CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Spend an afternoon digesting the information I posted in this thread and the question will be answered.

LOL says the person who can't digest the simple fact that people cannot see through buildings............you simply have very poor judgement and so you cannot be surprised when people ignore your suggestions to check anything.

Baby steps.....face up to the fact that you are wrong on the blatantly obvious stuff and then we might think your opinion of some value. As of now you are merely a joke.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Kind of like Alanis?

It's ironic that you would post that right after my post.

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks for the bumps, folks. Anybody listened to it? Great investigative journalism with an impressive series of interviewees we got there. Clarke: "Pissed doesn't even begin to describe my feelings ..."

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Part 1 was released today as audio with transcript. The names of analysts "Michael" and "Frances" are redacted, at least for the moment.

Originally Posted by press release

[...] The documentary Who is Rich Blee? features several interviews with direct witnesses to events beginning in early 2000, within the CIA’s Bin Laden Station, headed by its chief Richard Blee, tasked with racking suspect Al-Qaeda operatives.

The release comes after the video in August of a controversial interview with Richard Clarke and follows a delay after the CIA made veiled threats of federal prosecution if the documentary revealed the names of two CIA analysts.

Beginning from a scant footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report (Endnote 44, Chapter 6) the program carefully builds a narrative how CIA intelligence about two future hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, including their presence in San Diego, was repeatedly withheld from the FBI and the White House.

These former officials, several of them for the first time, recount their experiences with the CIA and their suspicions surrounding violations of protocol and seemingly purposeful “bungling” of critical intelligence the CIA had in hand, that if shared, they believe would have likely prevented the 9/11 attacks.

Repeated and ongoing attempts by the CIA to obscure the facts around this case have raised concerns about possible criminal acts, and brought increased scrutiny on the CIA and a pattern of obstruction there in the 18 months leading up to 9/11. [...]

[carlitos]

I know the real reason why "Frances" was redacted.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Thanks for the bumps, folks. Anybody listened to it? Great investigative journalism with an impressive series of interviewees we got there. Clarke: "Pissed doesn't even begin to describe my feelings ..."

delete

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I know the real reason why "Frances" was redacted.

Given what she did, do you think the CIA's demands and threats are justified?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Thanks for the bumps, folks. Anybody listened to it? Great investigative journalism with an impressive series of interviewees we got there. Clarke: "Pissed doesn't even begin to describe my feelings ..."

Again, I am fascinated by this. Unfortunately, I have been spending all of my time focusing on the National Security Alert.

They tell me that "It wasn't Flight 77 and it didn't hit the building
The majority of the witnesses we spoke with did not describe it as or said it looked like an American Airlines. It was a military plane and it flew over the building."

So, my thinking is because CE on JREF has repeatedly insisted that CIT is correct, this whole thing with Press for Truth is some sort of disinfo campaign.

I am going to the CIT's site and report this at "Operation Accountability"!
Craig and Aldo will know what to do!

[Childlike Empress]

Oh the silence, Carlitos. Yeah, I know you have no clue what she did because as you admitted you are only here to take cheap shots at me and muddy the waters, like your buddies. But do you know why I asked? No? Because contrary to you I really knew why the CIA was so eager to keep her name out of this and wanted to give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. The names are out, with all the details in the documentary it was child's play to deduce them, at least for Sibel Edmonds and associates.

Quote:

Boiling Frogs Post has now confirmed the identity of the CIA analyst at the heart of a notorious failure in the run-up to the September 11th tragedy. Her name is Alfreda Frances Bikowsky and she is the current director of the CIA Jihad Unit. Through three credible sources and documents we have confirmed Ms. Bikowsky’s former titles and positions, including her start at the CIA as an analyst for the Soviet Desk, her position as one of the case officers at the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit-Alec Station, her central role and direct participation in the CIA’s rendition-torture and black sites operations, and her current position as director of the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit.

Alfreda Frances Bikowsky is the person described in New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side as having flown in to watch the waterboarding of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammad without being assigned to do so. “Its not supposed to be entertainment,” superiors were said to have told her. She was also at the center of “the el-Masri incident,” in which an innocent German citizen was kidnapped by the CIA in 2003 and held under terrible conditions without charges for five months in a secret Afghan prison. The AP characterized it as “one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism.”

Both the previous and current administrations appear to have deemed Alfreda Frances Bikowsky’s direct involvement in intentional obstruction of justice, intentional cover up, lying to Congress, and overseeing rendition-kidnapping-torture practices as qualifying factors to have kept promoting her. She now leads the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit and is a close advisor to the President.

Hope you feel safer now, Yankistanis.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Hope you feel safer now, Yankistanis.

I don't, not with MONSTERS like this running around:

"The First Known Accomplice? (Featuring Lloyde England)

This presentation features our first interview with Lloyde England, the infamous taxicab driver who claims his windshield was speared by light pole #1. His account has been proven false by the 13 times corroborated witnesses who place plane on the north side of the gas station far from the light pole that allegedly hit Lloyde's car. The debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon can be boiled down to whether you choose to believe the north side witnesses or Lloyde. While the interview in this piece was conducted in 2006 before we had obtained the north side evidence, please also view our follow-up interview with Lloyde from 2008 where we confront him with the information proving his story false: The Eye of the Storm."

This whole thread sounds like disinfo, because even a *********** 12 year old can see that it directly contradicts all the fine, fine work done by the wonder twins, Shakey Craig and The Buffet Slayer.

Right CE?

[twinstead]

gotta love kookfights

[Childlike Empress]

16.5, the readers of this thread will not care about your off-topic nonsense or what it means. Perhaps they will wonder why it is allowed to go on, but that's all. What matters is that they get the information, which is not dependent on me being credible or not.

But you know that. It's just the only option left in the textbook. Sucks, eh?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

16.5, the readers of this thread will not care about your off-topic nonsense or what it means. Perhaps they will wonder why it is allowed to go on, but that's all. What matters is that they get the information, which is not dependent on me being credible or not.

But you know that. It's just the only option left in the textbook. Sucks, eh?

Off topic? I am taking the very information that you are posting in this very thread and using it to demonstate that it directly contradicts one of your theories regarding what happened at the Pentagon.

Well, hell, you got away with spamming the NSA thing for sooooo long, I thought it absolutely essential to point out that this thread, posted by you, completely contradicts your pals' idiotic flyover theory, that you repeatedly spammed in other threads.

So it is DIRECTLY on topic. Your opening post and the information therein is directly contradictory to the CIT fly over theory.

But you know that. Hand waving it away is just the only option left in the textbook. Sucks, eh?

/Someday a Truther is going to admit to being wrong. Someday.....

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Off topic? I am taking the very information that you are posting in this very thread and using it to demonstate that it directly contradicts one of your theories regarding what happened at the Pentagon.

Well, hell, you got away with spamming the NSA thing for sooooo long, I thought it absolutely essential to point out that this thread, posted by you, completely contradicts your pals' idiotic flyover theory.

/Someday a Truther is going to admit to being wrong. Someday.....

You are attacking the messenger. Nobody cares.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You are attacking the messenger. Nobody cares.

absolutely false. Now while your opening post consisted of exactly a link and a quote, it is certainly permissible to point out that it manages to contradict the No Planer at the Pentagon theory.

The fact that you posted it is very significant, because it seems that the OP's claim that the two men were hijackers is bull **** or the CIT claim that they were not even on the military planes is bull ****.

Which is it?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Oh the silence, Carlitos. Yeah, I know you have no clue what she did because as you admitted you are only here to take cheap shots at me and muddy the waters, like your buddies. But do you know why I asked? No? Because contrary to you I really knew why the CIA was so eager to keep her name out of this and wanted to give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. The names are out, with all the details in the documentary it was child's play to deduce them, at least for Sibel Edmonds and associates.




Hope you feel safer now, Yankistanis.

So who is likely to carry the can for all this ?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by bill smith

So who is likely to carry the can for all this ?

We'll see. With the parallel developing new Saudi stuff and Bob Graham calling for reopening the investigation, it could get interesting. This is making headlines outside the usual "fringe" sites. And all the interviewees are of course aware of the end product, too.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

We'll see. With the parallel developing new Saudi stuff and Bob Graham calling for reopening the investigation, it could get interesting. This is making headlines outside the usual "fringe" sites. And all the interviewees are of course aware of the end product, too.

I'm not up to speed on this stuff but anything that will give the fire a thorough poking is good for me. We'll see what other stuff gets dragged into the open.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Oh the silence, Carlitos. Yeah, I know you have no clue what she did because as you admitted you are only here to take cheap shots at me and muddy the waters, like your buddies. But do you know why I asked? No? Because contrary to you I really knew why the CIA was so eager to keep her name out of this and wanted to give you another opportunity to embarrass yourself. The names are out, with all the details in the documentary it was child's play to deduce them, at least for Sibel Edmonds and associates.




Hope you feel safer now, Yankistanis.

Wow. You must not have gotten the joke with the youtube link. I read the articles. She apparently did some bad things. I have mixed feelings about "outing" mid-level civil servants. I'm ambivalent.

That said, I don't know how this has anything to do with "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." Could you enlighten me please?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Wow. You must not have gotten the joke with the youtube link. I read the articles. She apparently did some bad things. I have mixed feelings about "outing" mid-level civil servants. I'm ambivalent.

That said, I don't know how this has anything to do with "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." Could you enlighten me please?

You haven't read the articles if you have to ask where the conspiracy is.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I'm not up to speed on this stuff but anything that will give the fire a thorough poking is good for me. We'll see what other stuff gets dragged into the open.

Exactly.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You haven't read the articles if you have to ask where the conspiracy is.

And you won't cite it in simple terms here because you favor passive-aggressive control mechanisms like being deliberately vague and obtuse. Kudos.

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by carlitos

And you won't cite it in simple terms here because you favor passive-aggressive control mechanisms like being deliberately vague and obtuse. Kudos.

Really. I'm actually interested in this story, but CE can't get to the damn point. And no, I'm not going to listen to an 80-minute podcast or wade through an avalanche of dubious websites. Summary please.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Triterope

Really. I'm actually interested in this story, but CE can't get to the damn point. And no, I'm not going to listen to an 80-minute podcast or wade through an avalanche of dubious websites. Summary please.

Come on. Honestly. You wouldn't want a wacky twoofie like me to summarize it. How would you know I got it right? I told you how to get started with this, that has to be enough. If you are honestly interested, that is.

edit: all this aside, the actual documentary is REALLY worth listening to. You'll hear from Kean, Clarke, Mark Rossini, Eleanor Hill and several others who were either there while it happened or while it was investigated. Also Bob Baer, Lawrence Wright, Kevin Fenton and other authors. A stunning piece. Second concluding part is scheduled to be released October 11th.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

We'll see. With the parallel developing new Saudi stuff and Bob Graham calling for reopening the investigation, it could get interesting. This is making headlines outside the usual "fringe" sites. And all the interviewees are of course aware of the end product, too.

Do I have to break the news to the truthers that it does not seem all that inside jobby jobby?

Actually, it shows the incompetence of pre 9/11 intelligence, the discussion of which has been over whelmed by idiotic theories like THE PENTAGON FLYOVER.

Oh, pre 911 intelligence sucked.

Oh Saudi nationals were involved in 911.

INSIDE JOBBY!

[Triterope]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I told you how to get started with this, that has to be enough. If you are honestly interested, that is.

Your first link was to a 13-page thread here without any indication of what the relevant material was. I skimmed it, but the vast majority here didn't seem to buy the claims offered, and there's certainly nothing that qualifies as a summary.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Come on. Honestly. You wouldn't want a wacky twoofie like me to summarize it. How would you know I got it right?

I just want a summary of what you allege. I don't think that's too much to ask. The links you provided me go on and on about this guy said something to that guy who called this third guy who said not to send the cable to the fourth guy thus proving that the third guy was lying when he said he didn't know the first guy had forgotten that the fifth guy OH YEAH WHAT'S THE POINT.

Here's all I want to know:

Are the filmmakers, and by extension, you, accusing these government agents of intentionally allowing 9-11 to happen by failing to act when they had the opportunity?

And just so you know what sort of answer I'm looking for here:

[] Yes
[] No

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Triterope

Your first link was to a 13-page thread here without any indication of what the relevant material was. I skimmed it, but the vast majority here didn't seem to buy the claims offered, and there's certainly nothing that qualifies as a summary.

The OP of that thread is a good summary. Nobody throughout the thread has seriously challenged the information in the OP while the claims were backed up in great detail.

Yes, we are talking about intentional actions here.

Here's the interview with Richard Clarke the producers released in August and which made some headlines. You can call that a summary, although I and likely the producers don't agree with his theory to explain what happened.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

The OP of that thread is a good summary. Nobody throughout the thread has seriously challenged the information in the OP while the claims were backed up in great detail.

Yes, we are talking about intentional actions here.

...

The thread of spam, filled with fictional claims/conclusions. We are talking about fantasy and opinions, here, 911 truth, no action, no progress.
The claims are nonsense. Feel free to apply for a Pulitzer! What is stopping you from taking action? Don't you want to be famous?

If you were right about anything, you would have a Pulitzer. What is stopping you? Part of your problem, you are not saying anything, and the implied claims you have are fuzzy, not defined, and not supported by evidence.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by carlitos

And you won't cite it in simple terms here because you favor passive-aggressive control mechanisms like being deliberately vague and obtuse. Kudos.

Originally Posted by Triterope

I just want a summary of what you allege.

...

Here's all I want to know:

Are the filmmakers, and by extension, you, accusing these government agents of intentionally allowing 9-11 to happen by failing to act when they had the opportunity?

And just so you know what sort of answer I'm looking for here:

[] Yes
[] No

Hahahahahaha! You didn't expect a yes / no answer to a simple question, did you? You expected it to be snipped from the response and ignored, then a link to yet another video that depicts Richard Clarke giving a theory that the OP and the producers wouldn't agree with, right?

See how it works? It's a game. The subject could be 9/11, bigfoot, or mysticism and it would be exactly the same. You can't argue with a personality disorder.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Hahahahahaha! You didn't expect a yes / no answer to a simple question, did you? You expected it to be snipped from the response and ignored, then a link to yet another video that depicts Richard Clarke giving a theory that the OP and the producers wouldn't agree with, right?

See how it works? It's a game. The subject could be 9/11, bigfoot, or mysticism and it would be exactly the same. You can't argue with a personality disorder.

Uhmmm....

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Yes, we are talking about intentional actions here.

Check:

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

another opportunity to embarrass yourself.

[newton3376]

Well CE?

What is your actual claim? Do you have a claim?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Triterope

Here's all I want to know:

Are the filmmakers, and by extension, you, accusing these government agents of intentionally allowing 9-11 to happen by failing to act when they had the opportunity?

And just so you know what sort of answer I'm looking for here:

[] Yes
[] No

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Yes, we are talking about intentional actions here.

At the risk of playing this game, you are saying that your "we are talking about intentional actions here" is a "yes" to the above specific question about these specific government agents (Frances and Michael) intentionally allowing 9/11 to happen?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

At the risk of playing this game, you are saying that your "we are talking about intentional actions here" is a "yes" to the above specific question about these specific government agents (Frances and Michael) intentionally allowing 9/11 to happen?

Together with others they prevented the system to work. Intentionally. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. I don't agree with Clarke about his theory WHY that happened (he may have come to different conclusions by now), but we agree on WHAT happened, because the facts are all there. Now do your homework or play elsewhere.

sheeplesnshills, weren't you recently warned and asked to stop your spamming?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Together with others they prevented the system to work. Intentionally. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. I don't agree with Clarke about his theory WHY that happened (he may have come to different conclusions by now), but we agree on WHAT happened, because the facts are all there. Now do your homework or play elsewhere.

The yes / no question was Did Frances and Michael intentionally allow 9/11 to happen. It's really a simple yes or no. The question was not "intentionally prevent the system from working."

I realize that you don't want to answer a "yes or no" question for the reasons I stated above, but please stop pretending that you have answered it.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

sheeplesnshills, weren't you recently warned and asked to stop your spamming?

By you?

How is it spamming? You are asking us to believe things you say and sources you link to and I'm simply pointing out to you any readers that you simply are not a credible source so that they could save their time checking your links.

If you cry wolf you can't be surprised when no comes running anymore.
The solution is in your hands. Stop defending the indefensible. People cannot see through buildings.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

The yes / no question was Did Frances and Michael intentionally allow 9/11 to happen. It's really a simple yes or no. The question was not "intentionally prevent the system from working."

I realize that you don't want to answer a "yes or no" question for the reasons I stated above, but please stop pretending that you have answered it.

It's only a simple yes or no question for simpletons. Their intentional actions allowed 9/11 to happen. This is a fact. Why they did what they did, and if and to which extent they were aware of the consequences, is a different question we can not know. Shouldn't we ask them, Carlitos? Hm?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

we can not know

When you asked them, what did they say?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by carlitos

When you asked them, what did they say?

When the producers asked the CIA if they could ask them, they said that releasing their names would bring legal trouble. See OP.

Tenet, Black and Blee released a joint statement you can read on the producers website.

[carlitos]

They have the names. Surely legal threats aren't going to intimidate truth seekers? I know that journalism is long from the salad days, but God, they aren't even going to seek these guys out and ask direct questions? Cowards.

[Childlike Empress]

This game ends here, carlitos.

[carlitos]

As I've said before, I'm glad that real advocates and activists don't emulate the 9/11 "Truth" movement. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the many, many real-world successes of groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Pretending to fight against a pretend conspiracy takes a lot less effort and guts. No risk, no reward.