Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

9/11

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: 9/11 Reply with quote

Controlled-demolition working expert rubbishes the official conspiracy false-meme.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth?feature=mhum#p/u/2/u5IgqJXyLbg
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:21 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Paul Craig Roberts on 20 June 11: 'Conspiracy Theories' Reply with quote

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25339
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:01 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Reply for JMC Reply with quote

I thought about all that prep. work too, J. I think what he means -- at least in this case, where it couldn't have been done openly beforehand -- is that those removals/cuttings/destructions would also have to have been done explosively, just milliseconds before the main cutter-charge sequences were started.

I've hypothesised pretty well since just after the day itself that the people controlling the demolitions -- and probably generating the incoming guidance signals for the remotely-flown planes too -- had a line-of-sight command centre in Giuliani's hardened 'NYC emergency disasters control centre' in Building 7, which had been established quite openly, with cover story, some time previously.

What with that, plus the masses of highly incriminating evidence material concerning major scams that several US gic cliques had been up to, which had been concentrated in 7 by several investigative agencies, plus again the fact that Silverstein admits that after his recent purchase of the buildings he'd re-insured them massively, it seems pretty nearly a cast-iron case that the (real) perps had to pull Building 7 at some time that day, once they'd nailed the Towers, just to cover their own tracks, get rid of that other awkward evidence at the same time, and give Silverstein his payoff.

Your analysis of the pickle that our good Eds. have got themselves into over this matter tallies pretty exactly with mine, J. But I think that I sense a slow sea-change happening in the West's attitude to the 9/11 story, and to it's continuing acute relevance to the continuing crimes-against-humanity of the USukisnato axis. I hope that that may allow, before too long, the long-overdue reappraisal of the ludicrous official conspiracy cartoon, and a general public admission that other possibilities ought to be looked at in a grown-up way. Once that log-jam break happens, a lot of people who know very well that the official story is cretinous bollocks, but who've studiously held their peace for tactical reasons regarding their own efforts, will be able to de-closet.

I've thought all along that the likeliest triggers to enable this big shift will be the final deaths of all the lead (real, USAmerican, and possibly Israeli) conspirators, so that they can no longer continue to fight their rearguard action; or alternatively, the plunge of the US down the same black hole that claimed the USSR only a couple of decades or so earlier.

The more I sit and watch and ponder, the more I think that that second eventuality will actually come first. And when it does, it will no longer be possible for the premier-league imperial US gics to hold the propaganda line with the US media, and with the media of all their underling/crony states, as they can now. And then the dam will burst, I think.

Hwyl fawr, J. Very Happy
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:38 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The machine that I'm typing on at the moment -- not mine -- is sulking about doing copy and paste, so I can't offer a link just now. Back later with that. But anyway, if you go to the the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website, and look at their current top story, you can see a trailer for the new AE9/11TRUTH DVD which will be out for the tenth anniversary in September.

The trailer alone is a beautiful refutation to any mooncalves who STILL believe that only ignorant, reality-challenged loonies give any credit to the Inside Job hypothesis: that there was indeed a conspiracy -- a realworld one -- to commit the atrocities of 11September01, and that the conspirators were mainly powerful members of the USAmerican imperial ruling establishment.

[Irony alert]
Watch a string of loony engineers, architects, chemical engineers, famous science laureates, professional controlled-demolition experts, and other such tinfoil-draped crazies all assert, in their crack-brained way, that the official conspiracy story is utter bollocks, and that 9/11 just has to have been an inside job. And that's just in the short trailer.
[End of irony paragraph. Straight paragraph follows]

Only genuinely tinfoiled loonies can continue to deny and ignore this calibre of evidence. Take a look at the trailer. Cheers, RhG
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:57 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Recent statement by 9/11 activist Jon Gold (a useful corrective to the often-heard canard question - 'What difference would it make if the alleged truth came out now, all this time afterwards?'):

QUOTE:

Last night, I had an interesting conversation with a friend. I had made a comment about Ron Paul on another friend's wall (on Facebook) that wasn't "pro-Ron Paul," and my friend took offense to it.

When I explained to my friend the problems I have with Ron Paul (which had to do with his stance on the 9/11 issue), I was told that Ron Paul was well aware of the problems with the official account, but that it's political suicide to tackle the issue, and he's trying to play the "game" so he can win. I was told that 9/11 was a symptom of the disease, and that we have to fix the system. The fact that I have been "consumed" by my advocacy for 9/11 Justice was also brought up.

I'm an advocate for 9/11 Justice. I have been for almost 9 years now. What does that mean? What is being an advocate for 9/11 Justice all about?

Hopefully, most of you know that the occupations we are involved in right now, in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as the drone bombings of Pakistan and Yemen, are a result of the 9/11 attacks. I'm hoping you also know that our loss of civil liberties in this country, as well as the rampant hatred for Muslims, also stems from 9/11. The fear from what happened was nourished by talk of WMDs that didn't exist, but that little falsehood wouldn't have worked without 9/11. Everyone knew before 9/11 that Iraq wasn't a threat, and didn't have WMD (including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice). So, 9/11 is the justification for all of it.

We were lied to about 9/11. Because of that, there is no justification for any of what has happened after 9/11. I can't think of any way faster to end the occupations, the drone bombings, and restore our civil liberties than by taking away the justification for it all. In my opinion, Americans need to accept the premise of that argument. To me, it doesn't get any simpler.

Also, there are family members that have been seeking real justice for what happened for years, and they deserve it. As do the people of the world. We were all attacked that day. That day affected all of us in one way or another, so we all need to see real justice happen (and that won't be in GITMO).

So, that is essentially what being an advocate for 9/11 Justice is all about. Give or take.

For the 2008 elections, Ron Paul was presented to the 9/11 Truth Movement as a candidate that would stand up for us. Because of that, the 9/11 Truth Movement essentially gave him his start. During one of the Presidential debates, he was asked whether or not he supported "9/11 Truthers," and the notion that our Government was involved in the attacks. He said no. He could have said that he supports the families call for a real/new investigation, and left it at that, but he couldn't even do that. He was questioned on several occasions whether or not he supported a new investigation, and from what I remember, each time he said yes. However, he has never held a press conference calling for a new investigation, and to my knowledge, has never advocated for it on the House floor. Recently, he voted against the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act.

In other words, as an ally for 9/11 Justice, he has been a no-show.

If the reason for this is because 9/11 is the "third-rail," and "political suicide," I have this to say... I have given up my life for this cause. I've given up most of my friends. I've even gotten health problems as a result of the stress that happens from the work that I do. Do I regret all of that? Not in the least. Reason being, I know what I'm doing is the right thing to do. Once you know that we were lied to, you then have to make a decision as to whether or not you're going to do anything about it. To me, it's a no-brainer. To me, people should be jumping up and down and stomping their feet trying to tell the next person about the need for 9/11 Justice. If someone like me, a nobody from nowhere, can risk and lose so much for this cause, then a politician of ALL people should, at the very least, risk their career for it. Cynthia McKinney did it. Curt Weldon did it. Why can't Ron Paul? Why can't Dennis Kucinich for that matter?

How long do family members have to wait for real justice? The further away we get from that day, the harder it will be to get to the truth. There are a few things wrong with the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act (like taxing India to pay for it rather than closing a tax loophole for the rich, and the FBI screening of responders for connections to "terrorism"), but how long should the 9/11 First Responders have waited for healthcare and assistance? 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 years? I am not going to endorse Ron Paul for President on the chance that possibly, maybe, once he gets elected, he will tackle this issue.

I know that 9/11 was a symptom of the disease. I know that it's the system that needs to change. During my speech at the NYCCAN March, I apologized to the family members for the part I had to play in the murder of their loved ones because of the support I gave to that system for most of my life. 9/11 is a symptom, but I also believe it is the perfect opportunity to expose the system we despise so much. A long time ago, I <http>wrote:

Imagine, under the umbrella of what would hopefully be called "The 9/11 Trials," every crime they took part in, in the name of that day, would be exposed. The lies that led us to war, the illegal wiretapping, the torture (which incidentally is related to the lies we were told about 9/11), the manipulation of the media, our loss of civil liberties, and on and on and on.

If this country were to do as I said, and "hold them accountable for EVERY crime they committed," the system that is destroying this country, would crumble. It would give us the chance to reverse everything that has been done since 9/11, and in the name of 9/11. Remember, we are living in the "Post-9/11 World." As I said in that article, "We can take away their "wand of 9/11". We have a choice. You just have to make it."

I do not believe in our election process. I don't think it works. Therefore, the only reason I would support a candidate is because they believe in real 9/11 Justice, and aren't afraid to say so. Hopefully, many times along the campaign trail. Ron Paul is not that candidate.

However, Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan might be. I supported Cynthia because of that in 2008, and if she runs again in 2012, I will probably support her then as well. Just to bring attention to this extremely important issue. I will ESPECIALLY support her if that wonderful human being Cindy Sheehan is her Vice-Presidential running mate.

So, to my friends that support Ron Paul. I'm sorry, but it's just not going to happen with me.


UNQUOTE
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:42 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

[Received via Ian Henshall's 'Re-Investigate 9/11' Campaign -- RhG]

QUOTE:

BBC Question Time on 9/11

There will be a special edition of BBC Question Time from London on the topic of 9/11 on Sept 8.

We will give you a free RI911 t-shirt to wear on the day if you get a ticket.. To apply for tickets to be part of the audience you need to apply today, Saturday.

Application form can be found here: <http> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1858613.stm

White House whistleblower Richard Clarke corroborates key allegations.

Ten years after 9/11 the official story is unravelling with new revelations from dissident security expert Richard Clarke, the then head of counter terrorism at the White House.

Clarke has given a bombshell interview to the film makers who made 911 Press For Truth providing more evidence for what many 9/11 sceptics have been saying for years: the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen by officials in the CIA who could have stopped them, and mere incompetence cannot be the explanation. Clarke is not saying this was their intent, something that is hard to prove. But the question is now unavoidable: given that 9/11 resulted from gross misconduct by senior officials, why did America start two wars on the back of 9/11 when it should have been investigating and sacking officials at home.

Perhaps more important in the long run: why did the world's corporate media collude with an obviously flawed 9/11 story, and why did America's NATO allies fail to ask any questions before joining in?

Richard Clarke, the White House anti-terror czar had seen his power diminished by the Bush regime prior to 9/11, and after 9/11 wrote an intriguing book "Against all Enemies". This is a reference to the US oath of allegiance "against all enemies foreign and domestic". Note the "and domestic".

The book contained several bombshells but the mainstream media failed to follow up the leads Clarke offered and the book was ignored by many 9/11 sceptics because it ostensibly supported the official 9/11 story. Now Clarke is stirring things up again, drawing attention to one of the many crucial holes of the official 9/11 story: the failure to explain why the FBI was blocked from investigating some of the people who were later named as 9/11 hijackers. This was systematic and happened not to one FBI operation but to three that we know of.

Clarke has corroborated many of the claims and possibilities raised in this writer's book 911 The New Evidence. In particular he has confirmed that the CIA took a decision to protect the suspected 9/11 hijackers from investigation by the FBI, by law the lead agency in anti-terrorism matters. This bombshell confirms what many sceptics have been saying for years. Clarke concurs with 911 The New Evidence too over the three key suspects: Cofer Black, head of the CIA counter terrorism unit, the then CIA boss George Tenet (who later received a severe reprimand form his own Inspector General for undisclosed failings on 9/11) and the head of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit who has now been named as Richard Blee.

Clarke has confirmed that not only the FBI but the military were blocked by the CIA. The unnamed secret military unit that was also ordered off the case could be the Able danger team, who say they identifed alleged 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta as a key terrorist well before 9/11. Or it could refer to the mysterious Catchers Mitt operation referenced in 911 The New Evidence. In one of the many unlikely coincidences of 9/11, the same operational name was attached to the reinforcement of the section of the Pentagon Wall which was hit in the attacks.

Here are the key quotes from Clarke:

"George Tenet followed all of the information about al-Qaeda in microscopic detail," (contradicts Tenet's own statements and the general Washington line that no-one senior was aware of the Al Qaeda threat)

"It's not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn't somehow recognize the significance of it," Clarke said during the interview. "No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director... We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information," (this refutes the tired old incompetence argument, it is also illegal in itself under the Clinto terrorism directives)

"It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction ... These are only theories about the CIA's failures to communicate vital information to the bureau ... Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well."

If you substitute Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Isrealis, apprehended for filming and celebrating as the Towers collapsed and released later on orders from the Bush administration. The existence of just such a Mossad/CIA 9/11 operation was claimed soon after 9/11 by UK journalist Gordon Thomas, based on his Mossad and CIA sources.

Ian Henshall


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

Thursday 11 August 2011
by: Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report


Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, speaks to filmmakers John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski about crucial intelligence involving two 9/11 hijackers he believes ex-CIA Director George Tenet and others concealed.

With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 just a month away, the intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have started to attract fresh scrutiny from former counterterrorism officials, who have called into question the veracity of the various government probes that concluded who knew what and when.

Indeed, an <http> exclusive report recently published by Truthout based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and an interview with a former high-ranking counterterrorism official showed how a little-known military intelligence unit, unbeknownst to the various investigative bodies probing the terrorist attacks, was ordered by senior government officials to stop tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's movements prior to 9/11.

And now, in a stunning new interview scheduled to <http>air on a local PBS affiliate in Colorado tonight, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, for the first time, levels explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials - George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee - accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence from the Bush and Clinton White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments about two of the 9/11 hijackers who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks.

Clarke also accused the former CIA officials of engaging in a cover-up failing to disclose to Congress and the 9/11 Commission key details about the two hijackers.

Tenet, Black and Blee have "been able to get through a joint House investigation committee and get through the 9/11 Commission and this has never come out," Clarke said in the interview, an advance copy of which was provided to Truthout. "They got away with it."

Clarke, who now runs the security firm <http>Good Harbor Consulting, was the chief counterterrorism adviser for the Clinton and Bush administrations. He famously testified before the 9/11 Commission probing the terrorist attacks that "your government failed you."

In October 2009, Clarke spoke to John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, who have been working on a documentary about Blee and the secrecy surrounding his role in the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, which is set to air on the tenth anniversary of the attacks.

Duffy and Nowosielski, whose previous film, "<http>Press For Truth," followed four 9/11 widows as they lobbied the Bush White House to convene an independent commission to probe the attacks, have also launched a new transparency web site, <http>SecrecyKills.com, set to go live this evening with a campaign aimed at further unmasking Blee.

Clarke acknowledges that he does not have any evidence to back up his claims about the former CIA officials. He did not respond to questions about whether he still stood behind the comments he made about Tenet, Black, and Blee nearly two years ago. But Nowosielski told Truthout he spoke to Clarke last week to inform him that Tenet, Black and Blee had issued a joint statement that was harshly critical of his charges, and Clarke told Nowosielski he has not changed his position.

Clarke asserts in the 13-minute interview that Tenet, the former CIA director; Black, who headed the agency's Counterterrorist Center; and <http> Blee, a top aide to Tenet who led the CIA's Bin Laden Issues Station, also known as Alec Station, whose true identity was <http> revealed for the first time two years ago, are responsible for the government's failure to capture Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people.


"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."

But Tenet, who was awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2004, did not share what Clarke says he knew about the al-Hazmi and the al-Mihdhar case.

In early January 2000, CIA analysts were informed by the National Security Agency that al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar were heading to a meeting of other al-Qaeda associates in Malaysia, their travel arranged by Osama bin Laden's Yemen operations center. The CIA surveilled the meeting and took photographs of the men.

From Malaysia, al-Hazmi, al-Mihdhar and Walid bin Attash, the alleged mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing, traveled to Thailand, which the CIA reported in a cable sent to Alec Station. The CIA had claimed, according to the 9/11 Commission report, that they lost track of all three men after they arrived at an airport in Thailand.

Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar then boarded a flight bound for Los Angeles, arriving in the city on January 15, 2000, where they met up with a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who was <http> secretly working as an FBI informant.

Still, despite being aware that one of the terrorists had already obtained a US visa, the CIA failed to notify the FBI and State Department for inclusion on the latter's terrorist watch list. Remarkably, Mihdhar left Southern California for Yemen in June 2000 and, using a new passport, returned to the US undetected on July 4, 2001.

Clarke suggests that if the CIA had shared intelligence about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with him, the FBI, and others, then perhaps the attack on the Pentagon could have been thwarted.

As he noted in his book, "<http> Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters," the 9/11 Commission never fleshed out the rationale behind the CIA's failure to share crucial intelligence information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with other officials and government agencies.

"As jaded and cynical as I am about government failures, I still find this one mind-boggling and inexplicable," Clarke wrote. "The 9/11 Commission report does not tell us very much about how or why it happened and their explanations, while they could be correct, strain credulity and leave many questions unanswered."

But the FBI also bears some responsibility. For example, Al-Bayoumi's FBI case agent <http> was aware that two men had moved into his San Diego apartment in January 2000, but never bothered to inquire about the identities of the individuals. Had the case agent done so, he would have discovered that his informant's houseguests were al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

"Failure to Communicate"

One of the CIA officials who had been monitoring the Malaysia meeting was a young al-Qaeda analyst named Jennifer Matthews, who had been working with the Bin Laden Issues Station since its inception in 1996. Another analyst, who worked closely with Matthews, was a red-headed woman who, in recent years, has been at the center of a scandal involving the torture and wrongful rendition of at least one detainee. She has since been promoted and continues to work for the CIA on al-Qaeda-related issues. An agency spokesman requested that Truthout not print her name because her identity is classified.

In his recently published book, "<http> Triple Agent," Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick wrote that former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson probed "CIA missteps that had allowed" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar "to enter the United States undetected."

"Helgerson concluded that the CIA's Counterterrorism Center had failed to respond to a series of cabled warnings in 2000 about" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar "who later became part of the September 11 plot ...," Warrick wrote. "The cables were seen by as many as sixty CIA employees, yet the two operatives' names were never passed along to the FBI, which might have assigned agents to track them down or shared with the State Department, which could have flagged their named on its watch list. In theory, the arrest of the either man could have led investigators to the other hijackers and the eventual unraveling of the 9/11 plot.

"Helgerson's report named individual managers who it said bore the greatest responsibility for failing to ensure that vital information was passed to the FBI. The report, never released in full, also recommended that some of the managers be reviewed for possible disciplinary action ... Jennifer Matthews was on that list."

Matthews, who Warrick also says led the agency's search for the first high-value detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and who was also present at the CIA black site prison in Thailand when Zubaydah was waterboarded after he was captured in March 2002, was among seven CIA officers killed in Khost, Afghanistan, in a December 2009 suicide bombing at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan, which Matthews was chief of.

"A High-Level Decision"

Although Helgerson's report recommended Matthews be disciplined, Clarke does not believe she or the dozens of other CIA analysts bear the ultimate responsibility for failing to inform the US government for 18 months that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US.

c

Still, Clarke said his position as National Coordinator for Security and Information meant he should have received a briefing from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, explaining "unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution I would automatically get it."

"For me to this day, it is inexplicable why when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism that the director didn't tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn't tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months ... We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information," Clarke said.

How high level?

"I would think it would have to be made by the director," Clarke said. "You gotta understand my relationship with [Tenet], we were close friends, he called me several times a day, we shared the most trivial of information with each other, there was not a lack of information sharing, [CIA] told us everything except this."

CIA Tried to Recruit Hijackers?

So, what happened? Why did the CIA fail to share its intelligence about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with Clarke and other government officials? Clarke believes the CIA may have attempted to "flip" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, but ultimately failed.

That's an allegation that surfaced in Lawrence Wright's groundbreaking book, "<http> The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and The Road to 9/11." Wright, who interviewed Clarke for his book, said a team of FBI investigators and federal prosecutors known as <http>Squad I-49 came to believe that the CIA "was shielding Mihdhar and Hazmi because it hoped to recruit them"

"The CIA was desperate for a source inside al-Qaeda; it had completely failed to penetrate the inner circle or even to place a willing partner in the training camps, which were largely open to anyone who showed up," Wright wrote. "Mihdhar and Hazmi must have seemed like attractive opportunities however, once they entered the United States they were the province of the FBI. The CIA had no legal authority to operate inside the country ... It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction ... These are only theories about the CIA's failures to communicate vital information to the bureau ... Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well."

"This is the view of some very bitter FBI investigators, who wonder why they were never informed of the existence of al-Qaeda operatives inside America. Mihdhar and Hazmi arrived nineteen months before 9/11. The FBI had all the authority it needed to investigate these men and learn what they were up to, but because the CIA had failed to divulge the presence of two active members of al-Qaeda, the hijackers were free to develop their plot until it was too late to stop them."

The 9/11 Commission was unable to substantiate claims that the CIA tried to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar and Clarke never disclosed this theory to the panel during his testimony as it was a conclusion he said he reached years later.

"Reckless and Profoundly Wrong"

In response to Clarke's charges, Tenet, Black and Blee issued a joint statement to Duffy and Nowosielski last week upon learning that Clarke's interview was scheduled for broadcast. The former CIA officials admonished their former colleague, stating his comments were "reckless and profoundly wrong." Blee's inclusion in the joint statement marks the first time he has spoken publicly about the events leading up to 9/11.

"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," the former CIA officials said. "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."

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

"We Would Have Found Those Assholes"

But Clarke says even as early as July 2001 - two months before the terrorist attacks - when Tenet and Blee called an urgent meeting with President Bush at the White House, they had an opportunity to disclose the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were somewhere in the US, but failed to disclose what they knew.

The CIA waited until late August to inform lower-level FBI agents that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US and were likely planning an attack inside the US. Yet, the CIA continued to conceal the intelligence from senior FBI and Bush administration officials a week prior to the attacks.

Clarke said there's a "very obvious answer" as to why the CIA continued, as early as September 4, 2001, in a meeting attended by Clarke and other senior Bush administration officials, to withhold intelligence about the two hijackers: to protect the agency from scrutiny.

"I know how all this stuff works I've been working it for 30 years," Clarke said. "You can't snowball me on this stuff. If they announce on September 4 in the Principals meeting that these guys are in the United States and they told the FBI a few weeks ago I'm going to say 'wait, time out. How long have you known this? Why haven't you reported it at the daily threat meetings? Why isn't it in the daily threat matrix?' We would have begun an investigation that day into CIA malfeasance and misfeasance that's why we're not informed."

Clarke added that even if the CIA had disclosed what it knew about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as late as September 4, 2001, he believes the FBI could have captured the men and dismantled their plans to attack the Pentagon.

"We would have conducted a massive sweep," Clarke said. "We would have conducted publicly. We would have found those assholes. There's no doubt in my mind. Even with only a week left."




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/clarke-airs-suspicions-over-sept-11-intelligence-failures/2011/08/11/gIQAx33K9I_blog.html

Posted at 04:28 PM ET, 08/11/2011








Clarke airs suspicions over Sept. 11 intel failures

By <http> Greg Miller

Often depicted as allies in the fight against al-Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks, Richard Clarke and George Tenet resurfaced this week with new recriminations over intelligence breakdowns and blame.

Clarke, who served in two administrations as a White House counter-terrorism adviser, started the squabble by saying he now suspects the CIA hid its knowledge that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers had entered the United States because the agency had tried ˆ and failed ˆ to recruit them as informants.

Clarke acknowledged his theory is not based on any evidence in a forthcoming documentary, according to a copy of the interview provided to the Post. But he says it is „the only conceivable reason that I‚ve been able to come up with‰ to explain why the CIA failed to inform the FBI or the White House of the would-be hijackers presence.

Clarke goes on to say he believes „there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information,‰ all but pointing a finger at the CIA Director at the time, George J. Tenet.

Tenet, who has kept a low public profile since leaving the agency, posted a sharply worded statement on his Web site saying Clarke „was an able public servant‰ but that „his recently released comments about the run up to 9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong.‰

The statement was also attributed to two other senior CIA officials apparently named in the documentary: Cofer Black, who was the head of the counter-terrorism center; and Richard Blee, who served as chief of the agency‚s Osama bin Laden unit.

The documentary, called „Who is Richard Blee?‰ and produced by FF4 Films, is timed to the 10th anniversary of the attacks. The Clarke interview is scheduled to appear for the first time Thursday night, on a PBS station in Colorado and on the Web site SecrecyKills.com. News of it was first<http> reported in The Daily Beast.

The CIA was faulted by the Sept. 11 commission and other investigators for failing to share information about two Saudis who had been observed attending a terrorism meeting in Malaysia, and were subsequently discovered to have entered the United States. The men, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, settled in San Diego before taking part in the plot.

Clarke didn‚t mention his theory during his famous testimony before the commission, which uncovered no evidence that would lend credence to his claim.

Clarke did not respond to requests for comment.

UNQUOTE
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:37 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Architects & Engineers appealing for truth about 9/11 (v Reply with quote

http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:58 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhisiart Gwilym



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Location: CYMRU and ENGLAND, variously.

Post Post subject: Michel Chossudovsky's presentation at the Toronto Hearings Reply with quote

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/12/al-qaeda-and-global-war-terrorism
_________________
Rhisiart Gwilym
Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:21 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker