Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FBI veteran/whistleblower: 'There has to be a new investigation of 9/11'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-03-09 06:28 PM
Original message
FBI veteran/whistleblower: 'There has to be a new investigation of 9/11'
October 2009 interview of 24-year FBI veteran, Coleen Rowley.



pt.1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLMAzUIb5M
pt.2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QXYNcVuBPM
pt.3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqzziSGonI




'we have to have something like a new church committee...you have got to find out the truth of the matter in order to get past it, you can't just turn the page without having read it...there has to be an opening of the books of the bush administration, at EVERY level.'


on the job obama is doing:

'obama talked about transparency, he talked about opening up freedom of information, whistleblower protection, but unfortunately he has not accomplished that. whistleblower protection was a promise he had made on the campaign trail, and it has not occurred. that's a key thing because if you can't even tell someone in government, that there's a mechanism for them to reveal fraud, waste and abuse, illegal acts, that is basically a recipe for people going along with something like torture. becaue they don't have a way to reveal that someone is giving them an illegal order. so that's a key thing and unfortunately that hasn't changed.'








Rowley was one of Time's persons of the year in 2002.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Former FBI chief Ted Gunderson says 9/11 was inside job


www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxk
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ted Gunderson was never the "chief" of the FBI, RollingRock
It's your inability to get even basic facts correct that make you the object of such derision here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ted Gunderson is the former FBI Division CHIEF
of the Los Angeles Division Office. So, he may have never been THE chief, but he was a Division Special Agent in Charge - making your comment irrelevant and semantical.

Now...how about addressing what this former FBI LOS ANGELES DIVISION CHIEF says in this video rather than creating a distraction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Which is why the clueless are better left ignored
the pancakers never seem to have anything of substance to say about the OP or anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Second that one . . .
simply time wasters . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Two points....
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 11:18 PM by SDuderstadt
if you asked 100 people who is Chief of the FBI, I'm certain that a vast majority would say it's the director. Secondly, IBM has numerous presidents of operating units. If you refer to one of those presidents, would it make sense to refer to him as President of IBM?

You guys are fucking unbelievable when you're wrong about something. Next time, write more clearly, RR. If you'd written former FBI division chief Ted Gunderson, no one would have called you on it. You start a lot of stupid fights with your sloppiness, RR...it seems to be an occupational hazard with "truthers".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Why are you still talking about this "chief" stuff?
Please go back to the OP and read it and watch the video and then make an on-topic comment if you want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Because you guys can't get basic facts right....
that's why. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Ok, so what does that have to do with what the former FBI division chief has to say? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. How many divisional chiefs are there and...
how many have there been? That's my point. It sure has more impact when RR led the reader to believe that Gunderson was a former chief of the entire FBI, rather than one of many. This leads to a larger question. If Gunderson is right, why aren't more former divisional chiefs speaking up?

Grasping at straws just makes the "9/11 truth movement" look weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. So what about what Gunderson has to say? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. When he can actually document it...
it might be worth listening to. In the meantime, if he's right, why is no one else joining him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-17-09 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Interesting - rollingrock was factually inaccurate, SDuderstadt points this out
and you have a problem with SDuderstadt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Are you claiming he was not an FBI division chief?
wow, you are beyond clueless.

do you know the difference between a chief and a director in the FBI? because there are several FBI chiefs at any one time, but only one director. don't get the two confused.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "FBI chief: Bomber's release 'a mockery'"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/22/lockerbie.fbi.mueller/index.html

Who's the "chief" in that story, rollingrock?

The director.

Come on. You got loose with your description so you could inflate Gunderson's importance. SDuderstadt called you on it. Let it drop and move on is probably your best bet right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Move on?
why don't you move on to addressing what these former FBI officials have to say about 9/11? because you prefer to play semantic games with their job titles?

inflate Gunderson's importance? it says it right there in the video that he was the DIVISION chief of the FBI. can you read English?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The semantic games were started by you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CrunchMaster Donating Member (308 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. FBI helped cause 9/11 by sitting on their hands and doing nothing to stop it
Google "FBI Agent Provocateur Informant 9/11 LET IT HAPPEN" and then when you'd had enough of that go google "Operation Gladio"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. CNN was using the term "chief" loosely
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/16/48hours/main2580419_page6.shtml

Who's the (former) "chief" in that story, Bolo?

SDuderstadt was wrong. Let it drop and move on is probably your best bet right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's common enough to call the FBI director the "FBI chief" that division chiefs need
to be specifically called that to avoid confusion.

rollingrock was looking for confusion. rollingrock got confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. To avoid confusion...
why not call the director (official designation), "director," and call the chiefs, the "chiefs"?

That's what rollingrock did. SDuderstadt was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. What bullshit....
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 12:25 AM by SDuderstadt
It's really stupid to pretend that RollingRock was not trying to make Gunderson sound more authoritative than he actually is. Do you honestly believe that if someone was asked to name the chief of the FBI, they'd name a divisional chief?

Simple question: Why can't "truthers" typically admit silly mistakes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. If you'd write clearly....
people wouldn't have to decipher what you actually mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. This reminds me of when FL SOS Katherine Harris,,,
encountered Warren Christopher, who was in FL for the recount fight and she remarked they had a lot in common because he had been a Secretary of State and she was one.

It's really stupid to pretend readers could have been led to believe that Gunderson had been higher up in the FBI than he actually was. The problem could have been easily remedied by referring to him by his actual title, not that the truth and actual facts mean much to "truthers". Fucking unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CrunchMaster Donating Member (308 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Gunderson is just another dirty spook
Gunderson works for the Muslim Brotherhood, Neo-Nazis, and domestic and foreign high level spooks that wanted to get some war action going in Iraq. Fuck Gunderson..p.o.s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Are you on crack?
Gunderson was never a spook nor a member of any of those groups you mentioned.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chandler2 Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Thanks. His explanation about the Anti-Terrorism Act is very...

interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. If Coleen Rowley read DU
that is basically a recipe for people going along with something like torture. because they don't have a way to reveal that someone is giving them an illegal order.



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

I wonder though about 'the others' who know and are complicit and outside the needed Whistleblower Protection.

What then Ms. Rowley prevents these people from divulging a secret regimen of torturous acts?
Other than their own complicity of course.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. Heh
I haven't made it through the vids yet, but there's an interesting bit at the top of the comments under part 1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
30. Please don't associate Coleen Rowley with Ted Gunderson ever again. Thank you.
Gunderson is an opportunist who will say anything to gain the attention of his niche market.

Rowley is a true whistleblower who deserved to be elected to Congress, and came very close. Her statements and arguments stand on their own, like anything true they don't require reinforcement from dubious quarters.

The pattern of responses on this thread should tell you what happens when you take the shotgun approach and mention the good as well as the bad arguments for demanding 9/11 disclosure. The entire "discussion" will revolve around Gunderson (or no-planes or whatever), allowing the credible stuff to be altogether ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I TOLD you...
RollingRock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. What has Gunderson said about 9/11 that isn't true?
Edited on Wed Dec-09-09 11:59 AM by rollingrock
please do tell.

I don't know Gunderson's views on anything else and frankly I don't care. This thread is about 9/11 or 9/11 whistleblowers, not about Ted Gunderson's political views. If you or anyone else wants to discuss the latter, they are free to start their own thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof...
RollingRock...what proof do you have that what Gunderson says IS true? You pull this crap all the time, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chandler2 Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. "Gunderson is an opportunist who will say anything to gain the attention of his niche market."

Like Gerald Posner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
netsurfer2 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
35. ?
In order to be a whistleblower don't you have to have first hand knowledge that something wrong has taken place. If that is the case then he does not qualify as a whistleblower. Just another crank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Huh? The thread is about Coleen Rowly
who does in fact have first hand knowledge of 9/11. she's even credited by Time magazine as a whistleblower and received the person of the year award for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chandler2 Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
38. The comments section makes THIS forum seem mild, by comparison

Thanks for providing the links. I think Ms. Rowley has a political future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Yeah, Rowley is a major whistleblower
Edited on Sat Dec-19-09 09:51 PM by rollingrock
they say 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because someone in the government would have blown the whistle by now. well, several highly credible whistle blowers have come forward but the MSM ignores them for the most part, including the big Sibel Edmonds case which is blacked out by the MSM and swept under the rug, although it qualifies as one of the biggest stories of the decade, if not the century. I guess they're too busy covering much more important topics like the balloon boy and Tiger Woods' love life.

welcome to the DUngeon, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
chandler2 Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thanks for the welcome. The point I was trying to make had...

to do with the comments in the youtube video link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-19-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. They seem to be unmoderated
so pretty much anything goes in the comments section.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC