Richard Clarke: CIA covered up ties to 9/11 hijackers

[thatsmystory]

Didn't Coffer Black once claim he had moles in bin Laden's inner circle?

Coffer Black going to head Blackwater is funny, since they're $$$ money is in the counter terror biz. Like the scene in Iron Man when the CEO of Stark Defense is seen secretly helping the terrorists and directing them

I thought French intelligence had successfully infiltrated al Qaeda.

The issue of infiltration is based on the premise that al Qaeda was an independent terrorist organization. What about the Saudi and Pakistani ties? I am reminded of the explanation for the CIA's lack of security in regard to the Khost suicide attack by al-Balawi. The claim was that the agents were so hopeful of finding al-Zawahiri that they cut corners with their source. The premise being that al-Zawahiri is part of an independent terrorist organization and not a protected asset of state intelligence (i.e. Bin Laden in Abbottabad).

Peter Lance wrote about many questionable aspects of the embassy bombings attack. The failure to exploit information gained from investigating Wadi al-Hajj. Ali Mohamed was involved in the planning. Lance strongly suggested the SDNY (i.e. Patrick Fitzgerald) should have prevented the attack.

The WTC '93 bombing is a good example of a so called failed sting operation. The Oklahoma City bombing is another. Presumably (if one buys the infiltration narrative) the CIA didn't get far enough with their infiltration to arrange a 9/11 sting operation.

It sure looks like a pattern.

[elfismiles]

Jason Leopold on AntiWar-Radio

Investigative reporter Jason Leopold discusses his article “Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up” about Richard Clarke essentially blaming the CIA for failing to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack by withholding the identities and whereabouts of two eventual hijackers; likely CIA efforts to recruit the hijackers and gain a desperately-wanted foothold inside al-Qaeda; the televised interview of Clarke by filmmakers John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski on Colorado Public Television; and information on Richard Blee, the barely-known replacement of Michael Scheuer at the CIA’s Alec Station (bin Laden unit).

MP3 here. (19:32)
http://dissentradio.com/radio/11_08_11_leopold.mp3

Jason Leopold is an investigative reporter and the Deputy Managing Editor of Truthout. His in-depth coverage includes the US Attorney firing scandal, the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilsion and the Bush administration’s torture program. He is a two-time winner of the Project Censored award for his investigative work on Halliburton and Enron, and in March 2008, was awarded the Thomas Jefferson award by The Military Religious Freedom Foundation for a series of stories on the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US military.

Leopold also received the Dow Jones Newswires Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his reporting on Enron and the California energy crisis. He has worked as an editor and reporter at the Los Angeles Times and was Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir.

Check out the original source here
http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/08/11/jason-leopold-7/

Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton
www.AntiWar.com/radio

[elfismiles]

Wow, this topic is dominating the front page of 911blogger right now...

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up
by: Jason Leopold, Truthout
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-11/f ... ials-cover

White House Terror Chief Alleges CIA 9/11 Malfeasance, Cover Up in New Interview: PBS Colorado’s Exclusive Ignites Battle Among
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-11/w ... tes-battle

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-12/e ... 911-charge

Analysing the CIA Response to Richard Clarke's Allegations: Who Knew What When?
by Kevin Fenton, 911truth.org
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-12/a ... -what-when

[Simulist]

Jeff had this dead to rights — right out of the shoot — in the first post in this thread:

The living end of limited hangouts?

Precisely. I think that is exactly what this is.

Definition for "limited hangout":

A limited hangout is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.

[JackRiddler]

.

Almost by definition, all releases of suppressed information are partial and therefore "limited."

What should be added to the definition is that limited hangouts are conducted because the source believes something new has to be revealed to limit already ongoing damage to a cover story. The preference within the deep state is for the original story to work, without being forced into limited hangouts.

I don't see that Clarke's statement meets these criteria. He speculates in agreement with what Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, RSchop, and dozens of others (including several on this board) have been saying for years about Alec Station (Blee, Corsi, Tenet, Black et al.). Clarke is not in government. He is not under pressure. Tenet, Cofer and Black were not under special pressure due to the little-noted recent publication of Fenton's book. There was no exceptional controversy in the public about 9/11 at this time, when Clarke decided to speak out.

Regardless of what label we might apply to a claim, the relevant questions should be obvious: Is the information released true in itself (regardless of its limitations) or untrue, and is it relevant or a distraction? However, among 9/11 skeptics, the mere invocation of "limited hangout" seems to have become as powerful in stopping thought dead as "conspiracy theory" is among the self-styled mainstream media.

I think it is true (and has in fact been established for years) that the Blee's nest were involved in protecting Alhazmi and Almidhar from detection by the domestic law enforcement.

I also think it's relevant, once placed into the full context, starting with the context of that case:
- surveillance of the two in Malaysia by CIA prior to their arrival in CA;
- meeting Omar Bayoumi and Abdussattar Shaikh, suggesting the two are Saudi agents.

And then given the general context of the alleged hijackers, surveillance of them, and their dealings prior to Sept 11:
- CIA/Edger and surveillance and possible recruitment attempts within the "Hamburg Cell";
- surveillance of "Hamburg Cell" by German, Dutch and other agencies;
- Able Danger and surveillance of the "Brooklyn Cell";
- UBLU/Frasca/Maltbie/Bowman vs. Wright/Rowley/Edmonds et al., the veil of protection at the FBI;
- French infiltration of Al-Q at highest level;
- Bizarre timeline discrepancies suggesting possibility of two Attas and two Jarrahs;
- Dealings with people in intel milieu;
- Supposed training from Ali Mohamed, long-time US special forces, supposed mastermind of embassy bombings, mysteriously disappeared into witness protection of some kind before 9/11;
- Florida flight schools they happen to choose are involved with spooks and drugs;
- Banihammad, man of 19 aliases!

And the foreknowledge of events by intel agencies in
- Jordan (who knew the operation was called the "Big Wedding")
- Russia (with their story of 25 hijack-pilots)
- Israel (with their list of 19 suspects!)
- UK, Italy, Egypt, etc.
- not to mention the US (Aug 6 PDB, not historic, later "no imagination" denials)

And specific aspects of the cover-up suggesting a pattern:
- Removal of the 28 pages from Congressional report;
- Comical refusal to follow money trail;
- No commission interviews or full redactions of released MFRs for so many key people: Edger, Blee, Frasca, Edmonds, Shaikh, Ali Mohamed...
- No effort to resolve timeline discrepancies wrt to Atta, etc.

Put it all together and what starts to make sense is that the alleged hijackers are not jihadi free agents infiltrating US on the down-low but from the beginning tied into the intel-agency networks of several US-allied nations, under Western and US surveillance wherever they are found, and with high-level protection from discovery by law enforcement; also, that what was about to happen was known within a highly select but far-flung international intel-agency network; and that these facts have been systematically avoided in the cover-up "investigations" since. Because of the latter, Clarke's predictable speculation along the lines that Blee's behavior is due to a planned sting or hope of infiltrating al-Q or whatever doesn't actually matter. What matters is how to get an investigation in an independent and neutral venue that can force testimony from Blee and all of the above (including Clarke himself in resolving the contradictions between his timeline and those of Myers, Rumsfeld and Cheney) without limitations on the questioning, to resolve these issues. The truth, as they say, is out there, and it cannot be destroyed.

.

[seemslikeadream]

we've know for a very long time now......there must have been a military order.....BUDDY BUDDY

seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:31 AM
Original message
Curt Weldon on CSPAN2 ABLE DANGER

NOW
http://upload.democraticunderground.com ... 04x4641069
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Curt's role is over. Time to refocus the story n/t


seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think any information is important

Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 08:39 AM by seemslikeadream
BUDDY BUDDY

DO THE MATH

24 MINUTES

THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MILITARY ORDER

http://www.bushflash.com/buddy.html


leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Flames not directed at you.

Thanks for the heads up. :hi:

seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Sorry I just woke up

:hi:

leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 09:06 AM

9. Still working on that 1st cup o' coffee, myself.

Have no appetite, otherwise. Sleep has been a real relief.

:donut:

leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Did Weldon have anything interesting to say?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Five People Now Recall The Existence of Chart Identifying Atta"

Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 08:49 AM by seemslikeadream
"Five People Now Recall The Existence of Chart Identifying Atta"

Three more assert Pentagon knew of 9/11 ringleader

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three more people associated with a secret U.S. military intelligence team have asserted that the program identified September 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta as an Al Qaeda suspect inside the United States more than a year before the 2001 attacks, the
Pentagon said on Thursday.

The Pentagon said a three-week review had turned up no documents to back up the assertion, but did not rule out that such documents relating to the classified operation had been destroyed.

Downs said that three more people, as well as Phillpott and Shaffer, recalled the existence of an intelligence chart identifying Atta by name. Four of the five recalled a photo of Atta accompanying the chart, Downs said.

Pentagon officials declined to identify the three by name, but said they were an analyst with the military's Special Operations Command, an analyst with the Land Information Warfare Assessment Center and a contractor who supported the center.

more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050901/pl_ ... ity_atta...



Senate May Hold Hearings on Able Danger, Info Sharing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...


post by robertpaulsen

Able Danger is a Pandora's Box that will blow up in the RW's face.
Re-open the 9/11 investigation? BRING IT ON! Here's why:

So the responsibility for stopping DIA program Able Danger, which had Identified Atta and 3 other hijackers and linked them to 56 other al-Queda terrorists overseas, has been laid at the feet of Bill Clinton--except he and Richard Clarke were never told about it at all.

That's right. Bill Clinton was never told about Able Danger and the ID of Atta because Richard Clarke was never told about AD. How do I know? He never wrote about it in his book, nor did he testify about it's existence before the 9-11 Commission!

You see Richard Clarke was known for being obsessed with Osama Bin Laden and HE was the guy the neo-con moles did not want to find out about Atta and the gang. Schoomaker and the neo-cons knew telling the FBI would inform Clarke and then Mr. Laser Beam himself, President of the United State William Jefferson Clinton, would have gotten involved--and the Pearl Harbor-type attack would never take place (the neo-cons talked about the need for a Pearl Harbor-type attack before the PNAC Plan would be accepted by the American people--so when one presented itself, they let it happen).

General Pete Schoomaker, who were later heavily rewarded by the neo-cons in the Bush Administration, blocked the upward motion of the DIA information by having Shaffer and Philpott meet with Pentagon lawyers opinions--lawyers who were rubberstamping ridiculous legal opinions to carry out the neo-con plan. These certain people were neo-cons in the Clinton Administration, covertly carrying out the PNAC plan to let a Pearl Harbor-type attack occur so Iraq and 6 other countries could be invaded.


MUST READ - RE: ABLE DANGER INFO
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...

Hopsicker: Able Danger Intel Exposed "Protected" Heroin Trafficking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...

Able Danger: Short Time-line

Was Able Danger Shut Down After It Detected Condi-PRC Spy Ring?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...


Congressman Weldon -- Why now? Why ever?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...


MadeinOhio (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 Mon Sep-05-05 08:52 AM
6. Is this a rerun?

seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes but I have never seen it


seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
8. DU's Paul Thompson's statement from LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... board.ph...

paulthompson (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-01-05 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hopefully, DUers will stop downplaying this story
I'm surprised by how many DUers have been skeptical of this Able Danger story, thinking it's some kind of right wing plot to discredit Clinton. That's not true. Maybe that was Representative Curt Weldon's motivation, but as the story develops it becomes clear to me that this story is just as much a problem for Bush as for Clinton, if not more so.

The Able Danger team was disbanded in Feb. 2001. That's just weeks after Bush came into office. One of the Able Danger whistleblowers stated on MNSBC's "The Big Idea" show the other night that he believes it was disbanded because their unorthodox data analysis methods were showing ties between US government officials and overseas criminal activity. As soon as Bush gets into office, he shuts this unit down. Was he trying to protect powerful people with criminal ties? We need to keep digging. The whistleblower also stated that in 2000 he was told by a two star general NOT to go after Atta or he would lose his job. It seems to me that Able Danger was on the verge of finding out some scandalous things, and I suspect that general was part of some kind of corruption.

Able Danger is not a Curt Weldon anti-Clinton fantasy. The facts fit in with everything I know about 9/11. For instance, check out the below Associated Press story from December 2001, showing that Atta WAS living in Brooklyn in the spring of 2000, just as Able Danger says, and something the 9/11 Commission whitewash has denied and continues to deny.

Investigator: Atta Visited New York Before Attacks

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20011209/61522.html

NEW YORK — Mohamed Atta, suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings, rented rooms in New York City in the spring of 2000 with another hijacker, a federal investigator said. Authorities learned of their stay in New York while retracing the hijackers' steps before the attacks, according to the investigator, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Investigators confirmed that Atta and the second man rented rooms in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and are trying to identify anyone who might have supported them.

Atta's trail in Brooklyn began with a parking ticket issued to a rental car he was driving, said a senior Justice Department official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal 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 Mon Sep-05-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I spoke to Paul about this a couple weeks ago.

Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 09:42 AM by leveymg
IMHO, it really isn't that important whether Atta was physically in the US in 1999. The "Brooklyn" cell designation reportedly refers to an al-Qaeda communications link that runs through a hub in Brooklyn.

The issue arose because Phil Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission staff director, seized on the apparent discrepency between Able Danger's 1999 identification of Atta and linkage with Flt. 77 al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. Zelikow was apparently just assuming that the linkage placed Atta inside the US several months before he was first issued a visitor's visa.

Able Danger could well have identified Atta, even if he was abroad, and linked him to the others on the basis of late 1999 NSA intercepts that determined that the ALs were planning to attend an al-Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur in early Jan. 2000. That meeting was also attended by Ramzi bin al Shehb, Atta's roomate in Hamburg. The CIA and a number of other agencies surveilled that summit, at which the 9/11 attacks and the USS Cole bombing were planned.

I believe the primary thing they're still trying to cover up here was the advance knowledge of the attacks, AD's analysts access to classified NSA/DIA files, and the fact that AQ had been penetrated by multiple double-agents.


seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Did you get to see McKinney's hearings - Paul was GREAT

Edited on Mon Sep-05-05 09:39 AM by seemslikeadream
Maybe they will rerun them or I wonder if the hearings can be watched on line, it was excellent, they talked about Able Danger

Yes **** Zelikow and Shoomaker ****

McKinney's 9/11 Hearings Moved to Main C-SPAN Channel.
C-SPAN has kicked its broadcast of 9/11-related hearings to a higher profile spot on the main C-SPAN Channel.

Originally slated for C-SPAN2, this will reach a broader audience.

I've listed the 9/11 Public Discourse stuff being broadcast this week as well.

Monday, August 29th

08:00 PM EDT
3:00 (est.) Forum
Civil Liberties and Security
9/11 Public Discourse Project
Mickey Edwards , R-OK
Christopher Shays , R-CT

Tuesday, August 30th

08:00 PM EDT
2:00 (est.) Forum
Foreign Policy: Afghanistan, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia
9/11 Public Discourse Project
Dennis Ross , Department of State
Elizabeth Jones , United States

Wednesday August 31st

08:00 PM EDT
3:32 (est.) Forum
September 11 Commission Report Results, Pt. 1
U.S. House of Representatives, McKinney, C. (D-GA)
Rebecca Daugherty , Freedom of Info. Service Center
Wayne Smith , Center for International Policy

Thursday, Sept 1st

08:00 PM EDT
2:00 (est.) Forum
Winning the Struggle of Ideas
9/11 Public Discourse Project
Thomas H. Kean , 9/11 Public Discourse Project
RE-AIR

Friday, Sept. 2nd

08:00 PM EDT
4:55 (est.) Forum
September 11 Commission Report Results, Pt. 2
U.S. House of Representatives, McKinney, C. (D-GA)
Cynthia McKinney , D, Georgia (State)

[seemslikeadream]

Scott Horton Interviews Jason Leopold
Scott Horton, August 11, 2011

Investigative reporter Jason Leopold discusses his article “Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up” about Richard Clarke essentially blaming the CIA for failing to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack by withholding the identities and whereabouts of two eventual hijackers; likely CIA efforts to recruit the hijackers and gain a desperately-wanted foothold inside al-Qaeda; the televised interview of Clarke by filmmakers John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski on Colorado Public Television; and information on Richard Blee, the barely-known replacement of Michael Scheuer at the CIA’s Alec Station (bin Laden unit).

MP3 here. (19:32)

Jason Leopold is an investigative reporter and the Deputy Managing Editor of Truthout. His in-depth coverage includes the US Attorney firing scandal, the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilsion and the Bush administration’s torture program. He is a two-time winner of the Project Censored award for his investigative work on Halliburton and Enron, and in March 2008, was awarded the Thomas Jefferson award by The Military Religious Freedom Foundation for a series of stories on the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US military.

Leopold also received the Dow Jones Newswires Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his reporting on Enron and the California energy crisis. He has worked as an editor and reporter at the Los Angeles Times and was Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir.

Jason Leopold, another person DU tried to destroy

[Simulist]

Somewhere out there must be a Manual for Professional Liars. And in that manual there must surely be a chapter on the utility of the truth in the formation of and in service to an even greater lie.

[Jeff]

Somewhere out there must be a Manual for Professional Liars. And in that manual there must surely be a chapter on the utility of the truth in the formation of and in service to an even greater lie.

I'm sure there must be many. From one of them (CIA Instructions to Media Assets, 4/1/67, re the JFK assassination). The world historical events have changed, only the bullshit remains the same:

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. [Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.]

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

[bks]

Great post, Jack. One minor correction:

Almost by definition, all releases of suppressed information are partial and therefore "limited."

What should be added to the definition is that limited hangouts are conducted because the source believes something new has to be revealed to limit already ongoing damage to a cover story. The preference within the deep state is for the original story to work, without being forced into limited hangouts.

I don't see that Clarke's statement meets these criteria. He speculates in agreement with what Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, RSchop, and dozens of others (including several on this board) have been saying for years about Alec Station (Blee, Corsi, Tenet, Black et al.). Clarke is not in government. He is not under pressure. Tenet, Cofer and Black were not under special pressure due to the little-noted recent publication of Fenton's book. There was no exceptional controversy in the public about 9/11 at this time, when Clarke decided to speak out.

Apparently, that interview with Clarke was conducted back in 2009, and is only now being released because the filmmakers of Press For Truth could not secure the financing to finish their next project, in which this [and other material from Clarke's interview] would likely have been prominently featured. [I don't know this last part about the financing and film's contents for sure, but have it on good authority]

Still what applies to 2011 pretty much applies to 2009, with Clarke out of government and not under pressure.

[thatsmystory]

However, among 9/11 skeptics, the mere invocation of "limited hangout" seems to have become as powerful in stopping thought dead as "conspiracy theory" is among the self-styled mainstream media.

Very true.

You work with what you have. It's not an ideal process but it seems like a better way of getting to the truth than taking shortcuts (i.e. "It's all bluescreen. Anyone who says otherwise is CIA.")

If one dares to consider complexity one may be accused of supporting all facets of the War on Terror.

If one needs certainty this is not the best issue on which to focus.

[8bitagent]

Didn't Coffer Black once claim he had moles in bin Laden's inner circle?

Coffer Black going to head Blackwater is funny, since they're $$$ money is in the counter terror biz. Like the scene in Iron Man when the CEO of Stark Defense is seen secretly helping the terrorists and directing them

I thought French intelligence had successfully infiltrated al Qaeda.

The issue of infiltration is based on the premise that al Qaeda was an independent terrorist organization. What about the Saudi and Pakistani ties? I am reminded of the explanation for the CIA's lack of security in regard to the Khost suicide attack by al-Balawi. The claim was that the agents were so hopeful of finding al-Zawahiri that they cut corners with their source. The premise being that al-Zawahiri is part of an independent terrorist organization and not a protected asset of state intelligence (i.e. Bin Laden in Abbottabad).

Peter Lance wrote about many questionable aspects of the embassy bombings attack. The failure to exploit information gained from investigating Wadi al-Hajj. Ali Mohamed was involved in the planning. Lance strongly suggested the SDNY (i.e. Patrick Fitzgerald) should have prevented the attack.

The WTC '93 bombing is a good example of a so called failed sting operation. The Oklahoma City bombing is another. Presumably (if one buys the infiltration narrative) the CIA didn't get far enough with their infiltration to arrange a 9/11 sting operation.

It sure looks like a pattern.

El Nossair, the man who murdered the radical right wing Rabbi Meir Khahane in November 1990, was acting on orders from Ali Mohamed. Part of that whole al Qaeda/al Kifah/MAK clique including Whadid El Hage and the Blind Sheikh. Now when cops raided el Nossair's house, they found blueprints of the WTC with Arabic marker writing on it as well as stolen Army manuals on explosives that Ali Mohamed took.
Ali Mohamed also of course trained the WTC 1993 bombers.

I honestly believe agents involved in the 1993 case were trying to prevent it, just like there were good FBI agents trying to prevent 9/11, but that as always "higher ups" made sure that didnt happen.

But yeah...you look at Ramzi Yousef and his possible connection to Terri Nichols(who himself claims the OKC bombing was a black op), the mystery of Ramzi and KSM that Peter Lance writes at length about in his 1000 Years For Revenge(regarding the New York holding cell in 1996), Philippines, etc

That condo in Kuala Lampar owned by Yuzid Sufaat...it's funny how some of the same guys who slept at that house ended up in Norman Oklahoma, San Diego and Falls Church Virginia.
People say WTC7, I say San Diego/Falls Church/Hollywood Florida/Norman Oklahoma if you want smoking guns.

I highly recommend this documentary to people, despite it being made by Fox(Tho I do agree with your criticism of it)

[8bitagent]

I thrust myself (first as a curious observer and later as an obsessed researcher) into the truther research world in 2004 but left around 2008. It became obvious a few things:

911blogger comment posters, as well as a lot of the truth faithful have this (and gosh bless em) evangelical belief that "we are winning/people will wake up to the facts of 9/11".
Yeah right. It's a 2006 era pipedream, when 9/11 "Truth" became a fad.

I'll say it right now: I don't get the feeling a lot of liberals still "question" 9/11...and after the predictable "Obama Got Osama" event, it pretty much sealed the deal.

There was always the Fenton/Hicks/Thompson/Singh/Edmonds vs Neocon Inside Job/CD/Loose Change camps.

I myself always found the material very few knew about to be the most interesting, because it fleshed out the arteries and runways that never get a satisfactory answer with the "neocon inside job" camp.

Ptech, Israeli spies, etc were one layer...but when you have former top remote viewers for the army training lead hijackers, or the connection to Heaven's Gate via the San Diego hijacker house owner...it almost makes it seem like the rabbit hole is truly deep

When the owners of the Sun Tabloid play host to the 9/11 hijackers and then become the first victims of the anthrax attacks...when a man in Oklahoma is connected to all three major terror attacks in America...when three of the hijackers are at the same Madrid hotel a week after John Oneil attends a counter terrorist seminar...when members of the B Thing WTC stunt end up living with Israelis spying on the hijackers...and when most the money goes through Dubai banks...

As the guy asks in Pontypool...what does it all mean?

[8bitagent]

@JackRiddler: agree with everything you said.


But sadly ten years on...it's all down the hole. This and "Bama got Sama'" pretty much ended any skepticism people had

Great post, Jack. One minor correction:

Almost by definition, all releases of suppressed information are partial and therefore "limited."

What should be added to the definition is that limited hangouts are conducted because the source believes something new has to be revealed to limit already ongoing damage to a cover story. The preference within the deep state is for the original story to work, without being forced into limited hangouts.

I don't see that Clarke's statement meets these criteria. He speculates in agreement with what Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, RSchop, and dozens of others (including several on this board) have been saying for years about Alec Station (Blee, Corsi, Tenet, Black et al.). Clarke is not in government. He is not under pressure. Tenet, Cofer and Black were not under special pressure due to the little-noted recent publication of Fenton's book. There was no exceptional controversy in the public about 9/11 at this time, when Clarke decided to speak out.

Apparently, that interview with Clarke was conducted back in 2009, and is only now being released because the filmmakers of Press For Truth could not secure the financing to finish their next project, in which this [and other material from Clarke's interview] would likely have been prominently featured. [I don't know this last part about the financing and film's contents for sure, but have it on good authority]

Still what applies to 2011 pretty much applies to 2009, with Clarke out of government and not under pressure.

That aspect of 9/11 research still doesn't get much traction, sadly. I mean people talk about wikileaks, well what about HistoryCommons? That site is so explosive, Im surprised its allowed to exist.

There's this "conspiracy" label applied to even Press for Truth or the Clarke interview...and again, it doesnt get much traction even in the alternative liberal media.
Liberals hate discussion of "conspiracies" or anything relating to questioning 9/11 almost more than the right wing does(tho I guess its ok Michael Savage wonders aloud if the Seal team deaths were a CIA black op)

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Goal: reinforce cover story and hijack DEMOLITION truth keywords.

The living end of limited hangouts?

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

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

Aug 11, 2011 8:47 AM EDT

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

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

n the interview for the documentary, Clarke offers an [color=#FF0000]iincendiary theory that, if true, would rewrite the history of the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the White House and FBI in 2000 and 2001 that two Saudi-born terrorists were on U.S. soil – terrorists who went on to become suicide hijackers on 9/11.

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

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

Clarke’s theory addresses a central, enduring mystery about the 9/11 attacks – why the CIA failed for so long to tell the White House and senior officials at the FBI that the agency was aware that two Al Qaeda terrorists had arrived in the United States in January 2000, just days after attending a terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia that the CIA had secretly monitored.

...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... harge.html