An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

Full Article

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.

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

In the interview for the documentary, Clarke offers an incendiary theory that, if true, would rewrite the history of the 9/11 attacks, suggesting that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the White House and FBI in 2000 and 2001 that two Saudi-born terrorists were on U.S. soil – terrorists who went on to become suicide hijackers on 9/11.
Clarke says it is fair to conclude “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information.” Asked who would have made the order, Clarke replies, “I would think it would have been made by the director,” referring to Tenet.

I think this has been said before by Clarke, if any proof is given in the documentary maybe this will wake more people up.in the reply statement they do a good job of covering the trail and discrediting Clarke and his statements.

In finishing the radio documentary, they recently supplied a copy of Clarke's comments to Tenet, who joined with two of former top CIA deputies -- Cofer Black, who was head of the agency's counterterrorism center, and Richard Blee, former head of the agency's Osama Bin Laden unit -- in a statement denouncing Clarke.

“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.”

The statement continued. “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.”

what are your thoughts on this it is somewhat new to me is there any evidence for what Clarke claims.?

My thoughts are simple....

I believe they did it intentionally. I am bound by the distrust I have for my government!! Sadly.

reply to post by -W1LL

what are your thoughts on this it is somewhat new to me is there any evidence for what Clarke claims.?

Clarke is controlled opposition.

Planes can't do what we were shown on TV; it's not possible. By pretending to shed suspicion on CIA regarding "hijackers", Clarke is reinforceing the lie that it IS possible.

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says they can is either lying or a fool.

reply to post by -W1LL





There are very few conspiracy theories that I believe in. 1) JFK was executed by proponents of our government and I truly feel Bush Sr. had a direct hand in it. 2) 9-11 was executed by proponents of our government with bush Sr. (and company) had a direct hand in. 3) Obama is not a natural born American and his election was an executed plan by TPTB, which I am sure Bush Sr. would have had knowledge of seeing how he was the CIA director (not immediately) after #1. There is one common link in these three attrocities and my only question is, WHY does bush Sr. hate America (or love money) so much that he is willing to ruin it for all of us "undeserveds?"

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says tthey can is either lying or a fool.

Is this their exscuse for the thermite damage? If so, that would be very weak as a explaination

reply to post by Yankee451


I have to agree wtih you Yankee it does seem like controlled confusion.



reply to post by MamaJ


sadly I share your thought as do many Americans thanks for not being afraid to voice it.

sounds like its more dissinfo to keep bush and his cronies out of the limelight, everyone knows bushes daddy and the brothers at skull and bone pulled this boner

Originally posted by MamaJ
I believe they did it intentionally. I am bound by the distrust I have for my government!! Sadly.

I agree. I don't for one second believe the 'impact targets' were chosen by 'terrorists'.

So you have the element of surprise and four planes to surprise with. What targets are you going to choose?

st.

Originally posted by Turkenstein

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says tthey can is either lying or a fool.

Is this their exscuse for the thermite damage? If so, that would be very weak as a explaination

It's their excuse for the missile damage...if thermite was employed it would have likely be used to weaken the structure after "impact" but prior to final destruction.

Link

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.


This is just a load of Horse# CIA dis-infomation. It is designed to lend credibility to 19 boxcutting Arabians - pure propaganda........those who believe this nonsense ought to have their heads examined.

reply to post by -W1LL

....what are your thoughts on this it is somewhat new to me is there any evidence for what Clarke claims.?

Actually, Clarke is not claiming anything, he is speculating, admittedly without any foundation or evidence.

Originally posted by anumohi
sounds like its more dissinfo to keep bush and his cronies out of the limelight, everyone knows bushes daddy and the brothers at skull and bone pulled this boner

Yea, and they are sticking us with it.................

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Turkenstein

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says tthey can is either lying or a fool.

Is this their exscuse for the thermite damage? If so, that would be very weak as a explaination

It's their excuse for the missile damage...if thermite was employed it would have likely be used to weaken the structure after "impact" but prior to final destruction.

Link

I saw a video where certain floors of the trade center were closed for "maintenance" in the weeks before the attack on Americans and the American way of life.

reply to post by Turkenstein

Some WTC History
You Might Not Know

from a video-talk on the Dawson-Perry Report
at the Portland Central Library, 7/12/05,

I lived in New York in the 1960's, when the World Trade Center and the twin towers were going up. The 60's was an era of intense urban destruction and frantic build-up in New York. Some of the areas targeted for "development" looked like they had been bombed, while other outlying areas, redlined by the banks, decayed into abandoned free-fire zones. The downtown mega-development known as the World Trade Center was the brainchild of the Rockefellers. I remember photos in The New York Times of Nelson and David glowing over architect's models of those obscene towers.

You never see the name "Rockefeller" in any of the official post-911 WTC histories. The golden name has been disassociated from the dark imagery of 911. (Also, what is a conspiracy theory without a Rockefeller in it?)
The Rockefeller clout teamed up with the powerful New York and New Jersey Port Authorities, and this urban-removal juggernaut destroyed 75 blocks of historic lower Manhattan.

Farewell, Radio Row.

This targeted area included a neighborhood I loved called Radio Row. The district began in the 1920's and grew into an experimenter's dream world of many blocks where exotic surplus electronics, the fall-out of defense technology, spilled out into the street. The electronics storekeepers organized. God knows how many other downtown communities organized. They got little coverage in The Times. All resistance was crushed.
Did the Rockefellers sign off on the 911 demolition? I don't know. One slender Rockefeller connection (through NBC and 911) is Paul Bremmer, the protege of Henry Kissenger, who, in turn, was the protege of the Rockefellers. Interviewed on NBC that momentous morning Bremmer was so on-message with the official propaganda line that I have speculated (in my NBC Spins 911) that the bin Laden memo all the media was reading from that day may have originated at Bremmer's own desk.

WTC already doomed.

That grandiose Titanic called the World Trade Center, which had been planned to last for at least a century, soon revealed itself to be an engineering stupidity and technological embarrassment. The facade, made of cast aluminum, had been directly connected to the steel superstructure. This caused a battery-like electric flow between the two metals resulting in what's known as galvanic corrosion. This problem had been text-book predictable in the marine-air environment of lower Manhattan, hence the embarrassment.
The formidable-looking facade, weakening day by day, was in danger of peeling off and falling into the street. Another built-in irreversible problem was that the WTC buildings were full of asbestos. They may have been "sick buildings" in other environmental ways. The twin towers were white elephants waiting for replacement. The entire WTC complex, including Building 7, had become, prematurely expendable. Consider, though, that the WTC had paid for itself and profited the investors and profited various landlords, public and private, over and over during its life. Also consider the pressure of insatiable New York developers to raze anything in sight on any pretext and to build anew the latest gleaming office structures for the corporations and luxury condos for the new booming yuppie class.

WTC demolition planned in '80's

A demolition was actually planned out in detail for the twin towers in the 1980's. The planners engaged architects, developed estimates for a complete take-down and rebuild, and the architects drafted conceptual drawings.

The demolition of such gigantic steel structures, with their thick concrete floors, if lawfully performed in conformance with New York City codes, would have been an immensely arduous and expensive task and was estimated back then at $5.6 billion. (This included the slow and laborious task of cutting, with oxy-acetylene torches, the giant hardened steel members of the high-rise structures. In those days you could not so easily melt steel, as for example with kerosene, the official physics for this process having not been in place until a few weeks after September 11, 2001).

I watched such a New York demolition proceed on an old steel and concrete high-rise from my midtown office window at Third Avenue and 51st in the late 1960's. Using cutting torches, workers laboriously severed the old steel members into manageable sections one-by-one. Then they drilled holes into the thick concrete floors and placed small dynamite charges within. A huge ponderous steel net was laid down over the floor area to be blasted.

When the shrill warning whistle blew, I knew to swivel my chair toward the window. Then, bang, and the heavy steel net jumped. The net contained all the shattered concrete debris within. Workers hosed down the area with water to suppress the dust. Then the workers had to gather up the concrete chunks and cart them to funnels that conducted the debris down into dump trucks below. This went on for months, floor by floor.
The same slow, expensive, labor-intensive procedures would have been required had the twin towers been lawfully deconstructed.

In 1989 the architects assigned to the WTC demolition were told that the entire project had been cancelled and that their office, located in the WTC, was to be closed. One source states that someone told the architects that, "In 10 to 12 years they are going to blow it up and start over."

Source

Seems they had about ten years to wire the buildings for explosives.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Clarke is controlled opposition.

Planes can't do what we were shown on TV; it's not possible. By pretending to shed suspicion on CIA regarding "hijackers", Clarke is reinforceing the lie that it IS possible.

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says they can is either lying or a fool.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

I agree that he's controlled opposition. His controlled opposition shores up the OS basically, casts more confusion and doubt in people's minds and reinforces the core parts of the story.

Now that the name-calling has gone to the top, don't be surprised to read about the convenient "suicides", or "accidental deaths" more than likely already in the works.

Dream on little dreamer - Reality is not for you... Dream a little dream with me.......
Dream on little dreamer - Fill you days with fantasy and fiction ....
Dream on little dreamer - All the world cares about is lying to you!

Let me get this straight. This man is making an assumption, from an opinion about a theory?

Originally posted by Yankee451


Seems they had about ten years to wire the buildings for explosives.

But dont you know that all explosives have a short shelf life once in the field? Explosives tend to grow unstable, lose their explosive ability, decompose, and lose effectiveness over time. You cannot rig a building and wait years, expecting the explosives to go off without a hitch. The rigging, wiring, blasting caps, all have to be maintained because they too, degrade over time. Constant maintenance would be required to make sure the darn things dont go off or degrade to the point where a sudden gust of wind wouldnt set off the charges prematurely.

What about the inspectors? Wouldn't they notice something amiss? Or are they now added to list of "in on it"? How large is this list going to be?

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
Dream on little dreamer - Reality is not for you... Dream a little dream with me.......
Dream on little dreamer - Fill you days with fantasy and fiction ....
Dream on little dreamer - All the world cares about is lying to you!

Let me get this straight. This man is making an assumption, from an opinion about a theory?

There have been so many people like George Carlin who honestly think this was a cover up as well. Many many Hollywood stars have come out to speak their opinion and have not been murdered or committed suicide.

BUT...there are also the others....who have either committed "suicide" or been in a "plane crash" that knew something they were not supposed to tell.

Its pretty obvious that all these Arab men with their chatter, schooling and the fact the Government KNEW they were planning such an event....its plain as day this was planned....and not planned by some crazy guys who just learned how to fly a plane. I mean....come on now!~