New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3041310&mesg_id=3041310


New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report
Posted by kpete on Fri Mar-21-08 06:34 AM

9/11 Commission Expose - Not the Last Word
Friday, 21 March 2008, 12:16 pm
Opinion: Kyle Hence


Not the Last Word:
New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report

By Kyle F. Hence
© Copyright 2008 - Kyle F. Hence
3/18/08

This Nation, in fact this World, will not be set right, until the whole
truth is known, and justice done. Regardless of our own personal
connection to these horrific events it is our personal responsibility to
rectify the untenable position we now find ourselves relative to the
events of 9/11 and inadequate attempts at investigation which amounted
to a total failure to effect any accountability whatsoever. Phil Shenon
has done a great service in shedding more light on the failings and
compromises of the 9/11 Commission. But it's only a beginning...whether
the process is completed or not may well depend on what you personally
do to make a difference on this issue. Former Senator and former 9/11
Commissioner Kerrey has called for Congress to establish a permanent
Commission to continue the investigation. This is courageous stand.
Let's hope that soon he will joined by other Commissioners and staff and
that the next President will support just such a Commission. There is no
doubt whatsoever there is just cause.

Most sincerely,

Kyle F. Hence

********************

"Senior investigators on the 9/11 Commission believed their work was being manipulated by the executive director to minimize criticism of the Bush Administration."



"Investigative staffers at the Commission believe Philip Zelikow repeatedly sought to minimize the administration’s intelligence failures in the months leading up to 9/11, which had the effect of helping to ensure President Bush’s re-election in 2004."



--Excerpts from The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759
by Philip Shenon

more at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00331.htm

[wildbilln864]

1. Thank you SLaD! nt

:patriot:

[nashville_brook]

2. "a permanent commission" -- i like it.

[Diane_nyc]

3. In the article about Shenon's book, a link to an article by Kristen Breitweiser

The article http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00331.htm">Shenon 9/11 Commission Expose - Not the Last Word by Kyle Hence contains a link to an interesting article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/enabling-danger-part-one_b_5951.html">by Kristen Breitweiser (one of the Jersey Girls) about Able Danger and related matters. The latter article includes the following:

Additionally, some questions have been raised about the ability of DIA to label or "identify" Atta as an al Qaeda operative as early as 2000. To me, it would seem logical that DIA was able to do so, after all, in 2000 Atta was living in Hamburg, Germany and having regular contacts with other known al Qaeda operatives namely Ramzi Binalshibh, Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Muhammed Zammar, Mounir Motassadeq, Abdelghani Mzoudi, and Mamoun Darkazanli. We know that the German government had Atta’s cell—the Hamburg cell—under surveillance and we also know that our CIA was conducting parallel surveillance during the same time period. Information surrounding the Hamburg cell and the surveillance is documented throughout the German trials of Mzoudi and Mottasedeq—two of the al Qaeda operatives that were prosecuted for their ties to the 9/11 attacks but eventually released after the United States refused to cooperate with the German courts by sharing intelligence evidence linking the men to the 9/11 plot. (Both men are walking the streets of Germany today as free men because our government refused to share evidence linking them to the 9/11 plot—something that frustrates many of the 9/11 families since we have yet to hold one terrorist accountable for the 9/11 attacks.) The surveillance of the Hamburg cell is also mentioned in overseas news reports from both London and Germany. One account even goes so far as to say that the CIA attempted to "flip" one of Atta’s comrades (Darkazanli) into being an informant for the CIA. Clearly, by December 2000, the CIA knew at least that Atta was a person of interest, so why should it seem so hard for the agency and others in our government to understand how DIA was able to do so, too?

Surveillance of the Hijackers — the proof.

The speed by which our government was able to accumulate such a vast amount of information immediately following the 9/11 attacks (in less than 24 hours) is the most persuasive proof that our government had the hijackers under its surveillance. FBI agents descended upon the very flight schools (out of the thousands of flight schools in our country) that the hijackers attended within two hours of the attacks. They were seen removing files from the flight schools buildings. Furthermore, photos of the hijackers and details about their activities in the final days before the attacks were also immediately presented to the American people. I mean you are talking about an intelligence apparatus that according to official accounts was completely in the dark about the plotting and planning of the 9/11 attacks. They — our intelligence agencies — knew nothing about the operatives living in this country—the operatives that were fully imbedded and openly training in our flight schools, partaking in practice flights across this country, receiving wire transfers from al Qaeda sources, and repeatedly traveling in and out of this country to visit other terrorists and terrorist facilities. Yet, for a group of agencies caught completely flat-footed on the day of 9/11, they certainly were able to get their act together at a time when most—if not all-- of this nation’s citizens were brought to their knees.

Additionally, when one carefully reads the 9/11 chronology and information provided in the public record, it becomes increasingly clear that the CIA’s repeated failure to share information with the FBI about two of the 9/11 hijackers—al Mihdhar and al Hazmi-- was purposeful. There exists at least seven instances between January 2000 and September 11th, 2001, that the CIA withheld vital information from the FBI about these two hijackers who were inside this country training for the attacks. Once, twice, maybe even three times could be considered merely careless oversights. But at least seven documented times? To me, that suggests something else. (To read about these instances, I suggest you read 9/11 materials relating to the "watchlisting issue" involving al Mihdhar and al Hazmi which is a story so detailed, that it deserves its own lengthy blog.)

[Bassman66]

4. Excellent points. nt.

[rschop]

5. RE: In the article about Shenon's book, a link to an article by Kristen Breitweiser

Diane_nyc

Diane, if you see my posts or read my book, "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" you will find that the CIA withheld the information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 from the FBI criminal investigators on the 12 times.

In the account listed above it says:

"Additionally, when one carefully reads the 9/11 chronology and information provided in the public record, it becomes increasingly clear that the CIA’s repeated failure to share information with the FBI about two of the 9/11 hijackers—al Mihdhar and al Hazmi-- was purposeful. There exists at least seven instances between January 2000 and September 11th, 2001, that the CIA withheld vital information from the FBI about these two hijackers who were inside this country training for the attacks. Once, twice, maybe even three times could be considered merely careless oversights. But at least seven documented times? To me, that suggests something else."

But, by combining the account of FBI agent Ali Soufan with the Justice Department IG report, sometimes referred to as the FBI IG report, it was possible to prove that when "the CIA withheld vital information from the FBI about these two hijackers who were inside this country training for the attacks" this was done because of a very wide spread criminal conspiracy at the CIA and FBI HQ to hide this information from an on going FBI criminal investigation into the Cole bombing.


The information the CIA wanted to keep secret from the FBI criminal investigators was the al Qaeda planning meeting at Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and the names of the people who had attended this meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Tafiq (Walid) Bin Attash, aka Khallad.

While this information had been withheld from the FBI prior to October 2000, the date of the attack on the Cole, after November 2000, this became clearly a wide ranging criminal conspiracy at the CIA, which included almost everyone in the CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA Yemen station, the handler for the FBI/CIA joint source and perhaps even the CIA Thailand station, and included almost all of the top CIA management including CTC manger Cofer Black and CIA Director George Tenet.

The CIA had enlisted two groups at the FBI to help them keep this information away from the FBI criminal investigation teams, the ITOS unit, headed by Micheal Rolince, and the office of the Director of the FBI at that time headed by Louis Freeh.

FBI Director Louis Freeh had been had been given the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000, and yet when the lead criminal investigator on the Cole bombing, FBI Agent Ali Soufan, asked him about this meeting in November 2000, and requested that Freeh ask CIA Director Tenet, Freeh said the CIA did not have any of this information. But Freeh himself not only had this information, but knew this information had come to him from the CIA.

The article you posted suggests that it was just the number of times that clearly showed this was no accident, but it is actually the facts themselves, which are found in the account of FBI agent Ali Soufan combined with the Justice Department IG report, that proved that each time the CIA withheld this information, this had been done deliberately in spite of direct requests from FBI criminal investigators. If you like I will send you a copy of this book.

[seemslikeadream]

6. this had done deliberately in spite of direct requests from FBI criminal investigators

this had done deliberately in spite of direct requests from FBI criminal investigators

[rschop]

7. RE: seemslikeadream

Fixed, sorry about that. Thanks for proofing this.

[seemslikeadream]

8. Hi rschop

I didn't mean to be rude. I just thought that seemed important. :hi:

[rschop]

9. RE: seemslikeadream

Hi, seemslikeadream,

Thanks, and if you find any obvious typos in any of my future posts, please just let me know. I appreciate this.

I think that the information that I, Kevin and Paul have posted in this forum is important but not widely known by the American people out side of this blog and with people who have read Paul's time line or the book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11". Keep up your excellent posts and questions.

Thanks again.

rschop

[Bassman66]

10. Have they ever been asked why they withheld this information?

If not why not?

[rschop]

11. RE: Have they ever been asked why they withheld this information?

Yes, many times by the 9/11 Commission and by FBI IG investigators. Tenet testified under oath to the 9/11 Commission public hearings and said the CIA had not deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. But when he was asked specific questions, his answers were not only asinine but completely absurd.

When Tenet was asked at the April 14, 2004 public 9/11 Commission hearings, why no one at the CIA responded to the cable that said Nawaf al-Hazmi had entered the US on January 15, 2000, Tenet said no one at the CIA had read this cable. But we now know , from the CIA IG report, at least 50-60 people at the CIA had read this cable.

When Tenet was asked why if he knew a huge attack was going to take place inside of the US in August 2001 that would kill thousands of Americans, what did he tell the President about this attack? It would seem that this horrific information would have been given immediately to the President of the US. After all he has told us on numerous occasions that his most important responsibility is to protect the American people, and surely CIA Director Tenet would have been aware that this was "the President's most important responsibility".

But Tenet said he had not talked to the President at all in August 2001. He said he was in Washington and the President was in Crawford, Texas in August, and that was the reason he had not talked to the President in August 2001.

But when asked why he did not use the telephone and call the President and tell him this horrific information Tenet said he had not done this but could not take this explanation any farther than that. But Bill Harlow, spokesman for the CIA said right after Tenet's testimony that Tenet had lied to the 9/11 Commission, in fact to the 9/11 Commission several times. Harlow said that Tenet had talked to the President in August, when he flew down to Crawford on August 17, 2001 and in Washington on August 30, 2001. We also now know Tenet flew down to Crawford on August 24, 2001 just after he was told Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and that Moussaoui an al Qaeda terrorists who had been arrested trying to take flying lessons on a Boeing 747 with no prior flight experience.

When Tenet found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 23, 2001, he clearly knew that these two long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA was aware of but that he claims he never told the President about! But it had to have been on Tenet's orders in July that Tom Wilshire was denied twice from turning the information the CIA had on the meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the names of the people who had attended this meeting, Mihdhar, Hazmi, and Khallad to the FBI criminal investigators. Wilshire was denied permission to turn this information over to the FBI on July 13 and on July 23, 2001, even after Wilshire had stated in in his July 23, 2001 email that Mihdhar and by association Hazmi will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeada operation .

When Tenet was asked why he did not bring up this horrific information, that thousands of Americans were just about to be killed in a huge al Qaeda attack in the US, at the September 4, 2001 Principles meeting, the very first Principles meeting on the al Qaeda terrorists held by the Bush administration, he said, "For what ever reason it was just not appropriate" to bring up the fact that thousands of Americans were just about to perish in this huge al Qaeda attack, and he could just not take this any further.

GO FIGURE!

[rschop]

14. RE: RE: Have they ever been asked why they withheld this information?

Does any one else on this post see the absolute absurdity of Tenet's answers to the 9/11 Commission as to why he and the US government allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, attacks that resulted in almost 3000 innocent people being murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists?

Tenet and the CIA knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in this attack and then did not give this information to the FBI criminal investigators, so they could prevent this attack. WHY?

We also can surmise that "it had to have been on Tenet's orders in July 2001 that Tom Wilshire, former deputy chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, was denied twice from turning the information the CIA had on the meeting in Kuala Lumpur and the names of the people who had attended this meeting, Mihdhar, Hazmi, and Khallad to the FBI criminal investigators. Wilshire was denied permission to turn this information over to the FBI on July 13 and on July 23, 2001, even after Wilshire had stated in his July 23, 2001 email that Mihdhar and by association Hazmi will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeada operation." He had even stated in his July 5, 2001 email to his CTC managers that he thought the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were clearly connected to the warnings of a huge attack the CIA had received many warnings about.

The CIA denied Wilshire permission twice from turning over the very information to the FBI criminal investigators that they could have used to prevent the attacks on 9/11. WHY?

But we know Tenet was aware of this information, and knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US after Gillespie issued the world wide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 23, 2001. On that date Tenet even knew about Moussaoui, an al Qaeda terrorists trying to learn how to fly a 747 with no prior flight experience. On August 24, 2001 Tenet flew down to Crawford, TX to meet with the President the next day. He also met with the President on August 30, 2001 in Washington, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11.

So in spite his lies to the Tim Roemer and the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2001 that he had not talked to the President of the United States in August 2001, the Americans people and even the world would still like to know the answer to the question Roemer would almost certainly have asked Tenet next had Tenet not lied about talking to the President in August 2001;

"George, what did you tell the President in August and September 2001 when you knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans?"

We also now know that Tenet told Rice, Clarke, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld about this huge al Qaeda attack in July 2001 and told them that this huge attack was going to take place inside of the US and kill thousands of Americans.

We know this from Bob Woodward's book, "State of Denial".

So what did all of these people tell the President about the fact that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US? We know Rice talked to the President every day, so there is no issue that they did not have immediate contact with the President.

Does any of this make any sense? It even remotely conceivable that if both Tenet and Rice knew about this huge al Qaeda attack, knew it would kill thousands of Americans, that neither one of them would not have told the President about this?

And why was the information the CIA had not turned over to the FBI criminal investigators so these attacks could be prevented? Wouldn't that have been the logical thing to do?

What am I missing here?

In fact, why did the CIA do everything they could to make sure that all of the investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US were shut down, when the CIA knew by doing this that thousands of Americans were going to perish in these attacks?

Can anyone explain any of this?

And why has the American main stream media covered this all up? That is perhaps an even bigger question.

GO FIGURE!

[Bassman66]

15. Excellent questions.

The People deserve to know the truth.

[defendandprotect]

13. Re Kristen Breitweiser . . .

Re Mzoudi and Mottasedeq -- didn't know that "the United States refused to cooperate with the German courts by sharing intelligence evidence linking the men to the 9/11 plot."

I did read her book and don't recall that being in it. Shocking.

The "speed" at getting the 9/11 "evidence" out obviously has to do with needing to get the public

directed in the right direction right away about "who did it?"

But it also makes clear their hand behind this.


Meanwhile, we have to link these "terrorists" attacks ---

the first in '93 under Clinton --- also traces back to government -- FBI pretty much funded it.


Also -- Oklahoma -- the building basically bombed from within ---

Timothy McVeigh? Doubt it!

[defendandprotect]

12. The 9/11 Commission had "credibility" . . . ????

As for the members . . . at least one had attachments to the PNAC --

a few had attachments to airlines ---

and why wouldn't their first COMMON SENSE questions be "Where was NORAD?"

AND

who exactly were these "alleged" hijackers?

Why demolition?

and how did WTC7 go down?