How, indeed, were the identities of the hijackers known so quickly?

[SDuderstadt]

Well, Newsday explains it and - sorry truthers - there's nothing really sinister about it. A lucky break and some good police work unraveled it. Or, as I suspect you'll insist, we can just add Newsday to the ever-growing list of those that "were in on it".

An untold story of 9/11
BY MICHAEL DORMAN | Newsday Staff Writer
April 17, 2006

A surveillance camera photographs two men identified by authorities as suspected hijackers Mohammed Atta (R) And Abdulaziz Alomari (C) as they pass through airport security September 11, 2001 at Portland International Jetport in Maine. (US Navy/Getty Images)



Former federal terrorism investigators say a piece of luggage hastily checked in at the Portland, Maine, airport by a World Trade Center hijacker on the morning of Sept. 11 provided the Rosetta stone enabling FBI agents to swiftly unravel the mystery of who carried out the suicide attacks and what motivated them.

A mix-up in Boston prevented the luggage from connecting with the plane that hijackers crashed into the north tower of the trade center. Seized by FBI agents at Boston's Logan Airport, investigators said, it contained Arab-language papers revealing the identities of all 19 hijackers involved in the four hijackings, as well as information on their plans, backgrounds and motives.

The luggage saga represents what the former federal authorities describe as an untold story of 9/11 -- offering explanations for questions long unanswered about the investigation of the tragedy, such as how authorities were able to identify the hijackers so soon after the attacks.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslugg0417,0,3743892.story

[noise]

1. Doubting this account makes one a conspiracy theorist?

Did Newsday print the Cheney account stating that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague? If they printed that, am I a conspiracy theorist for questioning it?

You don't find it convenient that Atta's bag containing all the names wasn't loaded on Flight 11?

[SDuderstadt]

2. "You don't find it convenient that Atta's bag containing all the names wasn't loaded on Flight 11?"

Umm, no.

You know, when people ask crap like, "You don't find it convenient that Atta's bag containing all the names wasn't loaded on Flight 11?", that usually indicates they arrived at their conclusion first and are now desperately trying to discredit all the evidence that contradicts their goofy claims.

[noise]

3. How many Flight 11 bags weren't loaded on the plane? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

14. How many people were trying to make that tight a layover?

His baggage didn't make the plane. Atta almost didn't make the plane. He had to run through Boston and barely made the gate.

I can't believe that, with all the problems with airlines and luggage in this country, someone honestly thinks that Atta's luggage not making the flight is somehow suspicious.

[SDuderstadt]

15. True story...

Sometimes my work requires a fair amount of travel. Upon occasion, I have been known to do the following:

Check-in: "You're going to Houston, right?".

Me: "Yes.".

Check-in: "Do you have any bags to check?".

Me: "Yes, two. I'd like this bag to go to Miami and this bag to Seattle.".

Check-in: "Sir, I don't know why you'd want to do that and I don't think we even CAN do that.".

Me: "Why not? That's where you sent my bags last week!".

[sofa king]

31. As I have mentioned before....

When I had long hair, at least half the time I flew I was "randomly selected" for special attention.

Once I was put in a plexiglass cage in the middle of hundreds of people, and asked to disrobe, but not to expose my underpants, while my departure time loomed. I ended that by ripping off my pants and standing in my underwear, profusely embarrassing the security staff (and hundreds of innocent people who didn't need to see my package) and made the flight.

My luggage was "lost" so often I stopped checking bags. I flew to New Zealand with a carry-on bag and a fishing vest loaded with stuff. My scary-looking Korean friend traveling with me had his baggage "lost," instead.

I maintain, and will always maintain, that the airlines intentionally "lose" the baggage of people whom they profile entirely based upon appearance, including phenotype. They lost Atta's bag because he had dark skin, and was undergoing the usual harassment which has been the unofficial policy of airlines for at least ten years prior to the events of 9/11.

[sofa king]

120. I should add...

...That aside from its questionable legality from the civil liberties point of view, it's a pretty decent strategy from a security standpoint. Airlines work on timetables and so those who wish to do harm must also work on those timetables. If you can "randomly" disrupt the movements of those who look the most likely to do harm, you have a chance of averting disaster without even being cognizant of the plan.

In this case, it very nearly worked.

But it didn't, so it doesn't make up for the years of bullshit I had to put up with. Screw those guys.

[arcadian]

62. Then the baggage would have gone on the next flight which I'm sure would have been within the hour.

correct? Boston to LA that would have probably been pretty quickly after the original flight left considering Boston is such a busy airport. That's what the airlines do when a bag misses a flight. It goes out on the next available flight. Certainly log books could be checked for this one, find out when the next Boston to LA flight would have been.

[BeFree]

4. Coinky-dink

That's what that is called. What a stroke of luck!! Everything they needed to know as right there in a piece of lost and unclaimed luggage!!!

Why in the world would anybody about to do what they did take a flight from Maine in the early morning and possibly miss out on all the fun by having the flight cancelled or their box-cutters get misplaced or found by security?

Man, them there hijackers were stupid as hell, but they sure got lucky.

And praise be that no one can ever imagine that the CIA would never plant any kind of evidence. Or that this piece of the puzzle could have easily been lost and never found.

Coinky-dink, is what this is called.

[SDuderstadt]

5. These kind of arguments remind me of the arguments made by RWers....

during Whitewater and the impeachment. One of them said - no kidding - "the lack of evidence against Clinton just shows how sneaky he is".

Mind you, I am not calling anyone here a RWer...I am, however, amazed at some of the similarities in thought processes.

BTW, BeFree...you still owe me an apology for clipping a quote of a question I asked you to make it look like I made a statement I never made. A simple, "I'm sorry" would suffice.

[BeFree]

6. Thats ok

Some of your arguments remind me of Bushco's. Not that you are a part of Bushco. It's just amazing the similarities.

I owe you nothing. Not even respect.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Please point out "the similarities" to "Bushco's arguments", BeFree...

And, you do owe me an apology for completely misrepresenting something I said. If you think it's okay to pretend a question someone asks is actually a statement by omitting the lead-in and the question mark, you need more help than anyone can give you.

[BeFree]

8. Quit yer whining

Jeez.

[SDuderstadt]

9. No, BeFree...

you falsely and dishonestly made a question out to be a statement and you don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's despicable and you know it.

[BeFree]

10. Bwahahaha

Keep it going then. You preaching to me about dishonesty?? Bwahahaha

[SDuderstadt]

11. Please point out any dishonesty on my part...

please be specific.

[BeFree]

12. You?

Dishonest? Nah, you are one straight up and square dude. All the way.
:sarcasm:
Bwahahaha.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Then it should be easy for you to point to an example....

Go ahead. I'll wait. Otherwise, this is just another example of your blatant dishonesty. An apology would be nice too.

[Subdivisions]

36. You didn't know? ...

Atta was a postumously remorseful whistle-blower who wanted, after his death, for everyone to know who was involved and how they pulled it off. So, he arranged his post-mortem confession. How very nice of him. Case closed.

[CJCRANE]

16. Well, that was lucky.

"...papers revealing the identities of all 19 hijackers involved in the four hijackings, as well as information on their plans, backgrounds and motives."

So we were lied to when we were previously told that there was no paper trail or written evidence of the hijacker's plans?

And what kind of terrorist/criminal carries around incriminating evidence detailing their plans and co-conspirators?

Seems like they didn't need to torture those other guys, all the information was written down for them and found on day one.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Yes, it was. Time and chance happen to us all.

That is the clear message of 9/11.

If someone told you there was no paper trail or written evidence of the hijackers' plans, then you were told a factual inaccuracy. I certainly have never said anything of the sort. I don't know where you got that from.

Obviously if the luggage had made the airplane, Atta expected it to be destroyed. Rather more efficient than buying a shredder, wouldn't you say?

I agree that torture was not and is not ever necessary. But the reason the Bush Administration gave was to find information about other terrorist attacks, not the 9/11 one. And "all the information" was not written down for them and found on day one. That's not a claim that's being made, either.

[CJCRANE]

34. FBI Director Robert Mueller said it on CNN (no paper trail)

according to a post below. That is my understanding too but I may be wrong.

[Subdivisions]

41. From Robert Mueller's own words:

Remarks prepared for delivery by
Robert S. Mueller III, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html

...

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, and no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle. The investigation allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes.

...




Can't get any clearer than that that there was no evidence found in Atta's luggage. If anyone disputes this, please show us the evidence.

[rschop]

145. What Robert Mueller said that was so damning

From prior post:

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, and no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle. The investigation allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes."


The paper trial could be found, in fact, right in the daily briefing papers of FBI Director Louis Freeh for January 4, 2000. This listed the passport of Khalid al Mihdhar, his full name, and the fact that he was traveling to Kuala Lumpur with other long time al Qaeda terrorists named Nawaf, and Salem, thought to be Nawaf's younger brother to take part in an important al Qaeda planning meeting. It turns out this is where both the planning for the Cole bombing and the planning for the attacks on 9/11 took place.

It turns out Freeh had been given this information by the NSA in December 1999, and again by the CIA in January 2000, see page 181 the 9/11 Commission report and pages 238-239 of the DOJ IG report.

But when the lead investigator on the Cole bombing, FBI Special Agent Ali Soufan, asked FBI Director Freeh in November 2000, to make an official request to the CIA and George Tenet to find out if the CIA had any information on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, or on Walid Bin Attash, thought to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing, Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information.

FBI Director Louis Freeh had criminally obstructed his own FBI criminal investigation into the Cole bombing and the deaths of 17 US sailors in order to hide the information that came out of the Kuala Lumpur meetings from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

Mueller said; "In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle."

But we now know this small circle also included not only the Director of the FBI, but many middle level FBI managers, the FBI Bin laden unit, and almost the entire management hierarchy of the CIA, in addition to the CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA CTC section and the many others at the CIA. See www.eventson911.com for more detailed information on this.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

95. Jesus H. Christ!!

Quote: "...when the FBI itself had all of the necessary information right in the FBI directors office to have prevented this attacks."

That is the first I heard of that particular information.

And not a single piece of paper, the FBI head says, that traces the hijackers plans and intentions? WTF? All this stuff from the OCT really is a pack of lies. Not that I am surprised, but damn, it is surprising, again.

Thanks, rschop. Good work.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. You're so quick to believe a story from American Free Press. n/t

[BeFree]

100. Was that from American Free Press?

Never heard of it. This AFP. Whats wrong with AFP, and how did you know? There was no link to AFP in that post.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Yes, there was. The information was reposted from the AFP (and linked) at that site. n/t

[Subdivisions]

110. I'm not familiar with American Free Press. Is it banned from DU? If so, why? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

111. I invite you to do a search for it here and then also on the Web.

If you like what you see, you can join the chorus denouncing DU for banning it. However, I'm confident that you will understand just why if the news is relevant, you can find it somewhere else other than American Free Press.

[achtung_circus]

115. And while you're checking out AFP

take the time to look into founder Willis Carto, well known Holocaust-denier.

I seem to recall something my Grandmother told me about the company you keep....

[rschop]

re: Quote: "...when the FBI itself had all of the necessary information

Robert S. Mueller III
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club April 19, 2002
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html

......

I had been on the job exactly one week when word came that a plane had struck the World Trade Center. For us at the FBI command center, it was a surreal moment, understanding that this flying bomb was headed our way, yet not knowing where it was going: the White House, the Capitol, or elsewhere in Washington D.C. We knew that our institution would never be the same after that shocking day. Our first thought was to do what we'd always done after a terrorist attack: set up command centers and start managing the crisis from a law enforcement perspective by getting control of the crime scenes and beginning to gather evidence.

At the same time, we realized that we had to conduct this investigation somewhat differently. These attacks were not just an act of terror; they were an act of war. The most pressing issue for us was to find out who we were at war with and to make sure we were not attacked again. The FBI began working in concert with its many partners to find out everything about the hijackers and how they pulled off their attacks. We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts.

What emerged from our massive investigation was a sobering portrait of 19 hijackers who carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works. The plans were hatched and financed overseas, beginning as long as five years ago. Each of the hijackers came from abroad: 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt.

All 19 entered our country legally, and only three had overstayed the legal limits of their visas on the day of the attacks. While here, the hijackers did all they could to stay below our radar screens. They contacted no known terrorist sympathizers. They committed no egregious crimes. They dressed and acted like Americans, shopping and eating at places like Wal-Mart and Pizza Hut. When four got speeding tickets in the months leading up to September 11, they remained calm and aroused no suspicion. Since none of them were known terrorists, law enforcement had no reason to question or detain them.

The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, and no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.
In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle. The investigation allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes.

.........

But this leaves out one great big humongous fact. One aspect of the 9/11 attacks would have been the actual planning for this attack at the Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting. FBI Director Louis Freeh's daily briefing papers for January 4, 2000 not only had the full name Khalid al-Mihdhar but described that Mihdhar, Nawaf and Salem, thought to be Nawaf's younger brother, last names unknown, but all thought to be long time al Qaeda terrorists were traveling to an important al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in the first week of January 2000.

It was widely known that this meeting was taking place just after the successful hijacking of AirIndia 814, a hijacking that ended when the hijackers forced that pilot of AirIndia 814 to fly the hijacked plane to the airport at Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Mohammed Atef military commander for the al Qaeda terrorists had his headquarters. Kandahar was also known to be the administration headquarters for the al Qaeda terrorists.

FBI Agent Ali Soufan, lead FBI agent on the Cole bombing investigation made an official request to Freeh in November 2000, to find out what information the CIA had on an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and on Walid Bin Attash. Freeh tell Soufan that the CIA had none of this information.

From the account of Ali Soufan, on pages 69-70 of the New Yorker, July 17, 2006 issue:

"November 2000, after being told the Yemen station has none of the information Soufan is looking for, Soufan sends this same request to FBI Director Louis Freeh asking Freeh to request this information from CIA Director Tenet. Freeh tells Soufan that the CIA has no information on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Khallad Bin Attash."

The DOJ IG Report on the Performance of the FBI prior to 9/11, says on page 248:

....

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

....

The 9/11 Commission report says on page 181;

....."the Counter terrorism center (at the CIA) had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on ... to the Director Freeh and others at the FBI..."

Had Freeh given Soufan this information in November 2000, it is almost impossible to believe that Soufan would not have prevented that attacks on 9/11. The FBI itself had all of the necessary information right in the FBI Directors office to have prevented this attack.

[rschop]

113. re: Thanks, rschop. Good work.

I reposted this information from the Commonwealth Club site at post "#" and you can also get this same information right from the FBI web site.

Here is the link right to the FBI's own web site.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

I do not know DU had banned the American Frees Press web site, but as other have pointed out, this same news is located on other webs sites so it easy to find.

You do not have to believe a story from the American Frees Press web site, but I do not know what reason you would have for not believing this exact same information from http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html or from http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm.

[Subdivisions]

39. Can we please see this evidence? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

40. Check out the Moussoui exhibits.

A lot of stuff was released there.

[Subdivisions]

42. Was Atta's luggage evidence shown in that trial? n/t

[rschop]

45. RE: Was Atta's luggage evidence shown in that trial?

No it was not. FBI Agent Harry Samit said at that trial that after they were able to obtain a search warrant for Moussaoui's duffel bag and found the receipt from Ramzi Bin al-Shiebh for $14,000, that they were able to trace Bin al-Shiebh phone calls to the al Qaeda paymaster in the UAE and then to almost all of the terrorists in just days.

[Subdivisions]

47. This is what annoys me about this whole debate. They knew something

was up and did nothing to stop it.

[rschop]

48. RE: They knew something was up and did nothing to stop it

It is a whole lot worse than that, CIA managers and FBI HQ Agents not only knew something was up in the fall of 2001, they intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11. When Margaret Gillespie a FBI IOS Agent at the CIA Bin laden unit found that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, she took this information to FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi and former Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA Tom Wilshire.

Both Wilshire and Corsi had been involved with the now famous meeting on June 11, 2001 between the CIA people who worked for Wilshire and the FBI Cole investigators. This meeting had been set up by Wilshire with help from Corsi to find out if the FBI Cole investigators had somehow uncovered the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting where the planning of the Cole bombing took place, information that the CIA had desperately trying to keep secret from these FBI criminal investigators since January 5, 2000.

Wilshire also worked with FBI Agent Dina Corsi to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar when Bongardt was accidentally given on August 28, 2001, the EC that Corsi had written up to start an investigation for Mihdhar, and found out for the first time that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US. Both Corsi and Wilshire clearly knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

And both Corsi and Wilshire also knew the CIA had been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting where both Mihdhar and Hazmi had also been photographed, from the FBI Cole investigators. The FBI thought Bin Attash had been one of the masterminds on the Cole bombing. By keeping this photograph secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, he had no way of knowing that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken direct part in the planning of the Cole bombing, and hence had no way to prevent Corsi from shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Not did Corsi keep this a secret but she also kept secret the fact that she had already obtained a written release from the NSA caveats on August 27, 2001. One day later she tells Bongardt, on August 28, 2001, that he would not be allowed to take part in any investigation of Mihdhar because these NSA caveats prevented this information from going to FBI criminal investigators without written permission from the NSA.

When Bongardt protested and asked Corsi if she would go to the NSLU, the legal unit at the FBI, and get a legal ruling so he and his team could be part of an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he clearly thought these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in some horrific al Qaeda attack, it is now clear that Corsi fabricated the ruling from Sherry Sabol, the attorney she contacted at the NSLU.

When Corsi told Bongardt that the NSLU had ruled he could not take part in any investigation of Mihdhar, later evidence will show, that in fact Sabol had ruled just the opposite and had ruled that Bongardt and his team could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar since this NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

It turns out that this horrific criminal conspiracy was a lot bigger than either Corsi or Wilshire. Wilshire had already been denied twice in July 2001 by his CTC managers from turning the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI criminal investigators, even when his CTC managers knew a horrific al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

Wilshire had even sent back messages to his CTC managers in early July 2001, indicating that he thought people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US. In his email to his CTC managers on July 23, 2001, Wilshire even states that he is sure that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi his traveling companion, will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. After Gillespie told Wilshire and Corsi on August 22, 2001 that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and Gillespie forced the CIA Bin laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for these two terrorists on August 23, 2001, it is clear that this went directly to many managers at the CIA including Cofer Black head of the CTC section of the CIA and George Tenet Director of the CIA.

At that point, virtually the entire management hierarchy at the CIA and many mid-level managers at the FBI HQ knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack and also knew that Wilshire and Corsi were sabotaging Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar. It is impossible to believe that these CIA and FBI HQ managers did not know their efforts to shut down the only investigation that could have found Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent this huge attack would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Not only is this now well documented, but even the exact documents from the US governments own web sites and sources that prove all of this, along with the analysis that connects all of the dots together are now available for anyone to see and understand, on why the al Qaeda terrorists attacks on 9/11 were successful and resulted in the deaths of 3000 people.

[BeFree]

97. GAWD!!

Where have you been, friend?? Why am I reading all this for the first time?
This is some of the most damning evidence of the complicity of the intelligence agents I have ever seen.

You say the sources are right in the gov docs?

All this makes sense in light of the pleadings of Bushco that the walls between the CIA and FBI are what caused the information to not have been delivered on time.

Corsi ... what ever happened to her?? Did she get a medal from Bushco and a cushy job?

Again, thanks for all this. I suggest you make a thread with all this. If you don't, I may. Let me know. PM if you will.

[rschop]

98. RE; Where have you been, friend?? Why am I reading all this for the first time?

I personally have “all of the documents” and have even posted them on a web site for all to see and even download, along with the analysis that connects all of these dots together.

Remember this is not some bullshit that come out of thin air but actual documents that come directly from the US governments own webs sites and sources that prove all of this.

I even have a summary of all of the activity that took place at the FBI HQ and CIA for 21 months taken from the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and Senate, the 9/11 Commission report, the DOJ IG report of the performance of the FBI prior to 9/11, and even the CIA IG report that ties all of this information together, along with the exact documents and exact page number for every item in the summary.

[BeFree]

99. You have a web site?

I think I remember you posting a link a while back.

Post the link again so I can have a look at it. Thanks.

[rschop]

107. re: Post the link again so I can have a look at it. Thanks

This is web site: www.eventson911.com

This material on this site comes from the following locations: The Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, found in the New Yorker, the July 17, 2006 issue, Soufan is the former FBI Agent who recently testified in front of congress on the torture of Abu Zubyda, the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report on the performance of the FBI prior to 9/11, the material entered into the trail of Moussaoui, in particular the "Substitution for the Testimony of John", and the testimony given to the US DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002 by Sherry Sabol the attorney FBI Agent Dina Corsi consulted prior to taking the investigation of Mihdhar away from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, testimony found on page 538 of the 9/11 Commission report.

The material from the Moussaoui trial came from the government web site located at: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /

The account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan comes from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, Ali Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was given to author Lawrence Wright and vetted by John Miller information officer at the FBI prior to being published in the New Yorker and the book Looming Tower which won a Pulitzer prize in 2007, and can be considered the official account of the FBI prior to the attacks on 9/11.

A number of documents are posted on this web site including DE #939 from the Moussaoui trial, the "Substitution of the testimony of John", aka Tom Wilshire, former deputy chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit. In his email on July 23, 2001 to his CTC mangers, Wilshire says that Mihdhar (and by association Hazmi) will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. This document also details that on August 22, 2001, FBI IOS Agent and CIA detailee, Margret Gillespie, aka Mary, finds that Mihdhar and Hazmi are both inside of the US and takes this information to FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA manager Tom Wilshire working at the FBI ITOS unit as liaison to Michael Rolince head of the ITOS unit.

The evidence now shows that both Wilshire and Corsi work to shut down FBI Agent Steven Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar at this point in time, knowing that they and many other people at the CIA and FBI HQ will go to prison for many years if Bongardt is ever given the investigation of Mihdhar, for having criminally obstructed his FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing on many occasions.

Corsi tells Bongardt on August 28, 2001, when he accidentally finds out about the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi, long time al Qaeda terrorists, are inside of the USA, that his investigation of Mihdhar had to be shut down because it would require information from the NSA that he was not allowed to have. But she already had been given written permission by the NSA on August 27, 2001 to give this very NSA information to him and his team. See NSA release of information, DE #448.

Bongardt protested and asked Corsi to get an opinion from the NSLU unit at FBI HQ to see if he could be part of the investigation for Mihdhar, since it appeared to him that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in some horrific al Qaeda attack. Bongardt also thought that Mihdhar ad Hazmi were connected with the planning of the Cole bombing, since both Mihdhar, Hazmi, and Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at Kuala Lumpur at the same time, in January 2000.

What Bongardt never knew was that both Wilshire and Corsi were aware that the CIA had been hiding the photograph of Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, from him and his Cole bombing investigators. This Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000 is the same place Mihdhar and Hazmi had also been photographed at, actually planning the Cole bombing, with Bin Attash. See page 302 DOJ IG report.

Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the NSLU has ruled he could not be part of any investigation of Mihdhar, but the DOJ IG investigators were told on November 7, 2002, by the attorney Corsi contacted, Attorney Sherry Sabol, that this was the opposite of the advice she had given to Corsi. Sabol said she in fact had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection with a FISA warrant. See page 538 9/11 Commission report, footnote 81.

[rschop]

49. RE: So what was in Atta's luggage

Just to reiterate, no evidence was presented at the Moussaoui trial that the names of the hijackers were in Atta's luggage. It was noted by main stream media that Atta's luggage contained what was referred to as the last night letter, a letter written in Arabic that was to psychologically prepare Atta for suicide the next day.

[nashville_brook]

123. if you were boarding a plane with the intent to blow it up, why the FUCK would you check a bag?

i'm just sayin.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Ummm, to avoid generating...

unwanted attention and suspicion. Why would you be surprised at that?

Jus' answerin'...

[Kalun D]

102. How about the FBI's own Site? LOLZ!!

That is the clear message of 9/11.

If someone told you there was no paper trail or written evidence of the hijackers' plans, then you were told a factual inaccuracy. I certainly have never said anything of the sort. I don't know where you got that from.

Robert Mueller speech
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind."

[Bolo Boffin]

103. April 19, 2002 is the date of that speech

And something Mueller said two paragraphs later:

The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes.

[Kalun D]

104. Date of Speech? So What.

If someone told you there was no paper trail or written evidence of the hijackers' plans, then you were told a factual inaccuracy.

Robert Mueller sez "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind."

April 19, 2002 is the date of that speech

What does that have to do with it? Unless you can provide some paper trail or written evidence of the hijackers plans since April of 2002.

and a biased, unknown source OCT website doesn't count

[Bolo Boffin]

105. What had been uncovered April 2002 may be different than what has been uncovered now

Ever heard of the video wills?

[Kalun D]

106. Oh yeah!

The unsourced tapes on Al Jazerra?

Aren't they the ones that gave us the blatantly fake Bin Laden video tapes?

And I thought there were no dates on the first post that questioned where we heard there was no paper trail?

Are we saying now that that statement is true only after a certain date?

Has the FBI corrected this statement then? Please post a link that corrects what the DIRECTOR of the FBI sez.

It's really getting comedic now, Bin Laden I guess has given up on video. Even though the technology has gotten easier and better. Somehow he can only come up with audio now ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Yeah.

Enjoy your life.

[BeFree]

114. Yep

A comedy of errors. What are we to think being witness to such things? My, my.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bryan Sacks]

19. Note the willful conflation by Duderstadt of "in on it" with mere credulity

'Former federal terrorism investigators' said it, and Newsweek reported it.

Do you have any evidence that Newsweek independently corroborated this very important information before publishing it? Or did they take the officials' word for it?

If you don't think excessive credultiy is a problem, take the word of fellow 9/11 conspiracy panicker Christopher Hayes:

For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the credulous style. In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error.

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/911-roots-paranoia/

Hayes is a victim of the very thing he warns against, and he's actually pretty conflicted about just what is 'paranoid' and what is reasonable suspicion. Point is, even he can see the press is the biggest problem here.

Try not to be so obviously deceptive.

[SDuderstadt]

20. It's Newsday, dude...

not Newsweek...maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Oh, for crying out loud...

how am I being "purposely deceptive"? I am spoofing "truthers". Do you really want to deny that "truthers" routinely accuse sudry parties of being "in on it"? Chill out, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

23. A lot of people were/are "in on it"

The most pathetic are those who are unwittingly in on it.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Yeah, it's not exactly like anyone could merely disagree...

with you on the facts, is it...

[whatchamacallit]

27. Too bad the "facts" are not indisputable enough to

mask your deep-seated appeal to authority.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Oh, for the love of Mike...

"my deep-seated appeal to authority"? Look, dude, when you have actual evidence of your claims, I'll be all ears. But, everytime the "truth movement" presents its "smoking gun du jour", it takes little scrutinizing before it falls apart against the facts.

[Subdivisions]

37. Not when those facts are manufactured and the truth begins to eat at them. n/t

[Subdivisions]

38. What are these 'facts' you speak of? n/t

[Subdivisions]

61. Kick for a response. n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

24. Newsday need not be in on anything to report the story. Your 'spoof' fell flat.

You quoted Newsday as a reliable source for the identification of the hijackers. Fine. Now kindly answer the question:

Did Newsday independently corroborate the story, or not?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Are you the humor czar around here?

What am I sposed to do then? Huh? Didn't think about that, did ya?

[Bryan Sacks]

28. That was funny. Care to answer the question? Or address the actual issue? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

30. Unintentional irony...

Everyday, "truthers" post the most outlandish nonsense here...from blogs, from CT websites, from their memory, etc. Do you ever challenge the authenticity of their "sources"? No? Let me suggest that you have an incredible double standard.

Did Newsday corroborate the story? I don't know, Bryan, and neither do you. I would assume that Newsday, like most other news organizations, utilizes fact-checkers. But, even if they didn't, they give plenty of information to allow the reader to fact-check it, including names, dates and places. Are you saying the events did not take place? Are you saying that Newsday's account is not corroborated by other publications?

People have repeatedly asked how al Qaeda was fingered so quickly. I am merely pointing to a story that provides an explanation. I don't care whether you believe it or not.

[Bryan Sacks]

33. You miss the key point, and are wrong about your other main claim

I am a big critic of bullshit in the 'Truth Movement'. Search the site. Mostly, though, I ignore it, WHICH IS WHAT IT DESERVES.

You want to make political hay out of it. Your efforts to confront nonsense does NOTHING to stop, and does NOTHING to keep you or Democrats 'clean' of it in the eyes of your political enemies. You do not get that, but that is your own obsession to bear.

The much bigger problem is media credulity, not some internet keystrokers who believe no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks. I mean, who the fuck cares?

Are you saying the events did not take place? Are you saying that Newsday's account is not corroborated by other publications?

Other publications cannot 'corroborate' unless SOMEONE independently checks the facts. In this case, how could that be done? Let's hear.

[MinM]

32. “False Flagg” op called Rosetta Stone of 9/11

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_748.shtml

You know. A false flag op is when a nation attacks itself but makes it appear that an enemy has committed the attack. This way it stirs its more or less peace-loving people into going to war with the demonized “enemy.” It’s false flag ops 1.1.

And Flagg is not a misspelling of flag but the name of a former FBI agent, Warren Flagg who (along with a former federal prosecutor) helped direct the New England investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Flagg was nice enough in a Newsday.com piece by Michael Dorman to mention that “one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” Gee, what luck!

How wonderfully thoughtful of the hijackers to leave what Flagg termed this “Rosetta stone” behind so everything could be figured out so quickly and with such ease. You have to admit that was white of those dusky Mid-Easterners. One of the pieces of luggage was said to include “Arab-language papers amounting to Atta’s last will and testament, along with instructions to the other hijackers to prepare themselves physically and spiritually for death.” Boy, this Atta guy thought of everything. But why go blabbing it all in two suitcases? He was supposed to be a terrorist not a PR man.

And if that weren’t enough, Mohamed Atta, purportedly the leader of the gang of 19, and who purportedly piloted Flight 11 into Tower 1, reminded the guys: “Check all of your items -- your bag, your clothes, knives, your will, your Ids, your passport, your papers. . . . Make sure that nobody is following you.” Then, by another amazing coincidence, similar papers were found in the wreckage of another airliner.

In still another coincidence, slugabed Atta and co-conspirator Abuldaziz AlAlmorai checked out of room 232 of the Comfort Inn south of Portland at 5:33 a.m. on 9/11, driving their rented blue Nissan Altima to the airport, arriving in a lot at 5:45 a.m. with only a few minutes to catch a 6 a.m. commuter flight to Boston’s Logan Airport. In fact, their last-minute check-in caused their two bags not to make that flight. What? Yes, start the day with a screw-up and it ends in disaster. Or did it, at least for them?

I mean, as they go off to catch their later American Airlines Flight 11, their bags (or should we call them Baggs to rhyme with Flaggs?) came late to Logan and, ‘mirable dictu’ as Virgil would say, were discovered by the right security people. What’s more, Atta and Almari’s bags had all kinds of goodies in them: correspondence from the University Atta went to in Egypt, Almari’s international driver’s license and passport, a videocassette for a Boeing 757 flight simulator, a folding knife and pepper spray, extra heavy duty weapons they figured they didn’t need.

As agent Flagg would say, “It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation.” His sidekick, a former federal prosecutor, who did not wish to be identified publicly (and who could blame him?), certainly supported Flagg’s account. Aren’t you wondering by now why these “turrists” would want to lug their plans, scams, IDs et al, in a couple of bags and dump them in a last minute check-in? Generally, a gate attendant will tell you if your baggage will make your flight or land on a later one. This means you’d be leaving all this heavy-duty info spinning in the wind.

I mean, did Dillinger leave his home address in a bank safe he busted into? Did Al Capone leave a box of chocolates with a card with his name on it at the “Valentine Day” massacre in Chicago? Did John Gotti leave a calling card on Paul Castellano’s bullet riddled body after the dapper don and buddy popped the Gambino crime family boss and chauffeur in front of Spark’s Steak House in Manhattan? C’mon, you’re pulling my leg.

I mean what kind of malefactors would be that stupid, unless they were setting up a false-flag op? Like, “see, everybody we’re the guys that did it, 9/11; we are Arabs, see the writing; hey, here’s a knife, some maps, a CD to fly a 757; hello, don’t look so hard. We give up, ha-ha, but we’ll be dead by the time you read this. And so will some 2,900 people. So you can blame The War on Terror on us as soon as possible, ASAP. Right. Here are the clues.” It’s like Catch Us If Can, the ultimate reality TV show. Oh god, why has thou forsaken us. Cause we’re so dumb.

But Flagg Asks the BIG Question

Yup, Agent Flagg goes on to ask . . ."How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks. They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that’s how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings.” Wow, is that how they made the connection? And so fast?

I was wondering about that. And how a couple of months later FBI Director Robert Mueller said on CNN, that there was no factual proof these were the guys. But hey, maybe he didn’t have his coffee that morning. The thing is what if you, we, America, were set up that day? Er, say what?

What if the clues were put there to cover the tracks of the real Bad Bush Boyz, not these lap dancer hounds, boozing and coking joy boys, trained at American military bases, conspicuously leaving a paper trail so blatant it’d make Hansel and Gretel’s breadcrumbs look like canary eggs. And yet these same document droppers were barely able to get to the airport on time? They must have been exhausted driving up to Portland just to fly back to make this smoke screen where supposedly there would be less security to halt their efforts.

But wait. Can we be sure when they got back to Boston, if they did, that they even got on the planes? They weren’t on the manifests. Their DNA would have been boiled to a crisp in the hits. And was it clear they even flew the planes?

[Subdivisions]

35. 'it contained Arab-language papers revealing the identities of all 19 hijackers

involved in the four hijackings, as well as information on their plans, backgrounds and motives."

Of course it did. What a stroke of luck.

[greyl]

44. That wasn't the sole evidence, it was corroborating evidence. nt

[Subdivisions]

46. There was no evidence from Atta's luggage. Mueller said so repeatedly. n/t

[Subdivisions]

60. Kick for a response. n/t

[greyl]

89. No. Show the quote, "There was no evidence from Atta's luggage".

You are confusing the meaning of Mueller's statement by not reading it carefully, I think.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. There were also the manifests with all the hijackers' names

The credit cards used to purchase those tickets were also traceable. The Moussaoui exhibits are filled with credit card documentation of the hijackers' trails.

[Marksbrother]

51. Getting ahead of yourself - assuming facts not in evidence.

You are assuming that those named were, in reality, hijackers of planes on Sept. 11. What credible evidence do you have which supports your argument that there were hijackers aboard commercial airliners on that date?

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Look at the Moussaoui exhibits.

The evidence collected by the FBI by chasing these leads is enough to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the 19 named individuals were indeed aboard those aircraft and did indeed hijack them.

[Marksbrother]

53. The most you can (truthfully) say is "alleged" hijackers.

All of the information that purports to prove there were any hijackers is riddled with contradictions, ambiguities, was
manufactured, planted, and is otherwise so compromised as to render it virtually worthless of anything accept the charge
that it was used for the purpose of framing certain individuals who may well have been manipulated by intelligence
services both here and abroad.

You should be more careful about assuming facts that haven't been proven, even if you don't claim to be neutral in the
positions you take.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. No, the hijackers - this is the truth.

Your degree of proof isn't a reasonable one.

[Marksbrother]

55. Are you aware of what Judge Brinkema stated publicly?

"On November 20, 2007, Judge Brinkema publicly stated that the US government had provided incorrect information about evidence in the Moussaoui trial and that due to those actions, she was considering ordering a new trial in a related terrorism case, that of Ali al-Timimi, a Virginia Muslim cleric. Brinkema said that she could no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases after Moussaoui case prosecutors admitted that the CIA had assured her that no videotapes or audiotapes existed of interrogations of certain high-profile terrorism detainees, but later, in a letter made public Nov. 13, two such videotapes and one audio tape were made known."


What specific evidence are you basing your argument on that proves there were any hijackers on September 11? If you're familiar
with the Moussaoui case, then you know he was actually in jail in Minnesota on 9/11.

Please explain exactly what evidence you believe proves that there were any hijackers who took over the alleged flights
of the 9/11 events.

My request is a reasonable one and I'm simply asking you to demonstrate reasonable good-will in backing up such a
highly controversial claim that many informed people believe is without any merit whatsoever.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. The identities of the hijackers is not a "highly controversial claim."

The identities don't rely on tortured confessions. I've pointed you to the Moussaoui exhibits. That's enough for a reasonable level of proof.

[Marksbrother]

57. You haven't produced any evidence and I'm not a faith-based

believer when it comes to things like unproven claims about the events of September 11. Your declarations to the contrary, are,
in my opinion, at best, highly controversial and unsupported by credible evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Yes, I have.

"In your opinion" is my point. Your opinion that this is controversial, in the face of so much evidence, shows that your level of proof is not reasonable.

http://911myths.com/images/e/ef/Team5_Box62_AliasesAndIDs-FBIIDsHijackers-2.pdf

[Subdivisions]

59. The evidence to which you refer is circumstantial and leaves many feeling that

there's more to the story of 9/11 than what we've seen. The "evidence" you speak of is but one of the many reasons a new investigation is warranted because it leaves a reasonable doubt as to it's veracity.

Yes, there is imagery of some Middle-Eastern men on airport security cameras. Yes, there seems to be evidence (which could have been manufactured to make the case) of ticket purchases and credit card transactions. Yes, there seems to be keychain knives and box cutters - which may or may not have actually been found in the wreckage or to be in the possession of the alleged hijackers. But, I have looked at the images of those weapons and not a single one shows evidence of having been examined for fingerprints, nor does any other item the hijackers would have touched. Also, the weapons show no signs of having suffered a fiery crash despite the fact that most of them include plastic components. And the IDs found also seemed to make it through unscathed. I could go on and on questioning, otherwise explaining, or out-right refuting each exhibit. That is the basis of reasonable doubt. None of it is verifiably authentic nor is most of it conclusive. If I were a juror in a trial of any one of the guys that allegedly made it aboard a plane that morning, I would be dubious as to the authenticity of many of the exhibits you profess are evidence of the crime.

One could even surmise that, yes, these guys did board those planes. But no one has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they acually hijacked those aircraft. No one has proven that they were even given the go ahead to conduct the operation on that day. No one has proven that they weren't just pawns in a bigger plot carried out as part of a false flag operation conducted by PNAC, most of whom were in positions of authority to have plan, ordered, and executed such an operation.

It's the reasonable doubt in my mind that justifies my desire for a more independent and thorough investigation of what happened that day. After all, there's nothing like being a potential whistle-blower and watching http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=anthraxattacks">the anthrax attacks unfold as well as the http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=616455">suspicious deaths of some who may have known too much to make you realize that perhaps you better keep your mouth shut. In fact, it's enough to conceivable keep thousands of mouths shut, including any complicit or knowledgable members of Congress.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Ziad Jarrah, recorded in the cockpit, recorded over the ATC airwaves, IDed at the site

through DNA evidence.

Your doubt is unreasonable.

[Subdivisions]

64. Inconclusive. Transmission could've been inserted by perpetrators

from any number of sources including http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4e_wSdvlec">aerial command post, ground-based command post (NORAD, Northcom, or any number of military sources ala Rumsfeld), or Cheney's bunker.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a824wehavesomeplanes#a824wehavesomeplanes

Pete Zalewski. Because the talkback button on Flight 11 has been activated, Boston Center air traffic controllers can hear a hijacker on board say to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK. We are returning to the airport.” Air traffic controller Pete Zalewski recognizes this as a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words “we have some planes.” He responds, “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the hijacker continues: “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” Bill Peacock, the FAA director of air traffic services, later claims, “We didn’t know where the transmission came from, what was said and who said it.” David Canoles, the FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations, adds: “The broadcast wasn’t attributed to a flight. Nobody gave a flight number.” Similarly, an early FAA report will state that both these transmissions came from “an unknown origin.” Zalewski asks for an assistant to help listen to the transmissions coming from the plane, and puts its frequency on speakers so others at Boston Center can hear. Because Zalewski didn’t understand the initial hijacker communication from Flight 11, the manager of Boston Center instructs the center’s quality assurance specialist to “pull the tape” of the transmission, listen to it carefully, and then report back. They do this, and by about 9:03 a.m. a Boston manager will report having deciphered what was said in the first hijacker transmission (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). <9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; MSNBC, 9/9/2006> Fellow Boston controller Don Jeffroy also hears the tape of the hijacker transmissions, though he doesn’t state at what time. He says: “I heard exactly what Pete heard. And we had to actually listen to it a couple of times just to make sure that we were hearing what we heard.” At some point, Ben Sliney, the national operations manager at the FAA’s Herndon Command Center, gets word of the “We have some planes” message, and later says the phrase haunts him all morning. American Airlines Executive Vice President for Operations Gerard Arpey is also informed of the “strange transmissions from Flight 11” at some point prior to when it crashes at 8:46 a.m. Boston Center will receive a third transmission from Flight 11 about ten minutes later (see (8:34 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Entity Tags: Bill Peacock, Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, David Canoles, Pete Zalewski
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

This communication could have easily been inserted into the radio traffic that day.

Bill Peacock, the FAA director of air traffic services, later claims, “We didn’t know where the transmission came from, what was said and who said it.” David Canoles, the FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations, adds: “The broadcast wasn’t attributed to a flight. Nobody gave a flight number.” Similarly, an early FAA report will state that both these transmissions came from “an unknown origin.”

This transmission didn't necessarily originate from Flight 11.

Try again.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. The DNA match is conclusive.

Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Jarrah is recorded on the CVR. It's him over the ATC airwaves, which means it was from 93.

[Marksbrother]

66. What's unreasonable about asking for credible proof?

You must not realize the difference between quantity of posts and quality of proof therein.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Nothing, but DNA evidence is credible proof, as are the other proofs we've brought up.

Hence, your level of required proof is unreasonable.

[Marksbrother]

68. DNA proves identity, but that isn't proof of its source.

It could have been planted, hence you still haven't provided credible evidence to support your argument.

[Subdivisions]

70. Or he could have been on the flight. Still doesn't prove he hijacked

the aircraft. Hence the need for a new all-encompassing investigation by a truly independent commission with full subpoena power.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. The DNA in combination with the CVR and ATC recording, in combination with

his videos with Atta and his video will show that Jarrah was part of the hijack team of United 93.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article656541.ece

[Bolo Boffin]

72. This is why I say your level of required proof is unreasonable.

When you are faced with DNA evidence, you handwave it away by questioning the source? The source was off the ground at Shanksville and Jarrah's shared apartment in Germany.

[Subdivisions]

76. Why do you keep talking about United 93?

The CVR recording, according to Boston Center ATC's Pete Zalewski,came from American 11, NOT United 93. Has Zalewski been proven to have been mistaken? And, if not, then the same hijacker message attributed to American 11 by Zalewski was never recovered as the CVR/FDR from American 11 were never found at Ground Zero, according to the 9/11 Commission.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. The CVR is the cockpit voice recorder. No cockpit voice recorder from 11 was discovered.

It was 93's that was discovered.

Both 11 and 93 (Atta and Jarrah) transmitted passenger instructions over the ATC network. They both did. They each did it twice. Separate incidents.

In addition, 93's CVR was recovered. Jarrah was recorded on that as well.

[Subdivisions]

85. 'The CVR is the cockpit voice recorder'

You think?

I've acknowledged down-thread that they both transmitted over ATC. What I'm not positive of is whether those transmissions were genuine and actually were Jarrah and Atta and not of a fake transmission inserted into the radio mix that day, perhaps from the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs">Air Force E-4B orbiting the White House.

A new investigation could serve to make my point moot. I welcome that.

[Subdivisions]

69. Inconclusive. The CVR would have recorded an inserted transmission

even if it didn't actually come from the cockpit.

Besides, according to several sources, Flight 11's CVR was never recovered:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h3336_ih.xml">H. R. 3336

(7) Valuable time is lost searching for fixed flight data recorders in the wreckage of a crash site, especially at the bottom of the ocean, and critical data is unnecessarily lost in incidents in which the black boxes do not survive the crash circumstances, as is evident in reviewing some of our most recent and devastating air incidents, including the following:

(A) Neither the flight data or cockpit voice recorder was recovered from American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 that were used in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001.

(B) It took 3 days to recover the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from American Airlines Flight 77 that was used in the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001. In addition, the cockpit voice recorder was damaged beyond repair, rendering no information.

(C) It took 13 days to locate the cockpit voice recorder and 9 days to recover the flight data recorder from the air disaster involving Egypt Air Flight 990 in the vicinity of Nantucket, Massachusetts, air disaster on October 31, 1999.

(D) With respect to Swiss Air Flight 111 International in Halifax, Canada, on September 2, 1998, it took search teams 9 days to locate the cockpit voice recorder and 4 days to recover the flight data recorder.

(E) In the case of Valuejet Flight 592, which crashed on its way back to the Miami, Florida, airport on May 11, 1996, it took 15 days to recover the cockpit voice recorder, and 2 days to recover the flight data recorder from such flight because the underwater locator beacon failed.

(F) With respect to TWA Flight 800 which exploded and crashed in the ocean in the vicinity of Moriches, New York, on July 17, 1996, it took 7 days to recover the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">911 Commission Report p. 473:

76. In accordance with FAA regulations, United 93's cockpit voice recorder recorded the last 31 minutes ofsounds from the cockpit via microphones in the pilots' headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire. The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found, and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable. See FBI report,"CVR from UA Flight #93," Dec. 4, 2003; see also FAA regulations, 14 C.F.R. §§ 25.1457, 91.609, 91.1045, 121.359; Flight 93 CVR data. A transcript of the CVR recording was prepared by the NTSB and the FBI.

Most other sources seem to pivot off the information contained in the http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">911 Commission Report. However, there is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_RbtEkjqIU">Dan Rather Says Flight Recorder RECOVERED From Ground Zero - 0:34

Funny thing, though, about that report from Dan Rather. It sets the idea in the minds of viewers/listeners that the CVR and FDR from American 11 and United 175 were found at Ground Zero. However, the video of Giuliani holding one of the flight recorders is never shown, despite Rather saying they would show it after resolving a "technical problem" with that video. Apparently that glitch was never resolved.

Try again.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You prove my point: your level of required proof is unreasonable.

Honestly, do you really think your "inserted" story explains away that CVR recording?

And then you get into more silliness with the CVRs.

That is why I say your level of required proof is unreasonable. You may have grown accustomed to it, but unreasonable it is.

[Subdivisions]

74. EDITED: Tell it to Pete Zalewski

of Boston Center ATC. He is the one that originally reported that the transmission came from American 11 because that flight's talkback button had been activated.

Are you now saying that the hijacker's message actually came from United 93 and Jarrah? That's funny considering the bolded excerpts in my post #64 showing that FBI and FAA officials didn't know where the transmission originated. Convenient that those statements laid the ground work to attribute the transmission to United 93, despite Zalewski's account.

Kinda adds to the whole confusion of what actually happened on that day. All the more reason for a new investigation.

Oh, and the DNA evidence you keep blabbering about doesn't add anything to this since having it (if in fact they do have it) doesn't prove he actually hijacked the jet. It only proves, if they actually have it, that he was there.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Atta and Jarrah both accidently transmitted instructions to passengers over the ATC network.

Separate incidents.

[Subdivisions]

80. See my post #78. n/t

[Subdivisions]

75. delete. wrong place. n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

78. I was attempting to edit the post immediately above earlier but the edit time

expired and I lost everything I had written. So, I'll just briefly get to the point here:

There seems to be some confusion in this sub-thread on my part. While you've been referring to the "We have bombs aboard" CVR recording from United 93, I've been talking about the possibility of a communication "insertion" into the radio mix that day from another source, such as an aerial command post, as with the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSe1OERJOyE&feature=PlayList&p=5F95B20534D0D08C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31">one recorded over Washington, DC (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=99">Air Force Factsheet), that morning. I've been referring to American 11's "We have some planes" transmission.

I concede that http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html">there were Arabic voices recorded ostensibly from United 93. However, my premise can conceivably still apply - leaving resonalbe doubt in the veracity of the official story. The entire transcript and recordings could have been faked, although I admit that this diminishes my argument somewhat. Yes, Jirrah ostensibly transmitted from United 93. I'm less certain of the DNA evidence (on which I will do a re-fresher as a result of this thread). But, considering the numerous discrepencies surrounding the events of that day, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the highest level of proof that the recordings were genuine and originated aboard those planes and not from some bunker or aerial command post. After all, it is 9/11 we're talking about.

My whole motive with regard to why I do this is to support my desire to see a new investigation. I don't trust the work of the 911 Commission. And, when I make a mistake or discover that I am otherwise confused with an argument or opinion, I will admit it.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. I have been referring to both the CVR recording AND the ATC recordings on which Jarrah is heard.

There is some confusion in this thread. It's not mine.

You are admitting that your argument is diminishing as you scramble to explain away more and more evidence, and yet you require an explanation not only of the evidence but the elimination, to your satisfaction, of every silly explanation of the evidence you can come up with.

Your level of required proof is unreasonable.

[Subdivisions]

83. I don't think my level of required proof is unreasonable considering

the many questions and discrepencies that remain. Again, I call for a new investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. I would suggest a more shaky area of understanding the events of the day than the 19 hijackers.

That's locked up.

Also less fruitful areas of inquiry: the four planes, where and how they crashed, and how the buildings fell down.

Stick to areas like what did the Bush Adminstration know (do you think the August 6 PDB was the only one that ever mentioned bin Laden? No, I don't think you do, and neither do I)?

Mind you, I'm not LIHOP. But LSHOP? That I don't know. The Bush Administration going "lalalala, more important things to worry about, lalalala, if something happens, well, it won't be that bad and we'll deal with it then, lalalalala"?

That I could be convinced of easily. That sounds like these fuckers all over.

[Subdivisions]

86. In the spirit of sportsmanship, I will consider your suggestion. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

87. LSHOP?

Means?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Let Something Happen On Purpose

As opposed to knowing any of the actual details, much less being involved in the planning. In this scenario, they figure that America can take another hit like the Cole bombing or the embassy bombings and then Georgie gets to strut around and show off his little soldier. So bring it on, Al Qaeda or whoever...

And 9/11 is what they got.

That's the look on Georgie's face when Card tells him about the second plane. "Who knew they could have pulled something like that off?"

[rschop]

90. RE: Stick to areas like what did the Bush Adminstration know

"Stick to areas like what did the Bush Administration know (do you think the August 6 PDB was the only one that ever mentioned bin Laden? No, I don't think you do, and neither do I)?"


After 7 and ½ years, we now have the following information:

That Tenet knew about Moussaoui on August 23, 2001, and knew he had been arrested when the FBI thought he was a terrorist learning how to fly a 747 with no real prior flight training. Tenet also learned on August 23, 2001 that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two long time al Qaeda terrorists, were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, an attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001, and knew would kill thousands of Americans.

We also know that Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas, on August 24, 2001, for a 6 hour meeting with the then US President George W. Bush on August 25, 2001, just after he learned about Moussaoui, Mihdhar and Hazmi.

We still have never been told what Tenet told George Bush, at that meeting, on August 25, 2001, but we know he was so terrified that the American people would find out that he intentionally lied to the 9/11 Commission in public hearings on April 14, 2004. When asked by 9/11 Commissioner, Tim Roemer if he knew in August 2001, that the USA would suffer a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, what did he tell the President of the United Sates in August about these attacks.

Tenet said in his public testimony, in response to Roemer’s question, that he had not talked to the President in August. Tenet said he was in Washington DC and the President, was in Crawford Texas, and that is why he had not talked to the President in August.

But when asked by Roemer why he had not picked up the telephone and called the President and gave him this horrific news, Tenet said he had not called the President in August, but could not explain why he had not, and said he could go no further with an explanation

But Bill Harlow said right after Tenet’s testimony at the 9/11 Commission, that Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17, 2001 and had talked to the President again in a meeting on August 31, 2001 in Washington DC and six more times in September, just before the attacks on 9/11.

But Harlow left out the trip Tenet took to Crawford on August 24, 2001, just after Tenet found out about Moussaoui, Mihdhar and Hazmi.

We still to today do not know what Tenet told the President of the United States on August 25, 2001, or on August 31, 2001, or the six other times in September he had meetings with the President, but it must have been horrific if he was willing to perjured himself before the 9/11 Commission and all of America, and keep secret these meeting with the President in August and September. Concealment is always the prima fascia evidence that a crime has been committed and the fact that the person concealing information had been knowingly involved in this crime.

[Marksbrother]

92. Given what we know now, isn't it reasonable to assume

that Tenet's briefing of Bush in August, 2001, had to do with setting up a plausible scenario (without explicitly telling
the president what was going to happen in September), so that Bush would have some indication and know that his response
to the events should be framed as a response to acts of terror and not as a response to a criminal conspiracy of unknown
origin?

Maybe Tenet told him about the upcoming military/security exercises and that CIA had detected "chatter" which might indicate
that OBL and al Qaeda had some possible information that the exercises were to take place and that it was theoretically
possible that they might seek to take advantage of an opportunity to embarrass the U.S. or even do something much worse.

What's your speculation?

[rschop]

93. RE: What's your speculation?

I don't know. In fact, no one does because we have never been told what was said at those meetings between George Bush and George Tenet. To speculate on anything other than Tenet most likely gave this information to the President makes no sense. It is clear Tenet had all of this information about Moussaoui, Mihdhar and Hazmi, information that could have been given to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing and would have allowed them to prevent the attacks that occurred on 9/11, but he even had a great deal more.

The CIA had been told on June 12, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had recruited many al Qaeda terrorists and was sending them into the US in the summer of 2001 to link up with other al Qaeda terrorists that were already here, to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US that the CIA and FBI HQ already had many warnings about. The Philippine intelligence services had already given the CIA information in 1995, on a subsequent phase of the Bojinka plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Ramzi Yousef, two of the al Qaeda terrorists who financed and planned the original attack on the World Trade Center Towers.

This second phase of the Bojinka plot called for the al Qaeda terrorists to hijack 10 large US airliners and fly these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, the US Capital Building and the CIA headquarters.

It is impossible for me to believe that Tenet did not give this information to Bush when he met with him in August and September 2001. Other than keeping the clear culpability of the CIA in the attack on the USS Cole a secret from the American public and the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, Tenet appears to have had no other ax to grind for a reason to keep all of this a secret from the President.

Can you imagine, you are the Director of the CIA, you know a huge attack is about to take place inside of the US that will kill thousands of Americans. You also know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is involved which most likely means another attack on the World Trade Center Towers, although this time with hijacked aircraft instead of truck bombs, and as you have an urgent meeting with the President of the United States, you keep all of this a deep dark secret.

I don't think so! This doesn’t even begin to pass the smell test

Bush and Cheney on the other hand were desperately looking for an excuse to start a war with Iraq, an excuse that could be easily generated if a large terrorist attack took place inside of the US that could ultimately be blamed on Saddem Hussein and Iraq, whether he had any hand in it or not.

[Marksbrother]

109. I disagree with this statement you made.

"To speculate on anything other than Tenet most likely gave this information to the President makes no sense."

Given what we've learned over the course of the past nearly eight years, I think intelligent, informed people who have a
knowledge of history and of how the CIA operates, can certainly speculate about what Tenet likely talked about with
President Bush. THINK and I'm sure you can make a reasonable speculation that makes perfectly good sense.

[rschop]

112. re: I disagree with this statement you made.

That’s fine, I appreciate that anyone can have an alternative opinion on what Tenet said to the President in August and September 2001.

But as I said before, in my humble opinion, "Tenet most likely gave this information, on Moussaoui, Mihdhar and Hazmi, to the President".

It’s my view that the CIA had become less of an intelligence agency and more of an agency that existed only as way to give political cover to the President of the US. The President could always say they, meaning the CIA, never gave me this information on Mihdhar, Hazmi and Moussaoui, or they gave me bad intelligence on WMD in Iraq, and the Director of the CIA would either keep his mouth shut or says, yes, it was I, the Director of the CIA that gave the President bad intelligence on WMDs in Iraq.

There was no need to find prior to the war in Iraq any proof of WMDs in Iraq since the decision to go to war in Iraq had already been made before Bush entered the White House, but what was needed was to convince the American people of a credible case for war with Iraq with no real evidence at all, and when this ruse was uncovered take the blame for having provided bad intelligence. It is also clear that congress went along with this ruse even knowing it was a ruse at the time, and then later claimed that they had been mislead by the CIA.

This is how the game is played in Washington DC. George Tenet's whole reason to exist was to provide political cover for the President, while still giving him whatever intelligence the CIA had. In this case the CIA knew about Moussaoui, and knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, and not only kept this information hidden from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing as long as possible but even shut down their investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi knowing this would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

When the attacks took place on 9/11 the CIA would keep silent on what they actually told the President in August and September to protect "the office of the US President", their primary mission in life. This is completely consistent with what appears to be their new mission.

[noise]

91. Locked up?

Where are the videos from Dulles/Newark departure gates? What did the gate agents observe? Were they able to ID the 19 FBI photos? What is with Eric Gill's account at Dulles which tracks with the FBI timeline. Gill claims he saw al-Shehhi and Nawaf al-Hazmi on 9/10 wearing UA ramp uniforms. The FBI timeline states that al-Mihdhar and Salem al-Hazmi were at Dulles on 9/10. Why has there been so much secrecy during the Motley Rice civil suit litigation against the airlines/security companies? Why haven't there been any trials all these years later? Why was there confusion about the original manifests with CNN reporting that two Bukhari brothers and Mosear Canad were hijackers? What happened on United 23? If that plane was going to be hijacked then what happened to the investigation?

Does the FBI anthrax investigation give you confidence in their 9/11 investigation? After all, we have the same factors involved except in the 9/11 investigation the FBI was vulnerable to blackmail/pressure due to the bizarre conduct of FBI personnel (i.e. the UBLU).

[Kalun D]

119. Events Of The Day

the 19 hijackers. That's locked up.

No it is not. It's one of the prime pieces of evidence. The huge lack of what should be hard evidence and then the gov saying how sure they are with none is most damning all by itself.

the four planes

the only point we can agree on

where and how they crashed

WTC yes, Pentagon and Shanksville, no, purposely muddied, disinfo on how they crashed.

do you think the August 6 PDB was the only one that ever mentioned bin Laden?

Osama is a side issue, the Arabs are just patsies.

Mind you, I'm not LIHOP. But LSHOP?

MIHOP all the way. The biggest red flag is the defense stand down, especially the Pentagon, struck almost an hour after the first strike, less than 5 minutes from strip alert jets at Andrews. And all the military exercises scheduled for 9-11, including some with the exact same scenario of the attacks including some re-scheduled for 9-11 just that year and subsequently scheduled back to their original date. How exactly did bin laden arrange all this? The answer is he didn't.

[rschop]

94. My whole motive is to see a new investigation [of 9/11]

That will never happen not in our life time. On the other hand there is more than enough publically available information on the internet right now, even from US government webs sites and sources so that virtually the entire account of 9/11 can be put back together again, and perhaps in a much more comprehensive and detailed version than any new investigation could ever produce. I can point out a number of sites where you can do this in very short time. It is a total waste of time to hope for any new 9/11 investigation.

[RainaldGoetz]

126. Link

Hi!
Can you give a link please?
Thanks!

[Kalun D]

117. Evidence?

There were also the manifests with all the hijackers' names

Manifests from the airlines within the 1st week after the event? You know like all other major plane crashes? Did the airlines EVER release full manifests directly to the public like all other plane crashes? If not, why not?

The credit cards used to purchase those tickets were also traceable.

What about the false ID's that the FBI initially admitted could be possible? Can't credit cards be involved with ID theft?

The Moussaoui exhibits are filled with credit card documentation of the hijackers' trails.

Years after the event? Where was this evidence in the first year? Why wait so long?

[rschop]

121. re: Evidence?

The evidence did not come out until after the Moussaoui trial took place in February-May 2006.

The Moussaoui trial and evidence was delayed so that the explosive nature of the evidence that was later to be part of the Moussaoui trial would not become part of the 9/11 Commission hearings or evidence.

The most explosive of these is the DE #949 the "Substitution for the Testimony of John", aka Tom Wilshire who was the CIA man in the middle of the massive criminal conspiracy to hide from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, any information on the al Qaeda planning meeting that took place in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur. This was where both the planning of the Cole bombing took place along with then planning for the attacks on the WTC towers.

The Substitution for the Testimony of John, shows:

That Wilshire knew Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part in the next big al Qaeda operation. See his email on July 23, 2001, back to his CIA CTC managers.

That Wilshire and FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi, at the FBI Bin Laden unit, were told on August 22, 2001, that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the USA, preparing to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack he, the CIA, Corsi, and the FBI Bin Laden unit, already were aware of.

That Wilshire had actually twice requested permission from his CTC managers, in July 2001, to send the information on the Kuala Lumpur meetings and the people who were there, to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, but was denied both times. His managers would have been Richard B, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head the CIA CTC unit and his boss, George Tenet, Director of the CIA. This is the very information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11 and the very group that had the resources to actually have prevented these attacks.

In DE #681, in email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori ( a FBI manager at the New York FBI field office), Dina Corsi says ”There is material in the EC from which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve(this is Steve Bongardt, the main FBI investigators on the Cole bombing in the FBI New York office) and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

Unfortunately DE #448, the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. This release clearly said that the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, was cleared to be sent to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York.

OOPS!

When Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU on if he could be part of the investigation of Mihdhar, since he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans, Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 after she consulted NSLU attorneys, that the NSLU had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar. But again unfortunately on page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling, and that Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Yet another OOPS!

The 9/11 Commission stated that:

"We could never understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But this testimony of Wilshire would have rendered this conclusion inaccurate. The testimony of Corsi shows that FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of Bongardt even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 an attack both the CIA and FBI HQ knew would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Had this information been brought out at the 9/11 Commission hearings, it would have caused a big stink when the American people found out the our own intelligence agencies had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The conclusion that the 9/11 Commission reached that the CIA and FBI were not criminally involved in allowing the attacks on 9/11 was a conclusion the 9/11 Commission was chartered to make since their primary job was to cover up the criminal actions at both the CIA and FBI HQ and prove to the American people that our intelligence agencies could never have done such a thing. It was therefore necessary that this evidence be withheld until after the 9/11 Commission had reached their conclusions.

Since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena powers and had access to all of the DOJ IG reports that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they were already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud.

[rschop]

122. K&R

[Marksbrother]

116. How were the identities known so quickly? Simple.

They were pre-desiginated patsies, just like Oswald. Intelligence services methods have remained remarkably similar over many, many
years.

[Kalun D]

118. DING DING DING

DING DING DING

we have a winner!!!!!!

[RainaldGoetz]

125. Nice but

Hi!
This three year old article avoids on crucial question:
Why then was the identification of the alleged hijackers so riddled with errors?
How come for exmaple that with Al Omari's passport in their hands they managed to identify a "wrong" Al Omari. The pilot Abdul Rahman Al Omari who lived in Vero Beach.
And how come this "wrong" Al Omari gave the right to a certain Mohamed Atta to use his parking place?
And how come that the neighbours of the "wrong" Al Omari were also considered to have been hijackers: the Bukhari brothers? Kamfeer?
Btw even on September 13 they hadn't identified all 19. Hanjour was still missing.
So what exactly is your article proving by the way?
In the best case it could prove why TWO of 19 were identified. But even the two they didn't manage ...

[SDuderstadt]

127. Simple question...

are you a ''mo-planer''?

[Marksbrother]

128. You didn't answer his question. Why?

You evaded his question by asking an irrelevant one of your own. That's a goofy, silly, tactic that even you should stop using.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Because I don't invest precious time trying to reason w/ a ''no-planer'', dude...

I don't expect a ''no-planer'' to comprehend the logic behind that. DONE.

[RainaldGoetz]

130. Done??

Hi!
Sorry, your behavoir is slightly bewildering to me.
I'm new to this forum.
I answer directly your original post (though your article is pretty old) and challenge its basic statement: the claim that the 19 were indeed identified right away. This is obviously a false statement. And all you do instead of discussing your own OP is to divert the subject??
My challenge of your claim is based on facts (you can find them all in the Timeline and you certainly do know that)
So your demand that i first qualify to be allowed to have the honour of your answer is slightly ... out of place.

[Marksbrother]

132. Out of place but historically accurate.

Welcome to DU. What you are encountering is a time-proven True Believer tactic: change the subject and hope it works.

[RainaldGoetz]

138. Thanks

Hi and
:toast:

[SDuderstadt]

133. Dude...it was a simple question...

Are you a ''no-planer''?

[Marksbrother]

134. Dude yourself - since no real planes crashed on 9/11

Are you a "cartoon-planer"?

[SDuderstadt]

135. Dude...is your screenname RainaldGoetz?

If not, then quit trying to insinuate yourself into the exchange. I know you're disappointed you can't get people to respond to your silliness. Maybe there's a special website that allows ''no-planers'' to cavort with each other unimpeded. Bye, dude.

[Marksbrother]

137. If this is silly, then refute it. Stop evading the issues.

SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off

DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head

Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it

Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo)

Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.

Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located)


Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound

Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.

Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital

Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear)

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear)

Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear)

Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head

Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head

FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear

Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole.

Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orange…Circular…ragged… directly behind the back of his head…they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…it had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber.

FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that
...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place…there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

Law: Can you give me some information on the head wound?

Sibert: Oh, it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...now those two(Boswell and Humes) stayed there till about 5:30 in the morning as I recall. That was their admission--that they stayed and helped the morticians. In other words, they must have taken some other pictures too, because they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that.

...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done...


So, where did the rear head wound go that 30 witnesses described, but isn't in the autopsy photo?

[RainaldGoetz]

136. Dude

Dude, hi, Dude and welcome to the 911 Forum!
:toast:
A simple question:
Who asked whom a question first?
Who answered your OP?
Answer:
Dude, it was me. I've answered your OP showing that the very premise of you OP is simply false.
And you ask me over and over again to answer your question first which you asked AFTER I've asked you mine?
If you wish to discuss your own OP then go ahead if you wish to discuss no plane then we can do this in another thread.
Everything I've written showing that the very premise of your OP are false are historical facts. Facts which are independent of any of my believes.
If I'm a no-planer a half no-planer a quarter no-planer or a planer o whatever I'm not going to tell you by principal.
If you answer my question I'll answer you right away.
Deal, Dude?
Btw: Did you see any posting of me indicating I'd be a no-planer?
I guess not.
Do you welcome everybody here with a sort of questionnaire ...???
Very strange way to welcome people.
I do wish to discuss your OP.
I do wish to discuss facts
no hypothetical thinking.
Do you wish to discuss your own OP?
It's a simple question.
It's sort of bewildering that once one asks clear questions based on facts the dance starts to avoid discussing the facts.

[Marksbrother]

139. TBelievers experience anxiety when pressed with substance

You can bury them with facts and evidence, but for some very curious reason, it has no effect on them except to make them

want to "hit and run". No one has ever been able to say why that is. At least not and live to tell about it.

[SDuderstadt]

140. Since you said you're new to the forum...

I'll explain it you. We call it ''Lared's Rule'' after another member. It's a way of avoiding wasting time on people who don't reason rationally. Think of it as a shortcut or pre-condition to discussion. If you don't like it, too bad. You can always endulge yourself with MB, because even the bulk of ''truthers'' here shun ''no-planers'', for obvious reasons. Got it?

Now, are you a ''no-planer''?

[Marksbrother]

141. It's how True Believers rationalize evading questions

It's also how they rationalize insulting other members (YES, IOIYATB), change the subject, make a trivial, irrelevant point

try to seem as important as the main issue, where possible, try to frame issues around a technical point - so they can then

cite a government report (sic) or some right-wing expert (sic) as proof (sic) that what you know is wrong.


Of course, all good True Believers lust after the ULTIMATE bragging rights that come from getting posts deleted and members banned.

Therefore, make every effort possible to avoid giving them an excuse to run to "mama".

[Ohio Joe]

143. I agree with that assessment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x253851

Though, I suspect our definition of "True Believer" differs.

[wildbilln864]

142. So the premise of your OP has now been shown to be false and...

you have to change the subject! We see it. Dance all you wish. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

144. Only in your little world,, Bill...

Maybe you can get DU to force me to respond to ''no-planers''...let me know how that goes.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

147. nope...

Lared's rule is Lared's rule...

For the record, I believe you ARE a "no-planer! , or else you'd quickly state you aren't.

[Marksbrother]

148. Plane Hugger ALERT!

[Marksbrother]

149. You are a quick learner.

True Believers have a tough job. After all, there's enough evidence out there so that reasonable people can understand that

9/11 was an inside job. So, when they're faced with challenging questions, they generally avoid them. By means of insults,

misdirection, changing the subject, or outright evasion.

[Marksbrother]

131. In other words, he knows the truth can't be refuted.

He only expects to be able to fool people who still don't know that 9/11 was an inside job and that the only planes

that crashed that day were CGI/cartoon planes.

[leftofthedial]

150. because their names were known *before* 9-11