FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11

Well surprise, surprise.

The FBI has blocked two of its veteran counterterrorism agents from going public with accusations that the CIA deliberately withheld crucial intelligence before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

FBI Special Agents Mark Rossini and Douglas Miller have asked for permission to appear in an upcoming public television documentary, scheduled to air in January, on pre-9/11 rivalries between the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

[Source]

What would happen if the alphabet (FBI, NSA etc.) crew were held responsible for their actions? I think Ron Paul would be happy.

('Find' courtesy of Scott Marshall. Cheers.)

[edit on 10/2/2008 by Good Wolf]

But what is new is that Rossini and Miller -- who still hold sensitive jobs in the FBI, and are identified here for the first time -- are prepared to say publicly that, under pressure from the CIA, they kept the full the truth from the Justice Department's Inspector General, which looked into the FBI's handling of pre-9/11 intelligence in 2004.

"There was pressure on people not to disclose what really happened," said sources close to the IG investigation.

Excellent post, only time will tell till we finally get a real idea of how exactly how many agents are withholding evidence or simply being gagged over fears of losing there jobs, like crowley.

Hopefully, we will have a new type of chance to finally get more pieces of the puzzle that are being withheld once bush leaves office, theres always the chance that it wont change anything. We need more agents like these to step up and tell what they know.

Sorry for the duplicate, I ran a search for 911 and PBS prior to posting.

This is big news though, brings me back to the circumstances behind John O'Neil's death.

We will wait and see if these two guys suddenly "commit suicide" or have any fatal traffic accidents in the near future.


This is big news. Two federal agents coming forward to admit that 9/11 was purposefully covered up by alphabet agencies of the law.


If that doesnt lend a credible hand to the conspiracies and theories out there then I dont know what would.

Great find...star and flagged. People need to demand to know the whole truth.

Originally posted by BlackOps719
We will wait and see if these two guys suddenly "commit suicide" or have any fatal traffic accidents in the near future.

It wouldn't surprise me, but I really hope that doesn't happen. I hope they go on for truth like Annie Machon and David Shayler did. Another 'Spies, lies & Whistleblowers' would be the best thing!

[edit on 10/3/2008 by Good Wolf]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't this imply

• No executive involvement
  It's possible the information was withheld upon orders from higher up, but this clearly implies that in fact the events of the day occurred as the "official story" states, and simply that it could have been prevented if the intelligence had been shared
  
• No MIHOP
  How can you make it happen, and also have intelligence withheld?

Could be a mix of LIHOP and MIHOP. Produce the operatives needed for the attacks, coordinate the demolition of targets, and sit back and watch the plan unfold.

reply to post by exponent


As far as my understanding goes, you can't just let it happen because all the compartmentalness of the US would have stopped the attacks at many different occasions, so you would have to deliberately get in the way.


But I'm not sure why you think that implies that the MIHOP and LIHOP hypotheses are out. Co-operation failures go well with either of the hypotheses.

LIHOP/MIHOP debates are a distraction.

Alhazmi and Almihdhar were involved in 9/11 in some manner. For years the public has been told that the CIA and FBI failures were due to:

1. Incompetence 2. Turf battles 3. Gorelick wall (and other bureaucratic impediments) 4. Lack of counterterrorism funding 5. Risk aversion

Rossini and Miller are claiming they were ordered to withhold intel from the FBI. The CIA official who told them to withhold the intel is quoted by Bamford in his new book (The Shadow Factory) as saying that the next attack would take place in Southeast Asia. The suggestion being the FBI had no operational reason to be told. Obviously this is absurd. Al Qaeda operatives came to the US to plan an attack in Southeast Asia? Huh? One of the points of assigning FBI agents to the CIA and vice versa was to improve inter-agency cooperation. The other key issue is Tenet's conduct. He has claimed he was very worried about an attack. If this is true then how on earth did he expect an attack to be prevented if the FBI wasn't in the loop? That makes no sense at all.

Of course, it isn't as simple as sharing intel as we had bizarre conduct in the FBI ITOS. The RFU obstructed the Moussaoui investigation. The UBLU withheld intel from the Cole investigators, thus the search for Alhazmi and Almihdhar was given to a single intelligence agent instead of the Cole (criminal side) investigators.

1. Incompetence=nonsense. Orders to withhold intel rule that out.

2. Turf battle=bizarre. One, the FBI had jurisdiction. Period. Two, CIA officials can't have it both ways--either they wanted to prevent attack or they didn't. If they did then they had to share intel unless they wanted to conduct an illegal operation of their own. Obviously they didn't do so as the attack went forward. Three, Rice, Hadley and Clarke didn't have any turf battle issues. What were they doing to ensure CIA/FBI cooperation?

3. Gorelick wall=nonsense. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were linked to al Qaeda by the NSA by 1999. They were linked to Cole plotters in late 2000 by way of the Malaysia meeting. CIA witholding intel had nothing to do with the "wall." FBI UBLU agent Corsi knew they were linked to a Cole plotter but withheld that intel. Bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings in 1998.

4. Lack of CT funding=absurd. The executive summary of the CIA IG report stated that Tenet diverted CT funding to other areas. The funding issue comes up because acting Director Pickard asked AG Ashcroft for increased funding and reportedly Ashcroft said CT wasn't a priority. This does nothing to explain the strange conduct at the FBI in the lead up to 9/11.

5. Risk aversion=idiotic excuse. Going after terrorists was risky? Huh? That makes no sense. Getting FISA warrants was risky? The only way this makes sense is if the FBI and CIA are criminal organizations whereby successful terrorist attacks are considered more helpful for career advancement. In the commonly accepted definition, risk aversion is a pathetic excuse that makes one wonder why any officials with such an attitude wanted to be in the CT division.