Bush's classroom conduct

[noise]

I agree that it doesn't prove anything. The bottom line is that his notable lack of curiosity has never been explained. I wonder if his forthcoming book will attempt to shed on light on this, after all it was a key moment in his Presidency. The common explanation that he needed to gather his thoughts is complete bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Jesus, how many fucking times do we have to go through this?

In my mind, he was scared shitless and showed little leadership. Why is that so hard to accept?

[noise]

2. Because he showed no curiosity

I will never let this go until somebody puts forth a plausible explanation.

Card's conduct was about as strange as Bush's. Did he really think a brief synopsis was sufficient information for the President?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

4. plausible explanation provided

Bush is an idiot.

Also what form of curiosity were you expecting?

[noise]

5. How does Bush's conduct make sense

when one considers how controlled his appearances were (i.e. all the stage managed photo ops)? Good stage management would have called for Bush to politely excuse himself to deal with "commander in chief stuff."

Card tells him the country is under attack and Bush doesn't have a follow up comment? Card doesn't stick around in case Bush might ask "What is the current state of government response Andy?"

[SDuderstadt]

7. Lared just answered this...

Bush was ill-prepared to be President. Duh. You seem to think his ineptitude proves something, when all it proves is that he is inept.

[LARED]

14. You've hit the nail right on the head and didn't even know it

Good stage management would have called for Bush to politely excuse himself to deal with "commander in chief stuff."

There was no stage management. He was on his own in front of the TV and did what Bush does best on his own. Look and act dumb.

[jberryhill]

9. Google Bush and "no curiosity" sometime

You know that saying, "Better to be silent and thought perhaps a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Bush learned the hard way, probably from an early age, that he really wasn't very smart. He learned how to "look like I understand", when he had no clue.

It is remarkable that you would select his most remarkable character trait as being the "unusual" thing here.

[noise]

11. This wasn't a boring policy meeting

It was a crisis situation yet Bush and Card have pretended that one quick sentence with no detail was sufficient for Bush to gather his thoughts. A general lack of curiosity and tendency towards laziness does not explain Bush's reaction to Card's news.

[LARED]

15. When Card whispered in Bush's ear

what is your expectation for his actions?

[whatchamacallit]

17. Card whispered "It's begun"

And thus, children, began the new world order.

[LARED]

18. Only children believe in fairy tales.

so unless you have some specific knowledge not privy to the rest of us, you are spinning tall tales.

[whatchamacallit]

20. There's plenty of evidence if you're inclined to see it

As our desperate energy and resource problems escalate, the necessity and origins of the War on Terror will become clear to even the dimmest among us. But in the meantime go ahead and keep your attention focused on Bush and Obama's Islamic Boogyman Theater.

[LARED]

39. "desperate energy and resource problems......

escalate, the necessity and origins of the War on Terror"


Is more fairy land stuff.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Let me make sure I get this straight...

so Card whispered "it's begun" after the SECOND plane hit??

I should have known you buy this goofy "new world order" bullshit. Fucking unbelievable, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Quite believable duder

Unless you're a frightened little gatekeeper that is.

[SDuderstadt]

22. The only thing that "frightens" me is...

your ignorance, dude. Could you explain precisely what you mean by the "new world order"?

Bonus question: why do you float so much Alex Jones nonsense?

[whatchamacallit]

24. Between this

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Toward_a_New_World_Order and the PNAC blueprint (pre-scrubbed), you get the idea. If my notions have any resemblance to Alex Jones', it's purely incidental. I don't really know shit about him.

[SDuderstadt]

26. How about in your own words....

dude?

[whatchamacallit]

27. What do you want? It's a phrase from a speech.

The implications shouldn't be that hard to understand.

[SDuderstadt]

30. That's my point, dude...

it's a phrase from a nearly 20 year old speech. So, where's the boogeyman?

[whatchamacallit]

31. What can I say... Some things take years to come to fruition

and they often need a catalyst.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Dude...

it's been 9 years since the "catalyst". Where''s this "new world order"?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

37. Resorting to name-calling because you can't answer hard questions?

You lose, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Yeah, let's all just accept your bullshit opinion. (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

23. Look at the clip, dude...

when Card whispers to Bush, Bush looks genuinely startled. Explain that.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Maybe he was freaked by the news that there's no turning back (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude, there was no "turning back" after the first...

plane struck. You're grasping for straws, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

29. Did Card speak to Bush after directly after the 1st plane?

The only chronology that matters is when Bush got the news.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

it's established fact that Bush knew about the first plane strike before he entered the classroom. Where was the "going back" after the first plane struck?

If you expact people to buy your goofy "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit, you need to marshal some convincing arguments.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Look man

I don't know what Card really said. Of course Bush already knew it was happening he's a perp. Anyway, it could have been any startling development from the front that got W's "goat" ;) BTW, the look I see on his face is more akin nervous guilt. But I guess we all see what we want to see, eh dude?

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

think this through. If it was, in fact, "nervous guilt", wouldn't Bush have been showing that as he entered the classroom?

You're right...you're seeing what you WANT to see.

[deconstruct911]

46. There was no threat dude

If they didn’t consider planes hitting buildings they didn’t consider planes flying into nuclear facilities.

It's a big deal, he is sitting in a classroom while planes are flying around and could slam into a nuclear facility and take out the east coast!

[SDuderstadt]

47. You DO realize the body of your post contradicts your...

subject line, right?

Thanks for yet another incoherent post.

[deconstruct911]

48. my post is based on the thread provided.

Your answer is the usual sidetracking bullshit to prove something else no one cares about.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Dude...

read your subject line again, then note how the body of your post contradicts the subject line.

Your incoherence is a perfectly valid topic, dude. You should be thrilled that anyone pays any attention to you at all, however dismissively it may be.

[deconstruct911]

50. Here we go again....

shouldn't you read the DU rules?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Oh, please cite chapter and verse...

and tell me which rule I broke. Please be specific, dude. Take your time.

Judging from the number of your posts which get deleted, perhaps you should follow your own advice.

[rschop]

6. RE: What did President Bush know prior to the attacks on 9/11?

We now know that Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas for a super secret 6 hour long meeting with Bush on August 24, 2001 after finding out on August 23, 2001 that Moussaoui had been arrested due to a request from the FBI to the INS. The FBI thought Moussaoui was an al Qaeda terrorist trying to learn how to fly a B747 and thought he might be part of a plot to hijack an American airliner and fly it into the World Trade Center Towers.

Tenet also found out on August 23, 2001 that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two known al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east African bombings and to the planning of the attack on the USS Cole were inside of the US and knew they were in the US only in order to take part in another massive al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been told would kill thousands of Americans.

Email that went to the mangers of the CIA CTC unit including Richard Blee, head of the CIA Bin Laden unit and Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC unit confirm that the CIA knew in July 2001 that the huge attack they had been warned about was aimed at the US and would be connected to the people at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting that had taken place in January 2000, and even the name Khalid al-Mihdhar was noted with special interest.

During this time the official position of the CIA was that it was completely forbidden that any information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting or the fact that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash to could go to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, inspite of the fact that the CIA clearly knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at this meeting.

In fact it was this prohibition on the transfer of information from the Kuala Lumpur meeting that appears to have been the reason that the FBI Cole bombing investigation was shut down when these FBI investigators found out on August 28, 2001 that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and the FBI investigators even knew they were here to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

Strangely we do not know what Tenet told Bush on August 24, 2001, but we do know that neither Tenet nor any of the many other mangers at the CIA who knew about Mihdhar and Hazmi ever alerted anyone at the FBI who was in a position that could have stopped the huge attack the CIA and FBI HQ knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were about to take part in, and in fact even allowed CIA managers working with FBI HQ agents to shut down the one investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Since it is clear the CIA and FBI HQ management had copious warnings about this huge attack and even knew by shutting down the one investigation that could have prevented this attack, it is clear that these mangers at both the FBI HQ and the CIA knew their actions would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans. It is impossible to believe, since the existence of this meeting had been kept so secret, that Tenet did not give this exact same information to Bush on August 24, 2001.

[SDuderstadt]

8. I'd love to see some actual proof of...

your assertions, dude...and don't tell me to simply buy your book.

[noise]

10. In reply to #8

Much of the information relating to Rschop's post is still classified. For example, on the NARA 9/11 site, MFR's with FBI and CIA agents involved in al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar issues are pending classification review. One should note the 9/11 Commission turned their records over to NARA in 2004. The Commissioners met and agreed that 1/09 was a good release date for some of the records. The pending classification review records are awaiting intelligence agency review. It is 2010 and we still can't get explanations to government conduct in the lead up to 9/11.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.

Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis

Specter and Bob Graham have both stated that it has been proven that Saudis supported al Qaeda. Scheuer stated that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden (on a Book TV interview with Steve Coll).

Aren't these the type of official sources you trust? Senators? The first chief of Alec Station?

I know this has nothing to do with inside job. It has to do with cover-up. Secrecy. Concealing information from the public. We have government officials advocating for doing away with Miranda rights. Yet these very same officials have not told the public what happened before 9/11. What was the Saudi involvement in al Qaeda? Why did they go along with the invasion of Iraq when Saudi Arabia had closer links to al Qaeda?

We still don't have answers in 2010. Instead we were told "we need to move on for the good of the country." That is absurd.

[rschop]

51. re: We still don't have answers in 2010. Yes we do!

As I said before it would appear that much of this information was still classified. In fact much of of information on 9/11 still remains classified. But what the people who had classified this information did not realize was that it was actually possible to penetrate this wall of secrecy and classification by combining every report on 9/11 and putting them all back together again in one place. Each report was reasonably accurate. But what the people who wrote these reports did was leave out important details so that the American people could not see the big picture and put the entire story of what had occurred prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.

Noise is actually right in terms of all of this information not being in one location that is one single official US source.

To put this entire account including the events that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 back together again in one place, I used the DOJ IG report as the base of a very detailed time line and then combined this information with the 9/11 Commission report, the Joint Inquiry Report, the CIA IG report, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, and the documents entered into the Moussaoui trail. When reports were in conflict it turns out it was fairly easy to see which report was more correct. The report with the most details was in almost all cases the correct account.

For example the DOJ IG report says no one could remember what was said between FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and NSLU Attorney Sherry Sable when Corsi went to get a ruling on August 28, 2001 on whether FBI Agent Bongardt could undertake an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi at Bongartd's request.

But the 9/11 Commission report says that Sable told Corsi that Bongardt could undertake any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information on Mihdhar had not come from any FISA warrant, just as Bongardt had thought. The information in the 9/11 Commission report, page 538, footnote 81 says information given to the DOJ IG investigators in written testimony on November 7, 2002, describes in great detail this meeting and what was said. Since the DOJ IG had access to the same exact transcripts from this meeting and still reported that no one could remember what was said at this meeting, it was clear that someone who wrote the DOJ IG report, had deliberately obscured the information that was right in the DOJ IG written transcripts of testimony of Corsi and Sable, transcripts and information that the DOJ IG clearly had, to hide and obfuscate what had been said at the meeting between Corsi and Attorney Sable.

This is no small point, almost 3000 people were deliberately allowed to be murdered by the al Qaeda terrorists because Bongardt was not allowed to proceed with his investigation and it is clear his investigation was shut down due to what appears to be nefarious motives.

I had also talked to numerous FBI agents and to investigators on the Joint Inquiry Committee and the to the Commissioners on the 9/11 Commission and attended the April 13-14, 2004 public hearings of the 9/11 Commission on intelligence and the FBI and why the CIA and FBI did not prevented the attacks on 9/11 when they had the names of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi for over 21 months prior to the attacks on 9/11and when on August 22, 2001 when Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US both the CIA and FBI HQ knew these al Qaeda terrorists were in the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

It turns out there is now more than enough information and evidence found right now in the public domain documents to see what had taken place prior to the attacks of 9/11, it just took several years of effort to do this.

[rschop]

53. K&R

[noise]

54. Ok we have answers

I am referring to the lack of a more complete government accounting. There are so many questions. There is so much secrecy.

IMO government official owe the public explanations. The secrecy is flat out not acceptable.

[rschop]

55. re: There is so much secrecy. The secrecy is flat out not acceptable

I would agree with you, but the world is as it is not as we would like it to be. Even though there is this wall of government secrecy, there is now more than enough information right in the public domain to penetrate this wall and find out what really happened prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.

To sit around and complain about this government secrecy, years after any legitimate reasons for the government maintaining it, does nothing to ultimately find the real truth behind the events on 9/11.

The government will maintain this secrecy for literally generations to keep the American public from knowing the real truth behind this event as they have done with many other events, to hide the nefarious reasons the attacks on 9/11 were allowed to take place by people right inside our own government.

See my Journal for much of this information.

[SDuderstadt]

56. You forgot to remind him to...

purchase your book.

I've also reviewed the same material you have and I don't see cause to conclude anyone in the government deliberately allowed the attacks to take place. That's the funny thing about words. When you use the word "allowed", if you mean "did not do enough to prevent the attacks", I would agree with you as long as that does not mean anything other than the Bush administration was reckless and asleep at the wheel in its counter-terrorism efforts.

If, on the other hand, you use the word "allowed" to mean they had specific knowledge of a specific threat, yet deliberately did nothing to stop it, I do not agree. However, I am more than open to whatever concrete proof you have.

As I have said in previous posts, I ain't buying your farfetched story, dude.

[rschop]

58. Why the CIA withheld information on Mihdhar and Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators

I am reposting this again so my response is complete on not only as to why the CIA maintained secrecy in this case, but also to show that was possible to pierce this secrecy and find out exactly what had happened at the CIA and FBI HQ prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.

“I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence I had obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves."

From Thu Jan 14th 2010, 09:43 PM

The CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Yet the CIA and FBI HQ deliberately withheld this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But the CIA had been deliberately hiding the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI Cole bombing investigators since the Cole bombing had taken place. When Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been identified from a photograph of him taken at the al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and the CIA also had photos of Mihdhar and Hazmi at the same meeting they knew, that these three long time al Qaeda terrorists had been part of the planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at this meeting. The CIA also knew if the FBI Cole bombing investigators ever became aware of this information, it would expose the CIA culpability in allowing these attacks to have taken place. Just after Bin Attash had been identified at Kuala Lumpur the CIA started a massive wide ranging criminal conspiracy to hide this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators.

There is direct evidence of the involvement in this conspiracy of Cofer Black, George Tenet, John Gannon, and the CIA Yemen station, the CIA Pakistan Station, the CIA Bin Laden unit with Richard Blee as its Chief, and Tom Wilshire, Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit. Wilshire had even been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI in mid-May 2001 by Black and Tenet, with the concurrence of Freeh and Rolince, in order to find out what the FBI Cole criminal investigators had found out about the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and if they had found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting with Walid bin Attash actually planning the bombing of the USS Cole.

It is clear from the DE 939 “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial, that Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email back to his CTC managers, Richard Blee, Chief of the Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and Director of the CIA George Tenet, clearly stated that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack.

Wilshire had already indicated, according to the DOJ IG report, in his July 5, 2001 email to his CTC managers that he thought at this point in time, that the people at Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving about a huge al Qaeda attack since April 2001.

It is also clear from document, DE 939, that Wilshire had been forbidden twice from giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators, by his CTC managers at the CIA on July 13, 2001, and again on July 23, 2001.

So it is clear the instructions to hide the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Nawaf al-Hazmi from the FBI criminal investigators came from the very top of the CIA management at the very same time, that they were holding urgent meetings in the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 17, 2001 warning them a huge attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

According to Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, Tenet and Black had already held a meeting with Richard Blee and other CIA managers earlier in July to ask where they all thought the massive al Qaeda attack they were being warned about would take place. The room went silent when Richard Blee stated, “They are coming here!”

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 email to his CTC mangers on Mihdhar, FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie at the CIA Bin Laden unit found out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US and took this information to FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire. Note on July 24, 2001 Gillespie had already found the CIR on Mihdhar’s travels to Kuala Lumpur and his US multi-entry visa that specified New York City as his destination, written up by FBI IOS Agent Doug Miller at the CIA Bin Laden unit on January 5, 2000. This CIR that had written on the bottom; “Blocked by order of the Deputy Chief” (of the bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire).

Wilshire and Corsi started to put together the EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar on August 22, 2001. Document DE 469 from the Moussaoui trial is the actual EC written up by FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, that connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the east Africa bombings, but also to the Cole bombing.

When FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, supervisor of the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York, accidentally got Corsi’s EC to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar on August 28, 2001 he called Corsi to demand that the criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi go to his FBI Cole investigating team. Corsi told him that he could not investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi due to the restrictions on NSA information going to FBI criminal investigators.

But it is clear from DE 448, the release from the NSA to Corsi, that the NSA had already approved FBI Agent Dina Corsi to pass the NSA information on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the fact they attended the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators in New York, on August 27, 2001 in a release that was sent to Corsi on August 28, 2001. The release even listed the recipients as “The FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators in New York”, Steve Bongardt and his team.

Page 306 of the DOJ IG report says:

Bongardt received the EC, Corsi’s EC, on August 28. Shortly thereafter, Bongardt, Corsi, and Rod Middleton, (Corsi’s boss), engaged in a conference call to discuss whether the case should be opened as a criminal instead of an intelligence investigation. Corsi told the OIG that the information on Mihdhar was received through intelligence channels and, because of restrictions on using intelligence information, could not be provided directly to the criminal agents working the Cole investigation. Rod Middleton told the OIG he had concurred with Corsi’s assessment that the matter should be an intelligence investigation.

Corsi with Rod Middleton’s concurrence ordered Bongardt to not have anything to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and to destroy any and all information that he had on Mihdhar. She later tells him, as described in the September 20, 2002 public hearings for the Joint Inquiry of 9/11, that if one piece of paper ever surfaced at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name, he was through as an FBI Agent at the FBI.

Since Bongardt did not see any connection between the NSA information to any FISA warrant, he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the legal unit at FBI HQ on this issue, to see if he and his team could take part in the investigation and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

On August 29, 2001, Corsi tells Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Email, from FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt back to Dina Corsi, 908/29 8:38 AM said:

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III.

Bongardt even told Corsi when she told him that he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, “why do you think they are in the US, do you think they are going to f**king Disney Land!” It is clear that Bongardt knew immediately when he found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US that these long time al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack!

Sherry Sabol is the NSLU attorney that Corsi had contacted and from Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, it is clear that Sabol had ruled in fact just the opposite from what Corsi had told FBI Agent Bongardt. Sabol had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

Sabol told Corsi said if she was still confused she, (Corsi) could go and get a ruling from the NSA, unaware Corsi had already obtained approval from the NSA to transfer the NSA information over to the FBI two days earlier on August 27, 2001. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, 9/11 Commission report p 538, footnote 81.

According to the DOJ IG report, on August 30, 2001 the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 was sent by the CIA to Rod Middleton, Corsi’s supervisor. So on this date, Middleton has photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who also had been photographed at this meeting, were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing. This is a crime and directly connectes both Mihdhjar and Hazmi, who the FBI criminal investigators now knew were inside of the US, to the crime of planning the Cole bombing.

The DOJ IG report had stated that on August 22, 2001, FBI Agent Dina Corsi was already aware that the CIA had this photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur and even knew that the CIA had been deliberately keeping this photograph and the fact that Bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi planning the Cole bombing, secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York and their supervisor FBI Agent Steve Bongardt. This information clearly meant that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi should have gone to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team, since this was the photographic proof that both Mihdhar and Hazmi, known to be long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, had also taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

And yet in spite of this information and the fact that on August 28, 2001 Middleton, had been on the phone call with Corsi and Bongardt, shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Middleton never called Bongardt back to undo the damage he had done in shutting down this investigation earlier.

The CIA working with these FBI HQ agents had not only criminally withheld critical information from the Cole bombing investigators in a massive criminal conspiracy, but had then shut down Bongardt’s investigation when Bongardt accidentally found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and knew these al Qaeda terrorists were here only in order to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

It is now clear that the CIA working with FBI HQ agents they had subjugated had intentionally shut down the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, prior to the attacks on 9/11 that could have prevented these attacks from taking place. Since shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was deliberate, it is all but impossible to believe that when the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that they all, including the senior managers at the CIA and even the FBI who were directing the actions of Wilshire, Corsi and Middleton, did not know that thousands of Americans were going to perish as a direct result of their actions.

See my Journal and/or www.eventson911.com for additional details on all of this, including the documnts that actually are the proof for all of this!

[rschop]

59. K&R

[rschop]

38. Evidence of what Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11!

You don't have to buy the book. Just see my Journal which lists almost all of the relevant documents or the web site www.eventson911.com which in fact actually has almost all of the documents located right on this one site. The most incriminating documents are there, even DE 939, the DOJ IG report and 9/11 Report are there available for anyone to down load at no cost from this one site. The only additional information that the book provides is all of this information in one place in a complete time line of the interactions between the CIA, the FBI HQ and the FBI Cole bombing investigators in New York City field office, and the FBI investigators of Moussaoui in Minneapolis along with the obvious conclusions that are almost self evident from the now available over whelming evidence.

If you need a document for proof of any specific point, I can list the exact document and the exact page number where this information is found.

Where noise is right, is in terms of all of this information being in one place. To put this entire account and the events that had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 back together again in one place, I had to use the DOJ IG report combined with the 9/11 Commission report, the Joint Inquiry Report, the CIA IG report, the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan by Lawrence Wright, and the documents entered into the Moussaoui trail. It turns out there is now more than enough evidence found right in these now public domain documents to see what had taken place prior to the attacks of 9/11, it just took 5-6 years of effort to do this.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Great, dude....

call Eric Holder immediately!

[rschop]

41. re: Another poster says to call Eric Holder immediately!

What good would that do?

The Obama administration has said they are not going back to pursue the crimes of the Bush administration. Besides they need Republican votes on some issues to pass the legislation.

And besides this information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years. This is all but an open secret in Washington DC. This is how the place works.

"HELLO"

It has been public knowledge for years in Washington DC that the CIA working with agents at FBI HQ intentionally, deliberately and knowing allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 which resulted in the murder of almost 3000 people.

It is unfortunately only the Americans public that has not been made aware of this information.

It not like the CIA and FBI HQ actually wanted thousands of Americans to die in these attacks.

But people at the CIA and FBI HQ knew that if FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was not shut down, and Bongardt ultimately got the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, Bongardt would have realized that his team investigating the Cole bombing had been criminally obstructed by the CIA and FBI HQ agents and many people at both the CIA and FBI HQ would have gone to prison for many years.

The people at these agencies were just trying to stay out of prison, and it was unfortunate that thousands of Americans had to die to make sure they would not go jail. The CIA tried desperately to keep the fact secret that Walid Bin Attash had been identified in a photo taken at Kuala Lumpur, on January 4, 2001 by the joint FBI/CIA source, and then these agencies carried out many actions to criminally obstruct the FBI criminal investigation of the Cole bombing to hide this information in order to hide the CIA’s culpability in the al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole.

It is now clear that the FBI found this out quickly in the Pentbom investigation and then let this investigation die when they found out that very top officials of the US government and even their own FBI HQ had actually allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

What is the prima fascia evidence for this is the information FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi was aware when she shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28, 2001. According to the DOJ IG report, she was working closely with CIA officer Tom Wilshire to insure that the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was kept away from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. From the DOJ IG report, it is clear that on August 22, 2001, when she and Wilshire were told Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack, she already knew that the CIA had a photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, she admitted this to DOJ IG investigators, and even knew the CIA had been deliberately been keeping this photograph secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators so these investigators would never have enough information to start any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. This photograph directly connected Mihdhar and Hazmi who were also at that meeting, to the mastermind of the Cole bombing and to the planning of the Cole bombing that had taken place at that meeting.

Once Corsi was aware that the CIA had this photograph, there was no legitimate reason for her to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi since both Mihdhar and Hazmi were known al Qaeda terrorists who were directly connected to the planning of the USS Cole bombing which Bongardt was investigating, a conclusion that both the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG investigators had also reached later.

Almost beyond belief, the CIA sent Rod Middleton Corsi’s direct supervisor, the actual photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur on August 30, 2001, just 2 days after he and Corsi had in a phone conversation to Bongardt, demanded that Bongardt and his team stop their investigation of Mihdhar Hazmi and destroy any and all information that he and his team had on Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When the CIA and FBI HQ shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi they knew that as a direct result of their actions that thousands of Americas would perish in the al Qaeda attacks that were just about to take place inside of the US.

And all of this information has been public knowledge in Washington DC for years.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Prove it, dude...

I have never believed your story from the very beginning, especially your claim that you had figured out what the hijackers were going to do and where they were going to do it. I also recall asking you for the affidavits you claimed to have from your staff that established you told them in advance when and where the attacks would take place. to my knowledge, you have been unable to produce said affidavits.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that if you possessed such a bonbshell, the Obama administration would turn a deaf ear to it? Bullshit, dude. I believe you're nothing more than a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist who's taken publicly available, post facto information, put the worst possible interpretation on it and tried to pass it off as something other than it was.

Sorry, dude. I ain't buying it.

[zappaman]

43. Dude

what part of it's "public knowledge in washington DC" don't you get?
go there and stop someone on the street and ask them about it...they'll tell ya!
anyway, it's just more disinfo put out by the aliens who have Earth under quarantine...

[noise]

44. I would argue that we don't know the motive

One of the frustrations of the official inquiries is the lack of curiosity. One reason such sources are considered credible is because they take an "everybody acted in good faith" stance. Corruption is simply not up for discussion. In our society, respectability is derived from sacrificing curiosity. Such a bizarre approach enables the official inquiries to avoid unsettling avenues of investigation. This is the sort of mentality that suggests that it is patriotic to sweep corruption under the table and that doing so is "in the best interests of the country." It goes without saying that this sort of conduct is total horseshit.

The CIA has extensive capacity for cover-up. So it is difficult to believe they criminally obstructed what turned out to be 9/11 because they were worried about being blamed for their conduct in relation to the USS Cole attack. It isn't even clear that Alec Station officials were involved in a criminal conspiracy in early January 2000 (in relation to withholding information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar from the FBI). If CIA agents feared prosecution for withholding in relation to the USS Cole attack then why wouldn't they have been even more freaked out by the consequences of being criminally liable for an even bigger terrorist attack? How would CIA agents know that there would be no scapegoats?

I don't have any insider sources so I don't know what happened. Officials acting in good faith would have come forward by now to explain their conduct. I've noted before how bizarre all the 9/11 memorials are in contrast to the sickening secrecy and cover-up. There is no respect for the victims when everything is swept under the rug.

[JackRiddler]

12. It doesn't prove anything. The question is whether it provides probable cause...

in combination with the simultaneous actions of Mies, Rumsfeld, Myers, Eberhard and Leidig...

for a working prosecutorial hypothesis that these men (among others) were providing the facilitation or covering up their own role when they stated (uncoerced) that they were absent from decision making during the actual attacks (sometimes with astonishingly stupid excuses, like Eberhard's claim he wasn't in cell phone range for 45 minutes - THE HEAD OF NORAD!!!).

I submit that it does.

Bush in the School
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x179188

Wargames of Sept. 11th
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

It's my article. Excerpt:

SNIP

The story of Global Guardian and the breakfast activities of its director Mies has long been in the public domain, published on military news sites and the Omaha press among other venues. But until recently the vast-but-scattershot investigations of the last four years by the hundreds of 9/11 researchers working cooperatively via the Internet had missed these snippets.

As the timeline relates, Mies was having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with a group of business leaders, as part of a charity event hosted by Offutt Air Force Base and sponsored by Warren Buffett, the second-richest man in the United States. We have no way of knowing what communications Mies was receiving about the crisis that began at 8:15, but soon after 8:46 am, the entire party would have learned that a plane had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Mies remained with the civilians until after they all heard that the second WTC Tower had also been hit. (The second crash occurred at 9:03 am.) Based on the new timeline entries, it is apparently only then that Mies went to his command post, and that Global Guardian and related wargames were suspended.

Mies thus joins the growing list of men in key positions at the top of the US military chain of command who managed to absent themselves from any decision-making capacity during the opening hour of the 9/11 crash-bombings. That list includes:

George W. Bush, who asked his staff chief Andrew Card for no clarification on the whispered message that "America is under attack" (9:05), but instead remained seated, listening to children read in a classroom, until around 9:16; and whose large White House entourage remained in the Florida school until 9:34.

Gen. Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says he heard about the first crash, thought it was an accident, went into a Senate meeting, and only became aware of the second crash just a few minutes before the Pentagon was hit at 9:37.

Donald Rumsfeld, who was sought for an hour by the Pentagon command center and first appeared there at around 10:30 am, according to The 9/11 Commission Report.

Gen. Montague Winfield, head of the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, who on the evening of Sept. 10th arranged to be replaced on his scheduled shift the next morning for the two hours starting at 8:30 am by his rookie deputy, Capt.Charles Leidig (since promoted to admiral).

(See "AWOL Chain of Command")

Is all of this attributable to nonchalance? At what point are we allowed to discern a pattern in the behavior of the men who topped the military chain of command and who were responsible for responding to the unfolding events?

Rumsfeld's case is particularly flagrant, given that he had signed off on a June 1, 2001 Pentagon order that for the first time inserted the Secretary of Defense into the chain of response for issuing military intercept orders for errant planes. His story is that he reacted to news of the first and second WTC crashes by continuing his routine morning briefings, and that after the Pentagon was hit (at 9:37 or 9:41 am, depending on which official timeline one prefers), he decided to assist in rescue efforts instead of taking his place at the command center.

The official story of 9/11 holds that four passenger planes were diverted and that none of them were intercepted for reconnaissance and response, which constitutes a massive and unprecedented failure of standard operating procedures. The story of how and why that happened has changed repeatedly since 9/11, and no official has ever been held accountable for the failures. On the contrary, many of the key figures involved received promotions, among them Myers, who was confirmed in that position soon after 9/11, and Gen. Ralph Eberhart, the NORAD director who was appointed to head the new Northern Command (since retired).

During the last four years we have seen a plethora of contradicting timelines and testimonies presented by NORAD, the US Air Force (in its official history Air War Over America), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), press reports citing official sources, and, finally, The 9/11 Commission Report. Each of these versions of what happened on 9/11 was upheld in its turn for months or years without revision. The contradictions mean that at least some of the responsible officials must have been promoting falsehoods, but again, no move has been made to hold anyone accountable for that.

Already in the first year after 9/11, when next to nothing was known about the exercises, researchers skeptical of the official story developed the hypothesis that wargames could have been used as the device to subvert standard operating procedures and allow the attacks to proceed unmolested. A wargame pretext can allow false-flag attacks to be rehearsed or prepared without arousing suspicion; and divert resources or block communication lines on Day X. ...

BIG SNIP

[SDuderstadt]

13. Great, Jack!

Run, don't walk to the nearest U.S. Attorney's office and present your case. Let us know how that goes.

[brettjv]

45. I am in total agreement with what you're getting at here ...

And I think the fact that the Secret Service didn't act immediately to remove Bush from the school (rather, he stuck around to give a SPEECH before he left) when his itinerary had been posted on the Web, AND the school was near an airport, and they had no way of knowing what the magnitude of these attacks might be ... I think it stinks to high heaven.

So does the fact that Card just walks up, gives Bush the news about the second plane, and then just WALKS AWAY?!?

By what reasonable stretch of logic does this seem like normal, innocent behavior on his part? Surely logic would dictate that upon giving the Pretzeldunce this news, he would stand there to see if Bush was going to ask any questions or give some kind of orders, wouldn't he?

Also, didn't Bush later say (twice) in interviews in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that he'd seen the FIRST plane hit the WTC BEFORE going into the classroom, cause 'someone must've had a TV on'?

To me, the way the whole thing went down with Bush in that school is way up there on the list of why I don't believe this attack was really a 'surprise' to the Bush administration.

[blavatsky3]

57. Why did Bush say he saw the First Plane crash when he was waiting in the corridor before entering ..

Why did Bush say on 2 separate occasions about a month apart... that he saw the FIRST plane crash into the Tower while waiting in a corridor of the Florida school before entering the classroom?

Because he actually saw either live footage or recently recorded footage that everything was going to plan.

Notice in the classroom he bites his lip..... hoping he and his croanies will pull it off and we will be ushered into a NEW WORLD ORDER with virtually no civil liberties, rights or freedoms. Bah Bah Bah To your fleece and your flock be true Bah Ram EWE !