Behrooz Sarshar

[k-robjoe]

"In April and June of 2001 a long-term FBI informant told two FBI agents from the Washington field office that his sources in Afghanistan had provided him with information regarding a terrorist plot to attack the US in a suicide mission involving airplanes. Mr. Sarshar acted as an interpreter at both meetings after which the case agents filed a report (on 302 Forms) with their squad supervisor, Thomas Frields. Here is what Mr. Frields told the reporter when questioned about the case:

Frields, now retired from the bureau, says the case is too “sensitive” to discuss.”It involves very sensitive matters that took place while I was an on-duty agent, and I have absolutely nothing to say,” said Frields, reached at his Washington-area consulting office.

The 9/11 Commissioners had initially refused to interview Mr. Sarshar. He was one of several witnesses from the intelligence and law enforcement organizations with relevant testimonies and reports who were denied access to the commission (the ones that we know of). It was only after pressure from members of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and memorandums from the congressional offices that the commission reluctantly agreed to interview Mr. Sarshar. However, his entire testimony was omitted from their final report."

http://bbnworldnews.com/newspost/911-family-members-demand-answers-from-the-911-commission-the-censored-testimony-of-fbi%E2%80%99s-behrooz-sarshar-%E2%80%93-sibel-edmonds/

[noise]

1. So much for the "it would have leaked" theorists

The 9/11 secrecy has been rather impressive. Once again the issue isn't what someone's testimony might "prove" but rather the secrecy demonstrates the political/media establishment's contempt for the public. Is this not a textbook case of elitism? A bunch of smug D.C. insiders decide that a half assed investigation is good enough and anyone who objects is branded a disgruntled conspiracy nut. 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean is interviewed on the PBS "Are We Safer" program and he bemoans the lack of Congressional oversight on the intelligence community. It is typical that a mainstream media presentation would have Kean appear as an authority on intelligence oversight. He had a chance to do some oversight and went the CYA route.

[BeFree]

2. It is a bad case of justice denied

And keeping the truth from the people.

How can anyone support such a thing on a board with 'democratic' as part of it's name, it's founding and it's reason for being? How? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[greyl]

3. You mean so much for the "controlled demolition & no planes" theorists. nt

[BeFree]

4. Heh

No, he means that the coverup was so broad and pervasive that the very intelligent questioning (versus the idiotic faith of the OCTers) is the only way to see this situation. IOW, what are they hiding and why?

[zappaman]

5. LOL

"No, he means that the coverup was so broad and pervasive that the very intelligent questioning (versus the idiotic faith of the OCTers) is the only way to see this situation. IOW, what are they hiding and why?"

Congrats!
It's only February 1st, but I predict you will win the UNINTENTIONALLY IRONIC POST OF THE MONTH!

Heh.

[BeFree]

10. What are you babbling about?

Why don't you stick to the subject of this thread?

Why is it that you love me so much you badger me at every opportunity?
Is it my smile? My legs?

Why can't you focus on anything? Do I really drive you crazy so much that you are reduced to this constant babbling?

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. be the change you want to see in the world?

Or maybe you're already doing that.

[BeFree]

16. What's it to you?

Why do you care?

I want to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And for that you people harass me? WTF?

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. I don't see anyone harassing you whatsoever

If you're serious, you must have some of the thinnest skin on DU. :shrug:

[BeFree]

25. Heh

The crap yall throw out makes yall look real good, huh?

Go elsewhere on DU and spread this crap and see how long you last. Go ahead, get out of the dungeon for a few posts.

It's not so much thin skin as it is we have to put on our wading boots to wade thru yalls' crap.

Have either of you posted a cogent OP in the recent past? NO. You just hang here spewing.

[zappaman]

20. ROFLMAO

"Why don't you stick to the subject of this thread?"

This is the runner up for UNINTENTIONALLY IRONIC POST OF THE MONTH!!!

:rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. this piece quotes a Chicago Tribune article from July 2004

I don't really claim to know what would or wouldn't have leaked, but that Tribune article does tend to support the argument that "it would have leaked" for various values of "it."

[KDLarsen]

6. Let's look at what he said versus what actually happened

From the article in the OP:

In April and June of 2001 a long-term FBI informant told two FBI agents from the Washington field office that his sources in Afghanistan had provided him with information regarding a terrorist plot to attack the US in a suicide mission involving airplanes.

However, that wasn't what he said. Sibel Edmonds has been referring to a Chicago Tribune as support of his and her statements, but looking at the article there is a teeny tiny issue:

According to the law enforcement official, "there was talk about terrorists and planes," but no mention of when or where the attacks might take place.

It was the FBI agents' impression, the official said, that the target of the attacks could be "possibly here, but more probably overseas." The Asset also reported having heard a rumor that a plane would be hijacked to Afghanistan, the official said.

The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training."

See what I mean?

No specifics as to where the attacks would occur.
No specifics as to when the attacks would occur.
The source thought it might involve a hijack to Afghanistan.

The only accurate thing here involved the use of airplanes.

And to top it off:

According to Sarshar, the two FBI agents who interviewed the Asset were not visibly surprised by his report. It was his impression, Sarshar said, that the agents weren't sure whether to believe their informant, and that even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true.

The article is no longer on the Chicaco Tribune website, but it can be found here: http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds3.htm

[BeFree]

7. What he actually said

"..the commission reluctantly agreed to interview Mr. Sarshar. However, his entire testimony was omitted from their final report.""

I'd like to read that, wouldn't you? No? Are you happy being treated like a mushroom? Why?

[KDLarsen]

12. What would be the point?

For starters, he wasn't the original source, he merely acted as translator. What could he have told them, that he hadn't already said in the Chicago Tribune article?

Had we been talking about getting the original source in for interview, then I might have been interested.

[BeFree]

13. You aren't intersted?

You don't want the whole story?

Maybe the cOmmission should have gone to the original source? Maybe they did? How would you know?

Oh, wait, you're not interested. Sorry to bother you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. FWIW, it is on the Trib website

The parts you quoted appear to come from page 5 of 6. I just found it by following a link in the OP.

[KDLarsen]

11. Thanks

My google-fu has been weak today. Probably because of that bomb threat someone phoned in at my school.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. that would tend to distract, yes

Sounds like the start of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. I hope things turn around.

But anyway, your substantive contribution was terrific. Apparently we have people waving their arms about some information that was published in a major U.S. newspaper at about the same time the 9/11 Commission Report was released, and that facially doesn't seem all that important anyway. I assume there must be better criticisms of the 9/11 Commission than this one.

[k-robjoe]

17. "They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11"

I don´t know if you have seen this summary :

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

And there´s more coming in, it´s piling up.

If you isolate each warning, and never dare to look at the big picture, you get the conclusion that it "doesn´t seem very important".

But I fully agree with the conclusion that Paul Thompson puts forth in the summary :

"One single warning should have been enough to take precautions, but with so many warnings coming in, how can inaction be explained as mere incompetence? Yes, it is often difficult to know which terrorist threats are real, and what information to trust. But if the US couldn’t take seriously warnings from close allies like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and so on, then what were they waiting for? What would they have taken seriously? And where is the outrage, the investigation?"

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. meh

Your OP precisely isolates this warning. It isn't a matter of what anyone else dares.

Was the incompetence in the run-up to the attack beyond the bounds of plausibility? In my reading of history, unfortunately not. I find (e.g.) the report that Bush told the CIA briefer, "All right, you've covered your ass now" only too believable. I'm not ruling out alternatives, just declining to be convinced by the argument from incredulity.

(edit to correct braino)

[k-robjoe]

24. "All right, you've covered your ass now"

It seems to me like a very natural question here, is :

What is the difference between a group of people that has a lot to gain from a terrorist-attack, and when confronted with the warning signs that a terrorist-attack may be in the making, shows an attitude that says : "yeah, whatever"...

...and a group of people that let it happen?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. grunt

Not sure what group you have in mind. I will say that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Bush didn't look to me like someone who had just hit the jackpot. He looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

Maybe it was a brilliant performance of confusion, or maybe someone else LIHOP and Bush got played. Neither of those is obvious to me. Long ago I took a course that covered war intelligence, and one big (if banal) takeaway was that intelligence failures do tend to look unbelievably stupid in retrospect. Some may actually have been LIHOP, but I see no reason to assume that they all were, or that this one was.

[k-robjoe]

32. "intelligence failures do tend to look unbelievably stupid in retrospect"

"Watergate-fame reporter Bob Woodward reveals in a new book that Donald Rumsfeld impeded efforts to get Bin Laden, Condie Rice "brushed off" warnings of impending attacks 2 months before 9/11, and CIA director George Tenet could tell that "this is going to be the big one", and yet no one wanted to talk about it."

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/

"But according to Woodward, Cofer Black later said of that meeting ( with Condi Rice ), "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6182002

Let´s say you trust me to keep an eye on your wallet for a day or two.
You come back two days later and learn that the wallet has been stolen. And let´s say ( don´t know right now how to make the allegory more correct, but let´s say ) that you learn that I actually stood to gain if your wallet was stolen. And let´s say you learn that the way it got stolen, was that I left it on a cafe table and went for the toilet.

My allegory is of course no good, but I think you get my point. There must be a limit to what you can get away with, blaming it on "unbelievable stupidity". ( or "sufficiently advanced incompetence" )

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. get away with?

Help me out here. Are you inferring that Condi Rice was in on the plot? Did Woodward infer that? Did Cofer Black infer that?

Oh, wait. rschop seems to be convinced that Black was in on the plot, too. Wheels within wheels.

In real life, at all levels, people routinely fail to respond adequately to looming threats. We're good at fight-or-flight (not necessarily good at choosing), not especially good at rationally prioritized precaution -- individually, much less collectively. The Challenger disaster: LIHOP or MIHOP? Probably not.

I'm open in principle to all sorts of accounts of 9/11, but arguments that seem innocent of human nature don't cut much ice with me.

[k-robjoe]

37. Get away with

In my allegory with the wallet, am I gonna get away with it?

It is pretty obvious that I wanted the wallet to be stolen, isn´t it?

There´s no way you can get me arrested, but you will put two and two together.

Same thing here :

"NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html

They know that they stand to gain if there is an attack, and the actions they take are accordingly.

"US agents told to "back off" Bin Ladens (ANANOVA)

Bush Thwarted FBI probe against Bin Ladens (AFP)"

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=12165

So when I argued that Norway should not give any support to the Bush-administrations war adventures, because they allowed 911 to happen, your response would be : "No no, they did not. It was nothing but innocent human nature" ?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. it's interesting

Your response to my post seems to take the form of poaching a few words, ignoring the rest, and... well, I'm not sure I can offer a fair characterization right now. I'm struck by the vague use of "they."

"NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S."

Naturally, I wondered whether Newsweek offered a rationale for that shift. So I Googled "curtailed highly classified program," and found this:

# NEW YORK, March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists.

DU link (emphasis added)

Now, I don't know whether the "curtail(ment)" of "Catcher's Mitt" is adequately explained as a response to a judge's smackdown of apparent FBI overreach. (I don't even know if the quotation is accurate.) What bothers me is that you've given me no reason to believe that you care. If you want to lecture people on the importance of asking questions, I think you had damn well better ask the obvious questions yourself.

As for the bin Ladens... well, ditto. If you really don't see the problem with construing that as evidence of LIHOP, I wouldn't expect to be able to explain it.

So when I argued that Norway should not give any support to the Bush-administrations war adventures, because they allowed 911 to happen, your response would be : "No no, they did not. It was nothing but innocent human nature" ?

WTF?

I tried to figure out what your argument(?) might be here, but I won't try to do your work for you. I'll just say that my judgment of the Bush administration's war adventures doesn't pivot on LIHOP.

Really, I'm amazed. Haven't you been on this board for several years now? Have you ever had a serious discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with you? Do you think we're all war apologists?

[k-robjoe]

39. LIHOP

It seems to me that you have this idea of LIHOP, that I don´t share.

It seems that if they get the warning signs that an attack is imminent, and they do nothing about it, just sit and wait for it to happen, then that, to you, is not LIHOP. And I don´t understand that kind of thinking.

And even if they hamper the investigations, and cut down investigations, whether it be investigations of the Bin Ladens, or investigations like "Able Danger" it seems that it doesn´t matter, because it doesn´t fit with your definition of LIHOP.

To your question : Have I ever had a serious discussion with anyone here who doesn´t agree with me? Yes, plenty.

Do I think they are all war apologists? No, but the wars have never been the subject. Until a thread a week or so ago, when I asked some who don´t agree with me how they feel about the wars, and the authoritarian turn.
But that is another subject.

The reason I asked you what your response would be to my argument against the wars, is because it seems to me that your thinking is sort of in an "academic bubble", where the wars etc is nowhere to be found. That there is a disconnect. And it seems to me that at every turn, you give them the benefit of a doubt. And it seems to me that you have to have a disconnect to give them the benefit of a doubt.

You say that you have the impression that I don´t care if I bring forth arguments that they allowed it to happen that are exaggerated. I do care about that.

So how is it? Are you convinced that nothing the Bush-administration did in the run up to 911 has any connection to the fact that they would benefit from a terrorist attack?

And are you convinced that the fact that they ignored the warnings, and sat down to wait for the attack, has got nothing to do with the fact that they would benefit from a terrorist attack?

Do you have any doubts? Are you giving them the benefit of a doubt?

Or do you have supicions that there is such a connection, but to you it doesn´t qualify as LIHOP?

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. OK, at least now I sort of get your point... sort of

It seems that if they get the warning signs that an attack is imminent, and they do nothing about it, just sit and wait for it to happen, then that, to you, is not LIHOP. And I don´t understand that kind of thinking.

Well, it depends.

You've probably heard stories of people who receive very explicit warnings that hurricanes or floods or fires threaten their survival unless they evacuate their homes immediately -- and who insist on staying in their homes. Does that count as purposeful suicide? Maybe in some cases it does. I don't think the answer is obvious.

I assume that you don't think that is analogous at all. My point is that one can't directly infer motivation from the mere fact of inaction. The assertion that "they" stood to gain from the attack doesn't make it a slam dunk.

There's also a huge analytical problem here, in the undifferentiated use of "they."

...because it seems to me that your thinking is sort of in an "academic bubble", where the wars etc is nowhere to be found. That there is a disconnect. And it seems to me that at every turn, you give them the benefit of a doubt.

I do think that when it comes to accusations of complicity in mass murder, it is both decent and prudent to ask for some persuasive evidence. If you think your evidence is persuasive, I don't understand why you fail to respond to the substantive criticisms.

As for the wars, I think your political analysis is pretty sketchy. The 9/11 attacks may have provided a pretext for a war in Afghanistan, if someone was looking for that, but framing the Taliban in a plot to assassinate W. probably would have done just as well. The attacks didn't provide the main pretext for the war in Iraq; if there was a LIHOP conspiracy, I don't understand why "they" couldn't have gone a bit farther and invented some plausible evidence implicating Saddam Hussein.

Are you convinced that nothing the Bush-administration did in the run up to 911 has any connection to the fact that they would benefit from a terrorist attack?...

First of all, you haven't demonstrated the premise, or even explained what it means. I don't assume that presidential administrations are unitary rational actors.

Second, I'm not especially convinced of anything. But, again, I don't find your evidence persuasive, and so far I'm not even convinced that you find it persuasive.

[k-robjoe]

66. You´re not convinced that I find it persuasive?

Let me put it this way :

To me it seems obvious that an administration that would have had nothing to gain from a terrorist attack, would not have been just sitting there doing nothing.

Such an administration would not have hampered investigations, and shut down investigations, in a time when the threat level went through the roof.

In my view, this in itself qualifies as LIHOP.

The way I see it, the 911 plot would not have been succesful, if it weren´t for this LIHOP of the Bush-administration.

[noise]

40. The simple question

What were they (Black, Rice, etc.) doing? For some reason these officials will not answer the question and instead hide behind national security classification. The media has responded to the evasion by going after Wikileaks.

We have a bunch of smug D.C. insiders who don't believe the public has a right to know anything. And then the debunkers come around and defend this bullshit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. that's an interesting construction

No, actually, it isn't interesting at all. That move was mildly interesting the first half-dozen times, but not over nine years later. You can always "win" an argument by moving the goalposts and inventing the other side, but how does that help?

[noise]

42. I'm not trying to win anything

All I'm doing is pointing out the sad state of affairs in relation to 9/11 transparency.

Rschop's analysis of CIA/FBI conduct deserves to be answered especially when one considers that al Qaeda is supposed to be the enemy. You may be thinking "but Rschop doesn't have the gravitas of CBS news." It is pretty sad that a citizen acting on his own did a better job of analysis than the entire mainstream media.

[SDuderstadt]

43. How do you know he...

did a "better job of analysis"?

I believe that he takes data from which one could draw a number of different conclusions, then arbitrarily rules out all the ones he doesn't like. His work seems rather shoddy to me.

[noise]

44. If it is so shoddy then it should be easy

for a government official to explain why he is wrong. When does Dina Corsi appear on the Piers Morgan show?

[zappaman]

45. "When does Dina Corsi appear on the Piers Morgan show?"

Why bother refuting something that only a handful of confused people believe?
Oh wait...I forgot that the 9/11 truth movement is "getting bigger every day."

:rofl:

[noise]

46. Why should citizens

expect for government officials to account for conduct that resulted in the death of over 3,000 people?

That is the actual question you are mocking.

[SDuderstadt]

48. What bullshit...

prove that "their conduct" resulted in the deaths of 3,000 people.

[noise]

50. Do you ask anything of power?

You know al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US for 20 months (discounting the brief time when al-Mihdhar left and reentered the country).

I have no idea why you like to suggest that anyone who still doesn't accept bullshit excuses is out of line.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Yeah, I ask lots of things of power, dude...

Have you ever heard the expression "hindsight is 20-20"? Do you understand that things are always easier to sort out after the fact?

No one is saying there weren't intelligence failures. But neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated MIHOP or LIHOP. But what conspiracists do is isolate bits and pieces out of a much larger whole, stripping them out of context in the process. The problem with you guys is that you want us to believe that no one in government is conscientious enough to care about getting to the bottom of things.

For nine years since 9/11, you guys have breathlessly announced smoking gun after bombshell, only to have both types of revelation turn to dust under hard questioning and, often, embarrassingly so for you guys.

Your credibility issues are no one's fault but your own. This is no "there", "there".

[SDuderstadt]

47. I don't think a single government official...

gives a shit what rschop has to say. I don't either. It not their or my job to disprove rschop's claims. It's HIS job to prove them.

And, he's nowhere near close.

[noise]

49. You have it backwards

This isn't about Rschop personally as if he is the arbiter of government accountability. People in important positions should account for their conduct.

[SDuderstadt]

51. No, dude...

YOU'VE got it backwards. Rschop is making specific allegations and has the burden of proof for them. Have you ever read what he has written carefully? Do you ever notice the logical errors he commits? Have you ever noticed the questions he can't or won't answer?

[noise]

52. His analysis isn't definitive as he is working with publicly available information

The reason for the lack of complete answers is because of the secrecy.

Would he have your full support if only he concluded that incompetence, outdated computer systems, turf battles, bureaucratic disconnect, etc. ruled the day?

Have you noticed the CIA's contradictory account? They claim they were on point in relation to sounding the alarm about al Qaeda yet they didn't tell the FBI about two ID'ed al Qaeda operatives until August of 2001. Have you ever noticed the CIA won't explain the contradiction?

[SDuderstadt]

54. "The reason for the lack of complete answers is the secrecy"

I'm willing to bet the lack of complete answers is more due to the sheer incompetence of the "9/11 was an inside job" brigade.

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. You know what I'd like to see?

I'd like to see you point out some of these "logical errors he commits" and some of these "questions he can't or won't answer", if they exist, and see you correct them with a proper rebuttal. Do you have it in you to do that? Keep in mind, though, that "oh bullshit" isn't a proper rebuttal.

Show us what you're made of, my friend. Are you the alpha dog debunker, or just a run of the mill screeching howler monkey running with the pack?

[SDuderstadt]

70. I have asked them repeatedly, Ghost...

Here's just one example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=304514&mesg_id=304882

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Dude...

do you see how your "answer" to question # 1 does not remotely answer the question?

[rschop]

74. re: do you see how your "answer" to question # 1 does not remotely answer the question?

The answer to question #1 was complete sarcasm, it obviously went way over your head. Next time I will add the sarcasm smilie so you will not miss the sarcasm. Sorry this was too deep for you, so you completely missed the humor!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

75. Now you claim your "answer" to question # 1...

was sarcasm??

Dude...is it starting to dawn on you why only a handful of people here take you seriously and your book is a dud?

[rschop]

86. e: Now you claim your "answer" to question # 1...was sarcasm??

I am sure everyone else on this forum got the sarcasm. The point which went way over your head, which in fact was as expected, was that Corsi's answer to the DOJ IG investigators made absolutely no sense. Her answer to the FBI agents working for the DOJ IG investigation into the murder of 3000 people on 9/11, does not explain her request for the release in any way! If you did not get this you are way beyond help!

Now is it starting to dawn on you why no one at this forum takes you seriously, DUDE!

ONE NOTE: In all of the time you have been on this forum, you have posted absolutely nothing but nasty, snarky, obnoxious, ridiculous, and absolutely asinine posts intended to do nothing more than ridicule other people on this forum who want to have a seriously debate about why the attacks on 9/11 were allowed to take place, and to find out why there are still so many unanswered questions about the inexplicable conduct of the people in the FBI and CIA who had, it is now clear deliberately, allowed the attacks on 9/111 to take place.

I have never seen even one single post of yours that has ever displayed even the slightest degree of intelligent thought or serious research. "JUST PURE UNADULTARTED HORESHIT".

Again, is it starting to dawn on you why no one at this forum takes you seriously, DUDE!

[SDuderstadt]

87. Dude...

you just hate it that you're asked logical questions and the logical flaws in your "argument" are pointed out. That's why you respond by flailing about as you do.

Serious question: do you deny quote-mining the DOJ IG report? Why do you leave out the parts that contradict your claims, dude?

Bonus question: is English not your native language? Oh, I almost forgot: why is your book tanking?

[rschop]

94. re; you just hate it that you're asked logical questions and the logical flaws in your "argument" ar

If you ever had a logical questions and a logical flaw, you have never pointed it out. Nothing you post has any logic.

In fact it is clear that you have never even bothered to read the DOJ IG report, so you are clearly talking about a subject which you are complete ignorant and have no knowledge of. You are just trying to blow smoke up every ones ass.

Your pathetic attempt to claim you have any logic is complete nonsense, since you display no knowledge of even the simplest facts in the DOIJ IG report, like who is Donna.

That for the Christ's sake is perhaps the dumbest question I have ever come across, and clearly demonstrates your absolutist complete ignorance of almost anything to do with 9/11.

re Serious question: do you deny quote-mining the DOJ IG report?

How would you know? You have no knowledge of this DOJ IG report as you have just stated, so you are talking about a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Just another one of your stupid, obnoxious, completely retarded posts DUDE!

[SDuderstadt]

96. Dude...

now you're getting silly. Wait...you've been pretty silly since the start. You won't directly answer my questions, because they completely deflate your "conclusions". In one of your answers, you admitted that you did not know Dina Corsi's state of mind. You DO understand that without knowing her state of mind, you can't conclude that she did anything deliberately or intentionally in the manner you suggest, right?

Let that sink in for a minute. Hint: you just sank your own argument, dude. Do you grasp that? It's always fun to watch you blow in for one of your drive-bys, blustering and flailing away because, when confronted with questions you cannot answer, you just keep asserting your claim over and over. Too funny.

Simple question: why is your "book" a flop, dude?

[rschop]

100. re: you admitted that you did not know Dina Corsi's state of mind

You must have me confused with someone else, someone who is a mind reader.

How utterly and completely moronic.

My conclusion that she deliberately shut down Bongardt’s investigation was based on the facts not by reading her mind.

The fact that she committed crimes when she shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi do not depend on her state of mind:

"Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) "is based on the federal interest of protecting the integrity of potential federal investigations by ensuring that transfers of information to federal law enforcement ... relating to the possible commission of federal offenses be truthful and unimpeded." United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1250 (11th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Applewhaite, 195 F.3d 679, 688 (3d Cir.1999) ("It is the integrity of the process, and the safety of those involved in it that Congress was seeking to protect in enacting § 1512."). Although a defendant must have engaged in misleading conduct with the intent to "hinder, delay, or prevent" communication with a federal law enforcement officer, the statute makes clear that "no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance... that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g)(2). As the Third Circuit has observed, the statute instead requires only "that the government establish that the defendants had the intent to influence an investigation that happened to be federal." Applewhaite, 195 F.3d at 687; see also United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 681 (1st Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407, 422 (5th Cir.1999)"

I guess you concluded that the tooth fairy made her do it, made her shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Jesus Christ how GOD DAMN dumb can your posts get.

It's always fun to watch you blow in for one of your drive-bys, blustering and flailing away because, when confronted with questions you cannot answer.

How would you even begin to ask even a semi-intelligent question with respect to the DOJ IG report and 9/11 when you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject you are asking about. You are just blathering PURE HORSE manure!

The questions you have asked so far in your blogs are not only pathetically stupid, but show when you claimed you read the DOJ IG report it was obvious you had never had. What does that tell everyone on this blog about you and your pathetic, obnoxious, snarky POSTS DUDE!

[SDuderstadt]

101. Dude...

as I stated before, I read the DOJ IG's report a long time ago, well before I had ever heard of you. I have also read the CIA IG report, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report, including all MFR'S that have been released, the NIST reports, as well as the ASCE BPAT'S, plus many, many others.

Like I said, dude...it's always fun to watch you drop in, lose your cool, then start spluttering. Of course, I would too if my book was tanking. Try to get a good might's sleep. You can resume sputtering in the morning. Too funny.

[k-robjoe]

102. I left the thread

yesterday, after my post #88.

And when I come back today, it´s all about "horse shit" and "manure".

And I can´t be bothered to read it.

This is a very good example of how, if you get all up in flames about SDuderstadt, and start writing in the same manner manner that he does, he wins.

Since people like myself, can´t be bothered with reading any more of it.

And there is a very big risk that you will get yourself banned.

[k-robjoe]

76. Book

What´s the title of your book?

[rschop]

84. re: What´s the title of your book?

The title of the book, now that the question has been asked, is "Prior Knowledge of 9/11". It is probably now the most complete book written to date on the attacks on 9/11 with respect to the interactions between the CIA and FBI prior to these attacks.

My prior posts explain how I was able put this information together. It took several years and going through thousands and thousands of pages of official US government reports on the investigations of the attacks on 9/11. I also used a small number of other non-government information when I was able to corroborate the accuracy and correctness of this information. Much of the information in the book has been given to the FBI, the Joint Inquiry Committee investigators and the 9/11 Commission.

The book is 670 pages long and includes many if not most of the actual official documents from the FBI and CIA that conclusively prove that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents that they had subjugated, had deliberately and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. This book also has the evidence that shows how this information had been obfuscated by both the 9/11 Commission report and the DOJ IG report.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k-robjoe]

88. Quote

Came across this quote :

"When Corsi said that he (Bongardt) had to destroy all of the information he had on Mihdhar he said:

"Why do you think they are here, do you think they are going to FUCKING Disney Land?" "

[rschop]

89. RE: "Why do you think they are here, do you think they are going to FUCKING Disney Land?" "

This is clear unassailable evidence that the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing knew immediately when Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US they were here to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans.

In spite of their concerns for the safety of the Americans people Corsi, Middleton, Wilshire, and all of the other CIA and FBI HQ mangers continued their efforts to shut down Bongardt’s investigation before he had time to find the photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur and realize that his Cole bombing investigation had been criminally obstructed numerous times.

All of the people involved in this criminal obstruction were clearly aware that their efforts to shut down the only FBI criminal investigation that could have stopped the al Qaeda terrorists in time to head off this attack, had to know that as a direct result of their efforts to shut down Bongradt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, thousands of Americans were just about to be brutally murdered by these al Qaeda terrorists.

What is almost beyond belief is that there are actually people on this forum, defending the very people who, it is now clear had deliberately and intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11.

WAY BEYOND BELIEF!

[SDuderstadt]

92. Another deplorable rhetorical trick...

dude. Instead of acknowledging that reasonable people can disagree on facts and conclusions, instead you poison the debate by demonizing and smearing those of us who don't buy your bullshit as complicity and, essentially, being accessories after the fact. Thanks for helping make DU more like FreeRepublic, dude.

Despicable.

[SDuderstadt]

77. In your "answer" to question #1...

who is "Donna"?

And, by the way, it's 'prima facie", not "prima fascia". I think you're way out of your league, dude.

[eomer]

78. "Donna" = FBI Agent Dina Corsi

The DOJ OIG report that I referred you to previously (and that rschop is excerpting from in that answer) uses fake names for the various FBI and CIA agents. They refer to FBI Agent Dina Corsi as "Donna".

Read pages 303 through 312 of the http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/final.pdf">OIG report and you will find the events that rschop and I have been pointing out to you.

(By the way, how did you reach a conclusion on these matters without knowing this?)

[SDuderstadt]

79. Because I read it a while ago...

didn't feel like plowing through it again, rather than simply ask the poster who cited it. Duh.

[rschop]

90. re: Because I read it a while ago...didn't feel like plowing through it again, rather than simply

ask the poster who cited it. Duh.

That has to be the single dumbest answer in the history of the DU forum and just proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

You are speaking from total and complete ignorance.

Why do you continue to post comments when it is now obvious to everyone else on this forum, that you are totally and completely ignorant of this subject?

It is now obvious that your conclusions have been just based on total ignorance and PURE HORSESHIT!

[SDuderstadt]

93. Dude...

Do you think when you capitalize something, it makes it more believable? Similarly, given the large volume of things I read and have read, do you honestly think you've proven something? Do you think it might have something to do with trying to follow your excerpting, in which you interweave quoted material from the report without clearly distinguishing it from your own words, in which Corsi is referred to alternately by her real name and a pseudonym? If it confused someone like myself who HAS read the report, what do you think it did to someone who has not read it? Do you think you might have avoided this confusion with some sort of disclaimer?

It always cracks me up how you blame others for your unclear writing style.

[k-robjoe]

80. Two replies

Could the answer to the "first question" be that Corsi / "Donna" got two replies? The official reply, that said she was free to share the information. And an unofficial reply from some person higher in ranks than herself, that said : Don´t share it.

[SDuderstadt]

81. I would suggest everyone read...

the DOJ IG's report for themselves and see how rschop is quote-mining it. I doubt seriously if many reading it will arrive ay the same conclusions he does.

[rschop]

82. RE: Who is "Donna"

First according to the dictionary the meaning of "prima fascia" is given below:

"prima fascia".

In layman's terms, it means "at face value."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term in the legal sense is "prima facie", a Latin term which means "at first look", at first sight. This term basically means that certain cases could be perceived to be open and shut cases due to evidence presented before a trial.

The term I used was in the layman’s sense, the legal term is "prima facie". I did not use this term in the legal sense as I was not in a court of law where legal terms are used.

In your "answer" to question #1...
" who is Donna"?

There again it shows that you never even bothered to read the DOJ IG report, when you claim that you have.

"Donna" is the DOJ IG alias for FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi, she is sometimes referred to as "Jane". She is the FBI HQ agent who set up the meeting in New York City on June 11, 2001, between the CIA and the FBI Cole bombing investigators, at the request of Tom Wilshire, the former Deputy Chief of the CIA bin Laden unit. At this meeting she presented three photos of Mihdhar that she had been given by Wilshire, taken at Kuala Lumpur. It is obvious that when CIA officer Clark Shannon asked Bongardt and some of his team if they could recognize anyone in the photos of Mihdhar, and one photo only had Mihdhar and Hazmi in it, a fact that the CIA was well aware of, that this meeting had been set up to do nothing more than find out if the Cole bombing investigators had found out about Mihdhar and Hazmi in their search for Khallad, the master mind of the Cole bombing. At the time of this meeting in New York, the CIA also had a photo of Khallad at this Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, and wanted to keep this information completely secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

According to the DOJ IG report, the CIA was aware that Khallad had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, when he was identified in a Kuala Lumpur photo on January 4, 2001 by the FBI/CIA joint Source. Again according to the DOJ IG report, Wilshire was aware of this same information prior to the New York meeting and then had the photographic proof of this information on July 13, 2001.

NOTE: No one with the 9/11 Commission or DOJ IG investigation has ever explained how a very high level FBI manager, Tom Wilshire, could know that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the murder of 17 US sailors, and then not only hide this information from the FBI Cole investigators, which in itself is a horrific crime, but allow Corsi and Middleton, who worked under Wilshire, to shut down this FBI investigation of these al Qaeda terrorists when Wilshire knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, and even knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack!

Corsi was aware by at least August 22, 2001 that the "Source" had identified Khallad at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and her boss Rod Middleton on August 30, 2001 when the CIA finally for the first time sent a cable to FBI HQ and Middleton with Khallad's photo from Kuala Lumpur and stating that Khallad had been positively identified at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing.

All of these people keep this information completely secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. Corsi and Middleton, clearly acting under orders from Wilshire, shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi with the excuse that the NSA information in Corsi’s EC had not been approved by the NSA for transfer to the Cole investigators when it had the day before. But since Corsi had admitted on August 29, 2001 in a email to Bongardt, that "if substantial evidence of a crime is found, by Mihdhar and Hazmi, this information will be passed over the wall," and she and Middleton already knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, the NSA release was actually superfluous, and unnecessary. When she and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, they, Wilshire, and the CIA and other FBI HQ managers directing their efforts, knew that this was going to result in the al Qaeda terrorists murdering thousands of Americans.

Bongardt and the American people were never made aware even after the attacks on 9/11 that Corsi had admitted to the DOJ IG investigators, on p 302 of the DOJ IG report, that she was aware by al least August 22, 2001 that the CIA had been hiding the photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur. She also was aware of the fact he had been positively identified with Mihdhar and Hazmi at that meeting planning the Cole bombing, and even knew that the CIA was hiding this photo so the FBI Cole investigators would never have the information they needed and were desperately searching for to start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. The FBI Cole investigators wanted to start an investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi to prevent the attacks they were sure these terrorists were going to carry out inside of the US.

There is no way anyone can wash this away, with “the evidence is not compelling” or the “evidence does not convince me” when the evidence from the government’s own investigations and reports is now completely over whelming.

[SDuderstadt]

83. More of your bullshit...

dude. There is no listing in the dictionary for "prima fascia". If there is, please link to it.

Secondly, as I have explained before, I read the DOJ IG's report a long time ago, well before you ever cited it. That's why I asked YOU who "Donna" is, rather than plow through it again.

However, I did begin to re-read it, because upon reading it initially, I certainly did not take from it the conclusions you claim to be fact. In fact, I invite everyone to read it for themselves, so they can witness your shameless quote-mining and see for themselves all the exculpatory information you conveniently leave out, dude.

It's no wonder your book is tanking.

[rschop]

97. re: More of your bullshit....

dude. There is no listing in the dictionary for "prima fascia". If there is, please link to it.

GOOD GOD!, Google it if you think you know how to use GOOGLE! "no listing in the dictionary!" GOD!, How moronic!

Secondly, as I have explained before, I read the DOJ IG's report a long time ago, well before you ever cited it. That's why I asked YOU who "Donna" is, rather than plow through it again.

That is the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard. No wonder no one believes your HORSESHIT anymore DUDE!

[SDuderstadt]

99. Dude...

There is NO listing in the dictionary for "prima fascia". If you type that in, it redirects to "prima facie". If you Google it, the only hits it gets are to other instances where people can't spell either, pointing out in the process that it's "prima facie", precisely like I pointed out. Too funny.

As far as the "Donna" issue, do you deny that your poorly written prior post referred to Corsi both by her real name and the pseudonym? Why do you think everyone else is to blame for your unclear writing, dude? Too funny. Oh, also, too bad about your "book".

[rschop]

91. KICK!

[rschop]

95. re: I have asked them repeatedly, Ghost...

Answers to your questions:

1) If Corsi had been trying to "criminally obstruct" any investigation, why did she initially request permission to share the lead information with a criminal agent?

The answer for this question was right in the DOJ IG report, and in spite of your claim that you have read this report, your question is prima fascia proof that either you have never read this report, or you have no reading comprehension or you have ......

From p 304 DOJ IG report:
“On August 27, Donna (Dina Corsi)requested permission through the NSA representative to the FBI to pass to the FBI agents working on the Cole investigation the information associating Mihdhar with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to al Qaeda activities. Donna (Dina Corsi) told the OIG that she thought that the NSA information on Mihdhar “could be useful to the Cole criminal investigators”, even if the Mihdhar search remained an intelligence investigation.”

She thought the FBI criminal investigators, who had wanted to investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and who thought these terrorists were in the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands, might find this NSA information useful.

But when these FBI Cole bombing investigators accidentally got her EC and Bongardt calls her on August 28, 2001, “saying this is very useful information”, she tells him that since the information in her EC came from the NSA, this information required a written release because of the NSA caveat, and he has to immediately destroy this information, and that despite his over whelming concern that he has the only team of experienced people already in place to start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi he is forbidden to start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi is clearly implying that she had not been given this release when she already had this release. But this release was already

2) When Corsi initially obtained permission, how do you know she felt the permission was correct? Do you somehow claim to know her state of mind?

She never said to the FBI DOJ IG investigators that she thought this release was anything but correct, and her answer gives a very clear view of her state of mind. I don’t claim to know more than is in the DOJ IG report. Only Corsi would really know what is in her state of mind, and why she shut down Bongardt’s investigation when she knew it would stop Bongardt from preventing the al Qaeda attacks that the CIA and FBI HQ knew were about to take place, an al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ knew would and did murder thousands of Americans.

3) If the permission was, in fact, erroneous, what would have been the consequence had a defense attorney objected that "the wall" had been breached? Do you think whatever trial court the case might have wound up before would have admitted the information simply because someone made a mistake in interpreting "the wall"? How do you know that Corsi was not so conscientious and determined to thwart a plot, that she erred on the side of caution, but made a mistake nonetheless?

The permission wasn’t erroneous so this first question is completely asinine on its very surface.

How do you know that Corsi was not so conscientious and determined to thwart a plot, that she erred on the side of caution, but made a mistake nonetheless?, Corsi says in August 29, 2001 email to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, that : “when substantial evidence is found of a crime, this information will be passed over the wall.” But Corsi already knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were connected to the al Qaeda terrorists who had taken part in the east Africa bombings, a crime, and knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing yet another crime. So Corsi admits that she had absolutely no legal right to shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Midhar and Hazmi.

4) If, as you and rschop (or, at least, rschop) claim, this matter was "criminally covered up", how were we able to find out about it?

Again after I have clearly stated many times how I out this together, either you have no reading comprehension at all or sever dementia.

I said I had aggregated all of the US official government reports on 9/11, including the Joint Inquiry Report, the 9/11 Commission report, the DOJ IG report, with other non-government reports that had critical information, but which could be verified as to their correctness, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, and the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan from the Lawrence Wright article in the July 10, 2006 issue of the NEW Yorker, information which was also in his Looming Tower. I also further confirmed this information by using the Defenses Exhibits from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

I built a very detailed time line of this information and then compared the different reports point by point to make sure I had the most accurate information. It turns out that not a single one of these government reports was completely accurate, each one had left out critical information to obfuscate and to hide the real account of 9/11. But it was possible by aggregating all of these reports, however to finally put this entire account back together again. It turns out that what was missing in one report in the end was actually almost always available in another report. One of the obvious important pieces of information that had been left out of these reports was the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan. Without combining the account of Ali Soufan with the other reports, it would not have been possible to put this story back together again. Oddly enough almost every one of my conclusions were the exact same conclusions reached by the DOJ IG.

Even though the 9/11 Commission and DOJ IG investigations criminally covered this up, by combining and aggregating all of these reports there was more than enough information to prove that the information on Kuala Lumpur was withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy numerous times, by both the CIA and the FBI HQ and that this was then criminally covered up by the 9/11 Commission and even the DOJ Inspector General in his investigation of the FBI. Since the CIA and FBI HQ had no legal right to withhold material information from the FBI investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors they had no right to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and they knew it.

When Corsi’s EC came over to the New York FBI office, on August 28, 2001, she did not have any information on the identification of Khallad at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, even though according to her testimony to the DOJ IG investigators she had been aware that the CIA had a photo of Khallad taken at Kuala Lumpur since at least August 22, 2001.

By the way the fact that you can not stand to be called out on your PURE HORSESHIT shows you can dish it but but you can not take it in return. So you cry to the MODS. How pathetic!

[SDuderstadt]

98. "Oddly enough almost every one of my conclusions were the exact same conclusions reached by...

by the DOJ IG".

Dude...do you realize you just sank your own argument again? How can you simultaneously claim that the various entities worked to cover-up the truth, then turn around and say the DOJ IG reached the same conclusions you did? Too funny.

BTW, I hope you've convinced enough people to actually read the DOJ IG's report so they can see how you quote-mined and cherry-picked the information, omitting all the evidence that contradictos your claims and theories. Why did you do that, dude?

I also believe you owe all of us a real explanation of why you sat on your "research" and said nothing to the FBI until AFTER 3000 people were killed You also owe us an apology for initially claiming you had affidavits from your employees confirming you warned them of the attacks in advance then, when challenged for evidence of that, you then claimed you had given your only copies to the FBI. What kind of researcher would do something so stupid?

Too funny, dude. You may commence spluttering

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. "All I'm doing is..."

No, noise, obviously that isn't all you're doing. Don't kid yourself.

[k-robjoe]

57. "Inventing the other side"

In a previous post, you wrote :

"You can always "win" an argument by moving the goalposts and inventing the other side, but how does that help?"

Inventing the other side. I took that to mean that he is inventing that anyone here is opposed to his demand for transparency.

Inventing that anyone here would go in between when Noise points the finger at Bush demanding transparency, and say ; "you have no right to demand transparency".

But it´s not an invention, is it?

[SDuderstadt]

58. "you have no right to demand transparency"

Another total strawman.

Sigh.

[k-robjoe]

59. The wording

Maybe the wording was wrong. But maybe some readers still get my point.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Point to anyone who has said...

anything remotely like that.

[k-robjoe]

61. I will make my point clearer

Noise wrote :

"What were they (Black, Rice, etc.) doing? For some reason these officials will not answer the question and instead hide behind national security classification."

OnTheOtherHand wrote that Noise was moving the goalposts, and inventing the other side.

And I took this to mean that he figured that there is nobody here who is going to argue with Noise, if all he wants is for the government to answer questions like that.

[Make7]

62. Perhaps OnTheOtherHand was responding to the following part of that post:

 

noise wrote:

We have a bunch of smug D.C. insiders who don't believe the public has a right to know anything. And then the debunkers come around and defend this bullshit.

OnTheOtherHand replied:

You can always "win" an argument by moving the goalposts and inventing the other side, but how does that help?

 

[noise]

63. The key issue is that we cannot get basic answers almost 10 years later

Yet the debunkers continue to say "Where is the evidence? It's been almost 10 years."

I don't understand why the government gets a pass while citizens who want answers are ridiculed. I see this and it comes across as authoritarian.

[SDuderstadt]

64. I KNEW you'd work the word...

"authoritarian" into your post somehow.

Dude, if you really think you're onto something, contact your congressmember or Senator. Or, do you think they're "in on it", too?

[zappaman]

65. "authoritarian"

DING DING DING!!!
What took you so long?

[k-robjoe]

67. Seen from Europe

Seen from Europe ( Norway ), if we go back like 7 or 8 years, I would have questions like : Why should we lend any support to the US in their war adventures? Seems to me that we must at least demand answers to some very important questions about the US governments inaction ( and shutting down of anti-terror-investigations ) in the months leading up to 911.

And it seems to me that the response I would get here is that no, you have no reason to ask any such questions.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. wow, you have a lot of pluck... no, spunk... no...

Oh, here we go. Nerve. You have a lot of nerve.

Who in hell came out against "transparency"?

I would have thought my capacity for disappointment on this forum had been cauterized a few years ago, but I guess not.

[k-robjoe]

71. I changed the wording

didn´t I, to make it clear what my point was.
Your "capacity for disappointment"... This is evasion, and really disappointing. I thought my capacity had been cauterized etc...

So where do you stand on this?

Are you supporting anyone, demanding answers about 911? Any particular questions?

[BeFree]

28. No difference

They wanted it to happen and then they milked it for all they could. Thank gawd the people finally wised up and shut them down. Otherwise they would have nuked Iran already. I think it was forums like this one - times 100 - that showed them the stop sign. We were the protesters and we managed a small victory over the gawd damndest bunch of criminals that ever took over DC.

[greyl]

31. Grey's Law.

(Not to be confused with grey slaw)

Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grey%27s%20Law

edit: switched link

[rschop]

22. re: I assume there must be better criticisms of the 9/11 Commission than this one.

See post #18.

[SDuderstadt]

23. And, while you're at it...

don't forget to read rschop's book, which is buried somewhere in the bowels of Amazon.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. ;)

I wouldn't mind reading it, but I'm not presently prepared to pay for it.

[BeFree]

29. Just read the snips here

If you did that you'd have a greater understanding of how 9/11 was allowed to happen.

Thank you, Robert. You are a true patriot!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. I have done

On my reading of #18, Blee, Black and Tenet went to the White House in July to tell Condi Rice and Richard Clarke that an al Qaeda attack in America was imminent -- and that supposedly supports the argument that they were near the heart of a plot to allow the attack to happen. That's subtle, but not necessarily compelling.

I actually do read and think about the posts here. I don't assume that I know the answers in advance, or really ever.

[CJCRANE]

33. "...does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan."

The fourth paragraph you quoted contradicts your analysis. Here it is:

The FBI's translator, a former Iranian police colonel named Behrooz Sarshar, does not recall any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan. But Sarshar, then a career FBI employee assigned to the translation section of the bureau's Washington field office, does remember the Asset saying the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe, and also that the terrorist-pilots were "under training.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. not so much

Sarshar's not remembering any mention of a hijacking to Afghanistan doesn't rebut the unnamed official's recollection that it was mentioned. But assuming that the official got it wrong, we're still left with "the attacks might take place in the U.S. or Europe" -- pretty damn vague.

Now Sibel Edmonds says that Sarshar repeatedly said that in fact, the Asset said that his sources told him an attack was being planned for the United States. That could be true, if Sarshar for some reason 'dialed down' his comments to the Tribune reporter, and/or if the Tribune story misrepresented what Sarshar had said. At any rate, it's hard to square the Tribune account with Edmonds's account.

[eomer]

103. As it turns out, the Chicago Tribune was lying.

Repeating your excerpt from the article, which you took as credible and didn't want to see the underlying statement from Sarshar because, "what would be the point":

According to Sarshar, the two FBI agents who interviewed the Asset were not visibly surprised by his report. It was his impression, Sarshar said, that the agents weren't sure whether to believe their informant, and that even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true.

As it turns out, the point would have been to get to the real truth instead of the sham the Tribune article was trying to put over. Here is an excerpt from Sarshar's report, the one you didn't care to see:

The agents called me up on my extension and asked me to escort them inside the language unit. I walked them over to my desk, where we sat, compared notes, and finalized and coordinated our report. They had me make several copies of the translation report for them to be submitted with their report. I took it upon myself to make a set of copies of their 302 forms for my own file; my own record. At the end of the day, around five o’clock, they submitted the 302 forms and my translation report. They submitted the warning report to SAC Frields; with a note, a yellow stick-up, on the top saying ‘VERY URGENT: Kamikaze Pilots’

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-02/fbi-kamikaze-pilots-case

So they submitted a warning report the very same day to the head of the counterterrorism unit of the Washington field office, with a yellow stick-up saying ‘VERY URGENT: Kamikaze Pilots’. Does that sound like they "were not visibly surprised by his report, ... weren't sure whether to believe their informant"?

And what about the part where the Tribune claims that "even the Asset wasn't convinced his information was true"? Here is what Sarshar says the asset actually said about that, which is the opposite of what the Tribune claimed he said:

‘If I were you guys, I’d take this extremely seriously. If I had the same position I had in SAVAK, I’d put all my men on this around the clock. I can vouch for my sources; their reliability. Make sure you put this in the hands of the top guys in Counterterrorism.’

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-02/fbi-kamikaze-pilots-case

Taking the word of the corporate media and not being inquisitive about the actual facts as opposed to what they tell us is not a very effective way to be well-informed, especially on the subject of 9/11.

[rschop]

18. re: additional information obtained by the 9/11 Commission

According to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA already had information on June 12, 2001 that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was sending a significant number of al Qaeda terrorists into the US to link up with a number of other al Qaeda terrorists already inside of the US, in order to take part in a al Qaeda terrorist attack. The CIA had already been given the second part of the Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s Bojinka plot to hijack a number of US airliners and crash these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, the Capitol build and the CIA headquarters. Since at that time KSM already had a 2 million dollar reward on his head this information would have immediately gone to the very top of the CIA.

But Cofer Black, head of the CTC section said this information got stove piped in the "Rendition" unit at the CIA. But we now know that the "Rendition" unit was under the CTC and was headed, as we find out from a Harpers article, by Richard Earl Blee. This is the very same Richard Earl Blee who headed the CIA Bin Laden unit, Alex Station, also under the CTC, and who was close enough to CTC head Cofer Black and Director of the CIA, George Tenet, that he accompanied them to the White House on July 10, 2001 to tell Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. So it is inconceivable that this information on what targets the al Qaeda terrorists were about to attack did not immediately get to both Black and Tenet.

On July 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 Blee with the concurrence of his higher level managers refused to give Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the CIA Usama bin Laden unit, permission to pass the Kuala Lumpur information to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his FBI Cole bombing investigators. Wilshire had been moved over to the CIA in mid-May 2001 to become Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit. At this time the CIA knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Walid Bin Attash, aka Khallad, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, actually planning the bombing of the USS Cole that had killed 17 US sailors.

Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi were told on August 22, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew immediately that they were in the US in order to take part in this attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

FBI Agent Dina Corsi was the FBI HQ agent Wilshire had used to set up a meeting on June 11, 2001 with the CIA and the Cole bombing investigators to find out what these investigators knew about the Kuala Lumpur meeting and if they knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing. At that meeting Corsi presented the FBI Cole investigators the three photos of Mihdhar given to her by Wilshire, taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and CIA officer Clark Shannon asked the investigators if they recognized anyone in these photos. When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt said he did not and asked what did the people in these photos have to do with the Cole bombing, he was told by FBI Agent Dina Corsi that she and the CIA would not give them any information on these people due to "the wall", in spite of the fact that the wall never applied to this information.

Blee Black and Tenet continued to allow Wilshire and FBI Agent Dina Corsi, to hide this information from these investigators even after the CIA was told on August 23, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and even knew they were in the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack. The CIA and FBI HQ then allowed Corsi , to shut down Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when they knew that shutting down this investigation would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks that were to take place on 9/11.

[noise]

30. Link to Frields 9/11 Commission MFR

Frields 9/11 Commission MFR

(The link to the PDF file is at the bottom)

This MFR has been declassified but not yet posted on NARA's 9/11 site.

Frields repeatedly refers to the reporting as routine yet Sarshar's newly posted statement is quite different:

At the end of the day, around five o’clock, they submitted the 302 forms and my translation report. They submitted the warning report to SAC Frields; with a note, a yellow stick-up, on the top saying ‘VERY URGENT: Kamikaze Pilots’

Frields' conduct tracks with the conduct of FBI UBLU agent/analyst Dina Corsi who went out of her way to obstruct the search for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. It sure looks like FBI agents/officials were given bizarre orders when it came to al Qaeda operatives. I thought al Qaeda was the enemy.