former CIA agent says WTC was demolished by explosives on 9/11

[mhgaffney]

CIA agent Susan Lindauer was arrested and spent a year in prison -- after attempting to expose what really happened on 9/11. She was then released without ever being charged of a crime. Obviously her arrest and imprisonment was a serious miscarriage of justice.

In this article she reveals new information about the WTC demolition and discusses evidence from within the US intelligence community -- that 9/11 was an inside job.

I am looking forward to reading her book.

MHG


The Missing Security Tapes From
The World Trade Center

By Susan Lindauer
8-1-11

Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of two or three truck vans.

Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and devoid of markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m-about half an hour before the second set of vans arrived.

According to my high level State Department source with a top security clearance, who disclosed the unusual nightly activity, no vans matching that description had entered the World Trade Center at such an hour in any of the weeks or months prior to that date. It was a unique event.

Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m-before the first wave of AAA personality types on Wall Street, driving Mercedes and BMWs, arrived to track the markets.

For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious truck vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour--- after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the most fanatic robber barons on Wall Street showed up for work. The vans appeared at the World Trade Center from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001. After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again.

The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence in the Towers three weeks before the 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Truth Community has no knowledge of this extraordinary nightly activity, either.

For all the public's ignorance, video from the security cameras could be the most significant missing part of the 9/11 puzzle. This State Department source was convinced the mysterious trucks were used to transport explosives into the building, and that an unidentified orphan team wired the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition in those late night hours. He has stayed quiet to protect his job, his retirement pension and his reputation-knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison (myself included).

Controlled Demolition

Other evidence supports a controlled demolition of the Towers, as a supplement to the hijackings. Firefighters and maintenance crews reported hearing explosions popping through the Towers on 9/11. And previous reports indicate that dust from the World Trade Center tested positive for "thermate explosives--" a derivative of a thermite bomb.

A thermite reaction involves a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, while thermate adds an element of sulfur. When the iron oxide-aluminum mixture is ignited, a super vigorous reaction occurs, creating molten metal-and dust, in the case of thermate. The reaction is extremely exothermic, meaning that a great deal of heat is given off, making for an incredibly powerful reducing agent.

Even so, as the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 attack approaches, the majority of Americans continue to be confused as to how a controlled demolition scenario fits with the airplane hijackings and aerial strike on the World Trade Center-which the whole world witnessed on play back over and over in the media, until the image was seared like a brand on our collective consciousness.

Until now, there has been a false dichotomy that only one or the other style of attack could have occurred, but never both together. Some parts of the 9/11 Community itself vigorously dispute that both could have occurred as synchronized events. And most of the corporate media refuses to acknowledge the controlled demolition theory whatsoever.

When the public understands 9/11 as a series of Real Time events throughout the month of August, 2001, the unfolding sequence of this tragedy makes a lot more sense.

The difficulty is throwing out everything the public has been taught about 9/11-created for the convenience of politicians and corporate media, who simplified the story for public consumption.

First and foremost, contrary to all media reports and official claims, U.S. and foreign intelligence absolutely expected the 9/11 attack to occur--- citing airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. Even the time frame was identified precisely-known to be late August through mid-September.

I relate here my own experience as evidence. It has been corroborated in courtroom testimony by Parke Godfrey, a computer science professor at York University in Toronto. He delivered his statement under oath in the Federal Courthouse of the Southern District of New York-1000 yards from where the World Trade Center once graced the skyline.

On August 2, the date of Robert Mueller's Senate confirmation hearings to become Director of the FBI, my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz warned me not to travel to New York because the attack on the World Trade Center involving airplane hijackings was "considered imminent," with the potential for "mass human casualties" and a "possible miniature thermo-nuclear device" (thermite).
Our team aggressively tried to block the conspiracy. But not everyone was on board.

Threats to Iraq

As far back as April and May of 2001, a decision had been made at the top levels of the government that War with Iraq would be in play in the aftermath of a 9/11 scenario.

As the primary Asset covering the Iraqi Embassy in New York, I myself was ordered to threaten Iraqi diplomats with War, if it was determined that Iraq possessed actionable intelligence about the airplane hijacking conspiracy and failed to hand it over through my back channel.

After initially balking at the message, I was informed the threat originated at the highest level of government, above the CIA Director and Secretary of State. That could only be President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands: They had nothing to give us, they said. But go ahead, they told me. "Send your FBI. They are welcome in Baghdad. We want peace with America. And maybe they will find something." For all the brouhaha after 9/11, the fact remains that George Bush took no action on Iraq's invite.

There was chatter about the 9/11 conspiracy throughout the Intelligence Community all summer long. The greatest part of the Intelligence Community abhorred the scenario. My own Intelligence team, triangulating the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency pushed and pushed for actionable intelligence from Baghdad. However, though we could not understand what the hell was going on, our efforts kept running into a wall of interference from the Justice Department, with only superficial outward support.

For the integrity of history, Americans and the world community have a fundamental right to understand what actions the Intelligence Community did undertake prior to the attack-because it exposes the high level opposition running interference.

August Timeline

On Thursday, August 2, 2001--- my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz and I discussed over the telephone our belief that the attack would be imminent.

On Saturday, August 4-- I visited the Iraqi Embassy in New York for the final time before 9/11, pushing for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Baghdad that could pinpoint the conspiracy.

On the weekend of August 4-5-spooky NSA types "visited" the office where I had a part time consulting job. Of course the office was closed for the weekend, and I won't speculate how they got inside. However, while snooping, they took a "proof of life," for want of a better expression. It is a physical copy of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001-the same week as my conversation with Dr. Fuisz- addressed to the company, with the street address and name of the man I had been working for.

The copy of the July 30, 2001 Wall Street Journal surfaced on my desk at home-Nine Years after the attack- while I was traveling in Japan on a speaking tour for the advance release of my book, "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq," which features a detailed analysis of our team's 9/11 warnings, the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework developed with Iraqi diplomats. Given the upheaval in my life throughout the intervening decade-including a year's stint in prison on a Texas military base, while the government covered up my team's 9/11 warnings and the true facts of Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence- there's no way a copy of the Wall Street Journal could have survived as desk clutter.

Other Intelligence officers will recognize the significance at once. That hard copy of the Wall Street Journal proves beyond any question that other spooks were tracking our team's conversations about the conspiracy in "real time" fully 6 weeks before 9/11 occurred. A newspaper would have been thrown out of an office weeks before the attack. Somebody had to grab it up almost immediately after my conversation with Dr. Fuisz.

See? Other teams tried to put together the attack scenario, too.
All of it points to the frenetic activity in advance of 9/11. There was a lot of action behind the scenes. And Intelligence folk are anything but passive individuals. Quite the opposite, there's a lot of creative risk-taking and proactive problem solving. None of these people sit on their hands.

Americans still don't know that:

On Monday, August 6, I met with Dr. Fuisz and we hammered out a plan of action for alerting the White House that this hijacking conspiracy should move to "emergency status."

That same Monday, August 6, the CIA handed President Bush a memo warning about an expected terrorist conspiracy involving Al Qaeda. Though I could be mistaken, I have always believed Dr. Fuisz contributed to that report. If not, it proves again that a broad spectrum of U.S. intelligence was moving to high alert status, far enough in advance to block the attack.

Following instructions from Dr. Fuisz, on Tuesday, August 7 or Wednesday, August 8, I placed an emergency call to the private staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Identifying myself as the Chief U.S. Intelligence Asset covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations, I delivered our warning about a conspiracy involving airplane hijackings and a targeted strike on the World Trade Center.

I requested an emergency broadcast alert through all Federal Agencies seeking any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. I warned the attack was "imminent" with expectations of "mass casualties," and that it should be regarded as Emergency Status.

Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff immediately gave me a telephone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism, and told me to repeat what I had just told them to the person at that number. Immediately I complied.

Later that week on August 9 or 10, I drove over to the Arlington, Virginia home of my second cousin, Andrew Card--- Chief of Staff to President George Bush- ready to deliver the same message. I waited two hours in my car outside of his home. Occasionally neighbors peeked outside their curtains, while I chain smoked cigarettes in the hot car. (Yes, I have quit smoking.) Driving away, I remember thinking that I might be making the greatest mistake of my life.

My Own Private Hell during the Cover Up

I am extremely proud of our team efforts before 9/11 and throughout the 9/11 investigation. For all that, Americans are learning about this very late because I got into great big, bad trouble with the Feds when I tried to talk. I suffered five (5) years of indictment on the Patriot Act and one year of prison on a military base without a trial, when Republicans decided to reinvent the facts about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, denying Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation and the existence of a comprehensive peace framework.

Our relationship soured as I became convinced Republicans at the top echelons allowed 9/11 to happen, killing thousands of innocent Americans and international citizens, so they could build a phony case for War against Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was outraged that the American government has done this to itself-as a pretext for military aggression and massive deficit spending in support of the military industrial complex, which is bankrupting the Middle Class. And I was quite vocal in expressing my belief that Americans have a right to full disclosure about our activities before 9/11 and the Iraqi War. And the devil take politicians!

Without question I posed a grave threat to political grandstanding on 9/11 and the myth of Washington's "outstanding leadership performance on terrorism." Many times I have thought of myself as Dorothy in the Land of Oz pulling back the curtain on the Wizard, and exposing his deceit before the hapless, trusting Munchkins.

In truth, the spooks did a great job before 9/11. Everything moved with lightning speed ahead of the threat. We could have stopped 9/11 easily if the Justice Department had fulfilled requests for inter-agency cooperation. There was plenty of time to alert NORAD or post an anti-air craft battery on top of the World Trade Center buildings.

That's why the GOP leadership had to take me out-because I refused to back off that point. If I had been free, the American people and the world community would have learned the truth much sooner.

Controlled Demolition

Unhappily for all of us, because of private conversations with sources like my State Department colleague, I have reached additional conclusions that our team was not the only one at work before 9/11.

Though none of us expected this to happen, I have come to believe that our efforts collided with a force of equal resistance, in the form of an orphan team also watching the events unfolding like us.

As a long-time participant in multiple terrorism investigations, I have personal knowledge that most terrorist attacks are noisy, smoky and chaotic--- without achieving maximum destruction of the target. The 1993 World Trade Center attack by Ramzi Youseff and Sheikh Abdul Rahmon of Egypt killed 5 people. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen killed 12 people. Without extra push, this 9/11 attack would never have killed so many people either-100 people at the very most.

Add to that a recipe of incompetent pilots--- who functioned as Intelligence Assets themselves in a few cases--- Again from personal experience, I know that Assets are heavily scrutinized at all times by handlers from multiple agencies. I am convinced that an inner circle anticipated the event, and saw that their boys flying those planes could not achieve maximum damage sufficient to achieve their War agenda in Iraq.

I cannot blame Americans for feeling overwhelmed, even heart-broken by these revelations. But bottom line jet fuel fires could not have collapsed both of those Towers, or Building 7, pretty much evaporating the entire steel frame of the buildings into dust and molten steel. Add to that the CIA's urgent reports that a miniature thermo-nuclear device would be used in the attack---and that's why I had to stay out of New York City.

The strange nightly activity at the World Trade Center three weeks before the attack clinched it for me. I am 100 percent convinced those Towers were wired for explosives.

Yes, hijacked airplanes struck the towers. But bringing down the Towers to secure War with Iraq required some extra umph.

I cannot speculate who wired the towers with explosives. I could make a guess, but my training as an Asset requires me to stay focused on what I have observed first-hand, and to recognize my own limitations.

So why should the world care? At this point, it is most critical for Americans to stop politicians in Washington from using 9/11 for grandstanding and personal ambitions. The War on Terrorism has perpetrated a fraud on all of us. Those who support the War on Terror are destroying our fiscal economy and our Middle Class.

That's why Americans must learn the truth about 9/11. It's reached a crisis point where we must get off this merry-go-round of defense spending. We must end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise this fraud of 9/11 is going to ruin our great country for all time.

I only hope it isn't too late already.

_________


This article may be republished in whole or part with attribution to the author.
Susan Lindauer is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq."

[StugotsIII]

If this were true….she would be dead.

[mhgaffney]

If this were true….she would be dead.

Well, yeah, she's lucky to have survived.

But they missed their chance. If they eliminate her now her book will go to number one.

You need to use the brain G-d gave you. Do a little research and you'll discover that what I've been telling you since late 2006 is right.

[Retire #30!!!]

:peace:

[W*GS]

Another load of incredible BS from gaffe.

Book sales must be slow.

[theAPAOps5]

Gaff with his monthly make believe crap.

[DenverBrit]

A demolition job that would have taken months to prepare and wire, if the crews worked unimpeded, is accomplished in 10 -12 nights....in secret?? :rofl:

Why would a demolition be necessary if terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC?

A 33 story building in Detroit was demolished a couple of years before 911.

It took 4 months of site preparation plus an additional 24 days of planting and wiring the explosives. And they weren't trying to disguise the demolitions so that it would fool every expert on the planet.

Under CDI direction, NASDI/Homrich's 21 man crew needed 3 months to investigate the structure and 4 months to complete preparations per CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower 2 basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill material and the perimeter basement walls were bermed to the 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls. This was necessary as these perimeter walls would have surely failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed during the implosion.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 "micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.


http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/jl-hudson-department-store-detroit-michigan

[W*GS]

Not only that, DenverBrit, no regular resident of the buildings noticed a *thing*.

If CD was the real cause, then why all the drama with the planes? Why not simply have "truck bombs" in the basement parking garages, like the 1993 attempt, but scaled up?

gaffe's scrambling to deny the reality of 9/11 leads him in ever-more-ridiculous circles.

[alkemical]

It was a metaritual designed to end the American Dynasty and signal the NWO's rise to power.

[The Lone Bolt]

A demolition job that would have taken months to prepare and wire, if the crews worked unimpeded, is accomplished in 10 -12 nights....in secret?? :rofl:

Why would a demolition be necessary if terrorists were going to fly planes into the WTC?

A 33 story building in Detroit was demolished a couple of years before 911.

It took 4 months of site preparation plus an additional 24 days of planting and wiring the explosives. And they weren't trying to disguise the demolitions so that it would fool every expert on the planet.





http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/jl-hudson-department-store-detroit-michigan

Well of course there's a perfectly logical explanation: the towers were blown up with spray-on nanothermite installed by invisible unicorns using pixie dust to cover their tracks.

See, the twoofers have an answer for everything!;D

[The Lone Bolt]

Susan Lindauer (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist, author, and antiwar activist. She was accused of conspiring to act as an agent for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.[1][2] Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial and all charges were dropped in 2009.[3]

----------------------

In 2006, she was released from prison after Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[3][10]

In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial.[4][14]

On January 16, 2009 the government decided to not go ahead with the prosecution saying "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[3][15]


And I take it this was her mysterious "incarceration":

In 2005 she was incarcerated in Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas for psychological evaluation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

Yet another one of Gaffney's "reliable" sources. ::)

[The Lone Bolt]

Another interesting read on Gaffney's source:

Judge Mukasey had earlier said that Ms. Lindauer was “seriously disturbed” and that even antipsychotic medication might not make her fit to stand trial.

He cited findings that she had paranoia and delusions of grandeur; he also questioned the strength of the government’s case, saying, “There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have.”

Judge Preska, in her ruling, said that Ms. Lindauer generally understood the roles of jurors, prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges, but did not seem to have a “rational understanding of the roles” they played in her case.

The judge cited the testimony of a government psychiatrist who said that Ms. Lindauer claimed to have special powers and that she had indicated she once met with Osama bin Laden, who disclosed to her the location of a bomb. The judge said that demonstrated “a lack of connection with reality.”

Judge Preska also cited Ms. Lindauer’s behavior in court last year, when, after being admonished not to speak without first consulting with her lawyer, she stuffed tissues in her mouth. That was “not the response of someone rationally connected to the proceedings,” Judge Preska said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17lindauer.html

[The Lone Bolt]

But wait, there's more!

An indictment charged that Ms. Lindauer, also known as Symbol Susan, conspired to act as an unregistered agent of the government of Iraq from October 1999 until February 2004, and engaged in illegal financial transactions.

--------

Investigators said she had tried to influence American policy by presenting herself as an agent of Saddam Hussein’s government in early 2003 to Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, who was described as a distant relative.

Judge Mukasey said that for Ms. Lindauer to succeed as an agent of the Iraqi government, she would have had to influence other people. But her mental condition makes that highly unlikely, he said.

“The record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed,” Judge Mukasey said in a 35-page ruling issued on Wednesday. He said that a neighbor had suspected her of being mildly schizophrenic.

-------

At least a half dozen doctors for both the defense and the prosecution have found that Ms. Lindauer suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia, which makes her incompetent to stand trial, the judge said. But she refuses to accept the diagnosis or to take medication, he said. One doctor found that Ms. Lindauer had a history of psychotic episodes going back to her childhood, possibly at the age of 7, the judge said. These include her contention that she had gifts of prophecy that allowed her to report 11 bombings before they happened, that she spoke with divine inspiration and that she was an angel.

Among her paranoid delusions, doctors said, were the notion that she was being watched by hidden cameras in her apartment, that the Egyptian government had tried to assassinate her and that men next door had videotaped her under instructions from President Bill Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09spy.html

[underrated29]

CIA agent Susan Lindauer was arrested and spent a year in prison -- after attempting to expose what really happened on 9/11. She was then released without ever being charged of a crime. Obviously her arrest and imprisonment was a serious miscarriage of justice.

In this article she reveals new information about the WTC demolition and discusses evidence from within the US intelligence community -- that 9/11 was an inside job.

I am looking forward to reading her book.

MHG


The Missing Security Tapes From
The World Trade Center

By Susan Lindauer
8-1-11

Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of two or three truck vans.

Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and devoid of markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m-about half an hour before the second set of vans arrived.

According to my high level State Department source with a top security clearance, who disclosed the unusual nightly activity, no vans matching that description had entered the World Trade Center at such an hour in any of the weeks or months prior to that date. It was a unique event.

Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m-before the first wave of AAA personality types on Wall Street, driving Mercedes and BMWs, arrived to track the markets.

For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious truck vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour--- after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the most fanatic robber barons on Wall Street showed up for work. The vans appeared at the World Trade Center from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001. After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again.

The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence in the Towers three weeks before the 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Truth Community has no knowledge of this extraordinary nightly activity, either.

For all the public's ignorance, video from the security cameras could be the most significant missing part of the 9/11 puzzle. This State Department source was convinced the mysterious trucks were used to transport explosives into the building, and that an unidentified orphan team wired the World Trade Center for a controlled demolition in those late night hours. He has stayed quiet to protect his job, his retirement pension and his reputation-knowing that others who spoke up have gotten fired or thrown in prison (myself included).

Controlled Demolition

Other evidence supports a controlled demolition of the Towers, as a supplement to the hijackings. Firefighters and maintenance crews reported hearing explosions popping through the Towers on 9/11. And previous reports indicate that dust from the World Trade Center tested positive for "thermate explosives--" a derivative of a thermite bomb.

A thermite reaction involves a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum, while thermate adds an element of sulfur. When the iron oxide-aluminum mixture is ignited, a super vigorous reaction occurs, creating molten metal-and dust, in the case of thermate. The reaction is extremely exothermic, meaning that a great deal of heat is given off, making for an incredibly powerful reducing agent.

Even so, as the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 attack approaches, the majority of Americans continue to be confused as to how a controlled demolition scenario fits with the airplane hijackings and aerial strike on the World Trade Center-which the whole world witnessed on play back over and over in the media, until the image was seared like a brand on our collective consciousness.

Until now, there has been a false dichotomy that only one or the other style of attack could have occurred, but never both together. Some parts of the 9/11 Community itself vigorously dispute that both could have occurred as synchronized events. And most of the corporate media refuses to acknowledge the controlled demolition theory whatsoever.

When the public understands 9/11 as a series of Real Time events throughout the month of August, 2001, the unfolding sequence of this tragedy makes a lot more sense.

The difficulty is throwing out everything the public has been taught about 9/11-created for the convenience of politicians and corporate media, who simplified the story for public consumption.

First and foremost, contrary to all media reports and official claims, U.S. and foreign intelligence absolutely expected the 9/11 attack to occur--- citing airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. Even the time frame was identified precisely-known to be late August through mid-September.

I relate here my own experience as evidence. It has been corroborated in courtroom testimony by Parke Godfrey, a computer science professor at York University in Toronto. He delivered his statement under oath in the Federal Courthouse of the Southern District of New York-1000 yards from where the World Trade Center once graced the skyline.

On August 2, the date of Robert Mueller's Senate confirmation hearings to become Director of the FBI, my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz warned me not to travel to New York because the attack on the World Trade Center involving airplane hijackings was "considered imminent," with the potential for "mass human casualties" and a "possible miniature thermo-nuclear device" (thermite).
Our team aggressively tried to block the conspiracy. But not everyone was on board.

Threats to Iraq

As far back as April and May of 2001, a decision had been made at the top levels of the government that War with Iraq would be in play in the aftermath of a 9/11 scenario.

As the primary Asset covering the Iraqi Embassy in New York, I myself was ordered to threaten Iraqi diplomats with War, if it was determined that Iraq possessed actionable intelligence about the airplane hijacking conspiracy and failed to hand it over through my back channel.

After initially balking at the message, I was informed the threat originated at the highest level of government, above the CIA Director and Secretary of State. That could only be President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Iraqi diplomats threw up their hands: They had nothing to give us, they said. But go ahead, they told me. "Send your FBI. They are welcome in Baghdad. We want peace with America. And maybe they will find something." For all the brouhaha after 9/11, the fact remains that George Bush took no action on Iraq's invite.

There was chatter about the 9/11 conspiracy throughout the Intelligence Community all summer long. The greatest part of the Intelligence Community abhorred the scenario. My own Intelligence team, triangulating the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency pushed and pushed for actionable intelligence from Baghdad. However, though we could not understand what the hell was going on, our efforts kept running into a wall of interference from the Justice Department, with only superficial outward support.

For the integrity of history, Americans and the world community have a fundamental right to understand what actions the Intelligence Community did undertake prior to the attack-because it exposes the high level opposition running interference.

August Timeline

On Thursday, August 2, 2001--- my CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz and I discussed over the telephone our belief that the attack would be imminent.

On Saturday, August 4-- I visited the Iraqi Embassy in New York for the final time before 9/11, pushing for any fragment of actionable intelligence from Baghdad that could pinpoint the conspiracy.

On the weekend of August 4-5-spooky NSA types "visited" the office where I had a part time consulting job. Of course the office was closed for the weekend, and I won't speculate how they got inside. However, while snooping, they took a "proof of life," for want of a better expression. It is a physical copy of the Wall Street Journal dated July 30, 2001-the same week as my conversation with Dr. Fuisz- addressed to the company, with the street address and name of the man I had been working for.

The copy of the July 30, 2001 Wall Street Journal surfaced on my desk at home-Nine Years after the attack- while I was traveling in Japan on a speaking tour for the advance release of my book, "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq," which features a detailed analysis of our team's 9/11 warnings, the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework developed with Iraqi diplomats. Given the upheaval in my life throughout the intervening decade-including a year's stint in prison on a Texas military base, while the government covered up my team's 9/11 warnings and the true facts of Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence- there's no way a copy of the Wall Street Journal could have survived as desk clutter.

Other Intelligence officers will recognize the significance at once. That hard copy of the Wall Street Journal proves beyond any question that other spooks were tracking our team's conversations about the conspiracy in "real time" fully 6 weeks before 9/11 occurred. A newspaper would have been thrown out of an office weeks before the attack. Somebody had to grab it up almost immediately after my conversation with Dr. Fuisz.

See? Other teams tried to put together the attack scenario, too.
All of it points to the frenetic activity in advance of 9/11. There was a lot of action behind the scenes. And Intelligence folk are anything but passive individuals. Quite the opposite, there's a lot of creative risk-taking and proactive problem solving. None of these people sit on their hands.

Americans still don't know that:

On Monday, August 6, I met with Dr. Fuisz and we hammered out a plan of action for alerting the White House that this hijacking conspiracy should move to "emergency status."

That same Monday, August 6, the CIA handed President Bush a memo warning about an expected terrorist conspiracy involving Al Qaeda. Though I could be mistaken, I have always believed Dr. Fuisz contributed to that report. If not, it proves again that a broad spectrum of U.S. intelligence was moving to high alert status, far enough in advance to block the attack.

Following instructions from Dr. Fuisz, on Tuesday, August 7 or Wednesday, August 8, I placed an emergency call to the private staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft. Identifying myself as the Chief U.S. Intelligence Asset covering Iraq and Libya at the United Nations, I delivered our warning about a conspiracy involving airplane hijackings and a targeted strike on the World Trade Center.

I requested an emergency broadcast alert through all Federal Agencies seeking any fragment of intelligence involving airplane hijackings and a strike on the World Trade Center. I warned the attack was "imminent" with expectations of "mass casualties," and that it should be regarded as Emergency Status.

Attorney General John Ashcroft's private staff immediately gave me a telephone number at the Office of Counter-Terrorism, and told me to repeat what I had just told them to the person at that number. Immediately I complied.

Later that week on August 9 or 10, I drove over to the Arlington, Virginia home of my second cousin, Andrew Card--- Chief of Staff to President George Bush- ready to deliver the same message. I waited two hours in my car outside of his home. Occasionally neighbors peeked outside their curtains, while I chain smoked cigarettes in the hot car. (Yes, I have quit smoking.) Driving away, I remember thinking that I might be making the greatest mistake of my life.

My Own Private Hell during the Cover Up

I am extremely proud of our team efforts before 9/11 and throughout the 9/11 investigation. For all that, Americans are learning about this very late because I got into great big, bad trouble with the Feds when I tried to talk. I suffered five (5) years of indictment on the Patriot Act and one year of prison on a military base without a trial, when Republicans decided to reinvent the facts about 9/11 and Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, denying Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation and the existence of a comprehensive peace framework.

Our relationship soured as I became convinced Republicans at the top echelons allowed 9/11 to happen, killing thousands of innocent Americans and international citizens, so they could build a phony case for War against Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was outraged that the American government has done this to itself-as a pretext for military aggression and massive deficit spending in support of the military industrial complex, which is bankrupting the Middle Class. And I was quite vocal in expressing my belief that Americans have a right to full disclosure about our activities before 9/11 and the Iraqi War. And the devil take politicians!

Without question I posed a grave threat to political grandstanding on 9/11 and the myth of Washington's "outstanding leadership performance on terrorism." Many times I have thought of myself as Dorothy in the Land of Oz pulling back the curtain on the Wizard, and exposing his deceit before the hapless, trusting Munchkins.

In truth, the spooks did a great job before 9/11. Everything moved with lightning speed ahead of the threat. We could have stopped 9/11 easily if the Justice Department had fulfilled requests for inter-agency cooperation. There was plenty of time to alert NORAD or post an anti-air craft battery on top of the World Trade Center buildings.

That's why the GOP leadership had to take me out-because I refused to back off that point. If I had been free, the American people and the world community would have learned the truth much sooner.

Controlled Demolition

Unhappily for all of us, because of private conversations with sources like my State Department colleague, I have reached additional conclusions that our team was not the only one at work before 9/11.

Though none of us expected this to happen, I have come to believe that our efforts collided with a force of equal resistance, in the form of an orphan team also watching the events unfolding like us.

As a long-time participant in multiple terrorism investigations, I have personal knowledge that most terrorist attacks are noisy, smoky and chaotic--- without achieving maximum destruction of the target. The 1993 World Trade Center attack by Ramzi Youseff and Sheikh Abdul Rahmon of Egypt killed 5 people. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen killed 12 people. Without extra push, this 9/11 attack would never have killed so many people either-100 people at the very most.

Add to that a recipe of incompetent pilots--- who functioned as Intelligence Assets themselves in a few cases--- Again from personal experience, I know that Assets are heavily scrutinized at all times by handlers from multiple agencies. I am convinced that an inner circle anticipated the event, and saw that their boys flying those planes could not achieve maximum damage sufficient to achieve their War agenda in Iraq.

I cannot blame Americans for feeling overwhelmed, even heart-broken by these revelations. But bottom line jet fuel fires could not have collapsed both of those Towers, or Building 7, pretty much evaporating the entire steel frame of the buildings into dust and molten steel. Add to that the CIA's urgent reports that a miniature thermo-nuclear device would be used in the attack---and that's why I had to stay out of New York City.

The strange nightly activity at the World Trade Center three weeks before the attack clinched it for me. I am 100 percent convinced those Towers were wired for explosives.

Yes, hijacked airplanes struck the towers. But bringing down the Towers to secure War with Iraq required some extra umph.

I cannot speculate who wired the towers with explosives. I could make a guess, but my training as an Asset requires me to stay focused on what I have observed first-hand, and to recognize my own limitations.

So why should the world care? At this point, it is most critical for Americans to stop politicians in Washington from using 9/11 for grandstanding and personal ambitions. The War on Terrorism has perpetrated a fraud on all of us. Those who support the War on Terror are destroying our fiscal economy and our Middle Class.

That's why Americans must learn the truth about 9/11. It's reached a crisis point where we must get off this merry-go-round of defense spending. We must end the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise this fraud of 9/11 is going to ruin our great country for all time.

I only hope it isn't too late already.

_________


This article may be republished in whole or part with attribution to the author.
Susan Lindauer is the author of "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq."




Wait a minute Gaffers? BTW are you going to change your name since gaffney got traded?


Anyway, I thought you said that the building fell down from nanites. So what happened to the nanites?

[DenverBrit]

Not only that, DenverBrit, no regular resident of the buildings noticed a *thing*.

If CD was the real cause, then why all the drama with the planes? Why not simply have "truck bombs" in the basement parking garages, like the 1993 attempt, but scaled up?

gaffe's scrambling to deny the reality of 9/11 leads him in ever-more-ridiculous circles.

There's something seriously wrong with Gaffney.

[DenverBrit]

But wait, there's more!

At least a half dozen doctors for both the defense and the prosecution have found that Ms. Lindauer suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09spy.html

Gaffney has a 'soul-mate.' :wiggle:

I guess her CIA service was missed by everyone....except her and Gaffney.

What a dupe he is.

[W*GS]

Anyway, I thought you said that the building fell down from nanites. So what happened to the nanites?

No, it was red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes that done it.

[TDmvp]

Gaffney has a 'soul-mate.' :wiggle:

I guess her CIA service was missed by everyone....except her and Gaffney.

What a dupe he is.

Yea I looked up her wiki after seeing this thread and she's is so stupid I didn't even bother replying to this thread...

But you know Gaff any source is a good source LOL...

[underrated29]

No, it was red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes that done it.



OH,

Definitely built by the jews then.

[mhgaffney]

There is no excuse for Dolt, who is (or claims to be) a psychotherapist. Of all people he ought to be suspicious of the cover story -- especially since it appeared in the New York Times -- which has been a CIA mouthpiece since about 1948.

No one here remembers the definitive piece on this published back in the 1970s by Carl Bernstein -- half the dynamic duo that brought down Nixon.

I will post it to refresh your feeble collective memory.

MHG

[underrated29]

There is no excuse for Dolt, who is (or claims to be) a psychotherapist. Of all people he ought to be suspicious of the cover story -- especially since it appeared in the New York Times -- which has been a CIA mouthpiece since about 1948.

No one here remembers the definitive piece on this published back in the 1970s by Carl Bernstein -- half the dynamic duo that brought down Nixon.

I will post it to refresh your feeble collective memory.

MHG





Awesome!

lol, You seriously are my favorite poster here...

[elsid13]

There is no excuse for Dolt, who is (or claims to be) a psychotherapist. Of all people he ought to be suspicious of the cover story -- especially since it appeared in the New York Times -- which has been a CIA mouthpiece since about 1948.

No one here remembers the definitive piece on this published back in the 1970s by Carl Bernstein -- half the dynamic duo that brought down Nixon.

I will post it to refresh your feeble collective memory.

MHG

Really, your doctor needs to up your meds.

[mhgaffney]

The CIA and the Media

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.

By Carl Bernstein

October 20, 1977 In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

WORKING PRESS — CIA STYLE

Often the CIA’s relationship with a journalist might begin informally with a lunch, a drink, a casual exchange of information. An Agency official might then offer a favor—for example, a trip to a country difficult to reach; in return, he would seek nothing more than the opportunity to debrief the reporter afterward. A few more lunches, a few more favors, and only then might there be a mention of a formal arrangement — “That came later,” said a CIA official, “after you had the journalist on a string.”

Formal recruitment of reporters was generally handled at high levels—after the journalist had undergone a thorough background check. The actual approach might even be made by a deputy director or division chief. On some occasions, no discussion would he entered into until the journalist had signed a pledge of secrecy.

Within the CIA, journalist‑operatives were accorded elite status, a consequence of the common experience journalists shared with high‑level CIA officials. Many had gone to the same schools as their CIA handlers, moved in the same circles, shared fashionably liberal, anti‑Communist political values, and were part of the same “old boy” network that constituted something of an establishment elite in the media, politics and academia of postwar America. The most valued of these lent themselves for reasons of national service, not money.

The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:

■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.

By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.


During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting‑and‑cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.” In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high‑level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter‑day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.”


From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist‑operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.1

The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400‑some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.

Sulzberger claims that he was never formally “tasked” by the Agency and that he “would never get caught near the spook business. My relations were totally informal—I had a goodmany friends,” he said. “I’m sure they consider me an asset. They can ask me questions. They find out you’re going to Slobovia and they say, ‘Can we talk to you when you get back?’ ... Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian government is suffering from psoriasis. But I never took an assignment from one of those guys.... I’ve known Wisner well, and Helms and even McCone [former CIA director John McCone] I used to play golf with. But they’d have had to he awfully subtle to have used me.

Sulzberger says he was asked to sign the secrecy agreement in the 1950s. “A guy came around and said, ‘You are a responsible newsman and we need you to sign this if we are going to show you anything classified.’ I said I didn’t want to get entangled and told them, ‘Go to my uncle [Arthur Hays Sulzberger, then publisher of the New York Times] and if he says to sign it I will.’” His uncle subsequently signed such an agreement, Sulzberger said, and he thinks he did too, though he is unsure. “I don’t know, twenty‑some years is a long time.” He described the whole question as “a bubble in a bathtub.”

MURKY DETAILS OF CIA RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency’s use of journalists for intelligence purposes. They include:

■ The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. “At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,” said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. “There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates.... The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.

A senior CIA official who reviewed a portion of the Agency’s files on journalists for two hours onSeptember 15th, 1977, said he found documentation of five instances in which the Times had provided cover for CIA employees between 1954 and 1962. In each instance he said, the arrangements were handled by executives of the Times; the documents all contained standard Agency language “showing that this had been checked out at higher levels of the New York Times,” said the official. The documents did not mention Sulzberger’s name, however—only those of subordinates whom the official refused to identify.

The CIA employees who received Times credentials posed as stringers for the paper abroad and worked as members of clerical staffs in the Times’ foreign bureaus. Most were American; two or three were foreigners.

CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions.

Sulzberger informed a number of reporters and editors of his general policy of cooperation with the Agency. “We were in touch with them—they’d talk to us and some cooperated,” said a CIA official. The cooperation usually involved passing on information and “spotting” prospective agents among foreigners.

Arthur Hays Sulzberger signed a secrecy agreement with the CIA in the 1950s, according to CIA officials—a fact confirmed by his nephew, C.L. Sulzberger. However, there are varying interpretations of the purpose of the agreement: C.L. Sulzberger says it represented nothing more than a pledge not to disclose classified information made available to the publisher. That contention is supported by some Agency officials. Others in the Agency maintain that the agreement represented a pledge never to reveal any of the Times’ dealings with the CIA, especially those involving cover. And there are those who note that, because all cover arrangements are classified, a secrecy agreement would automatically apply to them.

Attempts to find out which individuals in the Times organization made the actual arrangements for providing credentials to CIA personnel have been unsuccessful. In a letter to reporter Stuart Loory in 1974, Turner Cadedge, managing editor of the Times from 1951 to 1964, wrote that approaches by the CIA had been rebuffed by the newspaper. “I knew nothing about any involvement with the CIA... of any of our foreign correspondents on the New York Times. I heard many times of overtures to our men by the CIA, seeking to use their privileges, contacts, immunities and, shall we say, superior intelligence in the sordid business of spying and informing. If any one of them succumbed to the blandishments or cash offers, I was not aware of it. Repeatedly, the CIA and other hush‑hush agencies sought to make arrangements for ‘cooperation’ even with Times management, especially during or soon after World War II, but we always resisted. Our motive was to protect our credibility.”

According to Wayne Phillips, a former Timesreporter, the CIA invoked Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s name when it tried to recruit him as an undercover operative in 1952 while he was studying at Columbia University’s Russian Institute. Phillips said an Agency official told him that the CIA had “a working arrangement” with the publisher in which other reporters abroad had been placed on the Agency’s payroll. Phillips, who remained at the Times until 1961, later obtained CIA documents under the Freedom of Information Act which show that the Agency intended to develop him as a clandestine “asset” for use abroad.

On January 31st, 1976, the Times carried a brief story describing the ClAs attempt to recruit Phillips. It quoted Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the present publisher, as follows: “I never heard of the Times being approached, either in my capacity as publisher or as the son of the late Mr. Sulzberger.” The Times story, written by John M. Crewdson, also reported that Arthur Hays Sulzberger told an unnamed former correspondent that he might he approached by the CIA after arriving at a new post abroad. Sulzberger told him that he was not “under any obligation to agree,” the story said and that the publisher himself would be “happier” if he refused to cooperate. “But he left it sort of up to me,” the Times quoted its former reporter as saying. “The message was if I really wanted to do that, okay, but he didn’t think it appropriate for a Times correspondent”

C.L. Sulzberger, in a telephone interview, said he had no knowledge of any CIA personnel using Times cover or of reporters for the paper working actively for the Agency. He was the paper’s chief of foreign service from 1944 to 1954 and expressed doubt that his uncle would have approved such arrangements. More typical of the late publisher, said Sulzberger, was a promise made to Allen Dulles’ brother, John Foster, then secretary of state, that no Times staff member would be permitted to accept an invitation to visit the People’s Republic of China without John Foster Dulles’ consent. Such an invitation was extended to the publisher’s nephew in the 1950s; Arthur Sulzberger forbade him to accept it. “It was seventeen years before another Times correspondent was invited,” C.L. Sulzberger recalled.

for the rest
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28610.htm

[mhgaffney]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Period.

[TDmvp]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Period.

Ahhh the name calling ... Stage 2 in all Gaff$hit's threads...

Soon as people have their own opinion Gaff turns into a 13 year old all calls them names.


And you wonder why everyone thinks you are borderline retarded .

[Fedaykin]

why am I not surprised at the "quality" of gaff-o's "source"?

[W*GS]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Period.

We've seen you, many times, circling 'round this "story" like a nasty turd that just won't go down the bowl.

Give it a rest.

[DenverBrit]

You guys are a bunch of cowards. Period.

Still having problems?

http://ipcblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/iStock_000008012475XSmall1-childproof-bottle.jpg

You need one of these.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpaS4OowRhwNQnRxD3itPDCVovXK0vA iNedR2HeowhbO3JbWEPyg

[StugotsIII]

Well, yeah, she's lucky to have survived.

But they missed their chance. If they eliminate her now her book will go to number one.

You need to use the brain G-d gave you. Do a little research and you'll discover that what I've been telling you since late 2006 is right.

Sooo....let me get this straight....


The government pulled off bringing down the towers and fooled the world (except you and Jesse Ventura) but they couldn't kill one girl?

LOL

[mhgaffney]

I ran the NY Times piece by a peace activist I know -- a woman.

This is standard, she says -- in cases of female whistleblowers.

They are called unstable, unbalanced, psycho, nympho, or lesbian.

This is how the disinfo machine works. You guys are subjected to it on a 24 X 7 basis, and you don't even know it.

You wouldn't know a scam if it stuck a dildo up your ass.

That's how clueless you guys are.

[theAPAOps5]

No we call out your pathetic scams almost immediately. We are always laughing at your pathetic lame brain and disgusting threads.

[mhgaffney]

Just to give you a hint of how much $$$$ goes into the CIA's many disinfo projects -- check this out.

When I first saw this I was so shocked by the total -- over a $trillion -- that I refused to believe it. But the more I've learned about Black Eagle Trust, Project Hammer, The Jacobe Fund etc -- the more I wonder that the numbers could be right.

One thing is certain. The CIA's budget for black ops (including disinfo) is vastly greater than what we have been told. It's no wonder the CIA refused to disclose its budget to the Joint Inquiry -- the first 911 investigation.

They have plenty to hide -- just like the banks.
MHG

The Black Budget Report: An Investigation into the CIA’s ‘Black Budget’ and the Second Manhattan Project

11/23/2003 (Revised 02/05/04)

© Michael E. Salla, PhD

for the full report go here:
http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm

[mhgaffney]

Hey Apa --

how come you NEVER talk issues? It's always just ridicule. This is because your brain is on standby. That's how it is with herd animals.

[theAPAOps5]

Hey Apa --

how come you NEVER talk issues? It's always just ridicule. This is because your brain is on standby. That's how it is with herd animals.

I talk real issues not tripe spread by a bottom feeder. You are lower than a criminal in my book. Only worth laughing at.

[The Lone Bolt]

I ran the NY Times piece by a peace activist I know -- a woman.

This is standard, she says -- in cases of female whistleblowers.

They are called unstable, unbalanced, psycho, nympho, or lesbian.

This is how the disinfo machine works. You guys are subjected to it on a 24 X 7 basis, and you don't even know it.

You wouldn't know a scam if it stuck a dilrod up your ass.

That's how clueless you guys are.

Have you attempted to contact Ms. Lindauer to see if she denies the Times reports, e.g. that she has at any time believed that she was being watched by hidden cameras in her apartment or that believed she was an "angel"?

[W*GS]

Have you attempted to contact Ms. Lindauer to see if she denies the Times reports, e.g. that she has at any time believed that she was being watched by hidden cameras in her apartment or that believed she was an "angel"?

Figures that gaffe would worship someone with mental health issues.

Two peas in a pod and all...

[mhgaffney]

It's a parade of lemmings.

[mhgaffney]

You guys are low lifes. If you had an ounce of integrity you would check out Lindauer yourself -- before agreeing with the NY TImes.

But as we know -- herd animals do not dig for the truth -- because that involves thinking -- and they do not think. They just react.

I have skimmed Lindauer's book. It includes an affidavit by her attorney (Thayer Lindauer) who is also her uncle. He vouches for her story. He denies that Susan has mental problems.

As it turns out-- Lindauer was forcibly drugged during her incarceration at Ft Carswell. Courtesy of the US government.

The attorney also interviewed several important witnesses who "authenticated her claims..."

The attorney states in his affidavit that "It is absolutely correct that Carswell's psychology staff, the US attorney's office in New York, The FBI and the main Justice Department had direct knowledge that Susan told the truth about her [CIA] asset work..."

The attorney also relates how he himself was treated when he attempted to visit Susan at Carswell, after driving 700 miles. Here is what happened:

"On the first two tries, guards refused to admit me to the military base, telling me no prison was there. The second time, guards insisted that the prison was closed on weekend. Only when Judge Mukasey ordered US marshals to stand by as an escort was I admitted...." (p 424)

It would appear that an accused no longer has the right to an attorney in the US. This fits with what we have learned about the trashing of our civil liberties under the Patriot Act.

It's no wonder Susan titled her book EXTREME PREJUDICE.

Here are a couple of the 15 5-star reviews from amazon:

This one from Michael Herzog:

Sometimes the truth is just too shocking for the masses, January 30, 2011

Being a certified investigator & talk show host, I did my 'homework' on Susan Lindauer as her book 'Extreme Prejudice,' reads more fascinating than any Ian Fleming Novel. My conclusion...

Ms. Lindauer's story is credible, easily verifiable & conveys in explicit detail just how far the 'Powers that Be' will go in perpetrating a lie to achieve their goals. This book blows the doors off any conceived idea that our Politicians are 'For the People.' Definately a MUST READ for anyone that dares step out of the box & wants a good dose of American Political Reality.

her's another one, by Eric Burt:

You must read this book, December 20, 2010

What a powerful book ! Everyone who has believed the "official" story for us going to war against Iraq - must read this book. It's clear after reading Susan's book that the intelligence was not there for an invasion of Iraq. Since 9/11, brave people that told the true facts on Iraq - like Susan Lindauer - were silenced. The Patriot Act was - and still is - being used as a weapon against our citizens to control the narrative on the "War on Terror"... Susan is courageous and a true patriot for publishing this book - her story of abuse by our government needs to be read by the President and every Congressman before the next vote to extend the Patriot Act is taken.


Of course, I don't expect that the clowns on the OM will take Burt's advice and read Lindauer's 400-page book.

As we've seen, herd animals do not read books. Epic showed the level of awareness (or lack of it) when he confused the 2003 war with the first Gulf War. In fact, he showed even more confusion by stating that Iraq had been slant drilling into Kuwait. No, Epic, it was actually the reverse. In 1990 Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq..

Makes you wonder if Epic could find Iraq on the map...

Today -- if you choose to differ with the official lie -- you will be called "mentally deranged."

MHG

[DenverBrit]

LOL

Speaking of lemmings!!

It includes a testimonial by her attorney (Thayer Lindauer) who is also her uncle. He vouches for her story
Hilarious!

[mhgaffney]

We know that uppety women make you clowns up tight. Lindauer is not the first case. Over thew last few years I cited geophysicist Leuren Moret -- a whistleblower from the Lawrence Livermore Lab.

You clowns mocked and ridiculed her.

But as it turns out, Moret went to ***ushima Japan in 2005, toured the reactors there, and held a press conference and warned about the likelihood of a major nuclear disaster.

Moret held up a map showing the major faults beside the reactors. The local people had never been told about this. The next day the local papers carried the story and her warning. But of course nothing happened.

That was in 2005.

Moret predicted the ***ushima melt down. She and Susan Lindauer put the knee jerks on the Om to shame.

You guys would be hilarious if you were not so pathetic.

MHG

[W*GS]

And giving us Amazon reviews as evidence of value?

That's a guffaw.

gaffe, you're not going to sell your 9/11 fantasies here. Try somewhere else - perhaps stormfront.

[W*GS]

You guys would be hilarious if you were not so pathetic.

You're hilarious *and* pathetic.

[DenverBrit]

We know that uppety women make you clowns up tight. Lindauer is not the first case. Over thew last few years I cited geophysicist Leuren Moret -- a whistleblower from the Lawrence Livermore Lab.

You clowns mocked and ridiculed her.

But as it turns out, Moret went to ***ushima Japan in 2005, toured the reactors there, and held a press conference and warned about the likelihood of a major nuclear disaster.

Moret held up a map showing the major faults beside the reactors. The local people had never been told about this. The next day the local papers carried the story and her warning. But of course nothing happened.

That was in 2005.

Moret predicted the ***ushima melt down. She and Susan Lindauer put the knee jerks on the Om to shame.

You guys would be hilarious if you were not so pathetic.

MHG

LOL.....and the troofer circle jerk continues.

[underrated29]

Now I am confused on two fronts.


1- The towers were taken down by nanites, Ghaffo told us so, but now they were blown up...So which is it? What happened to the nanites used by the government for funding if someone else blew up the buildings?


2- The CIA has this $trillion budget as you put, but didnt you just report that 10 years ago they heisted 10Trillion at least. WTF would they need a huge budget if they took off with 10 Trillion of saddams gold. I bet even the CIA couldnt spend 2 trillion if they were given free reign of consequence to do whatever the hell they wanted.



Ghaff- are you going to change your name? I recommend perhaps a new name of Mckennison or Mcmartinez.. Has a nice ring to it, dont ya think?

[mhgaffney]

Nanothermite has explosive properties.

It depends on the proportions of the various ingredients.

But the issue of how the towers came down is not completely solved. A lot of people including myself strongly suspect that other kinds of explosives were also required --

The core columns at the base were 7 inches thick. Could nanothermite have severed them? I doubt it.

Lindauer says that a pre 9/11 CIA report warned about possible use of mini nukes. You will recall I raised this issue in October 2006 -- and was ridiculed for it.

So we add Lindauer's name to the growing list of US intelligence officers who now openly challenge the official story. This includes former CXIA analyst Ray McGovern, Army intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer, and former head of the CIA's bin Laden desk, Michael Scheuer, to name a few.


MHG

[Requiem]

HEY -- IT COULD HAPPEN.

http://images.hollywood.com/cms/300x375/5211339.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

Again Gaff, have you attempted to contact Lindauer? Does she categorically deny the assertions of the Times article, specifically the ones regarding delusions and bizarre behaviors?

Has she ever publicly denied them?

[The Lone Bolt]

So we add Lindauer's name to the growing list of US intelligence officers who now openly challenge the official story. This includes former CXIA analyst Ray McGovern, Army intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer, and former head of the CIA's bin Laden desk, Michael Scheuer, to name a few.


MHG

Yes, very few.

[sirhcyennek81]

Jesus...


:Broncos:

[mhgaffney]

Again Gaff, have you attempted to contact Lindauer? Does she categorically deny the assertions of the Times article, specifically the ones regarding delusions and bizarre behaviors?

Has she ever publicly denied them?

Stupid questions...but yeah I'm sure she has.

There is nothing delusional or bizarre about her article at the top of this thread.

Of course, if you subscribe to the view that the earth is at the center of the universe -- and if you make this belief official -- a prerequisite to qualify as socially and psychologically healthy -- then yeah maybe she is delusional.

In that case -- so was Newton and Einstein

[mhgaffney]

The big problem is - you guys don't realize you are living in a cube. A box.

The answers are outside. So where does this leave you?

[sirhcyennek81]

1. Stupid questions...but yeah I'm sure she has.

2. There is nothing delusional or bizarre about her article at the top of this thread.
3. Of course, if you subscribe to the view that the earth is at the center of the universe -- and if you make this belief official -- a prerequisite to qualify as socially and psychologically healthy -- then yeah maybe she is delusional.

In that case -- so was Newton and Einstein


1. Of course it is. Heaven forbid you actually have a credible source.

2. Right...

3. Yeah...compare a nutbag to two of the greatest scientists in world history. If you have to resort to hyperbole, you lose the argument asshat.

:Broncos:

[mhgaffney]

Why do you assume she is a nutbag?

Because her rights were violated -- when she was arrested and thrown in a military prison?

Because she was forcibly drugged?

Because she had insider knowledge as a CIA asset that the agency knew 9/11 was going to happen -- yet did nothing to stop it?

Because the CIA -- already in the summer of 2001 -- expected mini nukes might be used to destroy the WTC?

All of these things challenge your comfort zone as a herd animal.

Face it. This explains your reactions.

[W*GS]

The big problem is - you guys don't realize you are living in a cube. A box.

The answers are outside. So where does this leave you?

Laughing at your sorry dumb ass.

[The Lone Bolt]

Why do you assume she is a nutbag?

Because her rights were violated -- when she was arrested and thrown in a military prison?

Because she was forcibly drugged?

Because she had insider knowledge as a CIA asset that the agency knew 9/11 was going to happen -- yet did nothing to stop it?

Because the CIA -- already in the summer of 2001 -- expected mini nukes might be used to destroy the WTC?

All of these things challenge your comfort zone as a herd animal.

Face it. This explains your reactions.

Nope. I think the NY Times articles make it clear why she is a "nutbag." And, as far as you know, she has never denied any of these reported delusions or bizarre behaviors.

You are, once again, in very deep denial.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

former CIA agent says WTC was demolished by explosives on 9/11

Come on, Mark - everyone knows CIA agents are all a bunch of left-wing extremist loons sporting tin foil hats. ;)

(This particular agent isn't the only one who has said the 9/11 Commission was a fraud, BTW.)

BTW, wouldn't it be nice if Obama suddenly grew a pair and declared that there would be a real investigation of 9/11 to commemorate the 10 year anniversary?

I won't be holding my breath...

[The Lone Bolt]

Come on, Mark - everyone knows CIA agents are all a bunch of left-wing extremist loons sporting tin foil hats. ;)

(This particular agent isn't the only one who has said the 9/11 Commission was a fraud, BTW.)

BTW, wouldn't it be nice if Obama suddenly grew a pair and declared that there would be a real investigation of 9/11 to commemorate the 10 year anniversary?

I won't be holding my breath...

Have you read the articles I linked? Do you seriously deny that the woman is mentally ill?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Have you read the articles I linked? Do you seriously deny that the woman is mentally ill?

Even if this is true, what about all the other former CIA operatives who support some or all of her claims?

How will you assassinate their characters, I wonder?

[Obushma]

Have you read the articles I linked? Do you seriously deny that the woman is mentally ill?

Since when did The CIA start hiring mentally unstable people? Do you understand the background check and testing that a prospected agent undergoes? Do you realize how foolish your argument is?

[The Lone Bolt]

Since when did The CIA start hiring mentally unstable people? Do you understand the background check and testing that a prospected agent undergoes? Do you realize how foolish your argument is?

Have you read the NY Times articles? Clearly they missed one.

[The Lone Bolt]

Even if this is true, what about all the other former CIA operatives who support some or all of her claims?

How will you assassinate their characters, I wonder?

Because they have no real evidence, and some , like Scott Ritter, have also proven to be mentally unbalanced, I see no reason to "assassinate" anybody's character.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because they have no real evidence...

No real evidence?

This statement is pure make-believe on your part.

You have never even lifted a finger to challenge the evidence these intelligence pros have presented.

You have merely worked overtime to shoot the messenger and to assassinate the characters of critics like a good BushCo apologist.



....and some , like Scott Ritter, have also proven to be mentally unbalanced, I see no reason to "assassinate" anybody's character.

Scott Ritter "mentally unbalanced?" ROFL!

Thanks for proving my point, i.e., that your SOP is to vilify BushCo critics when you can't refute their arguments or dispute their facts.

Even if Ritter is unbalanced, it doesn't follow that his claims are false.

[alkemical]

Couldn't the NYT article be a smear campaign though to discredit her?

[StugotsIII]

9/11 wasn't an inside job.

[underrated29]

lol. I love this guy and this thread. Well, all of the 911 threads. So awesome.

[The Lone Bolt]

Couldn't the NYT article be a smear campaign though to discredit her?

Then where are Linauer's public denials? Why isn't she suing for libel?

[alkemical]

Then where are Linauer's public denials? Why isn't she suing for libel?

if she denied it, would it really do any good? Doesn't that seem to make a crazy person, crazier?

*FTR - I don't have a horse in this race - but discrediting people is an old trick.

[The Lone Bolt]

if she denied it, would it really do any good? Doesn't that seem to make a crazy person, crazier?

*FTR - I don't have a horse in this race - but discrediting people is an old trick.

So if she came out publicly and said "no, I never claimed that I was being monitored by cameras in my apartment or that I was literally an 'angel'" you think this would reflect badly on her? You think it's better for her to remain silent and allow everyone to think these claims are true? That makes her seem more sane?

[sirhcyennek81]

Why do you assume she is a nutbag?

Because her rights were violated -- 1. when she was arrested and thrown in a military prison?
Because she was forcibly drugged?

2. Because she had insider knowledge as a CIA asset that the agency knew 9/11 was going to happen -- yet did nothing to stop it?

Because the CIA -- already in the summer of 2001 -- 3. expected mini nukes might be used to destroy the WTC?

4. All of these things challenge your comfort zone as a herd animal.

Face it. This explains your reactions.

1. Having her mental health evaluated. Do you not read what other people post?

2. It is simply amazing to me how many people in the "evil" CIA and FBI have insider knowledge. You would think the CIA and FBI would be worried about a large number of simple agents having secrets they can write books about.

3. They expected truck bomb attacks against federal buildings. Not mini-nukes. I know it's hard, but do not be dumb.

4. Said the sheep...

:Broncos:

[alkemical]

So if she came out publicly and said "no, I never claimed that I was being monitored by cameras in my apartment or that I was literally an 'angel'" you think this would reflect badly on her? You think it's better for her to remain silent and allow everyone to think these claims are true? That makes her seem more sane?

Yep. It's like someone calling you racist and you say: "hey, i have black friends."

As for being monitored - she was CIA - perhaps she was receiving personal attention. Not being able to have a conversation with her, makes it difficult to judge anything.

But hey, whatever - I personally don't care enough - beyond the scope that smear campaigns have been used to discredit people. it is what it is.

[The Lone Bolt]

Yep. It's like someone calling you racist and you say: "hey, i have black friends."

As for being monitored - she was CIA - perhaps she was receiving personal attention. Not being able to have a conversation with her, makes it difficult to judge anything.

But hey, whatever - I personally don't care enough - beyond the scope that smear campaigns have been used to discredit people. it is what it is.

OK, so lemme get this straight.

If the NY Times ran an article about you, and reported to the world that "Alkemical claimed that he is Jesus, hears voices, and reported that the CIA has planted a chip in his brain to monitor his thoughts", you would say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to dispute this publicly, right? You would remain silent and let everyone think it's true, right?ROFL!

[alkemical]

OK, so lemme get this straight.

If the NY Times ran an article about you, and reported to the world that "Alkemical claimed that he is Jesus, hears voices, and reported that the CIA has planted a chip in his brain to monitor his thoughts", you would say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to dispute this publicly, right? You would remain silent and let everyone think it's true, right?ROFL!

Actually, for the most part it creates a negative image - no matter how many times you "deny" it - people will think it's true.

Your best bet is to come up with a better marketing strategy:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/22/on_grabbing_the_third_rail

Also, she "denies" it in a court of law:

http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/lindauerdeclaration.pdf

Both sets of psych notes report "no signs of psychosis, no signs of mood disturbances, no
delusional thinking and no depression." Reports filed to Pre-Trial Services declared that I
was "fully oriented to (my) surroundings at all times." In March, 2005, Dr. Bruke
Taddessah wrote that there was no basis for psychiatric intervention. Nevertheless, I was
ordered to surrender to Carswell FMC, and I obeyed on October 3, 2005, despite great
dismay and disagreement with forensic psychiatry reports that claimed my belief that I
had functioned as a U.S. Asset constituted delusional thinking. After my release from
Carswell, records of my weekly meetings at Counseling Plus from September, 2006 to
August, 2007 validated Dr. Taddessah's earlier findings. I was reported to suffer "Post
Traumatic Stress caused by my experiences at Carswell"--- and nothing else.

But like I said - I don't really care about this issue - well, not as much as those of you who want to argue about it anyway.

Lates.

[The Lone Bolt]

Actually, for the most part it creates a negative image - no matter how many times you "deny" it - people will think it's true.

Your best bet is to come up with a better marketing strategy:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/22/on_grabbing_the_third_rail

Also, she "denies" it in a court of law:

http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/lindauerdeclaration.pdf



But like I said - I don't really care about this issue - well, not as much as those of you who want to argue about it anyway.

Lates.

I just got through reading Ms. Linauer's delcaration. In a nutshell, she only denies being psychotic, but does not dispute that she has ever:

- stuffed tissues in her mouth in court after being admonished by the judge not to speak without first consulting with her lawyer,

- had gifts of prophecy that allowed her to report 11 bombings before they happened (in fact she flatly states "I have psychic ability"),

- been watched by hidden cameras in her apartment, or

- claimed that men next door had videotaped her under instructions from President Bill Clinton.


This is relevant because she cites further evaluations from mental health professionals who deny psychotic symptoms or mood disturbances. As a mental health professional, I am well aware that psychotic people can often present as "normal" when they want to. Could be that Ms. Lindauer was aware of the stakes and later on decided to keep her mouth shut about her delusions?


(BTW I think her claim of having "accidentally" bumped in to OBL in Paris in 1986, who then told her flatly he had planted a bomb, is pretty unlikely, don't you think?)

Furthermore, you never answered my question. Would you personally keep silent if a news article accused you of experiencing psychotic symptoms?

[alkemical]

I just got through reading Ms. Linauer's delcaration. In a nutshell, she only denies being psychotic, but does not dispute that she has ever:

- stuffed tissues in her mouth in court after being admonished by the judge not to speak without first consulting with her lawyer,

- had gifts of prophecy that allowed her to report 11 bombings before they happened (in fact she flatly states "I have psychic ability"),

- been watched by hidden cameras in her apartment, or

- claimed that men next door had videotaped her under instructions from President Bill Clinton.


This is relevant because she cites further evaluations from mental health professionals who deny psychotic symptoms or mood disturbances. As a mental health professional, I am well aware that psychotic people can often present as "normal" when they want to. Could be that Ms. Lindauer was aware of the stakes and later on decided to keep her mouth shut about her delusions?


(BTW I think her claim of having "accidentally" bumped in to OBL in Paris in 1986, who then told her flatly he had planted a bomb, is pretty unlikely, don't you think?)

Furthermore, you never answered my question. Would you personally keep silent if a news article accused you of experiencing psychotic symptoms?


I wouldn't acknowledge them, you only look crazier. It's best to "stick to the story". (see links I had provided, so yeah - i did answer the question dingus)

Perhaps her place was bugged, she was either a CIA asset, or was "a person of interest", or she's delusional - none of us know what's up, really.

Either way - you can argue about it - I just find it interesting how much people are willing to know about someone without a conversation to judge on their own merits. (that goes for each pro/con side in this race)

[gyldenlove]

I have to say she is one incompetent agent, really you decided to go public with no evidence at all?

[DenverBrit]

I have to say she is one incompetent agent, really you decided to go public with no evidence at all?

Troofers don't need evidence, just a sliver of anything will do, no matter how absurd or discredited.

[gyldenlove]

Troofers don't need evidence, just a sliver of anything will do, no matter how absurd or discredited.

You know how in movies the turncoat always brings like a dossier full of files or a black book or a laptop or memory key? she should learn from the movies.

[DenverBrit]

You know how in movies the turncoat always brings like a dossier full of files or a black book or a laptop or memory key? she should learn from the movies.

She would need something to show if anyone other than Troofers are going to cling to her story.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

9/11 wasn't an inside job.

::)

And what were the other two?

Your check's in the mail, and I promise I won't *** in your mouth?

[alkemical]

I have to say she is one incompetent agent, really you decided to go public with no evidence at all?

Other articles I read was she was an asset, not an "agent". I figure if she was doing a lot of traveling, she might have found an envelope here or there ;)

[mhgaffney]

Troofers don't need evidence, just a sliver of anything will do, no matter how absurd or discredited.

We've gone over this a hundred times since 2006 when I came onto this board -- and you still don't get it.

You guys just never learn. You're dumb as rocks.

[mhgaffney]

Here are three cases of evidence -- that the official story fails to explain. There are hundreds of other cases -- but here are three:

1. The free fall of WTC-7. NIST admits in its final report that WTC-7 fell in a free fall for 2.3 seconds. But the 9/11 Commission Report never even mentions WTC-7. Not one word about it.

A free fall is incompatible with a fire caused collapse. No way no how. A free fall = a demolition.

2. Debris from the crash of UAL 93 at Shanksville was scattered over the countryside -- across three separate debris fields. One debris field was at Indian Lake -- 2-3 miles from the crash site. Another was at New Baltimore -- 7-8 miles from the crash site.

How is this to be explained? A plane crash cannot spew debris 8 miles away. There had to be an explosion aboard UAL 93 BEFORE it crashed. Something breached the fuselage, allowing debris to spill out at altitude. Only this can explain the scattered debris.

Yet the official story ignores the issue. Never even tries to explain it. The problem is not with activists who point this out -- but with the official story itself.

3. The hole in WTC-6. They said it was caused by falling debris from nearby WTC-1 -- but photos taken inside the ruin of WTC-6 fail to show any of the easily identifiable outer columns in the hole. Indeed -- the photos fail to show any debris of any kind. It is as if a huge cookie cutter simply removed the entire core of WTC-6.

Again -- the official story fails us.

So -- the point is that we have lots of evidence that is incompatible with the official story. The cavity in WTC-6 is consistent with a huge explosion. Something created a gigantic hole in the building.

Here's a shot of the hole:

[TDmvp]

We've gone over this a hundred times since 2006 when I came onto this board -- and you still don't get it.

You guys just never learn. You're dumb as rocks.

Yea and you know everything. Cause you're the chosen one.

You have to be one of the biggest pieces of $hit I have encounter in my whole life , online or off...

Never have I seen another human being as arrogant , ignorant , and insulting as you.

The fact you don't debate your Bs , you just tell everyone you are right and if someone doubts you , you call them names and insult them.

To be someone who has wrote a book you sure come off as someone with the mental make up of a child when you go into your I know everything and no one else can possibly be right and If you doubt me I'll call you stupid routine.


You are truly the only member of this forum I wouldn't piss on if you was ablaze , but after you went out it would be nice to let the families who lost someone in 9/11 piss on your corpse like you do their loved ones.

[DenverBrit]

We've gone over this a hundred times since 2006 when I came onto this board -- and you still don't get it.

You guys just never learn. You're dumb as rocks.

This should be your avatar.

http://lambiek.net/artists/c/crumb/crumb_mr_natural_3.jpg

[DenverBrit]

Here's a shot of the hole:

http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/images/Marksmile-250-opt.jpg

[W*GS]

gaffe pulls all the same bull**** that global warming deniers do.

[mhgaffney]

Nothing has changed in the last 5 years.

You guys run away from facts -- and attack the messenger.

None of you will acknowledge the evidence -=- let alone discuss it.

Same old same old.

[W*GS]

Nothing has changed in the last 5 years.

You're correct - your stuff is all SSDD.

None of you will acknowledge the evidence -=- let alone discuss it.

We've already discussed it to death.

Many of us have shown you how your assertions and claims are wrong.

You then go off into a hidey-hole for a while to lick your wounds, then you come back and post the exact same BS all over again.

You're a ****ing repeating busted record, bub.

[DenverBrit]

You're correct - your stuff is all SSDD.



We've already discussed it to death.

Many of us have shown you how your assertions and claims are wrong.

You then go off into a hidey-hole for a while to lick your wounds, then you come back and post the exact same BS all over again.

You're a ****ing repeating busted record, bub.

He's a demented masochist who doesn't remember why he keeps coming back, but the pain from the beatings feels too good to quit. thwack

[mhgaffney]

He's a demented masochist who doesn't remember why he keeps coming back, but the pain from the beatings feels too good to quit. thwack

I might agree to an element of masochism -- but you fail to understand the reason.

You guys are the problem with the nation and the world.

Here's the logic. Way back in 1975 -- at the end of the Vietnam War -= people like me who had protested to end the war -- went home.

A whole generation of activists said enough. Good people stopped the peace activism -- went back to their lives.

That was a big mistake. In 1975 -- the peace movement should have engaged this nation in a great overarching dialogue about that war -- why it happened - -what it was all about -- the horrible eye popping facts about the US caused genocide and the ecocide - the destruction of one of the greatest rain forests on the planet by the US war machine.

But we didn't.

And because we failed to rise to the challenge of educating the American people -- it happened all over again. We were forced to relive the same history again -- only this time in the Mideast and central Asia.

People who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them again and again and again etc.

This is why I am in here with you Bozos. It's why I get in your face. Its why I refuse to leave.

I am your conscience -- and your psychotherapist.

[DenverBrit]

I might agree to an element of masochism -- but you fail to understand the reason.

You guys are the problem with the nation and the world.

Here's the logic. Way back in 1975 -- at the end of the Vietnam War -= people like me who had protested to end the war -- went home.

A whole generation of activists said enough. Good people stopped the peace activism -- went back to their lives.

That was a big mistake. In 1975 -- the peace movement should have engaged this nation in a great overarching dialogue about that war -- why it happened - -what it was all about -- the horrible eye popping facts about the US caused genocide and the ecocide - the destruction of one of the greatest rain forests on the planet by the US war machine.

But we didn't.

And because we failed to rise to the challenge of educating the American people -- it happened all over again. We were forced to relive the same history again -- only this time in the Mideast and central Asia.

People who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them again and again and again etc.

This is why I am in here with you Bozos. It's why I get in your face. Its why I refuse to leave.

I am your conscience -- and your psychotherapist.

Now there's a delusional cry for help.

[The Lone Bolt]

I am paranoid -- and need a psychotherapist.

Fixed it for ya.

[mhgaffney]

Kind of curious that none of the usual rabble posted a word about WTC-7, the hole in WTC-6 -- or the fishy circumstances surrounding the crash of UAL 93-- which have never been explained. (The government didn't even try.)

But here's a new shocker. Now the counter-terrorism czar (Richard A. Clarke) from Reagan to Bush points an accusing finger at former CIA chief Tenet.
MHG



An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

In a new documentary, ex-national security aide Richard Clarke suggests the CIA tried to recruit 9/11 hijackers—then covered it up. Philip Shenon on George Tenet’s denial.

By Philip Shenon

August 11, 2011 "Daily Beast" - -With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks only a month away, former CIA Director George Tenet and two former top aides are fighting back hard against allegations that they engaged in a massive cover-up in 2000 and 2001 to hide intelligence from the White House and the FBI that might have prevented the attacks.

The source of the explosive, unproved allegations is a man who once considered Tenet a close friend: former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who makes the charges against Tenet and the CIA in an interview for a radio documentary timed to the 10th anniversary next month. Portions of the Clarke interview were made available to The Daily Beast by the producers of the documentary.

In the interview for the documentary, Clarke offers an incendiary theory that, if true, would rewrite the history of the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the White House and FBI in 2000 and 2001 that two Saudi-born terrorists were on U.S. soil – terrorists who went on to become suicide hijackers on 9/11.

Clarke speculates – and readily admits he cannot prove -- that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda. After the recruitment effort went sour, senior CIA officers continued to withhold the information from the White House for fear they would be accused of “malfeasance and misfeasance,” Clarke suggests.

Clarke says it is fair to conclude “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.” Asked who would have made the order, Clarke replies, “I would think it would have been made by the director,” referring to Tenet.

Clarke said that if his theory is correct, Tenet and others would never admit to the truth today “even if you waterboarded them.”

Clarke’s theory addresses a central, enduring mystery about the 9/11 attacks – why the CIA failed for so long to tell the White House and senior officials at the FBI that the agency was aware that two Al Qaeda terrorists had arrived in the United States in January 2000, just days after attending a terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia that the CIA had secretly monitored.
In a written response prepared last week in advance of the broadcast, Tenet says that Clarke, who famously went public in 2004 to blow the whistle on the Bush White House over intelligence failures before 9/11, has “suddenly invented baseless allegations which are belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration.”

The CIA insisted to the 9/11 Commission and other government investigations that the agency never knew the exact whereabouts of the two hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, inside the U.S.—let alone try to recruit them as spies.

Agency officials said the CIA's delay in sharing information about the two terrorists was a grave failure, but maintained there was no suggestion of deception by CIA brass. Tenet has said he was not informed before 9/11 about Hazmi and Mihdhar's travel to the U.S., although the intelligence was widely shared at lower levels of the CIA.

The 9/11 Commission investigated widespread rumors in the intelligence community that the CIA tried to recruit the two terrorists—Clarke was not the first to suggest it—but the investigation revealed no evidence to support the rumors. The commission said in its final report that "it appears that no one informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA" about the two terrorists.

But in his interview, Clarke said his seemingly unlikely, even wild scenario – a bungled CIA terrorist-recruitment effort and a subsequent cover-up – was “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” to explain why he and others at the White House were told nothing about the two terrorists until the day of the attacks.

“I’ve thought a lot about this,” Clarke says in the interview, which was conducted in October 2009. He said it was fair to conclude “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.” Asked who would have made the order, Clarke replies, “I would think it would have been made by the director,” referring to Tenet.

Clarke, now a security consultant and bestselling author, has hinted in his writings in the past that there may have been a CIA cover-up involving Hazmi and Mihdhar, although he has never made such direct attacks on Tenet and others at the CIA by name.

He did not reply to requests from The Daily Beast to expand on his comments or to explain why he has not repeated them publicly since the 2009 interview. The documentary’s producers, FF4 Films, said they had been in contact with Clarke this month and that he stood by his remarks in the broadcast.

The producers, John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, had previously made a well-reviewed film documentary, "Press for Truth," (www.911pressfortruth.com), on the struggle of a group of 9/11 victims' families to force the government to investigate the attacks.

In finishing the radio documentary, they recently supplied a copy of Clarke's comments to Tenet, who joined with two of former top CIA deputies -- Cofer Black, who was head of the agency's counterterrorism center, and Richard Blee, former head of the agency's Osama Bin Laden unit -- in a statement denouncing Clarke.

“Richard Clarke was an able public servant who served his country well for many years,” the statement says. “But his recently released comments about the run-up to 9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong.”
“Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally withheld from him in early 2000. It was not.”

The statement continued. “Building on his false notion that information was intentionally withheld, Mr. Clarke went on to speculate – which he admits is based on nothing other than his imagination – that the CIA might have been trying to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation.”
Clarke, who led government-wide counterterrorism efforts from the White House during the Bush and Clinton administration, has said in the past that he was astonished to learn after 9/11 that the CIA had long known about the presence of Hazmi and Mihdhar inside the United States.

“To this day, it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me,” Clarke said in the interview for the documentary, referring to Tenet and Cofer Black. “They told us everything – except this.”

He said that if he had known anything about Hazmi and Mihdhar even days before 9/11, he would have ordered an immediate manhunt to find them – and that it would have succeeded, possibly disrupting the 9/11 plot.

“We would have conducted a massive sweep,” he said. “We would have conducted it publicly. We would have found those assholes. There’s no doubt in my mind, even with only a week left. They were using credit cards in their own names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven’s sake.” He said that “those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours.”

[DenverBrit]

Clarke is famous for his embellishments and contradictions. It's no wonder the troofers hang on his every word.

To put Clarke's embellishments in perspective, Time wrote an article about Clarke's 60 minutes interview, where he even contradicts his own book.

Richard Clarke, at War With Himself

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

[mhgaffney]

So the fact that Clarke was attacked by the likes of George Bush is a knock against him?

Brit fails to notice this piece in Time was posted back in 2004 -- probably at the time Clarke's book was released. Brit, did you bother to read his book? AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. Do you know what's in it?

No and no again. I have to say it -- Brit -- you are an illiterate moron.

I am no fan of Clarke -- but he was the ONLY government official under Bush who apologized to the American people for 9/11. Everyone else in Bush's gov't was promoted.

This latest is a major development. It shows that even people in government doubt the official story.

Too bad Clarke can't bring himself to conclude the obvious....

[DenverBrit]

So the fact that Clarke was attacked by the likes of George Bush is a knock against him?

Brit fails to notice this piece in Time was posted back in 2004 -- probably at the time Clarke's book was released. Brit, did you bother to read his book? AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. Do you know what's in it?

No and no again. I have to say it -- Brit -- you are an illiterate moron.

I am no fan of Clarke -- but he was the ONLY government official under Bush who apologized to the American people for 9/11. Everyone else in Bush's gov't was promoted.

This latest is a major development. It shows that even people in government doubt the official story.

Too bad Clarke can't bring himself to conclude the obvious....

LOL

Yeah, that's why I mentioned his book and the 60 minutes interview, I thought it was this year.

Based upon your childish rant, you didn't read the article.

It's about Clarke repeatedly contradicting his own book during a 60 minutes interview. He embellishes and contradicts himself. That's all.

You can go back to your 'idiot dance' now.

[mhgaffney]

And how could you possibly know whether he contradicted himself

since you did not read his book?

Idiot.

[DenverBrit]

And how could you possibly know whether he contradicted himself

since you did not read his book?

Idiot.

LOLLOL

Good grief. That's what the ****ing article is all about. Hilarious!

http://www.zazzle.com/rlv/isapi/designall.dll?action=realview&pdt=mug&id=BCEFC679-84DC-4368-AA9D-B4634D2BCE2C&style=ringer_mug&color=black&size=11oz&lon=270&max_dim=400&bg=ffffff&drawareaboundingbox=true&drawsafearea=true&square_it=true&draw_relative_size=true&rvtype=product&dv=11&view=outside&rev=13132507782646700_outside_4

[mhgaffney]

Sure, Dufus, but how do you know Time got it right, without reading his book?

[DenverBrit]

Sure, Dufus, but how do you know Time got it right, without reading his book?

As they used comparative quotes for the same events, even a dementia ridden fool, like yourself, should be able to work it out. :loopy:

[mhgaffney]

If you read the article I posted by Bob Bernstein -- you know that the CIA infiltrated Time magazine way back in the 1950s.

Of course, you didn't read that one either.

Congrats, Brit, you are one of the want-to-believers, a part of the lemming parade, on the road to nowhere.

[DenverBrit]

LOL

Your paranoia is boundless.......and you're full of ****!! Ha!

[mhgaffney]

LOL

Your paranoia is boundless.......and you're full of ****!! Ha!

Paranoia? No -- fact.

Here is what Carl Bernstein had to say about Time in his groundbreaking article in 1977 about CIA penetration of the US media.

Bernestein and Bob Woodward were the two Washington Post journalists credited with bringing down Nixon during watergate. In case you don't know-- and I'm sure you don't.

Time was totally penetrated. It was and remains an organ of the CIA. Which makes everything you read in Time suspect.

MHG

The CIA and the Media

By Carl Bernstein

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.


■ Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines. The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.

For many years, Luce's personal emissary to the CIA was C.D. Jackson, a Time Inc., vice‑president who was publisher of Life magazine from 1960 until his death in 1964.While a Time executive, Jackson coauthored a CIA‑sponsored study recommending the reorganization of the American intelligence services in the early 1950s. Jackson, whose Time‑Life service was interrupted by a one‑year White House tour as an assistant to President Dwight Eisenhower, approved specific arrangements for providing CIA employees with Time‑Life cover. Some of these arrangements were made with the knowledge of Luce's wife, Clare Boothe. Other arrangements for Time cover, according to CIA officials including those who dealt with Luce), were made with the knowledge of Hedley Donovan, now editor‑in‑chief of Time Inc. Donovan, who took over editorial direction of all Time Inc. publications in 1959, denied in a telephone interview that he knew of any such arrangements. "I was never approached and I'd be amazed if Luce approved such arrangements," Donovan said. "Luce had a very scrupulous regard for the difference between journalism and government."

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine's foreign correspondents attended CIA "briefing" dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS. And Luce, according to CIA officials, made it a regular practice to brief Dulles or other high Agency officials when he returned from his frequent trips abroad. Luce and the men who ran his magazines in the 1950s and 1960s encouraged their foreign correspondents to provide help to the CIA, particularly information that might be useful to the Agency for intelligence purposes or recruiting foreigners.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28610.htm

[DenverBrit]

No, you're paranoid.

Clarke was quoted and his own words contradict his version of events.

But you're too much of a conspiracy nut to see facts, even when they come out of the mouth of the 'source' you're parading as 'reliable.'

Troofers stick their fingers in their ears whenever facts are presented, but you are beyond the pale when it comes to stupid!

Evolve!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rKvAmdl5y-8/S1R8m2fRGSI/AAAAAAAACms/QttHAokvkq0/s400/Fingers+in+ear.jpg

[mhgaffney]

Ray McGovern worked at the CIA in the intelligence section (NOT ops) for 20+ years.

As he very correctly points out, it's Tenet whose credibility is in question -- not Clarke.

When Clarke appeared before the 9/11 Commission in 2004 -- he apologized to the American people for 9/11 -- the only gov't official who did so.

Meanwhile, when Tenet testified - -he lied through his teeth. Don't believe it? Check out Phil Shenon's 2008 book The Commission. It was also confirmed to me by Robert Schopmeyer -- who atended the hearings.

This is the guy who insisted that"We don't torture people..."

The same guy who called Saddam's illusory WMDs a "slam dunk.."

MHG

Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?

August 16, 2011
Exclusive: With few exceptions – like some salacious rumor about the Kennedy family – the mainstream U.S. news media has little interest in historical stories. Such was the case when an ex-White House terrorism official accused a former CIA director of withholding information that might have prevented a 9/11 attack, Ray McGovern reports.

By Ray McGovern

Bulletin for those of you who get your information only from the New York Times, the Washington Post and other outlets of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM): Former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has accused ex-CIA Director George Tenet of denying him and others access to intelligence that could have thwarted the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.

Deliberately withholding critical intelligence from those who need it, and can act on it, is — at the least — gross dereliction of duty.

The more so if keeping the White House promptly and fully informed is at the top of your job jar, as it was for Director of Central Intelligence Tenet. And yet that is precisely the charge Clarke has leveled at the former DCI.

In an interview aired on Aug. 11 on a local PBS affiliate in Colorado, Clarke charges that Tenet and two other senior CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, deliberately withheld information about two of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 — al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The two had entered the United States more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

Clarke adds that the CIA then covered it all up by keeping relevant information away from Congress and the 9/11 Commission.

Lying by senior officials is bad enough, and there is now plenty of evidence that former CIA Director George Tenet and his closest agency associates are serial offenders. Think for a minute about the falsehoods spread regarding Iraq’s non-existent WMD stockpiles.

But withholding intelligence on two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been particularly unconscionable — the epitome of malfeasance, not just misfeasance.

That’s why Richard Clarke’s conclusion that he should have received information from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, “unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution” amounts, in my view, to a criminal charge, given the eventual role of the two in hijacking on 9/11 of AA-77, the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Tenet has denied that the information on the two hijackers was “intentionally withheld” from Clarke, and he has enlisted the other two former CIA operatives, Cofer Black (more recently a senior official of Blackwater) and Richard Blee (an even more shadowy figure), to concur in saying, Not us; we didn’t withhold.

Whom to believe? To me, it’s a no-brainer. One would have to have been born yesterday to regard the “George is right” testimony from Black and Blee as corroborative.

Tenet’s Dubious Credibility

Tenet is the same fellow who provided the “slam dunk” on the existence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, as well as the “artist renderings” of equally non-existent mobile laboratories for developing biological warfare agents, based on unconfirmed information from the impostor code-named (appropriately) “Curveball.”

It was Tenet who, under orders from President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, ordered up and disseminated a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq, the purpose of which was to deceive our elected representatives out of their constitutional prerogative to authorize war. No small lies.

After a five-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence adduced under Tenet to “justify” attacking Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, and non-existent.”

Good enough to win Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, though. The corruption of intelligence worked just fine for the purposes of Bush and Cheney, thank you very much.

It is a actually a matter of record that Tenet lies a lot — on occasion, demonstrating what I would call chutzpah on steroids. Recall, for example, Tenet in April 2007 snarling at Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” — five times, in five consecutive sentences — “We do not torture people.”

Under Oath

Tenet has lied about 9/11, too. The joint statement from Tenet, Black and Blee – orchestrated by former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow – concludes: “We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn’t know. We stand by that testimony.”

Almost made me laugh … almost.

In his sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, Tenet said he had not spoken to Bush — even on the telephone — during the entire month of August 2001.

But Tenet did fly down to see the President in Crawford — not once, but twice during August 2001, and briefed Bush again in Washington on the 31st.

After the TV cameras at the 9/11 Commission hearing were shut off, Bill Harlow phoned the commission staff to say, Oops, sorry, Tenet misspoke. Even then, Harlow admitted only to Tenet’s Aug. 17 visit to Crawford (and to the briefing on the 31st).

How do we know Tenet was again in Crawford, on Aug. 24? From a White House press release quoting President Bush to that effect — information somehow completely missed by our vigilant Fawning Corporate Media.

Funny, too, how Tenet could have forgotten his first visit to Crawford on Aug. 17. In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet waxes eloquent about the “president graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and me trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna.” But the visit was not limited to small talk.

In his book Tenet writes: “A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the president stayed current on events.” The Aug. 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief contained the article “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.”

According to Ron Suskind’s The One-Percent Doctrine, the president reacted by telling the CIA briefer, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”

If, as Tenet says in his memoir, it was the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that prompted his visit on Aug. 17, what might have brought him back on Aug. 24? I believe the answer can be found in court documents released at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the fledgling pilot in Minnesota interested in learning to steer a plane but indifferent as to how to land it.

Those documents show that on Aug. 23, 2001, Tenet was given an alarming briefing focusing on Moussaoui, titled “Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.” Tenet was told that Moussaoui was training to fly a 747 and, among other suspicion-arousing data, had paid for the training in cash.

It is an open question — if a key one — whether Tenet told Bush about the two hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, while keeping that key information from the person who most needed it — White House counter-terrorist czar Richard Clarke. Clarke finds the only plausible explanation in his surmise that Tenet was personally responsible.

Clarke says: “For me to this day, it is inexplicable, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months.”

Enter Harlow

But Tenet’s aide-de-camp Bill Harlow has branded Clarke’s statements “absurd and patently false.” The statement Harlow shepherded for Tenet, Black and Blee adds “reckless and profoundly wrong … baseless … belied by the record … unworthy of serious consideration.”

And Harlow never lies? Right.

I’m reminded of Harlow’s reaction to Newsweek’s publication on Feb. 24, 2003, of the intelligence information provided by Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel when he defected to Jordan in 1995. Kamel brought with him a treasure trove of documents and unique knowledge of Iraq’s putative “weapons of mass destruction.”

Most significantly, he told his U.S. debriefers there were no WMD in Iraq. He knew, since he was in charge of the chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs for almost a decade, and he ordered what weapons existed destroyed before the U.N. inspectors could discover them after the war in 1991.

In his words: “I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed.”

He told the U.S. much more, and the information that could be checked out was confirmed. But Kamel’s information didn’t fit with the Bush administration’s propaganda regarding its certainty that Iraq did have WMD stockpiles and was defying United Nations demands that the WMD be destroyed.

Those pushing the Iraq War juggernaut in early 2003 almost had a conniption when Newsweek acquired a transcript of Kamel’s debriefing and published this potentially explosive story barely three weeks before the invasion.

Newsweek noted gingerly that this information “raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist.” It was the kind of impeccably sourced documentary evidence after which intelligence analysts and lawyers lust.

But this was not at all what Bush, Cheney, and — by sycophantic extension — Tenet wanted Newsweek readers, or the rest of us, to learn less than a month before the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq ostensibly to find and destroy those non-existent weapons.

Bill Harlow to the rescue: he told the FCM in no uncertain terms that the Newsweek story was, “incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.” And the media cheerleaders for war breathed a sigh of relief, saying, Gosh, thanks for telling us, and then dropped the story like a hot potato.

By all indications, Harlow is still able to work his fraudulent magic on the FCM, which has virtually ignored this major Clarke v. Tenet story since it broke several days ago.

If Harlow says it’s not true … and hurls still more pejorative adjectives in a crude attempt to discredit the very serious charge Clarke has made … well, I guess we’ll have to leave it there, as the FCM is so fond of saying.

No matter Clarke’s well-deserved reputation for honesty and professionalism — and Tenet’s for the opposite. And so it goes.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. As a CIA analyst, he served under seven presidents and nine CIA directors; he is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/16/did-tenet-hide-key-911-info/

[alkemical]

Find out about the WTC HD's...that's a good place to start. I believe a german company was to do the "data recovery" to help find out some of the market manipulation, then the story just...fell off the earth.

[mhgaffney]

Find out about the WTC HD's...that's a good place to start. I believe a german company was to do the "data recovery" to help find out some of the market manipulation, then the story just...fell off the earth.

Yes.

I covered this in my Walk on the Dark Side series -- part two -- the case for insider trading pre 9/11:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/02/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side-2/

[mhgaffney]

Remember WTC-7...

http://youtu.be/3XXEMwhizCE