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 10th May 2017, 03:47 PM   #121
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I had asked you to reread what Mark Rossini had written. It all there!

Let see if you can comprehend exactly what he said.

If you can actually comprehend exactly what he said, you will find he backs up my assertions as far as his experience with the CIA went!

I want to see if you can understand what he said?

In view of your prior posts, I doubt it!
I've read what he said.

Can you point out the part where he accuses anyone of treason (murder)?
__________________
"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 10th May 2017, 03:57 PM   #122
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
I had asked you to reread what Mark Rossini had written. It all there!

Let see if you can comprehend exactly what he said.

If you can actually comprehend exactly what he said, you will find he backs up my assertions as far as his experience with the CIA went!

I want to see if you can understand what he said?

In view of your prior posts, I doubt it!
What foolish nonsense!
What does it matter what Mark Rossini said?
Unless he says that HE, personally, had the clear and explicit intention to murder 3000 people, it doesn't matter if he claims that anyone else had the explicit intention to have 3000 people murdered.

But of course he said no such thing.
Not at all.

You repeat foolish, biased conjecture.

Try to stick to the facts you can prove, and you might restore some credibility.
The longer you go on pretending you or Mark Rossini can read minds, the more you kill dead the remnants of the credibility you had with me just a few days ago.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 May 2017, 08:10 PM   #123
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I've read what he said.

Can you point out the part where he accuses anyone of treason (murder)?
First my post stated that Rossini backs up my assertions for the limited amount of information at the CIA Alec station that he was aware of.

Why did you ask if he accuses anyone of Murder or treason, this question is nothing but a Red Herring.

Here is the part that backs up my assertions:

Undicisettembre: Yes, let’s talk about that. Could 9/11 have been prevented?

Mark Rossini: The 9/11 attacks did not have to happen. The 9/11 attacks happened because of the willful and purposeful non-passage to the FBI of information by the CIA concerning hijackers that had what we call a "Terror Summit" in Malaysia in January 2000. The CIA purposely did not tell the FBI about that meeting nor did they more importantly tell the FBI that two of the people at the meeting, who turned out to be hijackers, had visas to visit the USA. The CIA and the NSA also knew about the travel plans they had to come to America and still did not tell the FBI. If the FBI had been given this information we would have stopped 9/11. A colleague of mine who was with me at the CIA, Special Agent Doug Miller, wrote a draft Central Intelligence Report, known also as a CIR, which is the only official way information is transferred between the agencies, to tell the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia and about these individuals that were there, and the CIA blocked it. To this day no one has ever been held accountable for blocking Doug’s memo from going or for telling me I couldn’t tell the FBI about what Doug tried to send. This is something even the 9/11 Commission neglected to investigate, and I applaud former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, who was 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman and who cited this as a failure to pursue and get an answer. There’s so much more about the subject that it would take probably hours to listen to and talk about. There are so many missteps here and willful omissions that it’s criminal. It’s a stain on our society, it’s a stain on our system of justice that three or four key individuals have not been called before a court of law, a Grand Jury or a regular Jury, and been asked “Why did you block his memo?”

Moreover, even if Doug didn’t write his memo, even if Doug and I were never assigned to the CIA, no one asked them “Why did you (Alec Station) on your own not send the information to the FBI?” The question is valid and needs to be asked because everyday information is sent back and forth between the two agencies via a CIR, and I guarantee you there was nothing that was sent between the two agencies before or after 9/11 that was more important than what Doug was trying to send over to the FBI.

And we have to come to understand why that happened.

As a country, as a world, as humanity we have to get to the truth about why Doug’s memo didn’t go, we cannot just sit by idly and accept that. Until we do that, we really have no moral standing, nor can we hold our rules, laws and courts as legitimate. We should not and cannot face our citizens and say “We did everything to prevent this, and we are doing everything to protect you,” because we haven’t and we are not.

Undicisettembre: I would like you to elaborate on the reason why they did that. I can’t believe the CIA were so stupid to make such a big mistake on purpose.

Mark Rossini: It’s not because they were so stupid, but because they had this specific plan of action… [This information was withheld from FBI criminal investigators] in particular my boss, mentor and friend John O'Neill, [because] the people that managed Alec Station despised because they were jealous.

There’s enough circumstantial evidence to prove that the crime took place of a Willful Omission or Conscious Avoidance of telling the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia and that at least two of the people who attended this "terror summit" had visas to come to the USA. Those FBI cowboys could cause a political stir at the White House and State Department.

In spite of what you think, the CIA provides a vital function in protecting America, but to an FBI agent like me or Ali it’s difficult to understand their mentality. We get evidence, we put people in jail. We don’t have a long term view of the world like who is going to rule a country 60 years from now.

So I agree with Ali, and I understand why he has that feeling. And while Ali had dealings with them in the field they were hiding from him the picture of Khalid and CIA knew Khalid was linked to the meeting in Malaysia but refused to tell him.

Saddam was an evil man. Saddam had killed people and there’s no question about it, but he did not attack America and he did not have anything to do with 9/11 and he was a Sunni that controlled the Shia country. We went in there and removed a powerful Sunni leader and now we have the mess of a Shia-led country of Iraq aligned and friends with another massive Shia country which is Iran, which has always been seen as the enemy. What genius was asleep at this switch and didn’t think beforehand of what we were doing?

If anyone in Washington DC had half a brain they would have realized that, but they were bent on revenge, getting Saddam’s oil and controlling the whole Middle East. Now we created this “megacountry” and alliance between Iraq and Iran controlled by Shia governments and we have Sunnis who live in Iraq who are oppressed and have come to join ISIS.

With respect to the 9/11 Commission:

“What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction”. — Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, January 2, 2008, Chair and Vice-Chair of The 9-11 Commission


The two questions that have never been addressed are: Why was the Central Intelligence Report (known as a CIR), drafted by FBI Special Agent Douglas J. Miller (who was detailed to the CIA’s Alec Station), which contained information about the “Terror Summit” in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2000, suppressed and not sent to the FBI? And why was I told to shut up about it?

As in any case, an “incident” happens and then an investigation is launched, based upon Probable Cause, to determine “Why?” Directly connected to the “Why” is of course the motive or reason known as “mens rea”.

In the absence of a confession, all cases, civil or criminal, are proven based upon circumstantial evidence, which based upon their totality, would lead a “reasonable person” to conclude logically “the why” of an “incident” and ergo assign responsibility to an individual or a group for said act(s).

Addressing the two questions above, which are directly linked to the 9/11 attacks, I seek to prove the “Why”.

WHY?
I believe it can be proven circumstantially that the reason why Doug’s CIR was suppressed, and I being ordered to not inform the FBI, was because the CIA was engaged in a recruitment operation along with the Saudi Arabian intelligence service known as the Mabahith, within the United States, of one or more of the terrorists who met in Malaysia, in direct violation of every applicable rule, regulation and law. Moreover, and perhaps the most pathetic and emotionally cringing part, is that they, the management of the CIA, Alec Station, and the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, (CTC), did not want the FBI, in the persona of FBI Special Agent-in-Charge John P. O’Neill, Jr., to interfere in their effort.

[NOTE there is no evidence anywhere that the CIA wanted to recruit Mihdhar and Hazmi. ]

As previously stated, SA Douglas J. Miller, wrote a draft CIR on January 5, 2000, that would have transmitted the information to the FBI about the meeting in Malaysia. This draft CIR was based upon a CIA cable that had come in from Kuala Lumpur Station which contained all the details surrounding the people who met there; who was followed, how and why it came to pass, ie., their travel through Dubai; how they were stopped there and searched “routinely” using the cooperation of the Dubai authorities; and how it was discovered that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi has visitors visas to enter the USA.

Doug wrote specifically that al-Mihdhar would likely be traveling soon to “most likely New York City” (this could only have been gleaned by the CIA if they had reviewed his visa application in Jeddah…which they did logically, since how would have Doug been able to put that in his cable?), and that he has been connected to the 1998 embassy bombings (an active FBI case at the time). He also wrote that photos of al-Mihdhar have been obtained and will be sent as well (meaning to the FBI) [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 502].

Since Doug's cable was not moving along the electronic queue line for eventual release we know from the historical and electronic record that after several days, Doug sent an electronic message to the Deputy Chief Alec Station (along with a copy of his draft CIR), asking if the draft cable he, Doug, wrote “Is this a no-go, or should I remake it in some other way?”

Doug never received a direct response from the Deputy Chief of Alec Station. After my conversation with "AEA" Doug did receive an electronic message from "AEA" saying "hold off now per Deputy Chief, [Tom Wilshere]" Alec Station.
Note two things regarding "AEA": Firstly, the 9/11 Commission, the JICI, the DOJ/OIG, and the CIA/OIG report that he/she wrote a cable January 6th 2000 to Malaysia Station, stating in substance "the information has been passed to our FBI partners"

Last note: "AEA" does later admit he/she didn't “personally share the information with the FBI” (footnote 44 at page 502 of the 9/11 Commission Report). Ergo the contents of the cable he/she wrote was a lie, and there is no record anywhere of he/she being asked or giving an explanation.

At this very moment is when 9/11 could have been prevented. Yes…without question. To discount this is foolish. The cell would have been disrupted and perhaps the FBI and the CIA and the Mabahith could have worked together and developed one of the cell members as a source, but we will never know.

What we also have at this instance is a purposeful and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.

There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation.

In order to build a circumstantial case, you have to draw upon facts and then make logical conclusions. Given the above (my known public and government testimony, albeit not before the 9/11 Commission, and that of Mr. Clarke’s interview), and what follows in this document, the case is even stronger.

Take a moment to study this:

July 12, 2001: Acting FBI Director Prevented by CIA from Telling Attorney General Ashcroft about Al-Qaeda Malaysia Summit:

On July 12, 2001, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard briefs Attorney General Ashcroft a second time about the al-Qaeda threat (see July 12, 2001). In a later letter to the 9/11 Commission discussing the meeting, Pickard will mention, “I had not told [Ashcroft] about the meeting in Malaysia since I was told by FBI Assistant Director Dale Watson that there was a ‘close hold’ on that info. This means that it was not to be shared with anyone without the explicit approval of the CIA.” During the briefing, Pickard also strongly recommends that Ashcroft be briefed by the CIA to learn details that Pickard feels he is not allowed to reveal. The “meeting in Malaysia” is an obvious reference to the January 2000 al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia (see January 5-8, 2000). Louis Freeh, the FBI director at the time of the summit, and other unnamed FBI officials were told some about the summit while it was taking place (see January 6, 2000). It is unknown if Pickard and Watson learned about it at that time, but Pickard’s letter shows they both knew about it by the time of this briefing.
What is so troubling about the above is that the 9/11 Commission, to my knowledge, never followed up further on this. Nor did they question Tenet on it, whom 9/11 Commissioner Governor Tom Kean essentially called a liar in the Salon article. Former Governor Kean says for the record that Tenet “misled the 9/11 Commission”:

In June/July 2001, the Deputy Chief of Alec Station, who was then detailed to the FBI’s ITOS (International Terrorism Operations Section) at FBIHQ requested, for unbeknownst reasons, analysts back at Alec Station to start retrieving and studying all known cables concerning al-Mihdhar. What prompted this?

Lastly, when the Deputy Chief of Alec Station was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission on live TV (their identity was hidden by a curtain), the Deputy Chief was asked “Why was the FBI not informed?” The Deputy Chief’s emotional response was “we were so overwhelmed, it just fell through the cracks.” I don’t accept their answer and neither should you. How could it have fallen “through the cracks” with all the cable traffic about it? How could it have “fallen through the cracks” when the resources of the CIA and several liaison services were utilized to engage and conduct surveillance on the Malaysia summit attendees in January 2000? How could it have "fallen through the cracks" if "AEA" passed along the note to Doug "hold off now per Deputy Chief"? How could it have “fallen through the cracks”, if the CIA came up to FBINY in June 2001 and asked the FBI to find al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi? How could it have “fallen through the cracks” if the Deputy Chief wrote in July 2001 about another attendee at the Malaysia Summit named Khallad bin Attash, that he was "a major league killer"? So if a "major league killer" was the terror summit along with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar why is the FBI not notified immediately of every single detail and holding? All the Deputy Chief of Alec Station had to do was get up from his desk and walk 10 feet to the office of FBI Section Chief Mike Rolince.

Last point: It is common knowledge (numerous press reports and governmental inquiries) that the Chief of Alec Station had a meeting with Tenet and other senior CIA officials in July 2001 in which he warned that an attack was imminent and that "they are already here", referring of course to terrorists.

Per Pickard’s letter to the 9/11 Commission he was told by Dale Watson about some close held information regarding the meeting in Malaysia when he, Pickard, became the Acting FBI Director in July 2001. Watson further advised Pickard that he, Pickard, was forbidden from even informing then Attorney General John Ashcroft of this information. Question though: What was Dale actually told and by whom, and from whom did that person learn it from?…go down the evidentiary chain. Logically one would believe that Dale learned about it from Director Freeh who again, logically, was told it by George Tenet. One can assume Tenet told Freeh, that the CIA was developing information regarding a terrorist cell which had a meeting in KL, and “we (the Agency) will keep you appraised”. This does not constitute the passage of intelligence. Nor can it ever be construed by anyone in the Intelligence Community (IC), in its remotest form, as a formal passage of intelligence. As Mr. Clarke has pointed out, and Cofer Black’s own statement to me and others at the CIA:

“If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist”

Ergo, whatever Tenet told Freeh, who told Dale, who told Pickard, is not passage of CIA information that the FBI was expected to have acted upon. Moreover, it is logical to conclude that whatever Tenet told Freeh, it did not contain any information about terrorists in KL having US visas, since if it did the FBI would have been obligated, and demanded to act upon it. There is no way Director Freeh would not have marshaled all the resources of the FBI on this if he was told they had visas for the USA.

Also remember about how a senior Alec Station official is alleged to have lied to the JICI regarding his/her visit to FBIHQ. A visit in which he/she allegedly passed the information about the Malaysia meeting and all the intelligence regarding the visas held by al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi.

Moreover, the CIA knew after the Malaysia summit that they did come to the USA in March 2000. There are cables on the record acknowledging the arrival of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi from CIA Station Los Angeles to numerous domestic and foreign CIA stations, but no copy was sent to the FBI or Immigration/Customs.

There was no follow up by the CIA to the FBI, because the info was never passed. Once again, the answer to 9/11, is: Why was the information never passed formally for investigative action by the FBI?

One last note about “official passage of information” and CIR’s: If the information about the hijackers was passed in the manner/by the alleged person who is the subject of the Stein and Salon articles, as well as the logically assumed conversation between Tenet and Freeh, one has to wonder why it was not done in a formal CIR basis? How could something so vital and relevant to our nation's safety and security, not warrant being passed in the form of a CIR for investigative action by the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)? Neither the 9/11 Commission nor the JICI, to my knowledge, took a sample of every CIR that went from the CIA to the FBI, thirty days prior and thirty days after Doug drafted his cable. Then again why limit it to a 60 day window? Why not for a year? I doubt sincerely that any of those other CIR’s contained information as relevant, actionable, and urgent as the information contained in Doug’s suppressed CIR. The only “study” of CIR’s done by the 9/11 Commission was a tabulation of the amount of CIR’s sent by the CIA to the Intelligence Community (IC) member agencies.

To recap, an individual (allegedly the subject of the Stein, Salon and Mayer articles), is alleged to have lied about going down to FBIHQ and passing the information and we have to know why. He/she claiming they came to FBIHQ and passed it, albeit to an unknown person, and the assignment of Doug and I to Alec Station, has always been the CIA's fallback position to pass the buck of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to the FBI. Curiously enough the Agency never points to the Pickard letter or the assumed conversation between Tenet and Freeh. Sadly in the public’s mind the FBI is to blame for the 9/11 attacks. This is in large part due to the CIA’s media campaign right after 9/11 pushing the fact that the FBI “knew”, and should have acted upon it.

Getting back to the CIA's media campaign to put the blame squarely with the FBI, one has to wonder what exactly was truly going on and why this "push" by Tenet and the CIA's press office. I can't help but posture that the CIA was afraid of the truth getting out. Keep in mind the following:

1) No one in my unit (Alec Station) was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, not even the Chief of Alec Station, nor the person who told me keep silent about Doug’s memo. That person was sent out of the country on a long term assignment.

2) The only person defacto from Alec Station interviewed by the 9/11 Commission was the #2 of Alec Station who had been detailed to the FBI. The interview was aired live on TV with him/her behind a curtain to shield their identity. If he/she was never detailed to the FBI, I doubt the 9/11 Commission interview would have taken place.

3) The senior Alec Station executive who allegedly lied to the JICI about going down to the FBI building and passing the information to the FBI.

4) The Pickard letter.

I can't help but believe the CIA feared that if it was revealed the CIA ran a unilateral surveillance and recruitment operation on American soil, with the Saudi Mabahith, which failed, that in the extreme the whole CIA would have been abolished, and at "best" or perhaps “least” in some eyes, very senior CIA officials would have gone to jail. The abolishment of the CIA would have caused the equivalent of an earthquake in the American government structure domestically and internationally. The latter scenario of a CIA employee being prosecuted is a watershed of everything being revealed by a person upon whom so much secrecy has been entrusted to. Perhaps it’s best to protect them, keep the Agency intact and make the FBI the "fall guy”?

To add insult to injury, the subject of the aforementioned articles (Stein, Salon and Mayer) has been promoted. One has to question why...loyalty? Fear? Perhaps it's best described in another article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker concerning the protection of the CIA employees involved in the Senate report on torture:

What we also have at this instance is a purposeful and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.

There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation.

Mark Rossini's conclusions are the same as mine.


The CIA lied to the FBI multiple times and criminally withheld the information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, from the FBI criminal investigators

Tenet had given Louis Freeh and later Dale Watson and Tom Pickard information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting but never informed them that Hazmi had entered the US or that Mihdhar had a US visa.

Rossini fails to mention that Ali Soufan had asked Freeh on November 2000 to ask the CIA and Tenet if they had any information on any Al Qaeda planning meeting, in January 2000 or any information on Walid bin Attash. Even though Freeh had been given information on this planning meeting and even information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf were going to this meeting, by Tenet himself, Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had none of this information, criminally sabotaging the most important criminal investigation at the FBI at this time.

The FBI criminal investigators were never given this information that came from Kuala Lumpur, until August 28, 2001, and then when they accidentally found out, FBI HQ's, FBI HQ’s agent Dina Corsi and her boss, Rod Middleton, immediately shut down their investigation, using lies, deceptions and criminal actions.

While Rossini calls these actions crimes, even though at this time the CIA had not yet received warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US. After April 2001, the CIA was well aware of this huge attack and still continued not only to hide information that could have stopped this attack, but had even ordered their spy inside of the FBI Tom Wilshere, twice, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, by ordering Wilshere not to provide any CIA information from the Kuala Lumpur meetings and the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, to Bongardt and his team.

What Rossini said that bears repeating, "What we also have at this instance is a purpose full and willful decision by the CIA to withhold information from the FBI.

There is no excuse for it not being passed. The assignment of Doug and I to the CIA is and was totally irrelevant with respect to the CIA’s obligation to inform the FBI about the people meeting in Malaysia. Even if we were never assigned there, the CIA was obliged pursuant to every applicable law and executive order (EO 12333 comes to mind), to pass that information, and put the known terrorists with USA visas on a watch list, and let the FBI do its job by following them and conducting an investigation."


Numerous laws were broken in withholding this information in Doug Millers's January 5, 2000 CIR, from the FBI, but this withholding was repeated numerous times even after the CIA knew after April 2001, that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, that would murder many, many, Americans. Not only did the CIA withhold critical information from the FBI that could have been used to prevent the attacks on 9/11, Tenet, Black and Blee had specifically ordered their spy inside of the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by withholding the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the actual planning of the Cole bombing.

How do I come to these conclusions:

In the absence of a confession, all cases, civil or criminal, are proven based upon circumstantial evidence, which based upon their totality, would lead a “reasonable person” to conclude logically “the why” of an “incident” and ergo assign responsibility to an individual or a group for said act(s).


It is absolutely impossible to believe that when the CIA did this and Corsi and Middleton , working for Wilshere shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, all of the people involved knew full well that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific attack inside of the US killing many Americans.

Since all of these actions were deliberate, one can conclude that the CIA and the agents and managers that they had corrupted at FBI HQ’s had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out this attack. At this point there is no rational circumstance that would allow anyone to conclude otherwise, and to this date no one has come up with any other explanation for their actions.
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 May 2017, 10:28 PM   #124
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,671
A fantasy conclusion after the classic wall of words posted n+1 times

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
...
CIA and the agents and managers that they had corrupted at FBI HQ’s had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out this attack. ...
Which is total BS since no one knew what the attack was going to be. You can't allow a surprise attack to be carried out since no one had a clue how it would be carried out.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 17th May 2017, 05:31 AM   #125
Pinch
Critical Thinker
 
Pinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
First my post stated that Rossini backs up my assertions for the limited amount of information at the CIA Alec station that he was aware of.

{Several would-have-been-forests of dead tree pages of blather cut out}

blah blah blah
If someone can't get their point across in a paragraph or less, especially in a format such as an Internet discussion/debate forum, there is absolutely no point or purpose or reason to read their digital diarrhea.
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown
Pinch 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 May 2017, 10:36 AM   #126
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,324
The inability to be concise is the bane of a conspiracy theorist.
carlitos 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 May 2017, 10:52 AM   #127
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Pinch View Post
If someone can't get their point across in a paragraph or less, especially in a format such as an Internet discussion/debate forum, there is absolutely no point or purpose or reason to read their digital diarrhea.
I was asked to post what Rossini stated that backed up my conclusions. I did that. If you are unable to read this post, you were obviously unable to read Rossini's article, which by the way was much, much, longer.

Almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11, sometimes, it may take a few paragraphs to get a point across, of why all of these innocent people were murdered on 9/11.
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 May 2017, 11:56 AM   #128
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,324
Appeal to emotion - rejected.
carlitos 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 May 2017, 12:26 PM   #129
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
paloalto,

thanks for posting so much of what Rossini said. I am more certain now than before that he did not support your foolish nonsense claim that anyone in those US agencies acted criminally with an intent to murder 3000.

He says several times that agents acted with intent when they held back this or that information or looked some other way or droped one or another ball. None of these intentions were "to murder 3000". The intentions were all quite different from that.


Was there a chance to prevent 9/11? Potentially.
Did agents consciously chose to not pursue paths of actions that would have had the potential to prevent 9/11? It appears so, and I appreciate and laude your efforts to bring this to light.
Were some of those actions or inactions criminal? Perhaps, though I can't judge that and you do not refer applicable law.
Does any of this mean US agents intended to have 3000 murdered? HELL NO!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 May 2017, 03:58 PM   #130
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,671
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
... why all of these innocent people were murdered on 9/11.
You make up BS about 9/11; you ignore the other possible threats, and the fact is we can't read minds, we can't tell the future.


Why?
Because UBL wanted to kill americans, he allowed it to happen, he helped.

Why,
because we treated hijacking an aircraft as a negotiation opportunity.

Why,
because 19 nuts for UBL decided they could kill their way to the cockpits of four planes and kill 8 pilots so they end the fake hijacking by using planes as kinetic energy weapons.

You ignore the many other tasks the FBI and CIA were working, and have no clue you can't see which threat or which bad guys are going to do something. No clue when or where. The BS of the lights were blinking red is also a monday morning quarterbacking thing - we look back at failure and think we should have seen IT.
Rossini is looking back, as others are, and think they could have, or should have seen IT coming. Gee, if we were like you are, we would never lose a football game, never have an accident, never not know what was going to happen.

The conclusions you make, due to failed logic.


It is so easy to look back and see the threads leading to the event. I have no idea why you are not the richest person in the world since you can read the future... oops, from after the future.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 17th May 2017, 04:38 PM   #131
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Does any of this mean US agents intended to have 3000 murdered? HELL NO!
This.

paloalto's conclusions are based solely on hindsight. He fails to support his conclusions as to the intent of the people he accuses of treason.

His default position. We're stupid because we can't connect the dots. Fact is, we can. Difference being, we accept the facts that predate the event.
__________________
"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 17th May 2017, 06:04 PM   #132
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
paloalto,

thanks for posting so much of what Rossini said. I am more certain now than before that he did not support your foolish nonsense claim that anyone in those US agencies acted criminally with an intent to murder 3000.

He says several times that agents acted with intent when they held back this or that information or looked some other way or droped one or another ball. None of these intentions were "to murder 3000". The intentions were all quite different from that.


Was there a chance to prevent 9/11? Potentially.
Did agents consciously chose to not pursue paths of actions that would have had the potential to prevent 9/11? It appears so, and I appreciate and laude your efforts to bring this to light.
Were some of those actions or inactions criminal? Perhaps, though I can't judge that and you do not refer applicable law.
Does any of this mean US agents intended to have 3000 murdered? HELL NO!

No one ever made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder exactly 3000 people. This is nothing but a Red Herring.

What is claimed is that the CIA and agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that both agencies and the Bush administration had been warned about since April 2001.

My previous conclusions bear repeating:

It is absolutely impossible to believe that after April 2001, and after the warnings that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was going to take place inside of the US were pouring into the CIA and FBI HQ's, and the CIA ordered their own manger working at the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, to criminally sabotage FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and FBI Agent Ali Soufan's Cole bombing investigations of Mihdhar and Hazmi, by withholding the Kuala Lumpur information from them, and Corsi and Middleton, who were working for Wilshere then shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, all of these people knew full well that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific attack inside of the US, killing many Americans.

Lets simplify this. You are warned a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack is just about to take place inside of the US. You are told that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US, clearly in order to take part in this attack. You then shut down the only criminal investigation of these al Qaeda terrorists, that could have found them and stopped this attack, before it took place, knowing full well that when you do this this will allow these terrorists to take part in this terrorist attack.

This makes a lot of sense?

Since all of these actions were deliberate, and since all of these people not only knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, but also knew that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this huge attack, one can conclude that the CIA and the agents and managers that they had corrupted at FBI HQ’s had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out this attack. At this point there is no rational circumstance that would allow anyone to conclude otherwise, and to this date no one has come up with any even semi-rational explanation for their actions.

Again, no one knew exactly how people would be killed in this attack, but the CIA had clearly indicated that it would be "mass casualties".

So we should forgive them because they did not precisely know exactly how many people would be killed by their actions?

Again this makes a lot of sense?
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 May 2017, 06:21 PM   #133
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
No one ever made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder exactly 3000 people. This is nothing but a Red Herring.

What is claimed is that the CIA and agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that both agencies and the Bush administration had been warned about since April 2001.


Could you explain the distinction between these statements?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 17th May 2017 at 06:25 PM.
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 17th May 2017, 06:38 PM   #134
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post


Could you explain the distinction between these statements?
This should be self evident!

Refer to prior posts on this forum.
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 May 2017, 08:03 PM   #135
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,731
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Mark Rossini: [b]The 9/11 attacks did not have to happen. The 9/11 attacks happened because of the willful and purposeful non-passage to the FBI of information by the CIA concerning hijackers that had what we call a "Terror Summit" in Malaysia in January 2000.

Hindsight gets injected from the very start here. What is the definition of "hijacker?" Something like "someone who is hijacking or has hijacked [a plane or other vehicle]," right?

So in January 2000, what had any of the people at the Malaysia "Terror Summit" hijacked? Nothing. So how could the CIA pass to the FBI information concerning hijackers? None of them were hijackers at that point.

Now, you're going to tell me something like, "Obviously Rossini really meant 'people who would later become hijackers.' Like he actually said in the following sentence."

But I'm not buying that. Because if that's what he wanted to convey, he would have said so clearly. Instead, his wording is crafted to imply that the FBI was kept in the dark about people known at the time to be hijackers. And that's false spin. No one knew they were hijackers because no one knew hijacking was their plan.

The same sneaky spinning of hindsight evident in the very second sentence pervades the entire passage.
__________________
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 May 2017, 09:37 AM   #136
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
No one ever made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder exactly 3000 people. This is nothing but a Red Herring.
I marked in yellow one of the the only two red herrings around here.
Otherwise, you are of course grieveously mistaken - YOU, paloalto, are a one who "made the claim that the CIA or agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder [almost] 3000 people":
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The people who had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11 ...
See? "Deliberately" ..."murder" ... "3000".

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
What is claimed is that the CIA and agents and managers at the FBI HQ's knew that their actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a massive and horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US that both agencies and the Bush administration had been warned about since April 2001.
Whether or not you add the number "3000", strawman it with the adverb "exactly" or qualify it with "almost" - this claim is still a foolish nonsense pretense at reading minds. Neither you nor Rossini offered evidence that any agent had the intent to have a "massive and horrific" number of victims murdered or maimed.
You see, that is the other, and more massive Red Herring around here. This imagined intent distracts from the serious and worthwhile issues that your research legitimately raises, and I strongly advise you to get rid of that red Herring already.

ETA:
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
My previous conclusions bear repeating:

It is absolutely impossible to believe ...
Argument from incredulity duly rejected. Thanks for making explicit that your foolish delusion is actually an article of faith, nothing more.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 18th May 2017 at 09:40 AM.
Oystein 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 May 2017, 02:35 PM   #137
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This.

paloalto's conclusions are based solely on hindsight. He fails to support his conclusions as to the intent of the people he accuses of treason.

His default position. We're stupid because we can't connect the dots. Fact is, we can. Difference being, we accept the facts that predate the event.
Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11.

Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum.

The CIA, FBI HQ’s and even the Bush administration had been getting numerous warnings of huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US, since April 2001

In August 21, 2001, both the CIA and FBI HQ’s are notified, from information provided by the INS, that Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US. Both the CIA and FBI HQ’s were clearly aware that these two individuals were al Qaeda terrorists. They had been photographed at an important al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, planning future terrorist attacks.

The FBI HQ’s had even sent several emails back to the CIA indicating that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Mihdhar and Hazmi, were connected to the these warnings, and in one email had even stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack.

On August 21, 2001, from information obtained from the INS, both the CIA and FBI HQ’s find out that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi are inside of the US.

Now as many, many posters have clearly pointed out on this forum, how could anyone have connected the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that several, it turns out there were three, al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US.

Lets simplify this just a bit.

A huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US of A, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US of A.

Lets see how incredibly hard this world have been.

Warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attacks inside of the US, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US. See how exceedingly hard this is.

For the CIA and FBI HQ's to connect the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, to the fact that three al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US, was according to the many posters on this forum, just way, way, too hard, yes just really too hard.

There was just no way for anyone to connect these so called dots. This was what might be called a “bridge too far”.

To have connect these dots, or so we are told, would have taken Einstein-ian intelligence, but since the only person to have had this intelligence was Albert Einstein himself and since he had died in 1953, unless he came back from the dead, an rather unlikely occurrence, there was just no one, as many people have pointed out on this forum, smart enough to connect these dots. After all connecting dots was very, very, hard

We are further told by many posters on this forum, that the information that could have connected these dots was only found after 9/11, that I am using 20/20 hindsight to connect the dots. But hold on here. Wait a minute. Lets look at this in greater detail.

Wasn’t the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place, was known by the CIA, FBI HQ's and the administration, since April 2001, and the fact that it was definitely going to take place inside of the US was known, by late July 2001. And wasn't the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and in fact his brother, Salem al-Hazmi were all found inside of the US and known by the CIA and FBI HQ's on August 21, 2001.

Now I know people on this forum have pointed out that the information that could have stopped these attacks was only found after the attack of 9/11. But, unless I am wrong, August 21, 2001 is over three weeks prior to the attacks on September 11.

So it would appear that the information that could have been used to stop these attacks was known over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11, actually well before the attacks actually took place, attacks which took place over three weeks after August 21, 2001.

But several posters have rightly and correctly pointed out, and this is just very important to note, that on this forum, one really just should never, ever get confused with facts.
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 May 2017, 02:59 PM   #138
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Your venomous sarcasm won't win you a flower pot. Why waste your breath?

Try a little modesty and admit that you cannot read minds; that you argue from (in)credulity; that you used extreme hyperbole when mischaracterizing the intent of certain agents.
It seems that your intent is to make damned sure that no serious, rational person is ever convinced by your arguments that an investigation into those matters is warranted.

Get your act together - correct it.

At cut out that sarcasm crap.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 18th May 2017 at 03:01 PM.
Oystein 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 May 2017, 03:05 PM   #139
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,671
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
... Now I know people on this forum have pointed out that the information that could have stopped these attacks was only found after the attack of 9/11. But, unless I am wrong, August 21, 2001 is over three weeks prior to the attacks on September 11.

So it would appear that the information that could have been used to stop these attacks was known over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11, actually well before the attacks actually took place, attacks which took place over three weeks after August 21, 2001.

But several posters have rightly and correctly pointed out, and this is just very important to note, that on this forum, one really just should never, ever get confused with facts.
You conclusion remains your fantasy.

You failed to show how any information could stop 9/11.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 May 2017, 03:46 PM   #140
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post

We are further told by many posters on this forum, that the information that could have connected these dots was only found after 9/11, that I am using 20/20 hindsight to connect the dots.......................
Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time? Would you say the number of suspects would be greater than a handful or several hundred (thousand)?

After the fact it's easy to identify the ones you should have focused on. My question to you would be, should we have rounded every suspected person with ties to terrorism, using any evidence proven or not? Do you think we have enough man power to do this?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th May 2017 at 03:48 PM.
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 18th May 2017, 05:42 PM   #141
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time? Would you say the number of suspects would be greater than a handful or several hundred (thousand)?

After the fact it's easy to identify the ones you should have focused on. My question to you would be, should we have rounded every suspected person with ties to terrorism, using any evidence proven or not? Do you think we have enough man power to do this?
Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time?

No, one more was know, his name was Zacharias Moussaoui, but he had already been arrested by Minneapolis FBI, so he was no longer a threat. But Minneapolis FBI asked the CIA for help to get enough probable cause in order to request a FISA search warrant for his possessions including his duffel bag.

Even though this information was given to CIA Director George Tenet on August 23, 2001, he and the CIA completely refused to help the FBI, even though he was fully aware of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US. Tenet had in fact ordered the rest of the CIA not to help the Minneapolis agents in their desperate request for help to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui's possessions. In this duffel bag was a receipt from Ramzi bin al-Sheebh, for $14000, which allowed Minneapolis FBI agents after 9/11, to find all of the terrorists in just few days.

So August 21, 2001, out side of Moussaoui, the only other known al Qaeda terrorists that were also known to be inside of the US were Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and his brother, Salem al-Hazmi. They were all found inside of the US and known to the CIA and FBI HQ's by August 21, 2001.

There were not hundreds, just these three that were in the US.

Of course Tom Wilshere said that the CIA and FBI HQ's were just overwhelmed trying to locate these three al Qaeda terrorists, while the evidence shows they had given this search to a single inexperienced FBI agent, Robert Fuller, and then they shut down his investigation by refusing to let him call Saudi Arabian Airlines to get Mihdhar's credit card number.
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 May 2017, 06:04 PM   #142
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your venomous sarcasm won't win you a flower pot. Why waste your breath?

Try a little modesty and admit that you cannot read minds; that you argue from (in)credulity; that you used extreme hyperbole when mischaracterizing the intent of certain agents.
It seems that your intent is to make damned sure that no serious, rational person is ever convinced by your arguments that an investigation into those matters is warranted.

Get your act together - correct it.

At cut out that sarcasm crap.
Reread the post. In fact this is not sarcasm.

Tom Pickard stated at the 9/11 Commission public hearings on April 13-14, 2004, that the FBI clearly knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US and knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US.

He stated in fact that he called all 56 JJTFs, and told them that they should have their evidence teams ready to go after this attack took place. They weren't requested to stop this attack, just to pick up the evidence after the attack took place.

But he stated that no way did the FBI know that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack.

The 9/11 Commission itself stated that they could never figure out why the CIA had never connected the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission just could never figure this out, to them it just didn't make sense that the CIA and FBI could not connect the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US.

This was in fact their excuse why the attacks on 9/'11 had not been prevented!

No one at the FBI HQ or the CIA had ever connected the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack.

So your statement that is is just "venomous sarcasm", is belied by Tom Pickard, Director of the FBI and the even by the 9/11 Commission itself.

Last edited by paloalto; 18th May 2017 at 06:08 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 18th May 2017, 07:51 PM   #143
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,560
The CIA let it happen...blah, blah,blah...

Your fixation on the CIA to the exclusion of the FBI's acknowledged mistakes, along with Customs, and the fun bunch at the NSA who had ALL of the relevant intelligence to stop the hijackers - but didn't know it due to the volume of electronic intercepts they make on an hourly, daily basis, and didn't find it until their internal audit after 9/11/2001, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

You make all of your statements without the historical context. You ignore the previous eight years where AQ was ignored by the White House, and the CIA, and the FBI until the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack. Most all of the middle management of all of the relevant agencies were holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and the fact is that the only official known to cover-up their (possible) role in the failures leading to 9/11/2001 was Sandy Burger...

http://deadline.com/2017/05/shane-sa...ws-1202094039/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ger.sentenced/

Omitting these facts shows your bias.

Edited to add that as of today the FBI's post 9/11 AQ investigation files are still classified and unreleased, so you don't know what you don't know.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 18th May 2017 at 07:52 PM.
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 18th May 2017, 09:43 PM   #144
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The CIA let it happen...blah, blah,blah...

Your fixation on the CIA to the exclusion of the FBI's acknowledged mistakes, along with Customs, and the fun bunch at the NSA who had ALL of the relevant intelligence to stop the hijackers - but didn't know it due to the volume of electronic intercepts they make on an hourly, daily basis, and didn't find it until their internal audit after 9/11/2001, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

You make all of your statements without the historical context. You ignore the previous eight years where AQ was ignored by the White House, and the CIA, and the FBI until the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack. Most all of the middle management of all of the relevant agencies were holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and the fact is that the only official known to cover-up their (possible) role in the failures leading to 9/11/2001 was Sandy Burger...

http://deadline.com/2017/05/shane-sa...ws-1202094039/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ger.sentenced/

Omitting these facts shows your bias.

Edited to add that as of today the FBI's post 9/11 AQ investigation files are still classified and unreleased, so you don't know what you don't know.

Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.
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 19th May 2017, 01:21 AM   #145
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11.
"Connect the dots" is usually conspiracy-speak for "create wild unfounded allegations". Let's see if your post is any different.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum.
No, not hard. Ill-advised. Speculation from a mixture of paranioa and hindsight is not a good way to analyse history.


Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
The CIA, FBI HQ’s and even the Bush administration had been getting numerous warnings of huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US, since April 2001
You keep saying this. None of what you have posted so far backs up the idea they they know the attack would be "huge". Please cite evidence for this claim.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post

Now as many, many posters have clearly pointed out on this forum, how could anyone have connected the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that several, it turns out there were three, al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US.
I don't recall anyone here saying that. What I have said, and others have said repeatedly, is that it was not possible to precisely predict what kind of attack, or the time and place of said attack, Al Quaeda was planning. No-one disputes that the CIA and the FBI were aware of these people.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Lets simplify this just a bit.

A huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US of A, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US of A.

Lets see how incredibly hard this world have been.

Warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attacks inside of the US, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US. See how exceedingly hard this is.
None of which goes to show that anyone knew when, where and what was planned. America is quite a big place, you know.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
There was just no way for anyone to connect these so called dots. This was what might be called a “bridge too far”.
Please cite the evidence you have to support the allegation that members of the CIA and/ or FBI knew when, where, and what was planned. Please show, given the information available to them at the time, how you would have deduced what was being planned.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
To have connect these dots, or so we are told, would have taken Einstein-ian intelligence, but since the only person to have had this intelligence was Albert Einstein himself and since he had died in 1953, unless he came back from the dead, an rather unlikely occurrence, there was just no one, as many people have pointed out on this forum, smart enough to connect these dots. After all connecting dots was very, very, hard
No-one has said this. You are wasting everyone's time (your own included) with this pointless drivel.

Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
We are further told by many posters on this forum, that the information that could have connected these dots was only found after 9/11, that I am using 20/20 hindsight to connect the dots. But hold on here. Wait a minute. Lets look at this in greater detail.

Wasn’t the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place, was known by the CIA, FBI HQ's and the administration, since April 2001, and the fact that it was definitely going to take place inside of the US was known, by late July 2001. And wasn't the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and in fact his brother, Salem al-Hazmi were all found inside of the US and known by the CIA and FBI HQ's on August 21, 2001.

Now I know people on this forum have pointed out that the information that could have stopped these attacks was only found after the attack of 9/11. But, unless I am wrong, August 21, 2001 is over three weeks prior to the attacks on September 11.

So it would appear that the information that could have been used to stop these attacks was known over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11, actually well before the attacks actually took place, attacks which took place over three weeks after August 21, 2001.

But several posters have rightly and correctly pointed out, and this is just very important to note, that on this forum, one really just should never, ever get confused with facts.
Again please show how the information you have mentioned above could have been used to predict that Al Qaeda would hijack 4 planes and use them as missiles to attack the WTC, the Pentagon and (we presume) the White House, on September 11th. That would be a good way to show your case has merit.
Otherwise, we are back in CT-land, pretending that unevidenced assertions, paranoia and hindsight represent legitimate historical investigation.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; 19th May 2017 at 01:48 AM.
Cosmic Yak 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 19th May 2017, 01:47 AM   #146
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.
I will gladly read this document. However, Google is giving me nothing.
Link, please?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 19th May 2017, 12:06 PM   #147
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post

There were not hundreds, just these three that were in the US.
What is your source for this? After 9/11 the FBI collected up hundreds of suspects for questioning. Did they all just show up that day?

You seem to want to paint a picture that the suspects that became the key players in 9/11 were the only ones on the FBI radar. I suspect the number likely extends into the thousands.

I've heard that the FBI receives and responds to hundreds of threats to US security a day. Do you think this could be an accurate assumption?
__________________
"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 19th May 2017, 02:41 PM   #148
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What is your source for this? After 9/11 the FBI collected up hundreds of suspects for questioning. Did they all just show up that day?

You seem to want to paint a picture that the suspects that became the key players in 9/11 were the only ones on the FBI radar. I suspect the number likely extends into the thousands.

I've heard that the FBI receives and responds to hundreds of threats to US security a day. Do you think this could be an accurate assumption?
No, I think this just total BS.

Where are the hundreds of suspects today?

All released.

How many were known al Qaeda terrorists?

None, just Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

How many had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, photographed by the CIA and were at that time inside of the US?

Just three, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.
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 19th May 2017, 02:44 PM   #149
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I will gladly read this document. However, Google is giving me nothing.
Link, please?
See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/defense.html
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 19th May 2017, 02:54 PM   #150
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/defense.html
Make that DE 950, and 950A.
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 19th May 2017, 03:00 PM   #151
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
No, I think this just total BS.

Where are the hundreds of suspects today?

All released.

How many were known al Qaeda terrorists?

None, just Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

How many had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, photographed by the CIA and were at that time inside of the US?

Just three, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.
No source?

Would you think it would be unreasonable to believe there could be a thousand plus individuals that would want to do harm to the US on any given day (inside the US)?

Would you think the FBI might be aware of this?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 19th May 2017 at 03:02 PM.
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 19th May 2017, 10:23 PM   #152
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Make that DE 950, and 950A.
It's a great summary of how the Wall, along with some incompetence, bad luck, and a lack of perfect foresight, all contributed to the failure of the US government to unravel the plot. Not once does it state that any of the people involved failed to follow the investigative protocol applicable to them, except for the one hapless agent (Fuller) who made a mistake (not a crime) in filling out a form for the INS records.

You should just post this document without your silly spin. It's a much better summary than your editorialized nonsense wherein you embellish every other line with half-baked unproven assumptions.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 19th May 2017 at 10:24 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 20th May 2017, 06:47 AM   #153
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...s/defense.html
OK, read it thanks.
However, I found nothing that supports your version of events, and plenty to support what everyone else here is trying to tell you.
Was it your intention to disprove your own argument, because that's what you just did.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 20th May 2017, 07:19 AM   #154
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
Reread the post. In fact this is not sarcasm.
...
Reread your own post. In fact it was sarcastic.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 20th May 2017, 08:17 AM   #155
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No source?

Would you think it would be unreasonable to believe there could be a thousand plus individuals that would want to do harm to the US on any given day (inside the US)?

Would you think the FBI might be aware of this?

I would not know, my information only comes from the many government investigations done on the 9/11 attacks, the DOJ IG report, the JI report, the 9/11 Commission report, and the CIA IG report, the DE's entered into the Moussaoui trial, along with other main stream media sources that had information on 9/11 found no where else, Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower, on Ali Soufan, Bob Woodward's book State of Denial, on the meeting in the White House on July 10, 2001, the article in Harpers, by Kne Sliverstein, Meet the new Bagdad CIA Chief Richard Blee.

I have never seen any mention of other terrorists in the US at that time, other then the three I had listed in my prior post, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.
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 20th May 2017, 08:26 AM   #156
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
OK, read it thanks.
However, I found nothing that supports your version of events, and plenty to support what everyone else here is trying to tell you.
Was it your intention to disprove your own argument, because that's what you just did.
DE 950 was an out line in Power Point, it was never intended to be a exhaustive account of 9/11. I pointed it out only since it was the only document that detailed FBI Agent Dina Corsi's refusal to give permission to Fuller to get Khalid al-Mihdhar's credit card number. Fuller told Corsi that without this number his search for Mihdhar was getting no where.

Why she refused to allow him to get this number has never been explained.
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 20th May 2017, 08:39 AM   #157
paloalto
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 573
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Reread your own post. In fact it was sarcastic.
THAT'S RICH!.

Statements that I posted right from the 9/11 Commission and right from the Director of the FBI Tom Pickard at these hearings himself are labeled sarcastic.

You yourself have just proved my very point, in spades!

How utterly absurd and asinine were the statements by the Director of the FBI and by the 9/11 Commission on the CIA, attempting to defend the indefensible, the inexplicable actions of these two agencies, actions which had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

When anyone repeats these asinine and absurd statements, the statements are so totally absurd they are labeled sarcastic!

Thanks for making my point, in fact making my point several times!

Keep up the good work!

Last edited by paloalto; 20th May 2017 at 08:41 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 20th May 2017, 08:55 AM   #158
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
THAT'S RICH!.

Statements that I posted right from the 9/11 Commission and right from the Director of the FBI Tom Pickard at these hearings himself are labeled sarcastic. ...
FALSE.
Ok, I get now why you are so self-deluded about 9/11: You can't even read your OWN posts correctly for comprehension.

Re-read your own post of 18th May (this being the post we are discussing here, right?), which starts with "Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11. Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum"! To help you parse your own post; The quoted bit - which is the beginning of the post - contains no statements from the 9/11 Commission. Instead, it contains sarcasm. There are more instances of venomous sarcasm in that post.

Again, I ask you, for your own good, to cut out the crap and the sarcasm and stop pretending you can read minds. This crap distracts heavily from all the valuable and legitimate problems you point towards, so much so that I am growing more and more convinced that your intention is to NOT convince anybody of the actual problems with the CIA/FBI operations prior to 9/11.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 20th May 2017, 08:58 AM   #159
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
...my information only comes from[list of legit sources]
No, FALSE.
A major other source is your hubris. It makes you believe you can read minds and know intents far beyond that which is actually stated in the sources you list.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 20th May 2017, 09:07 AM   #160
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,977
Originally Posted by paloalto View Post
DE 950 was an out line in Power Point, it was never intended to be a exhaustive account of 9/11. I pointed it out only since it was the only document that detailed FBI Agent Dina Corsi's refusal to give permission to Fuller to get Khalid al-Mihdhar's credit card number. Fuller told Corsi that without this number his search for Mihdhar was getting no where.

Why she refused to allow him to get this number has never been explained.
Where is it stated that Fuller told Corsi that his search was going nowhere without it?

It says she recommended that it would not be prudent to ask for that information from Saudi Airlines. This appears to be in-line with recommendations from the National Security Law unit.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 20th May 2017 at 09:10 AM.
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
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 06:23 PM.
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.