Another 9/11 Curiosity

[paulthompson]

One really has to dig for this stuff since the mainstream media doesn't care and the 9/11 investigations try to downplay damning information as much as possible. The question is, do mere FBI-CIA turf wars explain this, or did the CIA have another reason to hide this information? I believe it's the latter, if you look at the whole picture.

January 4-6, 2000
"CIA Fails to Warn FBI About Terrorist's US Visa Other CIA Agents Are Deliberately Misled About This"
The CIA has been tracking Khalid Almihdhar as he travels to Malaysia for the al-Qaeda summit that starts on January 5. The CIA has just received a photocopy of his passport that shows he has a valid visa to travel to the US. But not only does the CIA fail to put his name on any terrorist watch list, they deliberately prevent the FBI from learning about this visa. On January 4, a CIA cable containing the photocopy is sent to CIA headquarters. An FBI agent assigned to the CIA's Bin Laden unit sees the cable and attempts to share the information about Almihdhar and his visa with colleagues at FBI headquarters. However, a CIA headquarters desk officer instructs him not to send a cable containing this information. Several hours later, this desk officer writes a cable that is distributed only within the CIA. It is sent the next day and claims that Almihdhar's visa documents were shared with the FBI (when she knows they were not). This officer will later admit she didn't personally share the information with the FBI either, and the 9/11 Commission will not be able to find anyone in the CIA who did share it with the FBI in any manner. (9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/049/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03) In 2002, CIA Director George Tenet will allude to e-mails he claims proves the information is passed to the FBI around this time. However, the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry and 9/11 Commission finds that neither the CIA nor the FBI can show any proof these e-mails existed. The FBI claims they never received any such e-mails. (9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04ABC News, 5/10/049/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03) While the Malaysia meeting Almihdhar attends is still in progress, a CIA agent who had been assigned to the FBI's Strategic Information Operations Center to deal with problems "in communicating between the CIA and the FBI" briefs two FBI agents about Almihdhar's activities. This agent then sends an e-mail to another CIA agent describing "exactly" what he told the two FBI agents. One section reads, "This continues to be an (intelligence) operation. Thus far, a lot of suspicious activity has been observed but nothing that would indicate evidence of an impending attack or criminal enterprise. Told (the first FBI agent) that as soon as something concrete is developed leading us to the criminal arena or to known FBI cases, we will immediately bring FBI into the loop. Like (the first FBI agent) yesterday, (the second FBI agent) stated that this was a fine approach and thanked me for keeping him in the loop." The two FBI agents are not told about Almihdhar's US visa. (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03) On January 5 and 6, FBI Director Louis Freeh and other top FBI officials are briefed about the on-going Malaysia meeting as part of one of their regular daily updates. They are told the CIA is in the lead and that the CIA promises to let the FBI know if an FBI angle to the case develops. But they also are not told about Almihdhar's US visa. (9/11 Commission Report, 1/26/04) One FBI official familiar with the case will later complain, "(The CIA) purposely hid (Almihdhar) from the FBI, purposely refused to tell the bureau. ... The thing was, they didn't want John O'Neill and the FBI running over their case. And that's why September 11 happened. ... They have blood on their hands." (Bamford, 2004) Jack Cloonan, an FBI agent who has pursued al-Qaeda members, later says: "If that information (got) disseminated, would it have had an impact on the events of 9/11? I'm telling you that it would have." (ABC News, 5/10/04)

[dbeach]

1. cia fbi nsa dia

have long lost their way..
Al qae da All CIA Duh

blackmail ..extortion ..cover-up ..murder is the way they survive

And a Screaming lying BUT sleepin main media to help keep the monster ball a rollin

[spooked911]

2. Any chance of finding out who this CIA desk officer is?

She seems to be the key culprit here.

I wonder who she was taking orders from?

Although the second CIA agent seems to be part of the misdirection as well.

Personally, I can't see how CIA-FBI turf wars can explain this, but on the other hand I really don't know what sort of things are expected of these people and what earns promotions.

Is it really possible that CIA officers would rather keep information about dangerous terrorists to themselves in order to "protect their turf"? Don't these people have any honor or sense of duty?

[seatnineb]

3. CIA v FBI...........

Spooked9/11 writes....

Is it really possible that CIA officers would rather keep information about dangerous terrorists to themselves in order to "protect their turf"? Don't these people have any honor or sense of duty?

Come on Spooked!

Get with it!

It's just one of those coincidental things.


;-)

[ROH]

4. Another coincidence?

How many coincidences would that make in total?

[DemInDistress]

5. Paul can I run this by you....

On Sept.11 2001 I'll start with 8:30am.GeorgeBush is preparing to go to Booker Elem. School.By this time flight11 has been hijacked and through your timeline the FAA has alerted the Secret Service who in turn inform Bush.For the prior 8 weeks reports of possible hijackings were given to Washington.Bush claimed there were so many warnings they experienced an overload and decided to ignor them.With this knowledge at that particular moment<8:30am>Bush should have sprung into action but chose not to.My point being if Bush truly was unaware of impending doom he could go to Booker with a clear conscience but no, according to the terror timeline bush had countless warnings and there-by cannot invoke ignorance of the facts.My claim is Bush wanted 911,Bush needed 911,bush got his wish.
When I refer to Bush I really mean the "Bush Corporate Crime Family"
I'm saying PaulThompson my president is a lying murderer.

One more thing,just why is FEMA maintaining 800 prison camps fully staffed and waiting for inmates? Who would be the inmates? Is martial law around the corner?
Thanks Paul......:toast: that bud's for you

[paulthompson]

7. I think there's no way...

Bush went to that classroom not knowing at least one of the hijacked planes was caused by terrorism. When Tenet was told the news about 15 minutes before Bush entered the classroom, he was told terrorists had crashed a plane into the WTC. But Bush put on an act, pretending he thought it was only a small plane accidentally crashing. That to me is very damning.

[Rob Conn]

6. Scooped

You scooped the mainstream media by three days! Of course the conclusions to be drawn from your book scoop the media by twenty years. With the release of the Justice Department report, I assume you will be able to greatly enhance the entry above. In reference to the question about turf war or not, I thought this quote was rather telling.

"Records show that the CIA didn't forward the information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi to domestic law enforcement officials until late August 2001, when it asked that the men be put on watch lists." - L.A. Times, 6/10/05

This smells really fishy. They do nothing for months regarding these suspects while receiving dozens of warnings suggesting the nature and timing of a pending attack, and then finally have them put on a watch list just days before? With the 'whole picture' in mind, my assumption of CIA involvement is greatly affirmed. They didn't want domestic law enforcement to compromise the operation, and only put the suspects on a watch list prior to the attack as a cover story. Makes sense to me. - R.C.

P.S. Thanks for the encouragement.

[paulthompson]

8. Yeah

Another thing that stinks is that when the FBI was finally told about Alhazmi and Almihdhar on August 24, 2001, they went so sllllooooowly trying to find them. These two hijackers lived so openly that it wasn't even funny. They had bank accounts, credit cards, car purchases, etc etc in their own name. One of them was even in the San Diego telephone book! There are nationwide databases for these kinds of things that are so easy to search. I don't have it in my timeline, but I remember reading one FBI agent said he was able to find their address info later on the day of 9/11 in less than one hour, using Google. Yet in almost three weeks, the FBI can't find them?

Alot of these things just don't pass the smell test. Another one is that supposedly the Indianapolis air traffic control center discovers Flight 77 is lost around 8:55, assumes it crashed, and doesn't tell anyone outside of the state! As if that's a minor detail FAA headquarters and others wouldn't want to know about! Then, supposedly, they continue not to tell anyone for about another HALF HOUR, and the whole time, while millions are watching the WTC burn on TV, they remain completely oblivious there's any kind of national crisis going on. Supposedly, they don't have the TV turned on, no one is listening to the radio, no loved ones call, no other officials call - somehow, while half the country is freaking out, they remain an oasis of complete cluelessness, all the while failing to tell anyone (except for some regional search and rescue teams) that Flight 77 is still missing. That doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. Yet the mainstream media accepts these kinds of things without question.

By the way, I was just checking out the new FAA report, and can across one little interesting detail that I haven't seen the media cover yet: in March 2000 when Thailand discovered Almihdhar and Alhazmi had left Thailand and flown to the US, Thailand and other countries put these two on their no-fly watch lists (the report doesn't say which other countries.) Of course that magnifies the failure of the US not to put them on their flight list, especially since they were FLYING TO THE US! Yet the media apparently doesn't find that worth reporting.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Doesn't make sense to me

"They didn't want domestic law enforcement to compromise the operation, and only put the suspects on a watch list prior to the attack as a cover story."

If it only took an hour to find them using google on 9/11, then putting them on the watch list almost three weeks prior to 9-11 is hardly at the last minute.

Also, while several warnings were received, the content was not always the same, for example the number of terrorists involved ranged from anywhere between 20 and 200. Also, for example, there was nothing to indicate that only one style of attack (planes) would be used.

[paulthompson]

10. True, but...

"Also, while several warnings were received, the content was not always the same, for example the number of terrorists involved ranged from anywhere between 20 and 200. Also, for example, there was nothing to indicate that only one style of attack (planes) would be used."

True, but ask yourself what preventative measures the US took in the months before 9/11. What were the precautions against a regular hijacking, or bombing of major buildings, etc? Answer? Nothing. The 9/11 Commission even asked Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta if he could point to a single thing the US did in the months before 9/11 to defend against a terror attack and he said no, he couldn't. While Tenet was supposedly running around with his hair on fire, were the front line emergency responders given any warnings? No. Were the pilots? No? US military personnel? No. Airport security? No. All down the line, nothing. In fact, it was actually worse than nothing. In FAA briefings to airport personnel, when the question of planes as weapons came up, the airports were told, "Fortunately, we have no indication that any group is currently thinking in that direction."

And here's a couple of new entries I'm about to put on the web:

Summer 2001
"FBI Tells Local Law Enforcement There Is No Credible Threat of Terrorism In the US"
The FBI's terrorist threat information is shared with state and local law enforcement entities through National Law Enforcement Threat System (NLETS) reports. However, at this time, the heightened state of alert for a terrorist attack in the US is not reflected at all in these NLETS reports. The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry notes, "In a May 2001 NLETS report, for example, the FBI assessed the risk of terrorism as 'low,' and, in a July 2, 2001 NLETS report, stated that the FBI had no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States, although the possibility of such an attack could not be discounted." Further reports focus only on the potential of terrorist attacks against US interests overseas. (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03)

After August 6, 2001
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US Memo Is Not Acted Upon"
The 9/11 Commission will later state that after the now famous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo is given to President Bush on August 6, 2001, "We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al-Qaeda attack in the United States." (Newsweek, 4/28/05)

If you look at the staggering number and variety of warnings coming in at the time specifically pointing to attacks in the domestic US, you can see why so many people think the Bush administration purposely let 9/11 happen. If they didn't, it was criminal negligence so bad they should be put in jail for a very long time.

Compare that NLETS info with what Richard Clarke was trying to do:

July 5, 2001
"Clarke Warns of Something Really Spectacular; FAA and FBI Respond Poorly"
At the request of National Security Adviser Rice and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke leads a meeting of the Counterterrorism and Security Group, attended by officials from a dozen federal agencies. They discuss intelligence regarding terrorism threats and potential attacks on US installations overseas. Two attendees recall Clarke stating that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." One who attended the meeting later calls the evidence that "something spectacular" is being planned by al-Qaeda "very gripping." (Time, 8/4/02; Washington Post, 5/17/02) Clarke directs every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises, and place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert. By early August, all of these emergency measures are no longer in effect. (CNN, 3/02; Washington Post, 5/17/02) The FAA issues general threat advisories, but supposedly neither the FAA's top administrator nor Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta is aware of an increased threat level. (New York Times, 4/18/04) Clarke says rhetorically that he wants to know if a sparrow has fallen from a tree. A senior FBI official attends the meeting and promises a redoubling of efforts. However, just five days later, when FBI agent Ken Williams sends off his memo speculating that al-Qaeda may be training operatives as pilots in the US, the FBI fails to share this information with any other agency. (Washington Post, 5/17/02; Clarke, 2004)

And he wasn't talking just about overseas threats. The very next day, he told heads of the FBI and others:

"They may try to hit us at home. You have to assume that is what they are going to do. Cancel summer vacations, schedule overtime, have your terrorist reaction teams on alert to move fast. Tell me, tell each other, about anything unusual."

So then the FBI is letting all state and local officials think the terror threat is low and not actually following any of his instructions? Something does not compute! And I need to update that Clarke entry because of course the FAA WAS aware of an increased threat level. Fully half of all their daily briefings in this time period mentioned al-Qaeda threats.

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Abundance of precise warnings

"If you look at the staggering number and variety of warnings coming in at the time specifically pointing to attacks in the domestic US, you can see why so many people think the Bush administration purposely let 9/11 happen. If they didn't, it was criminal negligence so bad they should be put in jail for a very long time."

While I can see why so many so many people think the Bush administration purposely let 9/11 happen, I disagree. While it seems incredible at first glance, it was merely another huge intelligence blunder, of which there have been legion, for example:

(1) September 1944, Operation Market Garden. British and Polish paratroops dropped over Arnhem to seize the bridge there. They were turned into mincemeat by a German panzer division which was, by chance, refitting nearby. The intelligence officer for the operation, Major Brian Urquart, had actually photographed the panzers and told his superior, General Browning, days before the attack. In response Browning, desperate to attack at any cost, dismissed Urquart on the ground he was "mentally disturbed".

(2) The Tet Offensive, 1968. General Westmoreland knew it was coming, his intelligence confirmed his suspicions and all leave was cancelled. However, until it was too late, Westmoreland thought the main attack would be at Khe Sanh (a base near the border with North Vietnam), with diversions elsewhere (although the intelligence clearly showed the opposite). The reason he refused to beleive the details of his intelligence was that he had a preconceived notion that the VC and NVA would try to replicate Dien Bien Phu, the set piece battle where the Vietnamese beat the French to win independence (about 20% of the French army was trapped and beaten in the north, while the remainder remained unddefeated in the south. Nevertheless, the victory was enough for independence). If Westmoreland had trusted his intelligence a little more, the Tet offensive would have been snuffed out on the first day and the US would have won in Vietnam.

(3) Yom Kippur, 1973. The Israeli cabinet was so badly informed that they were still debating whether and when there would be a war when the Egyptians were already on the west bank of the Suez Canal. However, Lieutenant Benjamin Siman-Tov of Israeli intelligence had correctly predicted the attack on 1 October, five days before it started. His paper stating an invasion was imminent was suppressed by his superior, Lieutenant-Colonel Gedaliah, a highly unusual move at the time (such papers were preivously circulated in the Israeli army with disparaging comments). Isreal counterattacked, but eventually surrendered the Sinai in a peace deal.

I could go on (about Singapore, Barbarossa, etc.) but I think this shows my point.

I don't think these three officers (Browning, Westmoreland and Gedaliah) wanted to fail for ulterior motives, but they committed blunders similar to that of the Bush administration in the run up to 9/11 (or even worse). No matter how good intelligence the Bush administration received, I don't think it can prove any sort of LIHOP scenario.

[JackRiddler]

12. Plenty of counter-examples

We can make lists of these forever.

What about
Gulf of Tonkin?
Pearl Harbor LIHOP?
Operation Northwoods?

etc. etc.

You're right. The ignored warnings and other evidence of foreknowledge do not in themselves prove a LIHOP scenario.

They do provide probable cause for a criminal investigation, however, which could then subpeona for such proof if it exists.

Since in official investigations the obvious LIHOP hypothesis received no recognition alongside the incompetence theory, I can only conclude a conscious cover-up was perpetrated.

[meppie-meppie not]

13. to swallow the "official" accounting and

if 9/11 was simply the result of negligence then why hasn't anyone been held to task for said negligence? Why has no one been sacked or demoted? Why instead have personnel all along the pipeline been promoted? I believe the answer is because they were conducting their jobs exactly as instructed.

[Kevin Fenton]

16. Criminal Investigation

While I would love to see a criminal investigation, I think that in comparable historical examples there were not many demotions/sackings/prosecutions. What happened to Westmoreland anyway?

As for the Gulf of Tomkin, I find it hard to say what the motive really was, but the NSA does have a history of putting its ships in places they really shouldn't be.

[paulthompson]

14. A lot of these errors you cite...

are not actually errors. Admittedly, some of them are, like Barbarossa, which was the height of hubris on the part of the Nazis and sheer stupidity (and the Russians were equally stupid not to see it coming). But for instance with Market Garden, some people claim, and I find it highly plausible, that certain people on the Allied side wanted it to fail and made sure it failed. The fact that the Panzers were there in the first place was probably not a mere coincidence. You have to remember that there were many fascist sympathizers in the Allied forces, many of them big names.

Here's some forgotten history, which I cut and paste in:

Three grand jury investigations late in WW2 produce an abundance of evidence that Congressmen are receiving funds from Nazi sources. The special assistant to the Attorney General, William Maloney, convenes the first grand jury investigation, which indicts 28 individuals for sedition, and cites thirty publications and twenty-six organizations. Simple opposition to war is not sedition, but accepting funds from the enemy to conduct espionage, or to distribute propaganda, is considered treason.

Maloney’s grand jury investigation determines that at least seven Senators and thirteen Congressman have been bribed, or acted in collusion with and/or aided and abetted Nazi Germany; an additional four are guilty of collaboration. Those listed as collaborators with Nazi agent Viereck are: Stephen A. Day (R-IL); Hamilton Fish (R-NY); Rush Holt (D-WV) and Ernest Lundeen (R/F-MN). The remaining twenty are: John Alexander (R-MN); Philip Bennett (R-MO); Usher Burdick (R-ND); Worth Clark (D-ID); Cliff Clevenger (R-OH); Henry Dworshak (R-ID); Clare Hoffman (R-MI); Edwin Johnson (D-CO); Bartell Jonlman (R-MI); Harold Knutson (R-MN); Robert LaFollette (R-WI); Gerald Nye (R-ND); Robert Reynolds (D-NC); Paul Shafer (R-MI); Henrik Shipstead (R-MN); William Stratton (R-IL); Martin Sweeney (D-OH); Jacob Thorkelson (R-MT); George Tinkham (R-MA); Burton Wheeler (D-MT).

Subsequent investigations reveal the complicity of: C. Wayland Brooks (R-of IL); Martin Dies (D-TX); Jeanette Rankin (R-MT); Dewey Short (R-MO); and Robert Taft (R-OH). Also cited are newspaper giants William Randolph Hearst, Joseph M. Paterson, and Robert R. McCormick.

----

Another example of a pro-fascist is Allan Dulles, future first director of the CIA. He was in Switzerland during WWII as part of the OSS, and secretly worked with plotters against Hitler, including those who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944 (we should all breathe a huge sigh of relief that attempt failed). His motive? He wanted Hitler out so the US could make a negotiated peace with Germany and thus the fascist regime of Nazi Germany could survive the war. Dulles was a very scary guy who had gotten rich largely through business dealings with the Nazis before WW2, and he showed continuing Nazi sympathies after WW2 (ie, Operation Paperclip). Yet he was in this position of remarkable power. Another example would be Joe Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain who was so pro-Nazi that he held celebrations at the US embasssy every time the Nazis took over another country, and eventually had to be recalled as ambassador because his behavior got too embarrassing. The Allies were riddled with such people in positions of power. Of course now all of this has been largely forgotten because it's very embarrassing.

Had Market Garden been successful, the Nazis would have collapsed before 1944 was even over and these attempts to see Hitler go but the Nazis stay in power would have been ruined. I forget the names, but there's evidence that several of the people involved in Market Garden were of the camp who wanted to see Hitler go but the Nazi government survive, and who essentially stabbed Montgomery in the back and let it fail so there would be time to have a negotiated, condititional surrender.

The stories we see in the history books are often just a surface story to cover up embarrassing facts, and deeper intrigues can take place that put an entirely different spin on events. Another good example of this is Watergate. The cover story of two dedicated reporters who singlehandedly brought down Nixon is a lie. The two reporters were mere tools who were given a remarkable number of leaks from a number of figures inside government (Deep Throat being only one leaker). The leakers had their own agenda, their own Machiavellian, internal government power battles, which largely stayed hidden, thanks to the Woodward and Bernstein fairy tale.

I've studied 9/11 enough to see that similar behind the scenes intrigues were taking place here. Machiavellian and realpolitik scheming where what we think of success is failure in some people's minds, and vice versa. We have to look at each historical instance in a case by case basis. Sometimes incompetence is just that, sometimes there are other explanations that can be quite shocking.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Various

"The fact that the Panzers were there in the first place was probably not a mere coincidence." My understanding is the operation did not go well anyway and may have failed whether the panzers were there or not. If you're suggesting that somebody on the allied side tipped the Abwehr (or other agency) off, then I find that difficult to beleive because (1) why not do it on other occasions? (2) it's treason at a time the war is a long way from being decided. Besides, my appreciation of German intelligence at that stage of the war is that it was not especially capable of responding, even if it did receive a tip off.

"I find it highly plausible, that certain people on the Allied side wanted it to fail and made sure it failed." Agree with "wanted it to fail", disagree with "made it fail". How? By warning the Germans? The decision whether to go or not was Browning's.

"Had Market Garden been successful, the Nazis would have collapsed before 1944 was even over" I'm not so sure. While Arnhem is a key bridge over the Rhine and its capture may well have speeded the end of the war up, I'm not so certain it would have taken a mere couple more months.

"The stories we see in the history books are often just a surface story to cover up embarrassing facts, and deeper intrigues can take place that put an entirely different spin on events." I don't really agree with the main thrust of this. I think the stories we see in the history books may be what actually happened, they may be a surface story to cover up..., or they may be somewhere in between. I think we have to assess things on a case by case basis.

Anyway, my main point is that while 9/11 is a huge intelligence disaster, let's say easily in the top 10 worst in history, there are several comparable disasters which no one doubts were genuine disasters. Therefore, to show LIHOP by reference to intelligence failures, a person would have to show that the quality and quantity of the failures was different to that in previous comparable events, which, in my view, has not been done and probably will not be done (that's kind of a badly-written sentence, but I hope you get the gist). I'm not ruling out LIHOP (or anything else), but I just don't think it has been proved, or even shown to be likely yet. I agree a proper investigation would be fantastic.

PS. A lot of the previous disasters were due to preconceived ideas, would counter-terrorist officials in the US have had any such ideas about an attack by Al-Qaeda? If various people, e.g. Clarke, expected an attack, they should really have theorised as to the nature of the attack. If an attack was expected, what sort of attack was it?

[paulthompson]

22. market garden, etc...

My understanding is that Market Garden was very nearly a success, even despite the Panzers. It ended up hinging on the taking of a certain bridge that, if taken, could have united the Allied forces. That bridge was very lightly defended yet the orders to take it from the troops right next to it were never given. I recall that evidence the commander on the ground in charge of that decision was revealed after the war to be a Nazi symathizer. But my memory is a big vague - if you're interested, I suggest you read up on it some more.

> By warning the Germans?

Yes, and also because several of the commanders in Market Garden were determined to be deliberately incompetent enough to make sure it failed. One has to realize there were those on the Allied side who wanted the Germans to be defeated, but had notions about HOW they were to be defeated, so while generally loyal, they didn't want this one operation to succeed because of its implications on post-war Europe. One sees this kind of behavior all the time, where one person or branch in government undermines another part of goverment for power or glory or ideology or whatever.

>"Had Market Garden been successful, the Nazis would have collapsed before 1944 was even over" I'm not so sure. While Arnhem is a key bridge over the Rhine and its capture may well have speeded the end of the war up, I'm not so certain it would have taken a mere couple more months.

I think that's pretty much undisputed by the experts. The Germans were knocked back on their heels on the Western front at that point and didn't have any reinforcements available. They needed time to recover and build up a solid front. The ONLY thing stopping the Allies from cakewalking to Berlin was the Seigfreid line along the Rhine - if that was pierced, there was no fall back position, no reserves, nothing. Meanwhile, the main impediment to an Allied advance was a lack of ports to get stuff over from England, as most French ports like Calais were barricaded with pockets of German troops. Market Garden would have quickly opened up Belgian and Dutch ports that would have enabled the Allies to get a huge force in place months earlier than they were otherwise able to. Again, if you don't believe me, do more reading on the matter.

>"The stories we see in the history books are often just a surface story to cover up embarrassing facts, and deeper intrigues can take place that put an entirely different spin on events." I don't really agree with the main thrust of this. I think the stories we see in the history books may be what actually happened, they may be a surface story to cover up..., or they may be somewhere in between. I think we have to assess things on a case by case basis.

I think we're in agreement here. I said often, not always. And I also said we have to look at things in a case by case basis.

>I'm not ruling out LIHOP (or anything else), but I just don't think it has been proved, or even shown to be likely yet.

I think it's at least shown to have been likely. I suggest you read my book The Terror Timeline, put out by Harper Collins. Or check out the weblink at the end of my postings.

> If various people, e.g. Clarke, expected an attack, they should really have theorised as to the nature of the attack. If an attack was expected, what sort of attack was it?

As a matter of fact, Clarke did predict more or less the very thing. Check out this entry from my book:

July 6, 2001 - Clarke Tells Rice to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
Counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke sends National Security Advisor Rice an e-mail message "outlining a number of steps agreed on" at the Counterterrorism and Security Group meeting the day before, "including efforts to examine the threat of weapons of mass destruction and possible attacks in Latin America. One senior administration official (says) Mr. Clarke (writes) that several agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon, (have) been directed to develop what the official 'detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.' " However, no response or follow-up action has been pointed out. (New York Times, 4/4/04 (B))

Or this one:

September 4, 2001
Clarke Memo: Imagine Hundreds of Dead Due to Government Inaction
Hours before the only significant Bush administration Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism before 9/11, counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke writes a critical memo to National Security Adviser Rice. He criticizes the Defense Department for reluctance to use force against al-Qaeda and the CIA for impeding the deployment of unmanned Predator drones to hunt for bin Laden. According to the Washington Post, the memo urges "officials to imagine a day when hundreds of Americans lay dead from a terrorist attack and ask themselves what more they could have done." (Washington Post, 3/24/04; Washington Post, 3/25/04 (B);9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D))

Or this:

August 15, 2001
CIA Counterterrorism Head: We Are Going to Be Struck Soon
Cofer Black, head of the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center, says in a speech to the Department of Defense's annual Convention of Counterterrorism, "We are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die, and it could be in the US." Black later complains that top leaders are unwilling to act at this time unless they are given "such things as the attack is coming within the next few days and here is what they are going to hit." (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 9/26/02 (B))

I would argue that at the bare minimum, the neocons that came into power and controlled the Bush administration didn't really mind that much if a terror attack would happen because it would allow their ambitious agenda to be implemented. Don't forget that in Sept. 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)position paper stated that they could not implement their agenda "absent a new Pearl Harbor." That paper was cowritten by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neocon gang. Or look at former Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu. When asked on the day of 9/11 what the attacks meant for Israel, he said "it's very good." Of course he later corrected himself, because such honesty is rare in politics, and generally not prudent. If you look at "qui bono," who benefits, its curious how the neocons laid out an ambitious agenda, noted it couldn't be implemented unless there was a new Pearl Harbor, then one happens shortly after Bush's election (Bush even called it the country's "new Pearl Harbor" that evening), and then virtually all of that agenda is achieved.

Everyone agrees that terrorism was very low on the Bush agenda before 9/11. Even Bush has said it wasn't a priority for him. I would argue there was a reason - in pure Machiavellian terms, they had no incentive to stop a terror attack, as such attacks could only help them achieve their agenda. Asking the neocons to defend against a terror attack was somewhat like asking a polluting industry to self-regulate their own pollution. It never works, because they have no incentive to do it - the costs are greater than the benefits unless they're forced to do it.

Clarke represents what a reasonably intelligent person might have done, given the warnings that were coming in (though it should be pointed out that there seems to have been a deliberate and successful attempt to keep him from learning most of the warnings, despite him telling the intelligence agencies "I want to know when a sparrow falls out of a tree"). He wasn't part of the neocon clique, so he actually was trying to defend the country. By contrast, whenever we look at the neocons, we always see scandalous and criminal behavior. For instance, in May 2001, Cheney announced with great fanfare that he would head a task force to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic terror attacks. This task force was to report to Congress by Oct. 1, 2001. Yet by 9/11 not only had it not met, it hadn't even picked its staff! There's no way they could have accomplished anything by Oct. 1.

This wasn't just an example of bad decisions or incompetence. We knew everyone was in a panic about the warnings coming in, and once again, they did nothing. I believe there was a deliberate decision by the neocons not to lift a finger to stop a terror attack in any way. Most people in government are well meaning, but such well meaning attempts to fight terrorism were blocked by a relatively small group of people.

Now, one can argue if they knew the exact date or location or method or attack, or even if they took part in the attack. I ultimately feel that's not so important. At the bare minimum, by deliberately ignoring the many warnings coming in and not doing even the most basic things to combat them (even when Clarke would give intelligent orders they would simply be ignored), they recklessly endangered the country and deserve to be impeached and imprisoned. The only question in my mind is who exactly should be convicted and how severe their prison sentence should be.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Market Garden, etc.

There is a website about it here:
http://www.rememberseptember44.com/rs44.htm
I think there were various problems in Arnhem, some the dropzones were miles away from the bridge and this required transport to be dropped with the airbourne forces, but I think there was a problem with the transport, slowing the attack down. One end of the bridge was taken, but the other was not, some units could not reach their assigned resupply positions, so all materiel dropped for them fell into German hands (loss of radio contact meant no new resupply point could be agreed). The road the reinforcements were supposed to travel (across the six bridges which were taken) was extermely narrow, only one lane in places - imagine trying to get a whole army corps down a one lane road. In short, there were lots of horrible logistics problems. I would be amazed if no officers in the British army were unsympathetic to Germany for a variety of reasons, but I am rather under the impression that the average British army officer does not have to try hard to be incompetent.

End of War
The website says "If all carried out as planned it should have ended the war by Christmas 1944." Generally, I am fairly sceptical of times given by eager army officers and think that lots of things could have gone wrong between Arnhem and Berlin (like the need to resupply). I agree it would have shortened the war. I really don't think there's much difference between us here.

"Or check out the weblink at the end of my postings." I have been there many times, although I have not read your book yet.

I think you are misrepresenting "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and taking the "absent a new Pearl Harbor" quote out of context. The paper's claim was that current levels of defense spending could not finance both current military requirements and equip the US with the next generation of technology (in space). Instead of picking either current or future requirements (which previous Republican papers had done) it urged an increase in defense spending of around (I think) 0.5% of GDP. It said a sudden increase of such magnitude would be very unlikely "absent a new Pearl Harbor". However, any Republican government (especially if the legislature was also Republican controlled) could be expected to increase defense spending a bit and the authors themselves admit that the need is not urgent, as the US obviously has no competitors.

You misunderstood me, I meant what sort of attacks was Clarke, for example expecting: truck bombs, a replica of the attack on the USS Cole, plane hijackings, more embassy bombings, what? Counter-terrorist officials must have thought about the means of the attack, what were they thinking?

[paulthompson]

25. Yes, but...

>I would be amazed if no officers in the British army were unsympathetic to Germany for a variety of reasons, but I am rather under the impression that the average British army officer does not have to try hard to be incompetent.

Yes, but let's not let the undeniable existence of incompetence cause us to stop looking for other explanations. Incompetence and criminality can go hand and hand. Think about bank security. The laxer the security is, the easier it is to rob the bank. Maybe you could even have an inside job and blame it all on incompetence. I have no doubt there were bucketloads of incompetence before 9/11, but we shouldn't our thinking with "that can explain it all, so end of story."

Ditto with Market Garden. Yes, incompetence could explain it. But if "officers in the British army were unsympathetic to Germany for a variety of reasons" then I want to know more about that, and know if that had an effect.

Regarding your assessment of the PNAC document, I completely disagree. What they're talking about is much more than a mere (quite significant) budgetary boost. They're talking about a complete transformation of the US military into the tool to secure global US domination for the next century (thus the meaning of their name - Project for the New American Century):

They're talking about a revolutionary change in not just spending, but in priorities, and the space component is just one part. Here's the intro to the section where the "new Pearl Harbor" quote is

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

----

What's unstated are the non-military ramifications of such a policy. One generally has to read between the coded and guarded language for those kinds of things, though the amazing thing about PNAC is how brazen they sometimes are. For instance, this timeline entry:

August 21, 2001: PNAC Think Tank Leader States US Should Embrace Imperialist Hegemon Role
Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of the PNAC, explains to the Washington Post that the US should embrace its role as imperialist hegemon over the world. He says many important politicians privately agree with him. “There's not all that many people who will talk about it openly,” he says. “It's discomforting to a lot of Americans. So they use code phrases like ‘America is the sole superpower.’ ” He also says, “I think Americans have become used to running the world and would be very reluctant to give it up, if they realized there were a serious challenge to it.” (Washington Post, 8/21/01) Such statements of policy had been publicly denounced by Bush prior to his election, and some claim that the Bush administration only changes its mind toward a more aggressive policy after 9/11. However, this claim is inconsistent with the roles of senior Bush officials such as Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz in formulating the preemptive doctrine in 1992 then pushing for it in PNAC during the Clinton administration. In the summer of 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's office “sponsored a study of ancient empires—Macedonia, Rome, the Mongols—to figure out how they maintained dominance.” (New York Times, 3/5/03)

>You misunderstood me, I meant what sort of attacks was Clarke, for example expecting: truck bombs, a replica of the attack on the USS Cole, plane hijackings, more embassy bombings, what? Counter-terrorist officials must have thought about the means of the attack, what were they thinking?

I can't say for certain what they were thinking, esp. since there is so much obviously misdirection on this point (all the attempts to say that they were only thinking about overseas attacks, for instance). However, I cannot emphasize this enough, in the US, they took no defensive precautions whatsoever.

If they were thinking about truck bombs, what did they do about it? Nothing.
USS Cole styled attack? Nothing.
Plane hijacking? Nothing.
Etc etc...

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey puts it well, as noticed in another thread. I made the argument, which you didn't really respond to, that the low priority of fighting terrorism was something more than mere incompetence. At the very least, for various reasons, they did not have much passion in fighting terrorism before 9/11. Putting them in charge of fighting terrorism is somewhat akin to if one put Wolfowitz in charge of writing a report on all the reasons the US should NOT attack Iraq.

KERREY:
...by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made...

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.

[Rob Conn]

15. Humility

Your examples are appreciated, but do not make any vital impact upon our understanding of 9/11. While I appreciate your attempt at debunking the unofficial version of events that we are working toward, I want to suggest that you take a more humble approach. I consider those who subscribe to the official version of events to be the "conspiracy theorists", while those who study the evidence are approaching the truth. You are not among equals. Assume that many in here know more than you, and ask questions rather than making statements. This forum is not the place for people to defend the status quo. We are reaching into the unknown. A place that so many fear to tread. Are you affraid of the truth? I'm not LIHOP, but MIHOP. I say without any hesitation, however without definitive proof, that they made it happen on purpose. I find that in order for one to come to this point a broad recognition of historical precedent is required. You must understand the imperatives of empire. And if there is anything I know for certain, its that the people in charge right now consider the U.S. to be the final empire. Empire is not democratic or humane. These people do not concern themselves with justice. 3000 people are acceptable casualties. 9/11 was planned and executed with the intent to expand the U.S. military empire. Period. If you don't see this, its because you have not embraced the truth of U.S. imperialism. Your assumptions about this country have most likely been based upon propaganda. Read "Crossing The Rubicon", by Michael Rupper, or just stay naive. Those are your only two choices. Sorry to be so sour. But the stakes are too high to allow your institutional certainty to dilute our progress toward the truth.

P.S. And I'm not dogmatic. Give me some evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind. But I assure you that's highly unlikely.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Debunking

"While I appreciate your attempt at debunking the unofficial version of events". I was not trying to debunk the unofficial version of events (or even one of them), I just think that while this point (the abundance of warnings, some of which were quite accurate) is a good one, it is not conclusive and I don't feel any conclusions should be based on it alone.

"Are you affraid of the truth?" Yes, it's scary.

"I say without any hesitation, however without definitive proof, that they made it happen on purpose." I would not make a claim like that without positive proof.

"And if there is anything I know for certain, its that the people in charge right now consider the U.S. to be the final empire." Surely, every empire considers itself to be the final one.

"9/11 was planned and executed with the intent to expand the U.S. military empire. Period. If you don't see this, its because you have not embraced the truth of U.S. imperialism." While I can see that the current administration wanted to increase its influence in the world (as does every administration) why choose such an attack in the continental US as the means to do so?

[Rob Conn]

21. Answers

<"While I appreciate your attempt at debunking the unofficial version of events". I was not trying to debunk the unofficial version of events (or even one of them), I just think that while this point (the abundance of warnings, some of which were quite accurate) is a good one, it is not conclusive and I don't feel any conclusions should be based on it alone.>

I agree that no great conclusion would result from this one fact. That is not the manner is which rational thought operates. However, I believe that the numerous intelligence warnings can not simply indicate a coincidental series of failures in judegement. I could not say that I believed this if I was only referring to this one fact. It is in reference to a whole set of facts that the truth is revealed. And it could be said that those who do not posess a certain number of these facts are not capable of recognizing the truth. The warnings are significant, and must not be ignored, or minimized in their relevance to questioning the official version of events. Your few examples of intelligence failures do not lessen the relevance of the lack of response to those warnings.

<"Are you affraid of the truth?" Yes, it's scary.>

Aren't we all to some degree. Those of us compelled toward the truth face those fears every day. We look those in the eye who are lost in fear and remember a time when we too were captivated by the big lie. Through the study of history, logic, and justice, among other things, we advance in our understanding of the system as a whole. We gain the ability to better recognize the intentions impied by actions when set among their relevant priorities. And this ability turns our fear into assertion. The bigger picture is not widely recognized. As has been so often quoted recently, "Welcome to the desert of the real."

<"I say without any hesitation, however without definitive proof, that they made it happen on purpose." I would not make a claim like that without positive proof.>

This demonstrates my point exactly. I have knowledge of the beast. I know how it survives. I know many of its behaviors. I know many of its vulnerabilities. When something new happens, I don't start from scratch and have no judgement based on precedent. The past is living as we utilize our history. Yes, these people WOULD do something like this. 3000 casualties is an acceptable sacrifice. The whole story is a farce of inprobablities until you admit that the big pirture points of complicity, because everything that happened is EXACTLY what they wanted. The very people in power at the time. They have proven themselves.

<"And if there is anything I know for certain, its that the people in charge right now consider the U.S. to be the final empire." Surely, every empire considers itself to be the final one.>

Sure, and this one is ten years from making it happen through Space Dominance. U.S. domination of space for strategic and tactical utilization. In other words, a network of spy satellites guiding a network of space lasers and unmanned, remote controlled, tactical air and ground units. Don't laugh, its all in their documentation. I think these guys will be top dog for real this time.

<"9/11 was planned and executed with the intent to expand the U.S. military empire. Period. If you don't see this, its because you have not embraced the truth of U.S. imperialism." While I can see that the current administration wanted to increase its influence in the world (as does every administration) why choose such an attack in the continental US as the means to do so?>

Look up alternate theories about Pearl Harbor, or 'Operation Northwoods', "The Grand Chessboard", or "Rebuilding Americas Defences" on Wikipedia or Google. These are the most common references when people talk about 'why this method'. They suggest that there is a long precedent for consideration of deceptive and lethal military tactics meant to promote public interest in war at the cost of civilian lives, and that recent internal military plans for expansion had run into the same road block. Public opinion. And it was surmised, in very explicit terms, that only a "widely perceive, direct external threat," "like a new Pearl Harbor," would be likely to allow this expansion. They got exactly what they needed to get everything that they wanted. Add that to the list of coincidences.

Keep in coming. - R.C.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. One thing and another

"I believe that the numerous intelligence warnings can not simply indicate a coincidental series of failures in judegement."
There are several cases of intelligence blunders of the same magnitude, with the exception of Pearl Harbor (and perhaps Market Garden, though I'm not too sure about that) they are widely accepted as genuine blunders. It's legitimate to ask the question "Could it really all be just a blunder?", but I think the answer is "Yes, it could be."

"In other words, a network of spy satellites guiding a network of space lasers and unmanned, remote controlled, tactical air and ground units. Don't laugh, its all in their documentation." I don't believe in technology - it's no substitute for intelligence, ingenuity, that kind of thing (better technology is no guarantee of military success). Besides, progress is not always forward progress.

Again, if the attack was done by the US govt., then what for? Sometimes it seems the US invades a new country every year, they never needed such an event at home before, why now? Indeed, Iraq itself was attacked not much more than a decade ago without any sort of event in the continental US, so why is such an event required now, when the danger from Iraq is much more widely perceived anyway? If Rumsfeld thought he could escalate an incident with a US fighter in Iraq into war there in January, why would he go along with an attack causing thousands of casualties in September?

[Rob Conn]

19. P.S.

Hey! Welcome to DU. As you can see, I haven't been here that long either. But I know what I think it should be. A place where any voice is accepted, HOWEVER, a place where the public can challenge one another in a setting conducive to open discourse based upon history, logic, and justice. Dogma, or that belief that is not mutable, is meant for another forum. In other words, go talk to yourself. I ignore no one in here. However, I recognize those who are here merely to distract our attention. I urge you to resist the temptation to get obsessed about the physical evidence. The documentary record is more important that 'plane pods' and 'missles' and 'C4 coated rebar'.

Truth is, its just deeper and more cloudy than most people are ready to face. The more you learn, the more dark our world becomes, and the more you mature in character. Better able to seek and identify the truth. And if fact this is what the Empire wants most to extinguish. Our ability to convince one another. If you can't change you will take the 'blue pill'. Lets make this forum about that instead of a place to feel dogmatically satisfied with our cognitive supremecy.

We make the history of now. - R.C.

[Rob Conn]

20. Too punchy?

Am I laying it on too thick? Just trying to set the stage. Challenge lurks around every corner in here. Ask when possible. But, by all means tell when you know something, and share when you have new hyptheses. Just don't argue for the sake of arguing. Lets try to get somewhere. - R.C.

P.S. Not that this is what you were trying to do. Typing is so much different than speech. So much more prone to misunderstanding. I appreciated your approaching with facts. I am honestly interested in you better expressing your theory about coincidental imcompetence. I understant its quite a challenge. Have you found any good books on the topic?