ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th August 2012, 08:41 AM   #41
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by fess View Post
No, what annoys me is that there are people like you still dragging this MUCK around the internet claiming that thousands upon thousands of people were involved in covering up the most horrendous crime that ever happened in this country. Yet not one person of any consequence has come forward to substantiate this claim. If you were a person of honor, why haven’t you brought your information to the proper officials so that justice can be done?



Why haven’t you brought this information to the attention of those families? I’m sure they would be interested, especially the families of 346 of my brothers and sisters who perished on that day. I’m sure they will sympathize with you.
I was actually going to say something along these same lines. He verbally assaults our "side" for not listening to his ramblings and doing something about it. Trying to paint us like the bad guys because we don't believe the trash he's spouting.

Yet, instead of actually doing anything that would make progress towards "exposing the baddies" he doesn't absolutely nothing. Spamming a forum repeatedly, attempting to chastise us for not seeing through the lines.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:24 AM   #42
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by fess View Post
No, what annoys me is that there are people like you still dragging this MUCK around the internet claiming that thousands upon thousands of people were involved in covering up the most horrendous crime that ever happened in this country. Yet not one person of any consequence has come forward to substantiate this claim. If you were a person of honor, why haven’t you brought your information to the proper officials so that justice can be done?



Why haven’t you brought this information to the attention of those families? I’m sure they would be interested, especially the families of 346 of my brothers and sisters who perished on that day. I’m sure they will sympathize with you.
That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.

Last edited by paloalto; 15th August 2012 at 10:39 AM.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:36 AM   #43
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
According to page 301 of the Department of Justice Inspector General report, FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi knew had been told on August 22, 2001 that the CIA had the photograph of Walid bin Attash, reported to be the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, that had apparently been taken at the probable January 5-8, 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting.

She already knew had previously been told that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar had been at that same probable al Qaeda planning meeting and at this point that all three had been could conceivably have all been involved in planning the bombing of the USS Cole which was reported to have likely taken place at that meeting. Planning the bombing of the USS Cole was a major Federal crime.

So, if she happened to remember all this information, and find it all sufficiently credible, and had not received any false information to the contrary that muddied the picture, and was not distracted by other matters that appeared equally or more important, she knew might reasonably have concluded that there was no reason that this information should not immediately go to the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team. She never gave this information to Bongardt or anyone else on his team.

You asked recently in another thread what hindsight had to do with the matter. I have modified your quote above to remove the certainty, conclusiveness, and specificity of the narrative that can only be obtained by hindsight, to present the scenario in a manner more similar to how it would have appeared to those participating in it.

Everyone who works with imperfect sources of information and makes decisions based on information in the real world -- and that includes not only "spooks" but also journalists, historians, scientists, and business managers -- can see how your versions of these narratives apply hindsight to produce a distorted and misleading picture. This is, in fact, a common enough behavior that there is a very well-known office jargon term for it: "Monday morning quarterbacking." It's exactly equivalent to a water cooler blowhard saying, "The quarterback had a clear line of sight to Jenkins who was obviously wide open in the end zone. So why didn't he throw to him? He must have been throwing the game!"

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:42 AM   #44
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
No offence until a crime is committed

What they should have done is arrested the suspects and charged them with holding. A passport, airline ticket and some box cutters.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 10:51 AM   #45
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You asked recently in another thread what hindsight had to do with the matter. I have modified your quote above to remove the certainty, conclusiveness, and specificity of the narrative that can only be obtained by hindsight, to present the scenario in a manner more similar to how it would have appeared to those participating in it.

Everyone who works with imperfect sources of information and makes decisions based on information in the real world -- and that includes not only "spooks" but also journalists, historians, scientists, and business managers -- can see how your versions of these narratives apply hindsight to produce a distorted and misleading picture. This is, in fact, a common enough behavior that there is a very well-known office jargon term for it: "Monday morning quarterbacking." It's exactly equivalent to a water cooler blowhard saying, "The quarterback had a clear line of sight to Jenkins who was obviously wide open in the end zone. So why didn't he throw to him? He must have been throwing the game!"

Respectfully,
Myriad
She had photographs of these three al Qaeda terrorists taken at this meeting. In addition, she also had reports that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting from the NSA and had evidence from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Walid bin Attash had been the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

If you ignore information of this sort, because no amount of information will satisfy you, you send 3000 people to their deaths.

This information was available at least three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11.

Corsi not only had information by August 22, 2001, that the CIA had the photo of Walid bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, but knew that the CIA was keeping this photo secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:00 AM   #46
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,974
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post

But this brings up a very interesting point.

Why are people on this forum defending the few criminal in the US government that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place?
Who's defending who, from what?

The only one that can be accused of sheltering (whoever) is you. Why do you refuse to bring this to the proper authorities? We're not stopping you.

Can you explain your inaction? Do you think we are the right "authority" to bring this to?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:36 AM   #47
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Good outline Oz, bookmarked.
Thanks. I occasionally set aside my engineering to dust off the legal part of my brain.

And, surprise surprise, paloalto wont put money where mouth is.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 11:52 AM   #48
mrbusdriver
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 87
http://thecitizen.com/node/6419

Here is at least part of the coordination problem between NSA and FBI...
mrbusdriver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 02:50 PM   #49
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.
The inter-agency withholding of information prior to 9/11 had been going on for years. And you didn’t know this? Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t a main topic discussed in grade school now was it?

I have no doubt that a certain amount of this practice is still going on to this day.

The boat that you say I missed sank many years ago, but people like you are still trying to fill it with ping pong balls trying to raise it again.

I guess you can say that I have nothing, being that neither you nor your predecessors had anything to begin with.
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 03:12 PM   #50
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
What is your agenda?

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS TO DEFEND THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HAD ALLOWED THESES ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE!
I don't think anyone here has ever defended al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.
Yep. Any number of times I've asked him to explain what crime and he's never replied.

Quote:
Truther Nonsense Trickery would not even get into court let alone survive for any time before one of the procedural challenges had you thrown out.
But it's a CRIME I tell you, a CRIME!
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:37 PM   #51
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
I don't think anyone here has ever defended al Qaeda.


Yep. Any number of times I've asked him to explain what crime and he's never replied.


But it's a CRIME I tell you, a CRIME!
I have already demonstrated many times that the CIA and FBI HQ had absolutely no legal right to either withhold information from the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing investigation, or shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and even Senator Carl Levin came to this exact same conclusion.

US Federal law based on court cases and impeachment of Federal officials the following are considered high crimes;

Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct

According to the following Federal courts have stated 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."

Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 provides:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed
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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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)"

This makes clear that it is a Federal crime to engage in misleading conduct to withhold material information from any Federal law enforcement officer.

Claiming that Bongardt could not have the NSA information when clearly he could, is a Federal crime.

Knowledge that FBI Agent Dina Corsi, and FBI SSA Rod Middleton were criminally obstructing Bongardt’s investigation, is also a crime.

Withholding information, by CIA officer Clark Shannon, at the June 11, 2001 meeting in New York, in the face of a direct request from Federal FBI criminal agents on the Cole bombing investigation, asking ; “Who are these people [in these photos from Kuala Lumpur], why are you following them and what have they got to do with the Cole bombing, when the CIA clearly knew at this point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the USS Cole bombing is a crime.

The examples I have cited are in fact just the tip of a giant ice berg of evidence showing that the CIA and FBI HQ had criminally withheld the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi numerous times from FBI criminal investigators

Shutting down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when you know that as a result thousands of Americans are going to be murdered in a horrific al Qaeda attack that Mihdhar and Hazmi will take part in, an attack that could be stopped by Bongardt’s investigation of these known al Qaeda terrorists, is a horrific crime.

As shown in the US Federal statutes, even covering this over as with the 9/11 Commission investigation and report and the DOJ IG investigation and report also constitutes a crime.

I don’t know how this could be made any clearer.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 07:13 PM   #52
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.
Truthers want Show Trials, not old-fashioned legal proceedings.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 07:26 PM   #53
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
That is where you have missed the boat completely. Both FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI criminal investigator on the bombing of the USS Cole and Richard Clarke, head of Counterterrorism at the White House, in fact the highest official on counterterrorism in the US at the time of the attacks on 9/11 have said that the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberately withheld from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Clarke said this information was also withheld from him, and that it had to have been George Tenet who had ordered this information to be withheld from him and the FBI.

Both of these people are people of substantial consequence.

The fact that you do not know this just shows actually how little you really know about the attacks on 9/11.

And this "MUCK" as you refer to it is the information that comes directly out of the DOJ IG report and DE entered at the Moussaoui trial. Since I have already posted the exact pages numbers where this information is found, if you cannot contradict any of this information you having nothing.
Until you go to the IG and get indictments based on your assertions, you're just running your mouth with this ****.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 07:50 PM   #54
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
She had photographs of these three al Qaeda terrorists taken at this meeting. In addition, she also had reports that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at this meeting from the NSA and had evidence from the FBI Cole bombing investigators that Walid bin Attash had been the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

If you ignore information of this sort, because no amount of information will satisfy you, you send 3000 people to their deaths.

This information was available at least three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11.

Corsi not only had information by August 22, 2001, that the CIA had the photo of Walid bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, but knew that the CIA was keeping this photo secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!

A lot of people believe, even today after multiple investigations and eleven years of historical perspective, that the attack really was an inside job and that the terrorists you named were mere dupes, if not totally innocent. For years they've been posting these beliefs and accusations in this very subforum. So could you fault Corsi for believing the same?

If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 08:22 PM   #55
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!

A lot of people believe, even today after multiple investigations and eleven years of historical perspective, that the attack really was an inside job and that the terrorists you named were mere dupes, if not totally innocent. For years they've been posting these beliefs and accusations in this very subforum. So could you fault Corsi for believing the same?

If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad
"Have you considered the possibility that Corsi believed the alleged terrorists were actually of no significance, and were being used to cover up a "false flag" inside job attack? In that case, it was vital that she not permit the distraction to succeed -- and since the FBI could have been in on it, the last thing she'd want to do is participate in treason by helping them out with information that would also let them know she was on to them!"

Anything is possible, but I just never found any evidence, even the slight bit of evidence of what you are suggesting, and it seem pretty farfetched.

Why would she assume Bongardt and his team were in on it?
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 08:25 PM   #56
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Until you go to the IG and get indictments based on your assertions, you're just running your mouth with this ****.

The IG does not handle criminal prosecutions, the United States Attorney for Washington DC does.

Last edited by paloalto; 15th August 2012 at 09:00 PM.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 08:29 PM   #57
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The IG does not handle criminal prosecutions, the Untied States Attorney for Washington DC does.
Then you know where to bring your case file.

Have at it and report back.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 08:59 AM   #58
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Anything is possible, but I just never found any evidence, even the slight bit of evidence of what you are suggesting, and it seem pretty farfetched.

Why would she assume Bongardt and his team were in on it?

And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?

See if you can answer this part, because it's very similar to questions that really would likely also be asked by the defense, in a trial:

Quote:
If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 12:53 PM   #59
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?

See if you can answer this part, because it's very similar to questions that really would likely also be asked by the defense, in a trial:




Respectfully,
Myriad
“And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?”

I did not presume I was a prosecution witness at a trial in this reply just telling you what I personally thought, regardless of how improbable it was. I don’t believe anyone would say this at a trial.

"If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?"

Interesting point!

First the actual facts behind the attacks on 9/11 have been hidden from the millions of Americans even to today. There is no way they could possibly understand why these attacks were allowed to take place with the facts that they are aware of today, the facts that came out of the 9/11 Commission report and the main stream media coverage of this report. I have been listing numerious new facts on this forum.

These new facts are located in the DOJ IG report, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the Joint Inquiry Committee report, footnotes at the back of the 9/11 Commission report that very few Americans have ever read, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward on July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trail, which most Americans are complete unaware of even today.

So the American people just never had the information they needed to make any kind of intelligence analysis of this event. I had aggregated all of these documents together and tried to make as accurate as possible a complete account of the intelligence prior to the attacks on 9/11. I had no agenda other than to try to understand this issue.

The account I have presented is that account, and it tells a far different story than they did not share information, or the wall prevented information from going between the CIA and FBI.

It turns out as can be seen in my account that the CIA had actually taken over the ITOS unit at FBI HQ, so plenty of information was going to this FBI unit. It was this unit that prevented the Kuala Lumpur information from going to the FBI field agents on the Cole bombing, FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. It was also these FBI HQ ITOS agents that shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when the FBI HQ and the CIA knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. It was also FBI ITOS agents that blocked Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 05:54 PM   #60
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
“And as soon as the prosecution witnesses start testifying "anything is possible," the case for misconduct or treason is lost, if not dismissed entirely. Do you see why?”

I did not presume I was a prosecution witness at a trial in this reply just telling you what I personally thought, regardless of how improbable it was. I don’t believe anyone would say this at a trial.

"If millions of Americans are unable to correctly understand what actually happened eleven years later despite numerous investigations, documentaries, research papers, and books on the subject, what does it mean that one person, with a few pieces of sketchy and inherently unreliable information, failed to "connect the dots" ahead of time?"

Interesting point!

First the actual facts behind the attacks on 9/11 have been hidden from the millions of Americans even to today. There is no way they could possibly understand why these attacks were allowed to take place with the facts that they are aware of today, the facts that came out of the 9/11 Commission report and the main stream media coverage of this report. I have been listing numerious new facts on this forum.

These new facts are located in the DOJ IG report, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the Joint Inquiry Committee report, footnotes at the back of the 9/11 Commission report that very few Americans have ever read, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward on July 10, 2001 meeting at the White House, the defense exhibits entered into the Moussaoui trail, which most Americans are complete unaware of even today.

So the American people just never had the information they needed to make any kind of intelligence analysis of this event. I had aggregated all of these documents together and tried to make as accurate as possible a complete account of the intelligence prior to the attacks on 9/11. I had no agenda other than to try to understand this issue.

The account I have presented is that account, and it tells a far different story than they did not share information, or the wall prevented information from going between the CIA and FBI.

It turns out as can be seen in my account that the CIA had actually taken over the ITOS unit at FBI HQ, so plenty of information was going to this FBI unit. It was this unit that prevented the Kuala Lumpur information from going to the FBI field agents on the Cole bombing, FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. It was also these FBI HQ ITOS agents that shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when the FBI HQ and the CIA knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. It was also FBI ITOS agents that blocked Harry Samit’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui
Boy, am I glad you showed up so I don’t have to listen to “the millions of Americans” who haven’t the slightest idea of what is going on in the world. Now I can listen to you and get a real edumacation.
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 07:00 PM   #61
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by fess View Post
Boy, am I glad you showed up so I don’t have to listen to “the millions of Americans” who haven’t the slightest idea of what is going on in the world. Now I can listen to you and get a real edumacation.
"Bout time!"
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 08:55 PM   #62
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
US Federal law based on court cases and impeachment of Federal officials the following are considered high crimes;
That sentence made no sense. Feel free to explain wtf is a "high crime?" Is that a misdemeanor or a felony?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 12:13 AM   #63
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
That sentence made no sense. Feel free to explain wtf is a "high crime?" Is that a misdemeanor or a felony?

This appears to be legalize, you would have to ask a lawyer to really interpret this sentence. My lay person read of this sentence is a "high crime", is a major felony, a crime that would get you many years in a Federal prison.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 01:58 AM   #64
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
This appears to be legalize, you would have to ask a lawyer to really interpret this sentence. My lay person read of this sentence is a "high crime", is a major felony, a crime that would get you many years in a Federal prison.
Let me just explain some aspects of Basic Law 101:

Offences are generally divided into two categories viz:
1) 'Crimes' which are offences against the community at large as well as any specific victim. Murder, theft, speeding in an automotive will do for examples; AND
2) 'Torts' which are offences against a specific individual which cause damage to that individual but not the community at large.

So:
Crimes are defined by law and for most of us that means statute law (see later explanation). The statute defines the offence, nominates the 'elements' of the offence, all which have to be proved before a person is judged guilty of the crime. The standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' where 'reasonable' refers to the 'reasonable person' relevant to the specific crime. (Details in Basic Law 102 if we get that far.) All of that by the way in my earlier post which you ignored.

The action to 'prosecute' the alleged committer of the crime is taken by the sovereign body of the community in whose jurisdiction the alleged crime took place. In the UK the is 'the Crown' in the US it is either the US or the relevant State (US lawyers may need to fine tune that - I'm an Australian Lawyer. ) Crimes fall into what is known as the 'Criminal Jurisdiction'.

Torts are also defined by law but are essentially actions between two persons or parties. Negligence resulting in loss to the victim is a classic example - where 'loss' may include personal injury, damage to owned property, creating a lowered reputation for the person and such issues. Torts fall into what is known as the 'Civil Jurisdiction'.

The background or history for most of us here is the English Common Law. It is the foundation law for US federal Law and most US State law. Ditto Australian Law and AU state Law. It was essentially the accumulated record of precedents set by judges trying cases then applying what was decided in earlier case to later ones. And it had processes for overturning or modifying those precedents - we don't need the details at this stage.

In contrast Statute Law is legislated law. Law which the governing body - parliament, senate, house of representatives, whatever form it takes, has written into an 'Act' or document which defines the law. For most of us here the relevant criminal law has progressed from 'common law' to 'statute law' - US, UK, AU, NZ, CA (Canada that is) (oops yes and Ca=California...)

So you paloalto have been making claims in the area of 'Criminal Law' and where those alleged crimes are almost certainly subject to Statute Law - law that has been written down and 'enacted' into power by legislation.

So that much is the background.

Now the specific reference to 'high crimes'.

There is no such classification in law. However your meaning is reasonably clear.

Historically the common law had three levels of Crimes:
1) Treason;
2) Felony; and
3) Misdemeanour.

Often 'Treason' was included in 'Felony'. It is the crime of 'disloyalty to the Crown' i.e. the disloyalty to the sovereign or disloyalty to the nation if we translate to US. The distinction matters not for this post..

The distinction between 'felony' and 'misdemeanour' has been abolished in AU and as far as I know most British Commonwealth/Common Law jurisdictions. However it still applies in US law (AFAIK and how that may differ at Federal and individual State levels - I don't know - refer to a US lawyer.)

So you are referring to something that could be a crime, and could rank as a felony and could be subject to a penalty of 'many years in a Federal prison' but the burden of proof is with you. See my earlier post for the key issues which are still these:
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.

Remembering that each element has to be proven to 'beyond reasonable doubt' and absence of any element means the charge cannot be sustained....
So far you have not 'made out' a 'prima facie' case that a crime has been committed. The ball is in your court.

Last edited by ozeco41; 17th August 2012 at 02:02 AM. Reason: Typos & Spelling
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 04:10 PM   #65
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
This appears to be legalize, you would have to ask a lawyer to really interpret this sentence. My lay person read of this sentence is a "high crime", is a major felony, a crime that would get you many years in a Federal prison.
So you admit you pulled it out of your posterior?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 04:41 PM   #66
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The IG does not handle criminal prosecutions, the United States Attorney for Washington DC does.
Let us know how it goes.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 08:30 PM   #67
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
I have already demonstrated many times that the CIA and FBI HQ had absolutely no legal right to either withhold information from the FBI criminal investigators on the USS Cole bombing investigation, or shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi,
Prior to the USA Patriot Act they (the CIA) were under no legal obligation to share anything in a timely manner either.

Absent from your accusation is the full background of the conditions which existed between the FBI & CIA from the mid-1990s through September, 2001. The CIA was being investigated by the FBI after the Aldrich Ames scandal. There was considerable bad blood between the two agencies, and there was equal anger toward the Clinton White House.

As a result nobody was sticking their necks out. Those who did saw their careers ended (see John O'Neil of the FBI, and Michael Scheuer who was reassigned from ALEC Station).

Even if someone was stupid enough to haul this into court the case the defendants would win the case. At each step, your alleged crimes were judgement calls based of a number of factors. Even then there is no evidence the attacks would have been headed off. An investigation of the Cole bombing most likely would have still been spinning its wheels on 9/11/2001. I base this on the history of the FBI and their handling of the first World Trade Center bombings, and the information they had before that attack.

The FBI has always been good at domestic terror, but has a long history of being two or three steps behind when it comes to international terror. Even today they're not as good as they could be, and this is due to their internal structure.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 08:58 PM   #68
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Prior to the USA Patriot Act they (the CIA) were under no legal obligation to share anything in a timely manner either.
Which only debunks further any claims of "criminal" acts.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 09:38 PM   #69
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Prior to the USA Patriot Act they (the CIA) were under no legal obligation to share anything in a timely manner either.

Absent from your accusation is the full background of the conditions which existed between the FBI & CIA from the mid-1990s through September, 2001. The CIA was being investigated by the FBI after the Aldrich Ames scandal. There was considerable bad blood between the two agencies, and there was equal anger toward the Clinton White House.

As a result nobody was sticking their necks out. Those who did saw their careers ended (see John O'Neil of the FBI, and Michael Scheuer who was reassigned from ALEC Station).

Even if someone was stupid enough to haul this into court the case the defendants would win the case. At each step, your alleged crimes were judgement calls based of a number of factors. Even then there is no evidence the attacks would have been headed off. An investigation of the Cole bombing most likely would have still been spinning its wheels on 9/11/2001. I base this on the history of the FBI and their handling of the first World Trade Center bombings, and the information they had before that attack.

The FBI has always been good at domestic terror, but has a long history of being two or three steps behind when it comes to international terror. Even today they're not as good as they could be, and this is due to their internal structure.
This is your uniformed opinion. The CIA was not immune to Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 which provides:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed
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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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)"

This makes clear that it is a Federal crime to engage in misleading conduct to withhold material information from any Federal law enforcement officer. It does not say that “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) can do this as long as they are working for the CIA”.

Sorry your excuse for claiming that the CIA can commit felonies falls flat. There is no criminal exemption for anyone in the CIA in Title 18. To claim that prior to the Patriot act the CIA could not share information with the FBI is claiming it was legal for the CIA to criminally withhold material information from the FBI and any official FBI investigation, this is complete BS.

Even Senator Carl Levin said this exact same thing that I just stated at the September 20, 2002 Joint Inquiry Committee hearings, when confronting Tom Wilshire, and Micheal Rolince. He stated that there was absolutely no legal restriction at all on the CIA sharing the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi with the FBI.

So why did he and the other members of the Joint Inquiry Committee not ask for a criminal investigation of the CIA at this point is the big question?
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 10:39 PM   #70
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,657
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
This is your uniformed opinion. ... ?
The same as your conclusions 911, uniformed opinion based on faulty logic. You missed the point of his post.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 12:05 AM   #71
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,056
Repost for paloalto:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) Name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) Cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) Quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) Identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) Identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) Outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.

Remembering that each element has to be proven to 'beyond reasonable doubt' and absence of any element means the charge cannot be sustained.

You have chosen to put your 'argument' in legal format. So be prepared to support it in legal format and the appropriate due process.

The questions I have asked are the minimum needed to establish a 'prima facie' case. i.e. that there is a case to be answered - the first step of getting through the door of the court.

AND it gets harder from there.

Truther Nonsense Trickery would not even get into court let alone survive for any time before one of the procedural challenges had you thrown out.
We're waiting.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 12:08 AM   #72
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,056
Secondly, paloalto, you keep posting these walls of text, claiming you have evidence of injustice.

What do you want us to do about it?
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 10:06 AM   #73
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
This is your uniformed opinion. The CIA was not immune to Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 which provides:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed
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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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 [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] 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)"

This makes clear that it is a Federal crime to engage in misleading conduct to withhold material information from any Federal law enforcement officer. It does not say that “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) can do this as long as they are working for the CIA”.

That's nice. Since you've accused Corsi before, perhaps you can specify what record, document, or tangible object Corsi altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, covered up, falsified, or made a false entry into.

Note that not putting information into a document in the first place doesn't appear to be covered by this law.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 10:07 AM   #74
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Paloalto, when are we going to see the guilty men cowering in the dock before your mountain of evidence? Another ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Never?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 10:08 AM   #75
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Secondly, paloalto, you keep posting these walls of text, claiming you have evidence of injustice.

What do you want us to do about it?
Believe it, but that is a very remote possibility.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 10:55 AM   #76
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
This is your uniformed opinion. The CIA was not immune to Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 which provides:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed...
I see that Myriad beat me to the key point but let's follow through a bit:
(BTW paloalto you have quote mined BUT there is enough to work with for now.)
Elements of proof:
1) Identify 'Whoever'
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
2) What is the relevant 'record, document, or tangible object'?
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
3) What action do you allege was taken 'alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry' - you will have to be specific as to which. AND, as Myriad has said, 'omission' is not an offence.
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
4) What is the 'matter'?
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
5) What is your proof of 'intent'? To the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - the same standard for all these elements of proof.
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
6) How did the act of the accused 'impede, obstruct, or influence the....'
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
7) Demonstrate 'within the jurisdiction of' any department or agency
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
8) Identify which 'department or agency'.

Those will do for starters.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
...So why did he and the other members of the Joint Inquiry Committee not ask for a criminal investigation of the CIA at this point is the big question?
I haven't asked him. Have you?

Last edited by ozeco41; 18th August 2012 at 10:56 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 10:57 AM   #77
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
It is really annoying to discover that people in your own government allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place because they illegally shut down FBI criminal investigations that could have prevented these attacks.

Why don’t you tell how annoyed you are to the families of the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11, maybe they can give you some sympathy for being so annoyed.
I half agree. BUT the motive WAS NOT to let AQ kill 3000. It was bureaucratic FUBAR.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 12:22 PM   #78
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
repost for paloalto:

Repost for paloalto:

Quote:
originally posted by ozeco41
time to get serious paloalto so let's see you:
1) name the alleged crime - the correct legal name for the crime - not your truther vague verbiage;
2) cite the statute under which the alleged crime is an offence;
3) quote the relevant portion of that statute;
4) identify the jurisdiction in which the crime can be tried;
5) identify the elements of proof needed by that statute to establish that the crime has been committed;
6) outline the evidence you would adduce as proof of each element.

Remembering that each element has to be proven to 'beyond reasonable doubt' and absence of any element means the charge cannot be sustained.

You have chosen to put your 'argument' in legal format. So be prepared to support it in legal format and the appropriate due process.

The questions i have asked are the minimum needed to establish a 'prima facie' case. I.e. That there is a case to be answered - the first step of getting through the door of the court.

And it gets harder from there.

Truther nonsense trickery would not even get into court let alone survive for any time before one of the procedural challenges had you thrown out.
We're waiting.
Quote:
we're waiting.
The short answer is "Not my yob!"

This is clearly, sorry to use a government cop out, way above my pay grade.

My job had been to find the facts behind why the CIA and the FBI HQ had never given the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, until after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place, attacks that had resulted in the murder by the al Qaeda terrorists of almost 3000 people. That was my job. I have in large part done that. Any resultant criminal prosecution after this point is in the hands of the people who already have this exact information. In fact they have had this information since just weeks if not days after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place. The account that I had put together was the account that the FBI investigations, the PENTBOM investigation had put together shortly after the attacks on 9/11. Their interviews of FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and the follow up of this information had given them the exact same information

The reports from the various investigations of the attacks on 9/11 clearly have this same information, since I had found all of the information I have presented directly from reports generated from these other investigations. This is not my information, but information that you can put together by aggregating all of the official US government investigations on 9/11.

But why did not one single one of these various reports describe in detail what I had found? After I had asked the very same question I went back through all of the reports from the investigations on 9/11 to answer just this very question. And I found the answer.

The investigations that formed the bases of these reports had all of the information that I had, they had just selectively and deliberately left out critical details in each report so the American public could not see the whole picture, or allowed high level government officials to get away with lying to the investigators in public hearings.

Starting with the 9/11 Commission report and public hearings:

George Tenet lied to the 9/11 Commission, Tim Roemer and the American people when he said that he had not talked to the President in August 2001. This was at a time when he knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place inside of the US, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. The spokesman for the CIA , Bill Harlow, came out right after Tenet testified on April 14, 2004 and said Tenet had lied to the 9/11 Commission. Harlow said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford, Texas on August 17, 2001 and had seen the president again in late August in Washington DC. The White House web site said Tenet had also flown down to Crawford Texas for a 6 hour long meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, just after Tenet had been given all of the information on Mihdhar, Hazmi and Moussaoui, that these three al Qaeda terrorists were already in the US in order to take part in this al Qaeda attack.

The 9/11 Commission left out any mention of FBI Agent Soufan even though Soudan had testified twice to the Commission.

The DOJ IG report had much more detail, but also left out much of the same information. Even though he worked as a FBI criminal investigators, Soufan is almost completely missing from the DOJ IG report, he is mentioned once as the New York agent who flew out to Pakistan to debrief the CIA/FBI joint source. So are we to believe that the DOJ IG did not interview Soufan and find out that he had asked the CIA for any information on a al Qaeda planning meeting in southeast Asia or Kuala Lumpur and on Walid bin Attash at least three times and was told that the CIA had no information on any of this, when in fact they had copious information on bin Attash and this meeting and the fact that bin Attash had been at this meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.

This is just a tiny number of examples of the lengths the different investigations went to hide the complete account of 9/11 from the American people.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 12:39 PM   #79
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
I half agree. BUT the motive WAS NOT to let AQ kill 3000. It was bureaucratic FUBAR.
Soufan had asked the CIA for any information on a al Qaeda planning meeting in southeast Asia or Kuala Lumpur and on Walid bin Attash at least three times and was told that the CIA had no information on any of this. But it turns out that they had copious information on bin Attash and this meeting and the fact that bin Attash had been at this meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.

Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.

Tom Wilshire was denied permission twice in July 2001 by his CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet, from giving the CIA information obtained from the surveillance of the Kuala Lumpur meeting, to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, information that bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing, even though he worked at the FBI HQ as a high level FBI manager in charge of all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists in the world.

Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.

Both Corsi and Middleton also knew that bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing. Yet not only did they with hold this information from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, but they shut his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi down when these FBI HQ agents and managers knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US and knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this attack.

Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.

When you look at the facts and what people knew, and what they did with this information, with all due respect, your argument that this was bureaucratic FUBAR just does not add up.
paloalto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2012, 12:50 PM   #80
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,657
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Soufan had asked the CIA ... inside of the US and knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this attack.

Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.

When you look at the facts and what people knew, and what they did with this information, with all due respect, your argument that this was bureaucratic FUBAR just does not add up.
When did the FBI know the 2 guys were in the states? When? Date? Are you as good as CBS? Was it before 911?

Based on your logic, why are we still having traffic accidents, any accidents? Why is are any more murders? With your logic there can be no murder, no accidents, no on purpose because we know what everyone is going to do, and when they are going to do it.

Last edited by beachnut; 18th August 2012 at 12:52 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.