAfile reporting will be confined to special security events. We go back to routine coverage Tuesday, Sept. 18"
Please get out there and spread the word. Print the PDB for distribution, make calls, send email or whatever you can do.
EMA. Many hands make light work.
When Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House, there was no mention of arresting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.
Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible
Mar 28 01:40 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a "nuclear 9-11," a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq.
The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. "If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings," he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
Gore: 'I would have heeded 9/11 warnings' - rawstory.com
In an interview with GQ Magazine, former Vice President Al Gore - who many Democrats believe should have been determined the winner in the 2000 presidential election against George Bush which the Supreme Court eventually decided - maintained that he would have "heeded the warnings" before the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, although he added that "no one can say that the 9-11 attack wouldn’t have occurred whoever was president."
"Now, I do wish, now that we have some distance from the events, and we have all this knowledge about what this administration did do, I certainly feel that I wish that it had been handled differently, and I do wish that I had somehow been able to prevent some of the catastrophic mistakes that were made," Gore said.
"It is inconceivable to me that Bush would read a warning as stark and as clear [voice angry now] as the one he received on August 6th of 2001, and, according to some of the new histories, he turned to the briefer and said, 'Well, you’ve covered your ass,'" Gore continued. "And never called a follow up meeting. Never made an inquiry. Never asked a single question. To this day, I don’t understand it."
Gore said that he thought it was "fair to say" that Bush "personally does in fact bear a measure of blame for not doing his job at a time when we really needed him to do his job."
"But dammit, whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure?" Gore said. "This administration has been by far the most incompetent, inept, and with more moral cowardice, and obsequiousness to their wealthy contributors, and obliviousness to the public interest of any administration in modern history, and probably in the entire history of the country!"
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.
question: was this the warning that prompted Ashcroft to stop flying commercial aircraft?