Brad Blog interviews 9/11 Commissioner John Farmer

[KDLarsen]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7409 (scroll down to hour 1)

Didn't see this mentioned elsewhere, but thought I'd give it a shout. Bradblog had 9/11 Commissioner John Farmer on the Malloy Show on friday and got an hour-long interview out of it. He (John Farmer) also answers some of the questions on the petition Van Jones had signed, and says what he thinks of the overall result of the 9/11 commission.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Love this summary.

"Also, he answered the unspeakable questions that Glenn Beck felt merited the resignation of Van Jones from the Obama administration. He was offended by none of those questions."

Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. First hour notes

The lies that the government told overstated the efficacy and efficiency of the government response, i.e., they narrowly missed 77 but were in place to take out 93.

What they found out was a consistent story, that the military had a minute's notice for 77 and no notice of 93 before it crashed.

Langley scramble was in response to a mistaken report that 11 had not hit the tower but was heading to Washington.

The shootdown order came about 30 minutes after 93 crashed, never transmitted because of no more targets to deal with.

The claim that they could have taken out 93 was the wildly inaccurate part.

An effort to make the government look better than it was. And the unfortunate byproduct was obscuring critical levels - estrangement of top levels reflected in Katrina response. Planned for, but when it hit, there was difficulty communicating. We need to plan to deal with them the way they are experienced instead of an organizational chart.

It's unclear that we learned anything from 9/11 when you look at the Katrina response.

HE THINKS THE 9/11 REPORT IS EXTREMELY ACCURATE AND POINTED OUT THE DISCREPANCIES THAT THEY FOUND.

The Report told the story flight by flight, for clarity's sake. His book tells it from a more overall chronological perspective, as it was happening.

They were told no tapes and there actually were tapes of radio transmissions.

Bush-Cheney interview - he wasn't involved in negotiations. Detailed notes were taken. Circumstances dictate the appropriateness of talking to two witnesses at same time. It can be easier to get into the truth - play them off of one another. It might not be problematic.

Proper accountability to ball dropping?

If there is a villain, it's bureaucracy. Threats arise asymmetrically. They did not go far enough.
More needs to be done at a more basic level. Bureaucracy is the enemy of preparedness.

If one agency totally screws up, then heads roll, but in every agency across the government, 9/11 revealed an inability to deal with the bureaucracy. Scapegoating lets bureaucracy off the hook.

Bush took office and the Al-Qaeda hijackers had run through customs and were in the country, so by 2001, they had run the gauntlet through every department.

The White House had clear warnings?

No question about it. Failures are so pervasive. Millennium report, prep for terrorism was very lax. This was the report that Berger took copies and stole them, destroyed them.

Accountability anywhere else?

One DOT employee in the FAA was disciplined for not being forthcoming.

Why did SS allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit? lot of speculation why he sat there. Farmer thinks he was assimilating the information and since he was being filmed, he decided to project an image of calm.

Flight 77 flew 40 minutes without radar detection - not clear of superior radar, but there was a gap in radar coverage. It was on primary radar but it's an ocean of primary tracks. It had been heading W and they couldn't find it, but they just didn't pick it up when starting E search.

hijacker names within hours? FBI and CIA looking for them before, saw passenger manifests, not hard to figure out who was who, they just didn't find them - barriers to sharing information.

Pakistan intelligence head - don't know that it's true. can't comment. Haven't heard the allegation.

Basically, they were reacting on the fly to something they had not trained to react to.

One investigation reconstructed large components of 77.

He said pictures of 77 in the vicinity exist???? FOIA request!

[noise]

3. Not the full truth

His assumption is that the individuals in a bureaucracy all act in good faith. This is similar to the political/media establishment defense of Iraq WMD's. There was no ill intent by anyone. Everyone truly believed the intel. No cherry picking. No fixing. Just good faith efforts that turned to shit. This is a fairy tale.

I'm not saying his points about bureaucratic problems aren't valid. He makes a good case. But do they fully explain 9/11? Not a chance.

[noise]

4. Torture advocates/apologists use a similar defense

Torture was a good faith effort to defend the country. Officials were panicked. They overreacted. The bureaucracy didn't push back enough. Too much risk aversion. Too many people afraid of being labeled soft on terror.

Who cares if this justification isn't true? It sounds good. It makes everyone feel better. It means all is well in our healthy democratic republic. No slide towards fascism. No erosion of the rule of law. Just a bunch of super patriots trying to keep us safe.

[Neily]

12. Speaking of the Torture Issue...

So why do those who were prosecuted and jailed still have a record? I really don't understand how the admin can admit they authorized torture, but then let the scapegoats remain punished... (i.e. Lynddie England). Why isn't anyone advocating for her charges to be overturned and expunged?

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. I don't think he assumes that

I haven't gone through the whole BradBlog interview, but I've heard his interview on Northeast Public Radio twice. He thinks there was a cover-up. That pretty much precludes the assumption that the bureaucrats were all acting in good faith -- at least after the attacks.

As for what he "assumes" about people's intentions prior to the attacks, I don't know that he has spelled it out. My impression is that he grants at least a weak presumption that people were not part of MIHOP or LIHOP conspiracies, and he has seen no persuasive evidence to the contrary.

I guess you flat-out disagree with him, and that's your prerogative -- but to be persuasive, your disagreement should center on evidence, not on a critique of what you think he assumes.

[Bryan Sacks]

6. Some questions for you, OTOH

Dina Corsi failed repeatedly to share information about Khalid Almihdhar with FBI Cole investigators in the weeks before 9/11, giving the agents to impression she was trying her hardest to get the clearance to do so, but in fact it does not appear she tried very hard at all. Why?

And why, once she got approval from the NSA to share it late in August 2001, did she not share it with the people literally screaming for it?

What explains the behavior of Alec Station's Rich B (identified as Richard Blee) in January 2000? Why does he give his superiors the impression that surveillance of the subjects at the Malaysia Summit continued after their departure, when the official CIA position is that it did not?

And why, in July 2001, at the emergency meeting with Condi Rice and Richard Clark, does Blee omit any mention of Almihdhar's connection to Malaysia? Why doesn't he tell anyone during the 'summer of threat' precisely what he knows?

Blee and Wishire together controlled the flow of information to others involved in related investigations, and their behavior remains highly troubling and not fully explained by reference to error, understaffing or the like. The analysis below is provided by DUer KJF:

The withholding of the information about Almihdhar in January 2000 and subsequent occasions only makes sense if the hijackers were being followed by people linked to those who were withholding the information, and Blee sits at the centre of that web. . .

The case against Blee can be summed up like this: some intelligence community employees at and linked to Alec Station deliberately withheld information from the FBI in general and the USS Cole investigators in particular about Almihdhar and Alhazmi. Two of the officials who were involved in one example of this in January 2000, Doug Miller and Mark Rossini, have confessed to their part and implicated Wilshire and one of his subordinates. It stretches credulity well beyond breaking point to suggest that the group centred on Blee and Wilshire withheld information deliberately in January 2000, but that its subsequent inability to pass on the same and similar information was due to overwork and understaffing, especially given the most peculiar circumstances in which the information was not passed.

Although it is Wilshire that did most of the work, it is hard to imagine that a deputy unit chief could practice such a deception, leading us to suspect his boss, Blee. This suspicion is greatly enhanced by Blee’s incorrect briefings of his superiors on 12 and 14 January 2000 and his failure to mention to anyone the evident links between the high threat and the Malaysia meeting in numerous discussions in the summer of 2001. In addition, his position as a child of a CIA hero would have given him access to a network of intelligence community professionals. If he did want “off-the-books” surveillance of the two hijackers in San Diego, he would have known who to call.

It is certainly possible to dream up scenarios in which the surveillance of the hijackers inside the US somehow broke down, or to theorise that the hijackers, who were employing a countersurveillance technique when taking flights, were smarter than the people monitoring them. Both these scenarios would clear Blee of the most serious charge of deliberately allowing the attacks. However, neither of these scenarios seem likely at the moment. Perhaps further research will allow them to be either confirmed or ruled out.

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/identity-of-cia-officer-responsible-for-pre-911-failures-tora-bora-escape-rendition-to-torture-revealed/

What. specifically, would you disagree with in this analysis?

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. heck if I know

As far as I can tell, this is the second time that Richard Blee has been referred to on DU; the first was nine days ago in GD, and I never saw the thread. So I have no basis for an opinion. I don't know much about Dina Corsi, either, so my opinion wouldn't be worth much. Moreover, I haven't read Farmer's book and have no idea whether he addresses any of these arguments or what, if anything, he would think of them.

[eomer]

24. Search for "Rich B" or "Alec Station Rich B". There's been lots of discussion about him on DU.

But I'm pretty sure you already knew this -- not sure why you went all squiggly on this.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. well, it rings no bells at all

so if I knew, I forgot. I'll try to catch up.

[rschop]

11. re: Answers to questions on Corsi, Blee and Wilshire.

“Dina Corsi failed repeatedly to share information about Khalid Almihdhar with FBI Cole investigators in the weeks before 9/11, giving the agents to impression she was trying her hardest to get the clearance to do so, but in fact it does not appear she tried very hard at all. Why?”

She was working with CIA officer Tom Wilshire to keep this information away from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, clearly under orders from Wilshire who was under orders from high level CIA mangers.

"And why, once she got approval from the NSA to share it late in August 2001, did she not share it with the people literally screaming for it?"

It is much worse than that. She was given permission by the NSA to give the information she and the CIA had on Mihdhar and Hazmi's travel to the Kuala Lumpur meeting on August 27, 2001, but on August 28, 2001 she tells Bongardt that he and his team cannot start any investigation or be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information came from the NSA and they would not allow, without written permission, this information to go to FBI criminal investigators. See www.eventson911.com for the actual US government documents, DE 449 "NSA Approves Sharing" that prove this.

Note at the time she tells Bongardt this she, Wilshire and the CIA all know that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi, to insure that Bongardt did not have enough information to be able start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

She tells Bongardt this, if you can imagine this, after she has already been given permission to pass this information to the FBI criminal investigators.

"And why, in July 2001, at the emergency meeting with Condi Rice and Richard Clark, does Blee omit any mention of Almihdhar's connection to Malaysia? Why doesn't he tell anyone during the 'summer of threat' precisely what he knows? Blee and Wilshire together controlled the flow of information to others involved in related investigations, and their behavior remains highly troubling and not fully explained by reference to error, understaffing or the like."

Blee was not in the meeting with Clarke and Rice, just Tenet and Black, but Blee worked directly for Black and had told both Tenet and Black when asked in July 2001, when asked where the al Qaeda attack would occur that the CIA had been getting many warnings about that; "they are coming here"

The CIA had been desperately hiding the fact that Khallad Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, from the FBI criminal investigators who were investigating this al Qaeda attack.

The CIA apparently did not want anyone to know that they, the CIA, had the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting photographed and even identified and then just let them walk away to carry out the attack on the USS Cole. The attacks on 9/11 were also planned at the Kuala Lumpur meeting so by hiding their culpability in the attack on the USS Cole they hid the information the FBI needed to prevent that attacks on 9/11.

But it is far worse than that. On August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to both FBI Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Wilshire, and perhaps Corsi knew immediately that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the horrific al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about. See DE #939 on www.eventson911.com

Yet Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar by hiding the fact that she already had been given permission to give the NSA information to him and his team. When Bongardt protests and asks Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU at the FBI HQ, the FBI legal unit, to see if he and his team could investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he is aware these terrorists are in the US for no other reason than to carry out an al Qaeda terrorists attack, she fabricates the attorneys ruling and says the attorney had ruled he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar when the attorney had ruled just the opposite and said Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Since both Wilshire and Corsi were acting under orders from higher level CIA and FBI managers, it is impossible to believe that when these people at the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they did not know that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americans were now doomed to perish in the al Qaeda attacks that they had all been warned about.

[noise]

33. Farmer endorses the findings

of the DOJ IG report. The Gorelick wall explains everything.

Sadly one is considered an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for not going along with this nonsense.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. "Sadly one is considered an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for not going along" - link, please. n/t

[noise]

35. As posted in the same thread

there is the example of political/media response to Van Jones. For sure the phrase is mine. I prefer to combine all the characterizations for the sake of clarity.

The DOJ IG report is a good example of the authoritarian aspects of 9/11. It simply had to be a thorough, accurate investigation of FBI conduct in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. To think otherwise suggests bad faith conduct by the DOJ IG staff. Suggests they limited their investigation for CYA reasons. Just like Farmer's book, the DOJ IG report doesn't even consider the possibility of corruption.

For example take Robert Hannsen. Was Hannsen unaware that spying for the Soviet Union/Russia was against FBI policy? Did the FBI try to sell such nonsense to the public? No. He was corrupt and the FBI didn't pretend that this was anything but a corrupt agent. Yet we had FBI agents going out of their way to obstruct al Qaeda investigations. WTF is that?! That isn't acceptable conduct. Why did the DOJ IG make bizarre excuses for the conduct of FBI agents? Didn't the FBI indict Bin Laden for the 1998 embassy bombings? Didn't FBI investigators link al Qaeda operatives to the USS Cole bombing? So WTF were FBI ITOS agents doing obstructing al Qaeda investigations?

I keep referring to authoritarianism because it fits. We aren't supposed to question the DOJ IG, the FBI or the 9/11 Commission. If they say the FBI agents were confused about the Gorelick wall then that is the truth. Yet under scrutiny the Gorelick wall doesn't stand up as a valid explanation. And the 9/11 Commission MFR's with the agents involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Midhar issues are still pending classification review. Those records were turned over to NARA in '04. Why are they still classified?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. "I prefer to combine all the characteristics for the sake of" self-crucifixion.

There, corrected that for you.

[noise]

37. Nice use of smear tactics

If one questions authoritative accounts of 9/11=conspiracy nut, al Qaeda sympathizer, unpatriotic.

If one notes the smear tactics used to stifle dissent and protect establishment consensus views=persecution complex.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Get off the cross. We need the wood. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

39. Good one...

Bolo.

[noise]

40. Similar MO

of torture apologists.

"Hindsight."

"It's so unfair to criticize officials acting in good faith."

"Al Qaeda sympathizer. Soft on terror."

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Stick a spear in your rhetoric. It's done. n/t

[Flying Dream Blues]

43. Alerted on your rude self.

You offer nothing to the discussion except disruption, as usual.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. yikes

You're over six months late with a rule-breaking post about alerting, and what do you think you've offered to the discussion? :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

45. I offered detailed notes on the Farmer interview.

For my trouble, I got the same old bullshit.

Welcome to the conversation.

[noise]

8. I finished reading the book

Farmer (and Zegart) would have us believe that the given reasons are ok: Gorelick wall, turf battle, poor FBI computers, disconnect between departments and layers of bureaucracy.

The key point is that the evidence (in this case records) is classified. Poster rschop has made a detailed case which raises reasonable doubt about the 9/11 Commission's claims in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. He made this case without relying on a single youtube video clip. AFAIK, the records he relied on were the 9/11 CR, the JI report, the DOJ IG report, the Moussaoui trial records, the CIA IG report executive summary, The Agent and The Looming Tower both by Lawrence Wright. Needless to say there is a world of difference between bad faith conduct and bureaucratic inefficiency. And it should be pointed out that they aren't mutually exclusive--failure to prevent 9/11 can be attributed to both bureaucratic inefficiencies and officials acting in bad faith. In fact, officials acting in bad faith could have taken advantage of the bureaucratic problems.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. "that the given reasons are ok"? I defy you to show that Farmer thinks this is OK.

Farmer thinks this is NOT OK. Farmer wants this to be corrected. Jiminy Christmas, why you feel the need to misrepresent him on this is astounding, particularly considering that he WROTE THE BOOK because he thinks it's not OK and he want to draw attention to it.

Tell the truth next time. What Farmer said is useless to you and your fantasy outcome. That's what's wrong with Farmer's book as far as you're concerned. Meanwhile, the rest of us who don't think things like that are OK are going to try to get them fixed.

I think now is when you label me authoritarian, right?

[noise]

10. Not ok as in acceptable. Ok as in credible.

Ok as in believable. Ok as in the public shouldn't have a problem with these answers.

That isn't the "Ground Truth." That is a limited/distorted interpretation of the events of 9/11. Farmer is rehashing what Kean/Hamilton said (paraphrased) "Everybody was to blame so nobody is to blame." That is a cop out. That is an insult. That is an excuse to justify a limited investigation. As I noted before, one doesn't have to read a word of David Ray Griffin or watch a second of youtube videos to understand why the 9/11 Commission investigation was limited. Read Bamford. Wright. Shenon. Lance. Or even The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. She explains that stated public goals are not always true. Farmer briefly mentions the Iraq WMD case. He states the jury is still out. WTF?! Do people in a bureaucracy ever act in bad faith or is such a notion impossible?

I'm pretty sure Tenet was one of Farmer's sources as he quotes him towards the end of the book. How can Farmer possibly take Tenet at his word about bureaucratic weaknesses when Tenet's CIA sat on intel for over 20 months! There is a difference between bureaucratic problems and a bizarre contradiction regarding CIA conduct in relation to al Qaeda.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Again, this "the public shouldn't have a problem with these answers" is bullshit.

The public should be right royally pissed at these answers and demand the problems be fixed.

As I said, Farmer is of no use to you and your desired outcome, so the shiv comes out.

[noise]

18. I was referring to 9/11 skeptics

Farmer is suggesting that 9/11 skeptics shouldn't have a problem with the bureaucratic failure findings.

Desired outcome? Farmer's concept in the book is that real reform isn't possible unless the problems are truly understood. He found the political CYA damaging because it was an effort to shield the bureaucratic failures which in turn limited the chances for real reform.

IMO real reform isn't possible unless the problems with bureaucracy AND corruption are understood. IMO Farmer and Zegart are pretending there is no such thing as corruption, evidently because it would mess up their tidy theory. Talk about a desired outcome.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Stop pretending that Farmer is handwaving away serious problems. n/t

[noise]

25. When did I start doing so?

I won't pretend that the Farmer/Zegart model is the definitive explanation of 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. This entire conversation. You're using English. People can read. n/t

[noise]

29. Indeed

I'm am guilty of questioning Farmer's analysis. I have broken the unwritten rule--do not question authority figures. One, doing so is inherently wrong. Two, it disrespects the victims of 9/11. Three, it suggests some sort of latent al Qaeda sympathizer tendencies. Four, nothing productive comes from anti-American conspiracy theories.

Good job on your part for defending Farmer's work. You are doing America a great service.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. There's that smear of authoritarianism - finally.

It must have been hell holding it back for so long.

[noise]

31. It's not a smear at all

Did you not watch how Van Jones was portrayed as a traitor for signing a 9/11 petition? That has been the MO used against citizens who dare to question authoritative accounts of 9/11.

[rschop]

22. re: Poster rschop has made a detailed case which raises reasonable doubt about the 9/11 Commission's

In reply to:

Poster rschop has made a detailed case which raises reasonable doubt about the 9/11 Commission's claims in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

Noise, in reply to your post, I don't think I found one single instance of bureaucratic inefficiencies that had contributed to allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place. It was all due to a wide ranging criminal conspiracy by many people at the CIA and units at the FBI HQ that the CIA had subjugated to hide information from the FBI criminal investigators.

This conspiracy was first directed at hiding the CIA culpability in allowing the attacks on the USS Cole take place, by hiding the information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, about the al Qaeda planning meeting at Kuala Lumpur that took place in early January 2000.

The CIA had been desperately hiding the fact that Khallad Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, from the FBI criminal investigators who were investigating this al Qaeda attack.

The CIA apparently did not want anyone to know that they, the CIA, had the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting photographed and even identified and then just let them walk away to carry out the attack on the USS Cole. The attacks on 9/11 were also planned at the Kuala Lumpur meeting so by hiding their culpability in the attack on the USS Cole they hid the information the FBI needed to prevent that attacks on 9/11.

But it is far worse than that.

On August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to both FBI Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire.

Wilshire has asked FBI Agent Dina Corsi in mid-May 2001 to set up a meeting with the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York City, just after the CIA had received a request from head of this investigation, FBI Agent Ali Soufan asking for any information that the CIA had on a meeting in Kuala Lumpur and on Khallad Bin Attash. The CIA thought because of this request that the FBI criminal investigators had found out about this meeting and perhaps even knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at this meeting planning the Cole bombing with Bin Attash.

At this June 11, 201 meeting Corsi presented to the FBI Cole investigators, the three photos of Mihdhar that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA that had been taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. At that point CIA officer Clarke Shannon asked FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and some of his investigating team who were also at that meeting, if anyone recognized the people in these three photos. Since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it, it was clear that the CIA was only trying to find out if the FBI criminal investigators had uncovered information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Bin Attash.

When Wilshire and Corsi were informed that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, it is clear that Wilshire, and likely Corsi knew immediately that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the horrific al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about. See DE #939 on www.eventson911.com. Wilshire had clearly indicated this in his email on July 23, 2001, detailed in DE 939.

In spite of knowing that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar by telling him on August 28, 2001 that he and his team cannot start any investigation or be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information they would need came from the NSA and they would not allow, without written permission, this information to go to FBI criminal investigators. See DE 449 the release the NSA gave Dina Corsi on August 27, 2001.

But Corsi had been hiding the fact that she already had been given permission to give the NSA information to Bongardt and his team the day before she told him that he had to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. When Bongardt protested and asks Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU at the FBI HQ, the FBI legal unit, to see if he and his team could investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he was clearly aware these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US for no other reason than to carry out an al Qaeda terrorists attack, she fabricates the attorneys ruling and says the attorney had ruled he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar when the attorney had ruled just the opposite and said Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But it gets even worse.

At the time she tells Bongardt this, she, Wilshire, and the CIA and many people at FBI HQ all know that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi from Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators, to insure that Bongardt would not have enough information to be able start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. This photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur directly connected the mastermind of the Cole bombing to Mihdhar and Hazmi and their planning of the Cole bombing at that meeting. In fact Bongardt did not even have enough information to keep Corsi from shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Since both Wilshire and Corsi were acting under orders from higher level CIA and FBI managers, it is impossible to believe that when these people at the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all did not know that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americans were now doomed to perish in the massive al Qaeda attacks that they had all been warned about since April 2001.

[rollingrock]

14. John Farmer, bullshit artist/apologist

I listened to the first few minutes of an interview with him on the radio a while ago. About 10 minutes into the interview, the host asked why did the commission comply with Cheney's request to interview him and Bush together? According to Farmer, the best way to 'get the truth' out of two people would be to interview them together because you can play them off one another. Say what!?? He must have flunked out of criminal law 101 if he believes that. And who the hell testifies behind closed doors, not under oath, no transcript or record of any kind? This Farmer guy is a paid shill and a clown. I turned it off immediately and almost threw my radio out the window lol.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Well, I knew it wouldn't be long before the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd...

started bashing Farmer. Remember back when they were proclaiming him to be the next messiah?

[rollingrock]

16. Not really.

I never heard of him until a couple months ago when he was on the Malloy show.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Well, all the same, dude...

given Farmer's resume and what we know of you, my vote is with Farmer, dude.

[noise]

19. I will agree that it is

cherry picking to use Farmer's quotes to pretend he doubts the 9/11 Commission report. At best he is talking about political CYA.

[noise]

42. Above board analysis of Farmer's position n/t

[Woody Box]

20. Farmer on the invisible Flight 77 between 8:56 and 9:32

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

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

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

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

This is nonsense.

1) There is no radar gap over West Virginia/ Virginia which is so big that Flight 77 was able to vanish for 40 minutes.

2) The controllers from Indianapolis Center and Washington Center looked everywhere to pick up Flight 77, not only west. They were looking desperately for primary targets, but didn't pick up anything until 9:32.

Here's what the operations manager of Washington ARTCC told NEADS at 9:32 with regard to Flight 77:

"so what we have done at the surrounding centers here is tell everyone to look out for limited codes, primary targets, or whatever the case may be. And that was the last time, that was about fifteen minutes ago since I talked to the Indianapolis Center Operations Manager."

To say the controllers "simply didn't pick it up" and insinuate that they failed to do their job (instead of drawing the only reasonable conclusion that Flight 77 was not picked up because it simply was not there) is an offense to the controllers.

[SDuderstadt]

21. ''No-planer'' alert!

Jesus, what nonsense.

[noise]

26. From the book:

As George Tenet writes, "The country had no systematic mechanism to translate foreign threats into a meaningful program of protection of the homeland."

On August 23, 2001 the FBI was officially told that two al Qaeda operatives were in the US. To date, we don't know why the CIA withheld this information for 20 months. It seems Farmer is content to spin rather than provide the public with answers.

[rschop]

27. re: To date, we don't know why the CIA withheld this information for 20 months.

Let me repeat what I posted before:

Hiding the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi was part of a wide ranging criminal conspiracy by many people at the CIA and units at the FBI HQ that the CIA had subjugated to hide information from the FBI criminal investigators.

This conspiracy was first directed at hiding the CIA culpability in allowing the attacks on the USS Cole take place, by hiding the information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, about the al Qaeda planning meeting at Kuala Lumpur that took place in early January 2000.

The CIA had been desperately hiding the fact that Khallad Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, from the FBI criminal investigators who were investigating this al Qaeda attack.

The CIA apparently did not want anyone to know that they, the CIA, had the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting photographed and even identified and then just let them walk away to carry out the attack on the USS Cole. The attacks on 9/11 were also planned at the Kuala Lumpur meeting so by hiding their culpability in the attack on the USS Cole they hid the information the FBI needed to prevent that attacks on 9/11.

But it is far worse than that.

On August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and took this information to both FBI Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire.

Wilshire has asked FBI Agent Dina Corsi in mid-May 2001 to set up a meeting with the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York City, just after the CIA had received a request from head of this investigation, FBI Agent Ali Soufan asking for any information that the CIA had on a meeting in Kuala Lumpur and on Khallad Bin Attash. The CIA thought because of this request that the FBI criminal investigators had found out about this meeting and perhaps even knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at this meeting planning the Cole bombing with Bin Attash.

At this June 11, 201 meeting Corsi presented to the FBI Cole investigators, the three photos of Mihdhar that Wilshire had obtained from the CIA that had been taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. At that point CIA officer Clarke Shannon asked FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and some of his investigating team who were also at that meeting, if anyone recognized the people in these three photos. Since one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it, it was clear that the CIA was only trying to find out if the FBI criminal investigators had uncovered information on Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Bin Attash.

When Wilshire and Corsi were informed that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, it is clear that Wilshire, and likely Corsi knew immediately that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the horrific al Qaeda attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about. See DE #939 on www.eventson911.com . Wilshire had clearly indicated this in his email on July 23, 2001, detailed in DE 939.

In spite of knowing that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, Corsi shuts down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar by telling him on August 28, 2001 that he and his team cannot start any investigation or be part of any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information they would need came from the NSA and they would not allow, without written permission, this information to go to FBI criminal investigators. See DE 449 the release the NSA gave Dina Corsi on August 27, 2001.

But Corsi had been hiding the fact that she already had been given permission to give the NSA information to Bongardt and his team the day before she told him that he had to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. When Bongardt protested and asks Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU at the FBI HQ, the FBI legal unit, to see if he and his team could investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he was clearly aware these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US for no other reason than to carry out an al Qaeda terrorists attack, she fabricates the attorneys ruling and says the attorney had ruled he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar when the attorney had ruled just the opposite and said Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But it gets even worse.

At the time she tells Bongardt this, she, Wilshire, and the CIA and many people at FBI HQ all know that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi from Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators, to insure that Bongardt would not have enough information to be able start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. This photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur directly connected the mastermind of the Cole bombing to Mihdhar and Hazmi and their planning of the Cole bombing at that meeting. In fact Bongardt did not even have enough information to keep Corsi from shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Since both Wilshire and Corsi were acting under orders from higher level CIA and FBI managers, it is impossible to believe that when these people at the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all did not know that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americans were now doomed to perish in the massive al Qaeda attacks that they had all been warned about since April 2001.

It is still unknown why the CIA withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators prior to the attacks on 9/11, this points to even deeper and darker secret that the CIA was trying to keep hidden.

[colsohlibgal]

46. Pilots

There is a lot to question about that day - and one big one is I've read comments from more than a few experienced pilots who basically say they weren't at all sure they could have done some of those high speed maneuvers with such a big plane at those speeds, particularly at the Pentagon, and they were quite sure someone who had a couple of lessons on a little Cessna could not have done it.

You can read through them in the pilots section at the web site Patriots Question 9/11. Pretty compelling to me.

There are a lot more things than that that don't add up, but this problem is basic and a hard one to refute IMHO.

We need an independent investigation of what actually went down on, before and after 9/11/01 ASAP.

[SDuderstadt]

47. "someone who had a couple of lessons on a little Cessna could not have done it"

That is a total misstatement of Hanjour's training. He had a commercial pilot's license. You don't get a commercial pilot's license through a "couple of lessons on a little Cessna". You've been badly misinformed.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf