LIHOP Offensive Summer 2011: The 10th Anniversary Push - The beginning or the end?

gretavo's picture

Well here they go-the curtain goes up, the actors in place, and we find them bickering like a healthily cognitively diverse group.  Some believe Richard Clarke is the harbinger of a flood of truth, others worry that his truths are being delivered in as confusing a manner as possible to keep everyone bickering, and a token believer in controlled demolition (and, alas, the nanothermite honeypot) is there to absorb the LIHOPpers abuse.  This thread will be preserved, like others, so that when the real truth is known, people can come to their own conclusioins about what each of these characters' motivation was in perhaps the final official act of the drama known as 9/11.

 

 

White House Terror Chief Alleges CIA 9/11 Malfeasance, Cover Up in New Interview: PBS Colorado’s Exclusive Ignites Battle Among

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 11, 2011 Press Contact: Robert Boutton (323) 300-5376 www.SecrecyKills.com In
a never-before-seen interview, Richard Clarke, former White House
Counterterror “Tsar” to Presidents Clinton and Bush, goes on record
about what he believes happened at CIA in the run-up to the 9/11
attacks, accusing then-CIA Director George Tenet and two of his deputies
of deliberately not informing the White House, FBI, and Defense
Department about two future hijackers inside U.S., then covering up from
the 9/11 investigations. His comments air and stream Thursday, August 11, 2010 at 7 p.m. MDT on Colorado Public Television (CPT12) and simultaneously go live on SecrecyKills.com, along with CIA reaction.

News of the premiere set off attacks on Clarke from three of those he
singled out. Tenet and former CIA officials Cofer Black and Richard
Blee, chiefs of CounterTerrorist Center and Bin Laden Station
respectively on 9/11, have issued a one-page joint statement to the
producers calling Clarke’s comments “reckless and profoundly wrong.”
Significantly, this is the only statement Blee has issued publicly since
the intelligence failure of September 11th and, indeed, the first time
his real name has been made public in the major media.

Filmmaker-journalists John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski conducted the
interview in 2009 for a documentary to be released on the 9/11 tenth
anniversary entitled “Who Is Rich Blee?”, promising further revelations
from Commission Chairman Tom Kean and other gov’t insiders, produced by
transparency advocates SecrecyKills.com
in association with media company Globalvision, winner of the George
Polk Journalism Award. They will be appearing live in-studio on
Thursday night to introduce the footage and discuss.

CPT12 obtained world premiere rights after being the first PBS
affiliate to air the filmmakers’ 2006 documentary Press For Truth, an
event that brought the station both controversy and national attention.
That movie received favorable reviews during its brief theatrical run
and has aired on national public television in Spain, Norway, and
Poland, also Al Jazeera and Australia’s History Channel, telling the
story of four Sept 11th widows who battled the Bush White House for the
creation of the 9/11 Commission.

CIA’s failure to tell FBI about the Jan. 2000 U.S. entry of Khalid
Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi has been well-known since the
Congressional Inquiry of 2002. Hazmi and Mihdhar allegedly served a
leadership role in the 9/11 plot and were on the plane that crashed into
the Pentagon. Richard Clarke now sheds considerable new light on the
incident.

“To this day it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail
about everything related to terrorism, the Director [Tenet] didn’t tell
me, the Director of CounterTerrorism Center [Black] didn’t tell me, the
other forty-eight people at CIA who knew about it never mentioned it to
me or anyone in my staff in a period of over twelve months,” explains
Clarke. “We therefore conclude that there was a high level decision in
the CIA ordering people not to share that information.”

Tenet, Black, and Blee were each promoted or awarded after the
attacks and went on to be connected to various Bush-era scandals. All
have so far refused the producers’ requests to detail their sides of the
story.

Joint Statement: George J. Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee

Joint Statement from George J. Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee
August 3, 2011

Richard Clarke was an able public servant who served his country well
for many years. But his recently released comments about the run up to
9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong.

Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the
travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally
withheld from him in early 2000. It was not.

He wildly speculates that it must have been the CIA Director who
could have ordered the information withheld. There was no such order. In
fact, the record shows that the Director and other senior CIA officials
were unaware of the information until after 9/11.

The handling of the information in question was exhaustively looked
at by the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry, the CIA
Inspector General and other groups.

The 9/11 Commission quite correctly concluded that “...no one
informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA about the
case.”

In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI
agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who
later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not
adequately recognized at the time.

Since 9/11 many systemic changes have been made to improve the
watchlisting process and enhance information sharing within and across
agencies.

Building on his false notion that information was intentionally
withheld, Mr. Clarke went on to speculate--which he admits is based on
nothing other than his imagination--that the CIA might have been trying
to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what
Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation.

Many years after testifying himself at length before the 9/11
Commission and writing several books but making no mention of his wild
theory, Mr. Clarke has suddenly invented baseless allegations which are
belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration.

We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn't know. We stand by that testimony.

EDIT: source: http://www.secrecykills.com/#joint_statement

correcting the record

Clarke finds it impossible to believe that
Tenet and Black were in the dark about the efforts of Rich Blee and Tom
Wilshire, w/ the help of some subordinates, to deliberately prevent the
FBI from learning that Khalid Almihdhar had a US visa, and Nawaf Alhazmi
and a "companion" had traveled to the US in Jan 2000. At the time, NSA
and CIA had reason to believe these two were connected to Al Qaeda's
communications hub in Yemen; the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa
which had killed over 200; and a summit involving high-level Al Qaeda
operatives that had just taken place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

However, as Kevin Fenton documents in his book Disconnecting the
Dots, there is no public documentary evidence that Tenet and Black were
made aware of the presence in the US of these two, prior to Aug 22,
2001, and they may, in fact, have been unaware - or at least, they may
have indicated to Blee and Wilshire that they did not want any
documentary record of their being informed.

"In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI
agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who
later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not
adequately recognized at the time."

It is false that "the significance of the data was not adequately
recognized at the time." It is clear that Alec Station Deputy Chief
Wilshire was aware of the significance of the data, because at the time
it was learned that Almihdhar had a US visa, he instructed his
subordinate, "Michelle", to tell FBI detailee Doug Miller, who had
recognized the significance of the data and was preparing to inform the
FBI in a cable, that he was not to pass the info on to the FBI.

Shortly after that, Michelle sent a cable to several CIA stations
informing them the info had been passed to the FBI, though it had not.
The normal procedure when CIA passes info to the FBI is that there is
not only a record that it was done, there is a record that CIA checked
to confirm receipt; this documentation doesn't exist, and CIA does not
claim it does.

A CIA detailee to FBI, James, briefed two FBI agents, who were not
CIA liaisons, about the Kuala Lumpur meeting - but failed to brief them
on the only info that would be of particular interest to the FBI; that
Almihdhar had a US visa. When another CIA officer was about to tell
another FBI agent about these events, James briefed that FBI agent
himself, and told the CIA officer he didn't need to brief him. James was
clear in his report about what he did and did not say.

It is unclear who may have read CIA Bangkok station's March cable at
the time re: Alhazmi and companion (Almihdhar) had traveled to the US,
but the DOJ IG report notes a CIA cable in response that it had been
read "with interest." Wilshire did read this in May 2001, during the
beginning of the period when reports were mounting of an impending Al
Qaeda attack, and did not pass the info to the FBI, or do anything else
with it apparently, even though his own emails in July, which Blee
almost certainly received, make clear he believed Almihdhar would be
connected to the upcoming attack.

Clarke surmises the reason this info was deliberately withheld was to
protect an illegal CIA operation to infiltrate Al Qaeda in the US.
Tenet, Black and Blee flatly deny this, and they may be right; Kevin's
documentation and analysis shows that the more probable explanation is
that Blee and/or Wilshire were deliberate preventing the FBI from
discovering and disrupting the 9/11 plot so that it could go forward.
Even after the CIA began to pass on some info to the FBI in August 2001,
Wilshire withheld other info and took steps to undermine FBI
investigations.

"Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the
travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally
withheld from him in early 2000. It was not."

Even if this is true, why was this info not shared w/ him after Aug
22, 2001 when Tenet, Black and the FBI were officially made aware of it?

This Tenet-Black-Blee statement is very carefully worded, but does
not get to the heart of the issues, and does not get any of these people
off the hook for their pre-9/11 'failures' and their obfuscations
during the subsequent inquiries. They need to testify in public, under
oath, with questions posed by an investigative body that is not
compromised and riddled with conflicts of interest, the way the others
were, especially the 9/11 Commission.

Interesting To A Point ... But Be Wary

If one does enough research, they will conclude
that those who have occupied the highest federal positions are likely
complicit accessories to the misdeeds and cover-ups they commit, aided
by top-down appointments throughout all federal agencies by the corrupt
executive branch. Is Clarke an authentic whistleblower or simply someone
dispatched to mislead those pursuing what really happened on 9/11?

Will Clarke go further and admit the possibility that 9/11 was
another of the many "black-ops" organized by western interests for
decades or that the accused may have just been patsies in such a
"black-op"?

Very doubtful.

Questions

Aidan Monaghan said..."Is Clarke an authentic
whistleblower or simply someone dispatched to mislead those pursuing
what really happened on 9/11?"

Perhaps he was hired as a lobbyist by the LIHOPERS (fake truthers) ??
Another question....Perhaps Richard Clarke and Bob Graham were the ones
working the phones to the victims families using their nifty new voice
morphing technology in order to "fool" people with "fake" phone calls?
Just asking questions right? Perhaps some people suffer from a condition
called paranoia and anyone with a government job is a suspect of 9-11?
Just asking questions.

Curious Contradictions ...

How does one support the official conspiracy theory while claiming to seek the truth about 9/11?

More questions?

Aidan Monaghan said..."How does one support the official conspiracy theory while claiming to seek the truth about 9/11?"

Easy, and I've already said how.....

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-09/why-i-support-official-story

How does one support seeking the truth while falling for and promoting nonsense and BS conspiracy theories?

Authorities Regularly Prosecute Criminal "Conspiracies"

Perhaps one day there will be a Wikipedia page for "Truth Seeking Supporters of Official Stories".

Sounds sarcastic

Aidan Monaghan said..."Perhaps one day there will be a Wikipedia page for "Truth Seeking Supporters of Official Stories".

The truth shall set you free and the truth is that is a sarcastic remark

Love is the way forward and sometimes love means not making double
standards so obvious (Please tone down the sarcasm, it is not
appropriate anywhere on this site.

Thanks.)

BTW- The R Clarke interview is on youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bl6w1YaZdf8

Maybe..

Sounds more desperate than sarcastic to me.

Aiden takes his own paranoia and sculpts a very warped reality from
it. His demeanor and line of inquiry are disgusting to me; they
certainly match his disdain for *real* researchers and activists, but
his whole display gives away his real motive: to discredit anything that
doesn't fit into his sculpture. That's the difference between real
researchers and conspiracy theorists. My advice would be to follow
wherever the evidence leads, even if it doesn't fit exactly into ones
exceedingly warped view of reality.

This is a very important development that activists and researchers should not ignore.

Yup

This --> "That's the difference between
real researchers and conspiracy theorists. My advice would be to follow
wherever the evidence leads, even if it doesn't fit exactly into ones
exceedingly warped view of reality."

It's true that we've seen a constant stream of calm but actually
quite nasty attacks by A.M. over the years, in threads relating to the
Pentagon, remote control, CD, some personal feuds erupted, A.M. vs J.G.
.. I hope we can leave all that behind us at some point, but hope as
they say, is a disease. We're all human, and frustrations do mount
between certain people and groups.

But this is the ... how many times now have pre 9/11 intelligence
research postings been spoiled with these "no hijacker" discussions?
It's A.M. full right to voice his disapproval, it's just getting a
little old. Sorry A.M. I'm sure the feeling is mutual ;-)

Jimd3100 -

Please tone down the sarcasm, it is not appropriate anywhere on this site.

Thanks.

John

I hope you realize that the predictable
deprecation of what should be considered major breakthroughs is
frustrating. How many good researchers have been dismissed like this
simply because they did not deviate from the official story far enough?

We're ten years after 9/11 now. In order to move forward, we have to
start snapping people out of the reflexive responses that anything that
does not rhyme with no hijacker theory must be suspect. I see it the
other way around: I feel no hijacker theories/hijackers alive theories
are unsustainable. Many truthers would have known this had they have had
the stomach to engage and read the material of the most prolific
debunkers, to see if certain claims really pass muster. I have read
articles about the hijackers family members, attempted to backtrack the
lives of the 19 suspects and seen interviews with people who saw some
hijackers board, and I don't accept that the phone calls were fake. For
various reasons, but Erik Larson's piece
speaks for itself. I'm happy he wrote it, but I'm not that happy about
what that means for some 9/11 Truth Movement hobbyhorse claims, which
have to be withdrawn and conceded, at the expense of - yet again! - our
credibility as a single movement.

Nobody has even bothered to analyze the audio from Betty Ong and
Ceecee Lyles. Yet we have the nerve to dismiss them as forgeries. Do we
have the discipline to attempt to falsify anything other than the OCT,
like our own work? Because if we succeed, that is a huge credibility
blow, the magnitude of which is determined by the length of promotion
times the pervasiveness, not to mention the leaders/personalities with
whom such debunked claims come to be associated, permanently damaging
reputations.

You see what happens when Erik Larson takes on these claims and shows
them to be without merit. How many times do we have to go through that
again? How much credibility hits can we take? Should I write an essay
even half as capable and thorough, what impact would it have other than:
seen it, don't believe it? I've seen enough of that with the Pentagon
question. The level of cerebral denial is absolutely absurd. So much so
that I'm inclined to just stop providing data and demand that the other side fulfill the onus which rests on their
shoulders, not ours. Disbelief and rejection of data does not support
specific alternative explanations, the best such rejection can achieve
is uncertainty. Yet that is not what I and others see. We see
declarative statements. By 'we' I mean a certain contingent of truthers
which is concerned about the lack of research professionalism in certain
quarters. That lack of professionalism, mind you, eventually makes its
way onto street signs, stickers, Youtube videos, public statements by
celebrity truthers and press interviews. And I reiterate: it causes a
widespread hostility, both latent and blatant, towards researchers like
John Judge, Robert Schopmeyer, Paul Thompson, Kevin Fenton, Jon Gold,
John Albanese, Jeff Hill, Jimd3100, and others.

Beware of the false equivalence: theories are not created equal, they
ought to be evaluated against certain evidentiary standards. Many
theories still float around which fail this evaluation, but are still
promoted as sound. The ultimate consequence is that these flawed or even
flat out mistaken beliefs cause truthers to reject and ostracize the
most important, most professional researchers we have. Should we reserve
more criticism for the reflexive deniers who often insinuate,
snitchjacket, ridicule and cast aspersions, baselessly? I think so.
(I've been snitchjacketed so many times, I lost count) I understand
Jim's frustration, because this is an endless recycling of stagnant
discussion, and I'm far from impressed by the tunnel vision and narrow,
myopic arguments which purport to 'expose' this excellent research as a
'red herring', 'limited hangout' or 'psyop diversion'.

"Will Clarke go further and

"Will Clarke go further and admit the
possibility that 9/11 was another of the many "black-ops" organized by
western interests for decades or that the accused may have just been
patsies in such a "black-op"?

Very doubtful."

I agree, doubtful. However, admitting to that possibility isn't
evidence that it was, and evidence is what's needed to convince rational
people and convict criminals.

This episode is significant cuz Richard Clarke, a long-time
Establishment insider who's never been partisan, is laying out "a set of
facts" that is deadly to the official conspiracy theory. Then he's
proposed what he says is the only explanation he can come up w/; that
the CIA was conducting an illegal surveillance operation in the US, they
screwed up and tried to cover their ass and 9/11 happened, then lied
their way thru the official inquiries. As I said, Kevin has done a good
job of showing why the infiltration theory falls short and that it's
more probable that the FBI was blocked so the plot could go fwd; the CIA
not sharing everything it knew and Wilshire/Corsi undermining the FBI
agents who wanted to open a criminal investigation are evidence that
Clarke is wrong.

Tenet-Black-Blee ignore most of the points Clarke raised, however,
indicating they have no good answers to his facts and certain questions;
the CIA allegedly discovered on 8/22/01 what had been in its records
for a year and 1/2; Al Qaeda operatives connected to the 1998 embassy
bombing, Yemen hub and Kuala Lumpur summit - and then the Cole bombing
Oct 2000- were in the US and Wilshire believed at least one would be
connected to the next attack - yet day after day after day after day
until 9/11, this info was allegedly not shared w/ George "running around
w/ my hair on fire" Tenet or Cofer Black, it was not shared w/ Clarke,
or Rice or Bush or anyone else responsible for national security, and
this was during a 'summer of threat' when a massive al Qaeda attack on
US interests was expected.

Why? It's a huge question and the official inquires danced around or
ignored it. Treason is the elephant in the room, just based on this.
This alone is grounds for a full inquiry, and of course it should go
everywhere evidence leads. But simply acknowledging the fraud of the OCT
should be reason enough for people to support alternatives to the Dems
and Reps and the corporations that own them.

Reply to loose nuke

This information was shared with Tenet, Black
and Blee, on August 23, 2001. DE #939 proves this. The book "Prior
Knowledge of 9/11" first released in December 2006, describes every bit
of this information, and even has information apparently still unknown
by Clarke on Mihdhar and Hazmi.

It also turns out that this information was in fact given to the
FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30, 2001,
they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even though
it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this information
to Bongardt and his team.

Both the CIA and the FBI HQ knew by not sharing this information with
Bongardt and his team, and by shutting down this one investigation that
could have prevented the attacks these agencies knew were about to
occur, that they were condemning thousands of Americans to be murdered
by these al Qaeda terrorists.

questions for rschop

rschop: "This information was shared with Tenet, Black and Blee, on August 23, 2001. DE #939 proves this."

What in DE 939 proves this; i'm not seeing it: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/939...

rschop: "It also turns out that this information was in fact given to
the FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30,
2001, they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even
though it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this
information to Bongardt and his team."

What specific info are you referring to, that was given to FBI HQ?

What is the specific criminal offense involved in not giving this info to Bondgardt/team?

Reply to loose nuke

DE #939 says Gillespie, aka Mary, had the CIA
Bin Laden unit issue an alert indicating Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside
of the US, to the rest of the CIA on August 23, 2001. The Bin Laden unit
was run by Blee, who would have had to sign off on this alert. Blee and
Black were close, so this alert would have gone to Black, who was close
to Tenet, so this alert would also have gone to Tenet.

The fact that Tenet tried desperately to keep secret his meeting with
the President on August 24, 2001, even lying to the 9/11 commission is
proof in my book that he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on
August 24, 2001, and even knew they were inside of the US to take part
in the massive al Qaeda attacks the CIA had been warned about since
April 2001. Incredible this meeting was announced right in a White House
Press release.

"It also turns out that this information was in fact given to the
FBI, but even though the FBI HQ had this information by August 30, 2001,
they never shared it with FBI Agent Bongardt and his team, even though
it was in fact a serious criminal offense not to give this information
to Bongardt and his team."

According to the DOJ IG report the photo of Walid Bin Attash taken at
Kuala Lumpur was sent to Rod Middleton by the CIA on August 30, 2001.
This photo was proof that Mihdhar and Hazmi, who the CIA and FBI HQ also
knew were at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, had taken part in the planning
of the Cole bombing. Hence Corsi, and Middleton who had shut down
Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi on August 28-29 knew
Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in a crime, a crime which had rendered
the wall null and void. When Corsi and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s
investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi they both clearly knew by August 30,
2001 that they had no legal right to do this and that they were
criminally with holding material information from an ongoing FBI
criminal investigation. They both knew they were in fact committing a
very serious federal felony, a crime that could send them to prison for
years.

cont.

rschop: "DE #939 says Gillespie, aka Mary, had
the CIA Bin Laden unit issue an alert indicating Mihdhar and Hazmi were
inside of the US, to the rest of the CIA on August 23, 2001."

I'm not seeing that anywhere in DE939, which is slightly over 3 pgs; please provide a quote and pg #.

Considering Tenet's interest in this kind of info, it seems he would
have wanted to know about Almihdhar/Alhazmi visas and US travel, and his
subordinates should have known that he would be. The rebuttal statement
doesn't say he wasn't informed of this info after Gillespie uncovered
it Aug 22 2001, it only says it wasn't recognized as significant in Jan
2000, which isn't true, and that it wasn't intentionally withheld, which
is questionable - this could be a lie on a number of levels; perhaps it
wasn't withheld, perhaps he was unofficially briefed, perhaps, as
Fenton suggests, Blee did this in conjunction w/ CIA alums and MIC
allies and shut Black and Tenet out of the loop. I asked you about this
before, and you didn't provide documentary evidence they were informed;
you just argued that it isn't believable they didn't know.

Middleton learned Aug 23 that Almihdhar had traveled to the US and
recalled it as an "Oh, shit" moment - but w/ Corsi going to bat for an
intel as opposed to criminal investigation, Middleton signed off on
that. Perhaps he'd thought it thru, he certainly should have, seems he
was at least negligent in not doing so, but I don't see the evidence,
let alone proof, that his intent was to obstruct a criminal
investigation.

Clarke's Claims Seemingly Absolve Very Suspect WH, FBI & DoD

From original post:

Clarke accuses "then-CIA Director George Tenet and two of his
deputies of deliberately not informing the White House, FBI, and Defense
Department about two future hijackers inside U.S., then covering up
from the 9/11 investigations."

If anything, Clarke's allegations seem to absolve the White House, FBI and DoD from liability or complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, the White House pre-9/11 was preparing to launch resource
wars requiring a "new Pearl Harbor", FBI management was inexplicably
blocking pre-9/11 agent investigations of Moussaui that could have at
least interrupted the 9/11 operation by obstructing the accused and
DoD's Rumsfeld was allied with the very suspect PNAC group.

Surprising that claims by anyone of Clarke's stature and proximity to
suspect powers, could be so widely and quickly embraced by some within
the skeptics community, especially in light of the contradictory nature
of these claims. One is reminded of another administration figure Morgan
Reynolds, who quickly gained a following by openly questioning the
offical 9/11 account and later proved to be a most misleading figure.

Reynolds

was a suddenly blossoming no planer. He had
little to bring to the table, his contribution to this movement was in
his stature. There are more like him. Dick Clarke is not one of them,
because he has stature but has also been personally touched and
humiliated by the Bush administration, in fact, callously BLAMED for
9/11 by Dick Cheney.

What to expect from Clarke? He will not become a truther in the
orthodox sense. Obviously not. He may even distance himself. But he is a
piece of the puzzle, and a can opener which just might let the worms
out.

Context

Aidan: "Clarke's allegations seem to absolve the White House, FBI and DoD from liability or complicity in the 9/11 attacks."

Sure; Clarke presents a limited set of facts and a theory based on
those facts, which only throws Tenet, Black, Blee and up to 47
subordinates under the bus. Clarke says it's the only theory he can come
up w/, based on that self-selected, limited set of facts; he apparently
is unable/unwilling to consider the possibility the obstruction was
done in order to facilitate the attacks - at least, if he considered it,
he didn't bother to explain how/why he ruled it out, and,
unfortunately, he wasn't asked about it.

Aidan: "Surprising that claims by anyone of Clarke's stature and
proximity to suspect powers, could be so widely and quickly embraced by
some within the skeptics community, especially in light of the
contradictory nature of these claims. One is reminded of another
administration figure Morgan Reynolds, who quickly gained a following by
openly questioning the offical 9/11 account and later proved to be a
most misleading figure."

Is this a very subtle form of snitchjacketing, or what are you getting at here, Aidan?

It's a fact that Clarke is a high-level Establishment insider w/ a
decades-long career in govt. It's a fact that he's alleging there was an
illegal CIA operation, and attempts to hide it from him/other
principals directly contributed to 9/11. He's accused Tenet-Black-Blee
of perjury. His statements undermine the official inquiries; the set of
facts he's presented are not in dispute - as I noted above,
Tenet-Black-Blee did not dispute that he wasn't informed, they focused
on the early part of 2000 and what they said about importance not
recognized is demonstrably false, and they ignored Clarke's charge that
he and other national security principals were never briefed about it
[EDIT: following Aug 22].

Who is claiming Clarke is trustworthy, or that a 9/11 investigation
must begin and end w/ his allegations? No one here, that I see; so why
are you implying otherwise? Do you think only WTC destruction and remote
plane control should be investigated; that any crimes committed by
people in the CIA and FBI should not? You've made some legitimate
points, but much of your criticism is focused on points that aren't
being made by people in this thread; you're making a strawman argument.

Strong But Limited Support For Clarke's Own Conspiracy Theory

Loose Nuke: "Sure; Clarke presents a limited set of facts and a theory based on those facts"

You have recently lectured me on the importance of "hard" evidence, but now lend great support to the conspiracy theories of ... Richard Clarke.

"Who is claiming Clarke is trustworthy, or that a 9/11 investigation
must begin and end w/ his allegations? No one here, that I see; so why
are you implying otherwise?"

A very big deal has been unnecessarily made of Clarke's
problematic allegations by some here. Some have even characterized these
as "explosive". Why?

"Is this a very subtle form of snitchjacketing or what are you getting at here"

Please ... the same could be said of this very question of yours. The comment you refer to speaks for itself.

It would probably be best

If Richard Clarke explained it to you himself. This isn't some "conspiracy theory".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6vIum4jUNA#t=44m20s

When you refer to "explosive", I presume you mean buildings
exploding. Nothing else exists. You are obsessive and you are waging a
vendetta.

The reality is, and this has been made abundantly clear by Duffy
& Nowosielski, that it is equally likely that everything revolved
around a protection net for the 9/11 hijackers. You know, those swell
guys you folks allege are dead, fake, alive, Israeli double agents,
horrible pilots and patsies at the same time.

So why is this explosive?

BECAUSE IT PROVES THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT A SHAMELESS FRAUD. THEY ALL LIED. UNDER OATH.

Loose Nuke: One of your better comments

This is one of your better comments, loose
nuke, The significance of it all just hit me in a profound way,
especially due to this part:

(...) the CIA allegedly discovered on 8/22/01 what had been in its
records for a year and 1/2; Al Qaeda operatives connected to the 1998
embassy bombing, Yemen hub and Kuala Lumpur summit - and then the Cole
bombing Oct 2000- were in the US and Wilshire believed at least one
would be connected to the next attack - yet day after day after day
after day until 9/11, this info was allegedly not shared w/ George
"running around w/ my hair on fire" Tenet or Cofer Black, it was not
shared w/ Clarke, or Rice or Bush or anyone else responsible for
national security, and this was during a 'summer of threat' when a
massive al Qaeda attack on US interests was expected.

Is it your opinion that Ali Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo?
Or is this well known already? I just cross-referenced it on Wikipedia
and it appears to be a (fuzzy) match.

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [redacted] service
at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's
access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed, (??? ????) (born June 3, 1952) is a double
agent[1] who worked for both the CIA and Egyptian Islamic Jihad
simultaneously, reporting on the workings of each for the benefit of the
other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed

Just wanted to verify that. If that's the case, I never knew until just now.

Ali and PDB

SnowCrash: "Is it your opinion that Ali Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo? Or is this well known already?"

I hadn't thought about that before let alone researched it, but it's
possible and it would be useful to know the name of the operative - I'm
unaware if anyone has come up w/ anything on this.

I would also like to know exactly what specific "FBI information
since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this
country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of
attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New
York."

afaik, that has not come out the suspicious activity could be what
was in the Phoenix Memo, the intel Sibel Edmonds said the Iranian asset
provided about Al Qaeda targeting US cities w/ planes and/or other info
that has never come out - anyone got more info on this? It is somewhat
related to the OP...

A primary source

Snowcrash said....."Is it your opinion that Ali
Mohamed is the informant in the PDB memo? Or is this well known
already? I just cross-referenced it on Wikipedia and it appears to be a
(fuzzy) match."

"And Mohamed was one of the primary sources for the infamous Aug. 6,
2001, Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike
In U.S."
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/unlocking911-1-ali-mohamed-911.html#_ednref1

Pinch me

Someone working for the CIA, FBI and Special Forces was Bin Laden's attack vector of choice to attack the USA?

Here's that line from the Aug. 6 PDB again:

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [redacted] service
at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's
access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Ok.... Now....Let me adjust that sentence in the PDB to reflect reality a little better:

"An CIA/FBI/Special Forces asset told an Egyptian service at the
same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the CIA/FBI/Special
Forces asset's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Do I have that about right? This is... has this ever been discussed
at length Jim? I recall your piece about Ali Mohamed, but I can't
remember this being mentioned. Very good piece though. I can't imagine
this hasn't been written about by 9/11 researchers? Nafeez Ahmed?

This just takes my breath away. Literally. Erik, you didn't know this? Seems pretty important, how about Kevin?

Well, this QUITE explains why Ali Mohamed has vanished from the face of the earth, doesn't it?

Hell yes!

Hoo hoo hoo! ;-)

Truthout...

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up

http://www.truth-out.org/former-counterterrorism-czar-accuses-tenet-othe...

Reader Supported News The Daily Beast

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.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/142-142/6988-fo...

WOW

This is heavy! Please see the teaser vids from Secrecy Kills:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FF4Films#p/u

Also see this post by Kevin Fenton revealing "Richard Blee" back in 09:
"Identity Of CIA Officer Responsible For Pre-9/11 Failures, Tora Bora Escape, Rendition To Torture Revealed"
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-11/identity-cia-officer-responsible-p...

I am proud to say that Truth Be Told Comics has been able to secure a
page in the 9/11 comic to promote the "Who is Rich Blee?" campaign and
"Press for Truth"!

Ah how nice

to see the squirming ratchet up. Soon they will be beging for truth and reconciliation proceedings instead of treason trials.

explosive news?

I wonder if this is part of the explosive news jon gold was talking about. Looking forward to this broadcast.

dtg

quite sure it is

quite sure it is

Limited hang-out or distraction?

I don't know, there's something about the
characters involved and the timing of this that strikes me as contrived
and diversionary.

Richard Clarke versus Tenet/Black/Blee? Deep Insiders provide an
interesting conflict that hooks and diverts attention on the 10th
anniversary?

Convoluted, insider squabbling - who knew what, when? Lots of minutiae to keep everyone busy and wondering?

It seems

pursuing one conspiracy threatens the pursuit
of another, and therefore the entire evidence record documenting these
facts must be dismissed as fake. Actual hijackers? Heavens no. This
truth movement MUST be centered around the Hollywood false flag scenario
with all kinds of nifty evil empire gadgets, special effects, science
fiction-like military technology deployed to fool us about every single
aspect of 9/11. 70% (wild estimate) of History Commons MUST be a farçe.
Let's not read it. Some of it contradicts cherished beliefs, and the
right route is to reject as much of the official narrative as possible.
The more you reject, the closer you are to the truth...Correct? Islamic
terrorism does not exist, Al Qaeda does not exist, dead fake Bin Laden
thawed from Alex Jones' freezer... it's not just that it's loopy, it's
just not true. The only excuse for continuing to promote these memes is
willful ignorance, belief perseverance, religious mental rigidity, lack
of insight in skeptical philosophy and the historical method... and
confirmation bias. Debunkers were right about requesting direct
evidence: could have does not equate to must have.

For me, pursuing this information is a question of maturity. I don't
have the luxury of dismissing everything I wish to ignore as fake
anymore. Maturity, formed by years of research experience. Knowing how
to separate the wheat from the chaff. Knowing when the threshold for
factuality has been reached and surpassed. This is not gullibility. This
is maturity. There comes a point where you just have to stop and think:
"What exactly would I have to deny, which witnesses would I have to
involve in the plot, what insanely difficult hoops does my theory have
to jump through to hold?" Is this really plausible? Realistic? Have I
really considered all the caveats?

Yeah, nanothermite and hijackers can coexist. Not only logically, but
that is what the evidence demands. It's about what you see in the
evidence, both in CD research and in "hijackers and the FBI/CIA"
research. I reject the rejection of one in favor of the other, because
of the stubborn misconception that they are mutually exclusive. In order
for this movement to make progress, this realization ought to find its
way into the collective activist consciousness. If not, we will continue
to see arguments like yours crop up and good researchers dismissed.
Really, I understand some see this work as a threat, because it collides
with David Ray Griffins oeuvre. Yet David's style is one of conjecture,
and the risk is extremely high that this will result in a theory
eventually fatally contradicted by the facts. It has happened, it will
continue to happen, and unless you study the arguments of the other side
with enough interest, then some day you will be taken by surprise, in
the middle of a debate.

Demolition Plot Jeopardized By Imperfect Aircraft Control

"Nanothermite and hijackers can coexist. Not only logically, but that is what the evidence
demands. It's about what you see in the evidence, both in CD research
and in "hijackers and the FBI/CIA" research. I reject the rejection of
one in favor of the other, because of the stubborn misconception that
they are mutually exclusive."

Any plot would logically rely on the most reliable and
available means of execution. GPS guided autopilot systems are more
reliable and available than inexperienced hijacker pilots. What if any
hijacker takeovers and cockpit intrusions had been thwarted? Any
demolition plot could not have proceeded.

What evidence is there of hijacker control of the 9/11
aircraft? No witnesses, images, confessions or other valid evidence of
them behind the controls. Just two Flight Data Recorders with critically
important and absent inventory control serial numbers.

Evidence of hijacker control

Resides in the hijacker DNA found at the Pentagon, and the erratic flight movements after hijack in AA 77.

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of remote control in the
case of the AA 11 and UA 175 hits, only reasonable disbelief. Disbelief
and falsification can only achieve a state of uncertainty, it cannot, in
this case as in others, provide direct evidence for a single highly specific alternative narrative.

Your pitfall: in debate, somebody claims Atta's approach was straight
and easy, while Al-Shehhi simply 'got lucky'. Exactly how are you going
to refute this? By citing your papers for the Journal Of Nine-Eleven
Studies which demonstrate that remote control could have been possible, since all the necessary boundary conditions, such as availability of GPS guided systems, were present?

That's all well and good: your opponent might agree with you that it
could have been technically achieved, but could have relates to a possibility, not an empirical fact. I have my doubts about UA 175's hit and I make no secret of that.

Also, I could likewise posit that the most logical plot would
be one with patsies who actually believe in what they are doing and are
unaware of the shadow assistance they are receiving. How 'beautifully'
(in reality, obviously very ugly) does it all fall into place: you have
panicky phone calls, hijacker DNA, you have martyr videos and a
terrorist organization claiming responsibility.

If they miss, you remove the energetic materials in a post-attack
fireproofing revision, due to "new circumstances and novel threat
assessments", which "require additional strengthening of building safety
features".

So yes, there is direct evidence of hijacker control of 9/11
aircraft, from DNA, radio transmissions, phone calls, and AA 77's FDR
data, showing an inexperienced flight pattern. Did I forget UA 93's
cockpit voice recorder? How could you have missed that?

Your response will be: I don't trust the chain of custody, it could
easily have been faked, etc. etc. ... but this is all personal
incredulity and distrust, and that does not constitute evidence for
remote control, just evidence for your disbelief.

And just to be clear: I appreciate your work on the remote control
topic. However, I sense an unwillingness in you to peruse the voluminous
records that suggest actual hijacker involvement and flight training.
Or would you like to explain how a non-existent, non-hijacker,
non-training Hani Hanjour could possibly be used in a pro-9/11 truth
argument to establish his poor flying credentials? Either you accept his
existence or you don't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

P.S. -- I did not vote you down. But I do disagree with you.

P.P.S. I accidentally overlooked that "inventory control serial
numbers" remark. The FDR serial number argument is invalid. See rebuttal
#2 here.
This argument was put forth by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who didn't have a
problem with the authenticity of AA 77's flight data recorder back when
it seemed to indicate 'flyover'. But even then, logically, it could not
have supported any other path than the one ending with the location
where the FDR was found. Otherwise, the FDR would disprove its own
finding location, prove itself fraudulent and hence all the data in it
would be automatically worthless,

Evidence Or Allegations?

"So yes, there is direct evidence of hijacker
control of 9/11 aircraft, from DNA, radio transmissions, phone calls,
and AA 77's FDR data, showing an inexperienced flight pattern. Did I
forget UA 93's cockpit voice recorder? How could you have missed that?"

- The DNA proves the accused were aboard the planes, it doesn't prove they were flying them.
- It has never been proven that the alleged cockpit radio transmissions originated from any of the 9/11 flights.
- As said already, AA 77 FDR data was obtained from an FDR not assigned with important inventory control serial numbers.
- UA 93's CVR recording was also attributed to a CVR with absent inventory control serial numbers.

The "evidence" of aircraft control by the accused amount to unsupported allegations.

Evidence.

- You ought to study the Pentagon impact. The
plane hull telescoped inside out, leaving those at the cockpit at the
front of the building, and those in the back near or at the punch-out
hole. Guess whose DNA was found near the entry hole.
- Your personal incredulity. Prove the radio transmissions are fake. It
has never been proven they originated from anywhere else, either.
Besides, the phone calls came from the flights, Aidan.
- Nonsense, you just hope people won't read the explanation at Frank Legge's website.
- See above.

I'm sorry, I have to catch a breath here, I'm dizzy from all the spin.

The evidence of aircraft control and presence of hijackers STANDS
until you come up with direct positive evidence for an alternative. The
onus for proving Northwoods is on you, Aidan.

pentagon,9/11,fdr

By the way

Many of you probably know about and have
followed the regrettable discussion which took place here on 911blogger
between some skeptics and prof. Jones.

I said I would withdraw support from his work. I do still believe
that fake earthquakes and free energy are fruitless avenues of research.
The former brings no hard evidence to bear and the latter: well, while
joule thief circuits are interesting with respect to their remarkable
efficiency, they cannot achieve 'overunity', because that would violate
the laws of physics, laws which cannot be bargained with.

I also don't believe this simple circuit has unmasked a previously
unknown source of energy, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be an
overunity device, but an alternative energy source; sure it would be
fascinating, and resolving our energy dilemma is probably the most
urgent and important research topic, together with climate change. If we
fail in either one of those, we are literally not going to survive. But
overunity research is a well known pastime for the eccentric, widely
regarded as pseudoscientific and has a long history of fraudulent
inventions and inventors. And again, overunity is scientifically
impossible. There are some other bones I have to pick w.r.t. some of
prof. Jones claims, statements and methods, but overall I recognize his
sacrifice and the importance of his research.

I might have gone ahead and said that I don't support the conclusions
of the Active Thermitic Materials paper anymore. But I don't really
believe that. There is something extremely awkward going on at the WTC
site before, during and long after the WTC buildings' destruction. The
paper's core claim is exceedingly simple. The material ignites and
produces elemental iron, with oxygen molecules crossing over to the
aluminum. That is a clear-cut case of thermitic reaction. To deny it
would be unwise at this point, but it must be said that with or without
the ATM paper, there are problems with the official account which must
be resolved.

So, I accept facts from one line of inquiry (CD research), although
much must still be discussed, and I also accept the existence of AQ
hijackers. That latter is a form of blasphemy, apparently, and the
reasoning is that the first line of inquiry invalidates the other. I
still haven't seen a convincing argument why that is the case. Rather
than accepting a fallacious false dilemma, I accept the reality that the
positive evidence indicates that hijackers exist AND that
energetic materials were inside those towers. Reality and evidence trump
the 'ideal plot' argument. For reference, the 'ideal plot' argument
could be a case of the Nirvana fallacy.

Clarke's Facade

It is cleary that Clarke's explanation is off.
I thought it was great to hear Paul Thompson's comments on the live
CPT12 broadcast after the clip aired. He openly showed his doubts in
Clarkes explanation and how it didn't seem to fit with what we already
knew.

A Richard Blee press conference

could clear up the questions in an hour. Yet
for some reason he evidently doesn't believe he owes the public an
explanation. The joint CIA statement is contemptuous and bizarre.

Here is a Cofer Black comment from a Men's Journal interview:

Do you wish you had done more?

A lot of people ask, Don’t you feel responsible for 9/11? Absolutely
not. We were the only ones in the fight. We held the line and fought as
hard as we could with the resources we had. Looking back, I can’t think
of a damn thing we could have done that would have changed anything.

Cofer Black, Out of the Shadows

Paul Thompson's Comments

Hey Rightlight, what more did Paul say and what
about Clarke's explanantion did not fit with what he knew? I have been
trying to search for Paul Thompson's comments, does anyone have a link
to his comments (CPT12 website just had Clarke interview)?

also directed at noise

I may be off because I am basically
paraphrasing this from memory. Paul Thompson doesn't doubt that the CIA
withheld information; I think that is clear. He just doubts the
explanation that Clarke gave as to why the CIA decided to withhold
information. Clarke seemed to think that the CIA withheld information
for two reasons: to gain these terrorists as inside informants for the
CIA and then when this failed to sheild their own asses for not
informing the FBI and other outlets in a timely manner of the fact that
these terrorists had US visas and where inside the country. Thompson
seemed to doubt this for a few reasons and here is where I will begin to
paraphrased based on what I recall Thompson saying. First of all he
mentioned one incident where I believe an FBI agent was looking through
databases for information regarding the terrorists. He was then
disuaded to look into the credit card records of these individuals. He
also mentioned a gap of time where the CIA lost the location and
information of the terrorists for a while. Thompson also said during
that time they supposedly had contact with a Saudi who could have had
close ties with Bin Laden. At this moment the CIA should have informed
other agencies. So clearly Thompson doubts the reasons why this
information would be withheld. As I see it, Thompson may believe that
these officals that witheld information were aware of the planned attack
and wanted it to occur or they even may have had more involvement in
the actual attacks than just foreknowledge. And noise I believe that if
these individuals did speak honestly it would clear things up. I would
be somewhat comfortable if their explanation fit Clarke's conclusions.
At least then it would show that individuals were trying to do
something good by gaining these terrorists as insiders but failed to
inform anyone else so they could complete their plan and then hide their
own asses. I believe they aren't speaking because they have something
much more sinister to hide which is what I believe Thompson was hinting
at on CPT12.

Clarke briefly mentions Prince Turki

Sen. Graham and Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan
both discuss a Saudi support network for the hijackers in their recent
books. They don't make a connection between that network and the conduct
of US intelligence. Evidently we should believe US intelligence had no
idea and all the obstructed investigations were just a coincidence.

One possible scenario is that high level US officials ordered US
intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda. This is not farfetched
as FBI agents like Robert Wright have complained of interference in
relation to Saudi links to FBI terrorism investigations. Journalist Greg
Palast reported that US intelligence was restricted from pursuing Saudi
links to terrorism. Former CIA agent Robert Baer wrote a book which
detailed corrupt high level dealings between US and Saudi officials.

To put it in stark terms 9/11 could have been business as usual for
corrupt US officials. Their desire to keep the lid on corruption was
more important than the possibility of a massive terrorist attack. After
the attacks they were able to exploit a very corrupt system to turn an
act of treason into an unprecedented power grab.

Calculations for impact

Last year it was the nationalist fervor of the
Mosque at Ground Zero with images of screaming crowds, and the
artificially media boosted event of the burning of the Koran by a
preacher with no actual congregation, to keep everyone yelling about
nothing on the 9th Anniversary.

This year it's Richard Clark appearing to suddenly decide -- almost
exactly 1 month before the 10th Anniversary, despite having years to
talk about this -- to throw a bunch of others under the bus about who
knew what when about the attacks. Apparently it was decided that
something less transparent, emotional, and more connected to reality
needed to be dumped on the US public for the penultimate Anniversary.

There is only one 10th Anniversary.

These are calculated distractions that are also real events. It's best to keep both sides in mind.

The average American will have trouble walking into the house of
mirrors of which official knew what when and why, which means that many
will come away with one message from this, while it may actually be
saying something else. It helps to boil things down to what advertisers
do: Coke/Pepsi, Crest/Colgate, McDonalds/Burger King. How can the
above info be deconstructed and simplified for reading on an iphone in
about 1 minute?

Excellent comment!

Agreed, and THANK YOU (again).

Cheers!

To the best of my knowledge

To the best of my knowledge...The men behind
the interview are friends of Jon Gold and the directors of 9/11 Press
for Truth. They may have asked Clarke to wait for them to release it, I
don't know... but what are you saying Vic? How was this decision solely
in the hands of Richard Clarke and not in the hands of the directors?

I agree with you on the mosque BTW, I remember running into a
fascinating article about CIA funding (seed money) for the "Ground Zero
Mosque", and posting it
on 911blogger. Got posted on 911truthnews too, and I vaguely recall
some activists actually taking the information to the streets near GZ.
The GZ mosque controversy seemed to me like an actual,
honest-to-goodness psyop. If that was really the case, then the question
is with what specific intent: was it some kind of vague
ethnic/religious reconciliation project gone wrong, or was it a project
designed to provoke another "helpful wave of indignation"?

Anyways, if you're actually snitchjacketing the creators of 9/11
Press for Truth by proxy.... but I don't believe that... I presume you
simply distrust Clarke?

observations

I don't see making observations about the
ability of Americans to digest information to be snitchjacketing. A
chunk of hugely complicated information is suddenly eclipsing things
that average Americans cannot make heads or tails out of. If anyone was
complicating things it was Richard Clark himself.

This year it's Richard Clark

reply to Victronix -

you said:

This year it's Richard Clark appearing to suddenly decide --
almost exactly 1 month before the 10th Anniversary, despite having years
to talk about this -- to throw a bunch of others under the bus about
who knew what when about the attacks

Clarke did not come out "1 month ago".

He came out 3 years ago in 2009 to these investigative film makers. Maybe you missed that in the 2nd paragraph?

Filmmaker-journalists John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski conducted the
interview in 2009 for a documentary to be released on the 9/11 tenth
anniversary entitled “Who Is Rich Blee?”,

I think a lot of you are missing how hard it is to make something like this come together.

Most of you probably don't have1 professional camera; let alone the
resources, the questions, the drive, the vision, the energy or the sheer
mental ability to put something like this together.

Hint: Commenting on Blogger is not going to cut it for another 10 years.

>>He came out 3 years ago in

>>He came out 3 years ago in 2009 to these investigative film makers.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like it's the MSM's decision then,
which is who, in the end, makes all decisions about what the 'public'
sees and perceives.

This story is extremely complex and therefore can be shaped and / or
ignored since people cannot figure it out. If the info is not made more
simple, an opportunity is lost, if there is one.

Hint taken. Here's another

Hint: commenting on blogger increases blogger's ranking and traffic
and public views = making a difference for the 10 year anniversary.

Victronix -
This is

Victronix -

This is happening now because some young guys are giving it their
best! They sent out Press Release statements and had a campaign ready to
go with a specific mission.

The MSM news is picking it up because it is something they can get their teeth into.

These guys are awesome! Have you seen Press for Truth?

This revelation is the "MSM's decision" !?

That's why we're seeing this plastered all over
CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, etc... right? Oh wait, we're not. So far, it's
been picked up by a blog on the Washington Post website and CBS has done a hatchet job on it. Raw Story is actively censoring the news. Haven't heard a peep about it on Democracy Now, etc.

So I'd say your assertion is flat out incorrect.

That's pretty careless considering the importance of this story and the fact that you're a moderator here.

Contact Raw Story and encourage them to give this story some coverage:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/contact-us

Thanks, I guess I'm just an

Thanks, I guess I'm just an idiot then. You sure know how to make someone feel like shit.

Really?

I'm sorry if I was unnecessarily harsh, that
wasn't my intention and I don't think I was, but I also can't worry
about tip toeing around someone's ego when trying to make a comment on
what I feel is a matter of international importance. This isn't about
your feelings, this is about 9/11 justice.

.

.

Ten years of commenting not going to cut it?

Why, you....

Blast! My evil plans are foiled.

Okay I'm going back to what I was doing before 9/11. Now... where was I?

Hmmm... ;-)

contributions

Yes, on the anniversaries, 9-11Research sometimes gets 50,000 unique visitors in one day.

Obviously making films is extremely important, books, websites . . .
everyone does what they can. I've certainly felt frustrated with people
who just sit on the sidelines and comment myself. Anyone who hosts an
event knows how hard and draining that is to do. But, those are
something too. Comments add up and drive traffic so ultimately do
matter.

My point is that we need to re-tool the complicated stuff, boil it
down to a message (to go along with the more complicated nuanced and
real events) so average people who are maxed out on their social
networking avenues can get it, digest it, and consider it.

Alright.

I have to say that I feel a certain reluctance
to engage in activism until I have a relatively clear picture of (1)
what happened and (2) how reliable the data is I'm basing my opinion on.

Also, I have to protest the notion that commenting is just "sitting
on the sidelines"... e.g. my comments are so elaborate at times, one of
them was sourced in Erik Larson's piece on DRG's fake phone call
theories. (Profile of Ted Olson and his dirty dealings) Then there was
the response (also a comment) to Rock Creek Free Press when they
attacked this site, etc. etc. So there's a useful and a less useful way
to use the comment function of this website, I've learned a lot from
debate.

Actually I rather miss you and Jim on the scene. Your websites are
still one of the better resources out there for technical research.

I take it you have your reservations about this information now
brought forward by Duffy and Nowosielski, but I think it's a shame you
had to phrase it as you did. This is not dis- or misinformation. This is
a breakthrough, not a 'calculated distraction'. I always knew Clarke
would one day up the ante. The man is upset, Vic. He was treated like
garbage by the Bush administration and demoted. Why? Maybe because he
was in the way and could have stopped 9/11 by raising hell through the
right channels, provided he had the proper cabinet level access. But
that never happened, Then, after 9/11 what did Dick Cheney do? He blamed
Richard Clarke for 9/11... publicly. And you think Clarke would
actually serve Cheney's agenda? I think not.

See from 1:45 onwards.

>>I take it you have your

>>I take it you have your reservations about this information now brought forward by Duffy and Nowosielski

I don't have reservations on the information, I'm commenting on the
level of the complexity of the articles on this topic, which can serve
as a barrier to relevant information, making it less likely to be
inviting for average people and remaining in the realm of people with
college degrees.

>>I think it's a shame you had to phrase it as you did.

I'm not perfect, as it turns out. Even relatively smart people can
have knee-jerk reactions and be corrected, if that's the case.

>>This is not dis- or misinformation.

Yes, I know, it's real information.

>>This is a breakthrough, not a 'calculated distraction'.

Indeed, the information obviously is a breakthrough, new to the
public, although I see some debate about its interpretation. Overall, I
hope you're right. Were it a calculated distraction, applying levels
of complexity is a useful tool to bury and distort what's really
relevant, making it easier to shape for a purpose. But just because
that's possible, doesn't mean it is occurring. It could occur, but we
don't know. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. It happens.

Submitted by Victronix on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:2