Friday, July 08, 2011

All Quiet on the Saudi Article

I commented at the end of the post on the Vanity Fair article about possible Saudi involvement in financing 9-11 that it would be interesting to see how the Troofers reacted to it.

The answer, for the most part, is crickets. Over at 9-11 Flogger, Jeff (shure) Hill posted it, and there are a grand total of 9 comments. Seven of those are Jeff quoting large chunks of the article with no personal comments from him. The eighth is from "Sitting Bull" and says:
A good job by Vanity Fair even If we were years ahead with most of the infos, I welcome that!


The ninth is Jon Gold bitching that the piece doesn't mention the India Times' claim that the Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to Atta the day before the attacks. I mean, seriously, Jon, what possible use would Atta have had for $100 large on 9-10? In fact, he was busy wiring back money to Al Qaeda that had not been spent.

These dolts aren't interested in anything that doesn't conclude that Bush and Cheney were behind the attacks.


Truth Action? Crickets, completely.

70 Comments:

At 08 July, 2011 06:05, Blogger Jon Gold said...

In late July 2001, a wealthy Indian shoe manufacturer was kidnapped in Calcutta, India. In early August, his ransom was paid to Ansari’s group, and the victim was let go. Ansari gave about $100,000 of the approximately $830,000 in ransom money to Saeed, who sent it to hijacker Mohamed Atta. [Los Angeles Times, 1/23/02, Independent, 1/24/02] A series of recovered e-mails shows the money was sent just after August 11, 2001. [India Today, 2/14/02, Times of India, 2/14/02]

 
At 08 July, 2011 06:06, Blogger Jon Gold said...

You can read all about it here...

http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed

 
At 08 July, 2011 07:38, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Here is the note I posted on facebook the day the article was released. Crickets indeed.

Today, this article was released from Vanity Fair.

There are a few things that should be pointed out. It states that "no hard evidence would emerge that Pakistan had any foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks." However, there are a couple of reports that say otherwise. Indeed, listen to what Paul Thompson had to say on 7/22/2005.

This article mentions Prince Bandar, but doesn't mention the allegation that his wife, Princess Haifa bint Faisal, was connected to some of the money sent to the two hijackers in San Diego. It also mentions Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed without mentioning the allegation that he ordered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100k to Mohammad Atta. It should be noted that a "Memorandum For The Record" from the 9/11 Commission was recently discovered that said, "there is absolutely no evidence Atta received a wire transfer from the Pakistani ISI," but there are major redactions prior to that statement, and after it. Also, there is no mention of Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed or Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. I have never seen a statement from any official explain why the allegations of the $100k wire transfer are wrong or unsubstantiated.

End

Make sure you read every link. ;)

 
At 08 July, 2011 07:51, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Oh, and while I'm here... I read Kevin Fenton's book long ago. I read half of it a while ago, and read the rest within the last two months. However, Kevin also wrote several of the introductions for my "Who Is? Archives," so I am very familiar with his work. Feel free to update your original posting that says I didn't read it. Or not, I don't really care about your lies.

 
At 08 July, 2011 08:28, Blogger Pat said...

Jon, you ignorant slut, I updated that post days ago.

Pardon me for assuming that your substance-free review meant that you had not read it.

 
At 08 July, 2011 08:37, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Congratulations.

 
At 08 July, 2011 08:47, Blogger Pat said...

And, no surprise, History Commons is full of shit on the $100,000 wire transfer. For example, it claims:

"In the US, surprisingly, the only mention was in a one short piece in the Wall Street Journal, mentioning that, “The US authorities… confirm[ed] the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the insistence of General Mahmood.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01]"

The link is busted to the source at the WSJ, but I tracked it down with the Wayback Machine here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011107154833/http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001298

As you can see, there is no independent reporting there, just a WSJ blog post containing a snippet from the Times of India piece.

Ditto with the LA Times piece, where once again the link is broken but I was able to track it down via Wayback:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021204091358/http://ktla.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-012302india,0,883098.story

What's with those dolts at History Commons? Haven't they ever heard of the Wayback Machine? Or do they hope idiots like Jon Gold will take their word for it?

 
At 08 July, 2011 08:54, Blogger Pat said...

The LA Times article reads:

"A Pakistani militant named Ahmad Sayed Omar Sheikh wired $100,000 of the ransom money, which he received from Ansari in Dubai, to one of Atta's bank accounts, India Today reported."

So once again, it's not original reporting by the LA Times; the source is again the India Times.

The same goes for the Independent:

"The ransom he was referring to was paid last August to the man who called the police in Calcutta on Tuesday, and according to Indian investigators a large portion of that money, $100,000 (£70,000), went on to Mr Sheikh. "

 
At 08 July, 2011 09:13, Blogger Pat said...

As for the claim that $100,000 was wired to Atta in August 2001, there is no evidence of this. The 9-11 Commission reported all the wire transfers to terrorist accounts here:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

The only wire transfers in August 2001 were two totalling $14,000 to Moussaoui.

 
At 08 July, 2011 09:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 July, 2011 09:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

at, one reason for thw lack of commentary on the Saudi article is that the Saudi connections have been known to the truth movement all along. When I came late to the party in 2004, Greg Palast was writing about how one of Bush's first actions in office was to order the FBI to go easy on the Saudis, including two members of the bin Laden family who were suspected of being involved in terrorist finance. The operation of flying the bin Ladens out before they could be questioned by the FBI was made famous by Michael Moore in that year.

Dr. Griffin's first 9/11 book had a lot of information about the Saudi connections--including the story about the meeting in Dubai between Osama and Prince Turki two months before 9/11, Saudi participation in the financing of al Qaeda over the years, and the mysterious deaths within a week of three Saudi princes after Abu Zubaydah named them as al Qaeda associates (and reciting their phone numbers from memory). Some question the veracity of the writer of this tale, Gerald Posner, but it seems to me that if even half of it is half-true it justifies investigation.

It's all old news to the truthers. Yes, there has been a contingent in the truth movement (whose Jew-hatred is usually not very well concealed) who insist as a point of ideology that there were no Muslim hijackers and who then go on to invent all kinds of goofy theories to allow for a no-hijackers op--hologram airplanes, video fakery, missile at the Pentagon, and what have you. Adam Syed reportedly claims the Pentagon flyover fantasy as evidence that there were no hijackers--because real hijackers would have no reason to fly over. (That NOBODY has any reason to fly over seems to escape him.)

Your belief that Saudi involvement in the attacks means that Bush and Cheney were not is not justified. Involvement of Bush’s buddies the Saudis in the attacks, allowing Osama and al Qaeda free passage out of Afghanistan in 2001, and the subsequent coverup by the 9/11 commission are all indictments of the Bush administration. Prince Turki became ambassador to the USA and attended State of the Union addresses!

 
At 08 July, 2011 10:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

one reason for thw lack of commentary on the Saudi article is that the Saudi connections have been known to the truth movement all along.

Brian's translation: "We knew because we read it on Screw Loose Change, so we cheated and lied."

Griffin is a liar just like you.

You have no evidence that says that Bush/Cheney/Saudi's were involved in the 9/11 plots. Again you're lying!

 
At 08 July, 2011 11:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh look! It's fat boy, Jon Gold. Have another Big Mac--you corpulent and corrupt degenerate.

Tell us, Mr. Portly, does your buddy "Cosmos" still shave your back?

 
At 08 July, 2011 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a fine one to talk about fat, Mr. wiener-fingers. You and Willie R would make a real cute couple. You could do a 69 number on each other's triple chins.

 
At 08 July, 2011 11:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the compulsive liar and psychopath who wears women's underwear.

"...UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. You're a liar." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line," 07 July, 2011 23:23.

You never claimed that "barium oxide was found at Ground Zero"?

What's this, goat molester?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Beyond parody.

Pat, are you seriously planning to allow this proven psychopath and compulsive liar to pollute your wonderful blog with his lying propaganda?

Conclusive proof that thermite, thermate and nanothermite were not present at Ground Zero..

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. I disputed your evidence-free claim that it was not.

You don't know and I don't know if barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. I don't care if it was or not. The issue is meaningless, because barium is not an essential component of thermite or thermate.

For you to link to your own writings as conclusive proof of anything only shows your incompetence as a scholar. You believe that a paper finding barium sulfate proves barium oxide was not found. If you've bother to read your own source you'll see that it says that the list is not exhaustive, and "it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero."

My God, you're an arrogant liar.

Are you so insane that when the proof against you is presented at timestamp 11:48 of this thread, that you continue to lie and insult our intelligence?

I stand by my statement: You're a psychopath.

"...UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. You're a liar." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line," 07 July, 2011 23:23.

Really? No kidding?

You never claimed that "barium oxide was found at Ground Zero"?

What's this, goat molester?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it, goat fucker. You're killing me! I'm going to die laughing!

Beyond parody.

So goat fucker, where's your evidence for the presence of thermite, thermate and "nanothermite" at Ground Zero?

No barium nitrate. No thermate.

FAIL.

No barium oxide. No thermate.

FAIL.

No aluminum oxide. No thermite or "nanothermite."

FAIL.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your inability to grasp simple logic makes me greatly doubt that you ever knew how to program computers.

I did not say that barium oxide was found at Ground Zero, I disputed your claim that it was not--a claim that you have not substantiated.

I don't know if barium oxide was found at Ground Zero or not--and neither do you. And I don't care, because the issue is meaningless except insofar as it demonstrated your ignorance, dishonesty, and irrationality. Your persistent and erroneous belief that barium is a necessary component of thermate or thermite is just plain stupid.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Can I get you to admit that "A is not proven" <> "Not-A is true"?

You have the mind of a child. A cranky child.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, continue to tell the same lies while the hyperlinks and evidence that proves you're lying are right there for anyone to read.

You're a psychopath.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:34, Blogger Pat said...

The operation of flying the bin Ladens out before they could be questioned by the FBI was made famous by Michael Moore in that year.

Why do you always lie, Brian?

http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html

"The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well."

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And goat fucker, why did you resort to another logical fallacy in the thread titled, "Not Just Another in the Long Line"?

For example,

The goat fucker squeals, "...GB believes that the presence of barium sulfate somehow proves that barium oxide is not present. That is loopy!...If he'd bother to read his own source he'd see that it says that the list is not exhaustive, and 'it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas.'"

Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

Wikipedia writes, "...Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I'd expect a computer programmer like yourself to understand that posts referring to other threads create confusing "spaghetti code" that only degrades quality. So you must be doing it deliberately, knowing it creates confusion. Cut it out.

Pat, Dale Watson Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, says the Saudis on the planes were "not subject to serious interviews or interrogations” before they left.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310?currentPage=3

So if 22 of them were subject to unserious interviews at the airport, I don't see how much help that can be expected to be,

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Typical troofer. When your back is against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

That's right, goat fucker, when caught lying and resorting to logical fallacies in a futile effort to squirm out of the trap you laid for yourself, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

You're as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap.

You're a psychopath.

Seek psychiatric intervention, squirrel bait.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Fat Boy!

Tell us, who pays you to work as an Al Qaeda apologist? The same "foundations" and shady "private interests" who pay "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

You know, the same people who pay Brian "goat fucker" Good's rent, purchase his food, and finance his frequent trips to Victoria's Secret?

Inquiring minds want to know--you corpulent scumbag.

By the way, have another Big Mac--you porcine parasite.

 
At 08 July, 2011 22:10, Blogger Track said...

The Saudi conduct did not take place in a vacuum. The obvious question that comes to mind--how were pre-9/11 al Qaeda investigations affected? The answer is that those investigations were obstructed. Even Pulitzer Prize winning author Lawrence Wright has noted that CIA conduct amounted to obstruction of justice in the USS Cole investigation.

On this issue one notes a double standard by debunkers. They accept the government positions (incompetence, bureaucratic inefficiency, turf battle) despite the fact that those explanations do not withstand scrutiny and the fact that the government has withheld records that would hopefully shed light on the conduct of US intelligence. OTOH when someone notes that the given explanations don't make sense that person is told to produce evidence. Why is a faith based argument a sufficient standard for debunkers on this issue?

The wall wasn't a valid excuse because there was no FISA and al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were linked to previous al Qaeda attacks.

FBI agents stationed at Alec Station were ordered not to tell the FBI. Thus the watchlisting failure explanation isn't true. Also Alec Station deputy chief Tom Wilshire was moved to the FBI ITOS in June so there should have been no communication breakdown at the FBI.

The information was shared in August 2001 which disproves the notion that FBI computer systems were to blame. The question is why it took so long.

Once the info was shared the UBLU refused to tell the Cole investigators. Agent Corsi's explanations about the wall and NSA restrictions were both false. She had approval to share the information. In fact not sharing the information once again obstructed the Cole investigation.

Where are the records? The MFR's with Alec Station and UBLU officials and agents?

Why has Michael Scheuer (chief of Alec Station from '96 to '99) been all over the media for ten years while Richard Blee, the person in charge of Alec Station from mid '99 through 12/01 is a complete mystery?

With such controversial conduct why has the media never interviewed Blee or Middleton(chief of the UBLU)? Or Frasca (chief of the RFU) for that matter? Rowley has explained for years how frustrated the Minneapolis office was with the decisions of the RFU yet the public has never heard from Frasca. Is this good journalism? Of course not.

This isn't a "9/11 truth" issue. All citizens should want credible explanations. The secrecy is absurd.

 
At 09 July, 2011 04:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

despite the fact that those explanations do not withstand scrutiny and the fact that the government has withheld records that would hopefully shed light on the conduct of US intelligence.

"Hopefully"? So you don't know what's in there? Then how do you know it's important at all?

This isn't a "9/11 truth" issue. All citizens should want credible explanations. The secrecy is absurd.

I see nothing in your litany that cannot be explained by incompetence. Simple "failure to do everything correctly" is not suspicious.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:19, Blogger Track said...

"Hopefully"? So you don't know what's in there? Then how do you know it's important at all?

I would like to think that the agents/officials were asked to explain their conduct. The importance is the fact that the public still doesn't know why al Qaeda investigations were obstructed.

I see nothing in your litany that cannot be explained by incompetence. Simple "failure to do everything correctly" is not suspicious.

Obstructing the Cole investigation is "doing everything correctly?" Falsely invoking the wall and handing the investigation to a rookie intel side agent is understandable?

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The money came from other sources besides one country.

Case in point the people, then the ethnic groups, then possibly the military and straight on up to the president of those countries.

People in 3rd World countries tend to lie about their funds. Why do you think there's alot of drug trade over there? Hmmmmm!

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:37, Blogger Track said...

From The Threat Matrix by Garrett Graff:

Steve Bondgardt was on a 2:30 conference call with Liguori and Maxwell. Also at the other end were Mike Rolince, headquarters supervisor Rod Middleton, and analyst Dina Corsi, whom Bongardt all Fincher had clashed with that spring.

Maxwell opened. "What do we know? Do we recognize any of the hijacker names?"

Corsi replied affirmatively and began to read some. Bongardt came alert quickly at one name in particular. "Dina!" he interrupted. "Khalid al-Mihdhar? The same one you told us about? He's on the list?"

Middleton broke in from Washington. "Steve," he said, "we did everything by the book."

Bongardt exploded. "Hope that makes you fucking feel better! Tens of thousands are dead!"

Maxwell, sitting in New York, hit the mute button on the conference call and pointed at Bongardt, saying, "Now is not the time. There will be a time for that. Now's not it."

The next day Bongardt ran a quick Lexis search on al-Mihdhar and turned up an address and phone number in San Diego. The al-Qaeda operative he'd been hunting was in the phone book. And no one had told him--and he had been denied permission to look himself.


The UBLU didn't do everything thing by the book. Sherry Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi asked for advice, denied that she told Corsi she couldn't share the information with the Cole investigators.

 
At 09 July, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why have the media never interviewed Blee? Because he knows too much. He was the one who briefed Condi on the al Qaeda threat 5/30/01. On July 10, Blee's briefing so upset George Tenet that Tenet called Condi to have a meeting immediately. Cofer Black, who was there, said: “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.”

Philip Shenon's book says (p. 395) that both Michael Scheuer and his replacement at Alec Station (that would be Blee) threatened to resign in the summer of 2001 because the White House was doing nothing.

 
At 09 July, 2011 14:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The importance is the fact that the public still doesn't know why al Qaeda investigations were obstructed.

You're confusing "failure to adequately facilitate" with obstruction.

Falsely invoking the wall and handing the investigation to a rookie intel side agent is understandable?

Interagency failures to communicate are attributable to The Wall or incompetence. Intra-agency failures are attributable to incompetence alone. I don't see why you need some Other Sinister Motivation to make sense of all this.

 
At 09 July, 2011 14:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The money came from other sources besides one country.

In addition to that: these guys never seem to consider the possibility that those providing the funds were themselves lied to about where the funds were going. There's this unspoken, slightly jingoistic assumption among Truthers that all Arabs know what all other Arabs are really up to.

 
At 09 July, 2011 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 16:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Track is complaining that there has not been a thorough investigation and you seem to be lawyering for the defense, saying "nothing to see here." Almost any crime can be "explained" by a claim of incompetence. Did the cash get lost? Did I hire a crook? Did I kill a child? Did I burn the house down? Oh silly me, it was an accident!

To demand proof before there's even been a thorough investigation is not appropriate.

No less a researcher than Lawrence Wright charged "obstruction".

"The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amounted to obstruction of justice in the death of the seventeen American sailors." The Looming Tower p. 329

 
At 09 July, 2011 18:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pat, Dale Watson Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, says the Saudis on the planes were "not subject to serious interviews or interrogations” before they left."

So you're quoting one of the people behind the failure to intercept Al Qaeda as a valid resource?

"FBI agents stationed at Alec Station were ordered not to tell the FBI. Thus the watchlisting failure explanation isn't true."

The FBI agents ay Alec Station also failed to share information with CIA. It went both ways. The FBI never played well together, this should not be a shock to anybody.

"On this issue one notes a double standard by debunkers. They accept the government positions (incompetence, bureaucratic inefficiency, turf battle) despite the fact that those explanations do not withstand scrutiny and the fact that the government has withheld records that would hopefully shed light on the conduct of US intelligence."

They do withstand scrutiny because those things are usually true.

"Why has Michael Scheuer (chief of Alec Station from '96 to '99) been all over the media for ten years while Richard Blee, the person in charge of Alec Station from mid '99 through 12/01 is a complete mystery? "

Scheuer has been all over the media because, while gifted and talented, he is a colossal ego-maniac. It is his ego that got him booted from Alec Station.

"Almost any crime can be "explained" by a claim of incompetence. Did the cash get lost? Did I hire a crook? Did I kill a child? Did I burn the house down? Oh silly me, it was an accident!"

No.

First, 9/11 was not just "any crime". Al Qaeda was able to walk through holes in security put in place by people who think like you do. Hence the mass incompetence on multiple levels.

It has been 10 years, why has nothing leaked? Documents about all the other Bush Administration's darker dealings have all found the light of day.

 
At 09 July, 2011 19:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Track is complaining that there has not been a thorough investigation and you seem to be lawyering for the defense, saying "nothing to see here."

I'm saying that in the presence of an innocuous explanation for the redacted material, it's pointless to speculate about a sinister explanation. Omission does not equal concealment.

 
At 10 July, 2011 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, do you think Mr. Watson is lying? I find that when you want to quote witnesses, you generally have to quote the ones that were there.

I was not talking about the "incompetence" dodge in connection with the 9/11 op. Nobody said "Oops, I flew three planes into three buildings and blew up three buildings. It was an honest mistake!"

I was talking about the failures to act on available information, NORAD's inability to intercept slow airliners, the coverups, the Bush science, the lies. If these people were incompetent then why weren't they fired?

Your belief that all Bush's dark dealings have been exposed is not justified. Why has nothing been leaked? I guess because everyone's scared. The redacted 28 pages of the congressional report have never been leaked--how many people on the Hill do you think have that in their files? That's airtight.

RGT, once again you're lawyering for the defense. Innocuous explanations can be invented for almost anything short of a terrorist attack. Even terrorist attacks can be disguised as accidents if chemical plants or airplanes blow up or hotels burn down.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'd like to highlight the incident to which Track referred somewhat cryptically above.

Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were two known al Qaeda agents who were known by the CIA to be in the country and reasonably believed to be connected to the USS Cole bombing. AlHazmi and alMihdhar were placed on the TIPOFF watch list on August 23 and could have been located, because both were using credit cards. AlMihdhar's visa was then revoked, and alHazmi's had already expired, so both of them could have been arrested. AlMihdhar had lied on his visa application and a criminal investigation for visa fraud was justified.

The FBI debated whether to do a criminal or an intelligence investigation. A criminal investigation would have better resources. Only one intel agent was available and he was a rookie named Robert Fuller. Fuller got the job. By September 5th he was asking for help in getting Almihdhar's credit card information. His superior Dana Corsi said it was a bad idea.

Bob Woodward wrote that had the FBI run a credit check, they would have found that AlMihdhar and AlHazmi had bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Bob Woodward wrote that had the FBI run a credit check, they would have found that AlMihdhar and AlHazmi had bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11."

Yeah, but they didn't. Buying 10 airline tickets is not a crime.


"Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were two known al Qaeda agents who were known by the CIA to be in the country and reasonably believed to be connected to the USS Cole bombing"

Never would have had enough evidence to get a court order for a search. See, liberal jackasses such as yourself had made it impossible to conduct the searches that you seem to think would have helped. Nobody wanted to risk their careers over racial profiling.

"I was talking about the failures to act on available information, NORAD's inability to intercept slow airliners, the coverups, the Bush science, the lies. If these people were incompetent then why weren't they fired? "

NORAD has nothing to do with this conversation, you've been warned.

"Why has nothing been leaked? I guess because everyone's scared."

Seriously? Everything else has been leaked. Wire-taps, secret torture shops, doubts at CIA about Iraqi WMDs, and just about everything else is out there for the world to see. Nobody's seemed to be scared of Bush while he was President, so why would they care now?

Logic, Brian, use it some time.

"MGF, do you think Mr. Watson is lying?"

I think he's covering his own ass. He is as responsible as anyone else in the government for not being agressive enough on Al Qaeda before 9/11. So I don't care what he said. While you're squealing about NORAD and the CIA you're giving Watson and his buddies a pass when they are the gang directly charged with stopping terrorists (which the CIA and NORAD were not).

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody say buying airline tickets was a crime. When known al Qaeda agents buy ten tickets for one day, and when al Qaeda's plans to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC are so well known that NORAD drills on that very scenario, when those agents are in a state of visa violation, are reliably believed to be connected to the USS Cole bombing, and have been added to a terrorist watch list, an investigation is justified.

Nobody said anything about a search.

How do you know everything has been leaked? You're privy to all that has not been leaked? 28 pages of a congressional investigations have not been leaked--that's an airtight freeze.

Pray tell, how is it covering his ass for Dale Watson to admit that the departing Saudis were "not subject to serious interviews or interrogations”?

I'm not giving Watson a pass. I'm just quoting him. You are such a knee-jerk ideologue you don't care if you make any sense or not.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:25, Blogger Ian said...

Hi Brian, did you enjoy your weekend? Did you go out and enjoy the sun, maybe do some hiking or swimming or kayaking? Did you barbecue with your friends?

Of course not. You spent the whole weekend babbling about "widows" and your Willie Rodriguez obsession. It's amazing how much of a waste your life is, Brian.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Nobody say buying airline tickets was a crime"

You did.

"Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were two known al Qaeda agents"

They were "suspected" AQ operatives at the time. Different rules apply.

"when al Qaeda's plans to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC are so well known that NORAD drills on that very scenario"

No, and we've covered this. NORAD drilled on hijacked airliners - filled with Chemical Weapons attacking from the Atlanic - once - and not on a regular basis and never on a scenario like the attacks of 9/11.

"and have been added to a terrorist watch list"

Terrorists are sneaky, Brian, that's why they're scary.

"How do you know everything has been leaked? "

Most of the important stuff has.

You assume that the 28 pages hold a smoking gun. I suspect it's bureaucratic bafoonery.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, buying airlines tickets is not a crime. When Operation Bojinka is known in the USA and known al Qaeda operatives buy 10 tickets for 9/11, certain flags should be set off.

NORAD drilled on hijacked airliners flown into the WTC.

How do you know what has not been leaked? You can't even spell "buffoon", buffoon. Are the Russians paying you to make debunkers look bad?

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:15, Blogger Ian said...

How do you know what has not been leaked? You can't even spell "buffoon", buffoon. Are the Russians paying you to make debunkers look bad?

See what I mean?

Brian, you didn't answer my questions about your weekend. What do you think Laurie Van Auken would say if she knew you weren't answering questions?

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I think Lorie would say "Ian is an idiot who can't spell after being corrected repeatedly, and people's weekends are none of his prurient business."

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:26, Blogger Ian said...

I think Lorie would say "Ian is an idiot who can't spell after being corrected repeatedly, and people's weekends are none of his prurient business."

My, such squealing!

Hey, Brian, I was out doing fun stuff this weekend, so I didn't see if the widows had their questions answered. Did they?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

When known al Qaeda agents buy ten tickets for one day ... and have been added to a terrorist watch list, an investigation is justified.

You're just connecting dots in hindsight. There was no valid reason on 9/11 to connect those dots, and failure to connect them is not suspicious.

 
At 10 July, 2011 21:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you are lawyering for the defense. Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot was known to involve crashing hijacked airliners into buildings. There were warnings from 13 foreign countries of upcoming attacks, many of them involving aircraft. "The System was Blinking Red". Two known al Qaeda agents connected to the USS Cole bombing were known to be in the United States. And they bought 10 airline tickets for one day.

George Tenet thought Rice could have prevented 9/11 had she acted on the warnings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

Cofer Black said: "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."

 
At 11 July, 2011 07:31, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you are lawyering for the defense.

If I'm the defense, I guess you're the prosecutor. And all you have at this point is a list of circumstances; you cannot attribute a wrongful act or omission to any party, known or unknown. That's not enough. You can't demand an investigation because of all the stuff you think it might turn up.

 
At 11 July, 2011 09:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not the prosecutor, I'm the investigator. And I wish someone better qualified would take up the job.

So you claim that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, while MGF claims that the agencies let turf wars interfere with their duty to protect the American people and that's how it should be. So which is it? Can you have it both ways?

James Bamford claims that the law not only permitted the sharing of information about known terrorists inside the USA, it required the sharing of information, and they didn't do it.

The claim that the authorities had no basis for questioning, arresting, or deporting the suspects is absurd. There is no constitutional right for known terrorists to drive around on expired visas. If we let them get away with the "Oops! Sorry, I'm an idiot! Give me more money and more power and give up your rights!" argument it's just going to happen again, and it's going to happen worse.

The lawlessness has been steadily ratcheting up ever since Nixon (who was pardoned by Ford) to Reagan with Iran Contra (investigations thwarted by Bush I) to Bush II's lying us into war.

 
At 11 July, 2011 16:56, Blogger Ian said...

And I wish someone better qualified would take up the job.

We already had an investigation, Brian. It's complete. The book is closed. The ravings of a paranoid failed janitor aren't going to get a new investigation. Deal with it.

The lawlessness has been steadily ratcheting up ever since Nixon (who was pardoned by Ford) to Reagan with Iran Contra (investigations thwarted by Bush I) to Bush II's lying us into war.

Yup, you're right. No lawlessness by Kennedy or Johnson or anything. Geez, Brian, it's almost as if you're a paranoid far-left burnout relic from the 60s who has an axe to grind...

 
At 11 July, 2011 17:29, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Wow, Listening to Brian makes me glad I didn't take drugs back in the 60s.

 
At 11 July, 2011 19:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So you claim that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, while MGF claims that the agencies let turf wars interfere with their duty to protect the American people and that's how it should be. So which is it? Can you have it both ways?

Turf wars were part of the culture. Doing your job the way you're expected to is hardly wrongdoing. Why would the institutional culture suddenly change? (Turf wars are not a safe topic for 9/11 Truthers, incidentally.)

James Bamford claims that the law not only permitted the sharing of information about known terrorists inside the USA, it required the sharing of information, and they didn't do it.

Too bad he doesn't seem to cite the law he's talking about.

If the intelligence failures were a result of wrongdoing -- abuse of discretion, acting outside of authority, acts or omissions inconsistent with one's duties, etc. -- then you might be onto something. But there's no evidence of such wrongdoing. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

 
At 12 July, 2011 00:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the book isn't closed until the widows' 273 questions are answered.

DK, you weren't old enough to take drugs back in the '60's and neither was I.

RGT, I'm sure Bamford can cite the laws he's talking about. His book is a textbook at the Defense Intelligence College.

There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing. See Kevin Fenton's book "Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 was Allowed to Happen".

 
At 12 July, 2011 09:58, Blogger TANSTAAFL said...

"The operation of flying the bin Ladens out before they could be questioned by the FBI was made famous by Michael Moore in that year."

Lie.

 
At 12 July, 2011 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

It wasn't made famous by Michael Moore? Who was it made famous by?

We've already been over this. Dale Watson, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, says the Saudis on the planes were "not subject to serious interviews or interrogations” before they left.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310?currentPage=3

Was Mr. Watson lying?

 
At 12 July, 2011 15:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the book isn't closed until the widows' 273 questions are answered.

The widows have no questions.

DK, you weren't old enough to take drugs back in the '60's and neither was I.

So you took insane amounts of drugs in the 70s and it left you the paranoid, incompetent wreck you are.

It wasn't made famous by Michael Moore? Who was it made famous by?

It wasn't made famous because nobody cares about it.

 
At 12 July, 2011 17:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie, Ian.

As I recall, Moore got the academy award for that year. Sounds pretty famous to me.

 
At 12 July, 2011 18:08, Blogger Ian said...

You lie, Ian.

False.

As I recall, Moore got the academy award for that year. Sounds pretty famous to me.

What? Brian, it would really help if you learned to read. It might make you less confused about 9/11.

We're not talking about Michael Moore, who is famous. We're talking about the bin Laden family leaving the country after 9/11, which nobody cares about.

 
At 12 July, 2011 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

He got the academy award for making famous the fact that the Saudis flew out without any serious questioning.

 
At 12 July, 2011 18:44, Blogger Ian said...

He got the academy award for making famous the fact that the Saudis flew out without any serious questioning.

False.

 
At 12 July, 2011 19:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, you are lawyering for the defense. Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot was known to involve crashing hijacked airliners into buildings. There were warnings from 13 foreign countries of upcoming attacks, many of them involving aircraft. "The System was Blinking Red"

I would love to see Al Qaeda sue you for the Bojinka plot lie. The plot was to blow up 747s out of the Philippines over the Pacific. They set off one bomb but luckily it didn't bring down the plane (killed som guy though). It had nothing to do with hijacking airliners. The terrorist wasn't even on the plane when the bomb went off.

"You can't even spell "buffoon", buffoon. Are the Russians paying you to make debunkers look bad?"

Nope, just proving a point.

"George Tenet thought Rice could have prevented 9/11 had she acted on the warnings."

Then why didn't Tenet act unilaterally? If it was so fucking clear then why didn't Tenet send a CIA SOG team after the hijackers? Why didn't he call a news conference? The CIA doesn't need the NSC's permission to protect American lives if they are in direct danger.

 
At 12 July, 2011 19:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"He got the academy award for making famous the fact that the Saudis flew out without any serious questioning."

He got the Oscar because Hollywood is full of idealogical morons. It made them feel like they made a politcal statement without actually having to examine their own lives, like where does all of the gas in their limos and SUVs come from? They still take Saudi money to make their movies. They also almost single-handedly fund the cartels in Mexico that have murdered thousands.

So I wouldn't feel so great about an Oscar.

 
At 12 July, 2011 22:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. Project Bojinka involved not just blowing up airliners but also flying hijacked airliners into landmark buildings in the US, including the WTC, Pentagon, Sears Tower, and TransAmerica Pyramid.

Why didn't Tenet sent a team after the hijackers? That's what we need to know! The obvious answer is that he didn't need to, because Rice was a Teflon insulator. Where would you get the idea that the CIA wants to protect American lives?

 
At 13 July, 2011 08:09, Blogger sabba said...

Brian C. Good, the lying bitch saysWhere would you get the idea that the CIA wants to protect American lives?
From George Tenet


From Carmen Medina Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence


And almost every major Polititian

You are not to bright bitch! That is why Carol will never f@%*^ you!

 
At 13 July, 2011 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 July, 2011 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 July, 2011 12:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, I was being sarcastic. MGF is the one who thinks the CIA puts a higher priority on protecting its turf than it puts on saving American lives--because his ideology says that government is inherently corrupt and incompetent and that's how it should be.

MGF's philosophies lead him to have contempt not only for democracy and the American people, but also for people who make sacrifices for public service. He only admires crooks like Willie Fraudriguez.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home