Richard Clarke's 9/11 theory.

I just wanted to post this video and get some insight from people outside of the 9/11 forum.I can see that he would be trying to cover his ass,but what if ? Clarke revealed part of the supposed mole network within the government that allowed the attacks in order to push their domestic and foreign agendas.Why has there not been more attention to this?

reply to post by mike dangerously


I gotta say thank you for this post. interesting interview. unfortunately your thread didnt get any notice..

S&F

good luck i hope.

Originally posted by mike dangerously

Why has there not been more attention to this?

Clarke on Tenet, Black, Blee,

"Look at it this way...They have been able to get through a joint house investigation committee, and get through 9/11 commission and this has never come out...they got away with it...They're not going to tell you even if you waterboard them."

Ray McGovern and Jason Leopold on the Real News.Com talking about the Richard Clarke interview. "The intelligence agencies had the information, the question is why didn't they use it"

I posted the vid in a thread at the 9/11 forum earlier and I have come to believe that since this interview does not sport a logo from one of the MSM stations it's gonna be ignored.The CIA has come after the reporters over the revealing the ID's of 2 of the Analysts behind all this: Secrecy Kills

reply to post by mike dangerously


You know I'm not surprised, especially this whole thing coming to light basically on the tenth anniversary(You have to wonder if it was deliberately planned for the story to brake at this time, I heard it was actually filmed a few years ago, I'm not sure if that's true or not though). Even without it being the tenth anniversary, I think Clarke pretty much sums it up: They got away with it.

Seems if a thread isn't about WTC collapse, it doesn't garner much attention. Even after 10 years, those theories have gotten no where. There is nothing provable ever discussed. No one has anything new to add, and most on either side have no idea what they're even talking about. They have just heard another person's belief and have adopted those beliefs as their own. A simple search shows all the info being posted and argued has already been posted and argued ... usually ending the same place they started. Seems odd how people would rather argue over the same unprovable conjecture than focus on things that are provable.

Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar are key in understanding 9/11. To my knowledge, Richard Clarke is the only person who actually apologized to the 9/11 families and the American people. The rest seemed to be more worried about themselves and placing blame than doing what's right. Any real researcher already knew what Richard Clarke just said in the video. That's because any real researcher couldn't get past Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar. If what he said in the video was new to you, you shouldn't be posting here. You should just be reading because you really haven't done the necessary research to understand. If you are focused on the WTC's collapse, I think you are focused on the wrong thing.

I have posted this link many times, and I will again. All the information is in this link. In fact, it's information overload. But if you really want to know the truth like you say you do, then click it and begin. www.historycommons.org...

wouldn't it be funny if 'al quieda' was an israeli moosad operation working through their agents in the cia, fbi, and other parts of the government? that would explain the complicitness that was experienced throughout the whole operation.......especially seeing that most of the directors and leaders of our governments are israeli firsters.....the israeli moosad have already been caught using fake passports many times in recent years...they have developed an incredible system of impersonating citizens from countries that they wish to implicate in false flag operations....

The "cover your butt" theory, which is what people like Clarke and Peter Lance promote, is what Webster Tarpley would call a "limited hangout".

Part of the truth is told in the hope that Mom and Dad would please get off your back about the outhouse being burned down, because your brother didn't tell you (in fact he did tell you and you both were in on it) the flame thrower was loaded.

There are layers of people being fooled in this story. Clarke may have been one of them early on, but not at this point. The crew of "atomic playboys" who have been guiding American foreign policy as if it were a "funny car" on a quarter mile track for the past dozen years or so know that they are in deep doo doo with the public.

They are running for cover and the "cover your butt" theory is a desperate attempt to avoid a whole lot of whoop ass.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I believe the WTC's collapse, the no planes, no plane at pentagon, etc essentially works as the "cover your butt" scenario you speak of. Whether deliberate or not, those discussions keep people's eyes on unprovable conjecture and away from where questions with answers lie. The answers open up further questions, and that opens the path to where I think we need to go. Do I trust Richard Clarke? No. I don't know him for him to earn my trust, but he is the only one who has at least taken some responsibility. He has been much more open to discussion than most. I don't feel he is misleading because he basically backs up what I have found in my research.

You are right. There are many layers to this. I do believe there is an effort to make it look like incompetence, but upon closer examination, I believe it becomes more clear that Khalid Alminihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are just a little too "lucky" to believe the incompetence story. By 9/11 these guys were Al-Queda veterans and were already known to the intelligence community. Incompetence doesn't really justify the way these guys were able to do whatever whenever despite being watched and having their calls intercepted. Someone was watching out for these guys making sure they stayed one step ahead. Who? Well that's the question.

this has always been the thory I am open to, but it doesn't get discussed because it is logical, reasonable, and there are no holograms or missiles

sometimes I wonder if the whole controlled demolition/missile/shot down thing is disinfo

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
I believe the WTC's collapse, the no planes, no plane at pentagon, etc essentially works as the "cover your butt" scenario you speak of. Whether deliberate or not, those discussions keep people's eyes on unprovable conjecture and away from where questions with answers lie.

This is the position that has been articulated recently by Webster Tarpley. He's advocating a migration away from technical issues and toward political analysis of 9/11. I think Webster is being productive when he undertakes political analysis but is being counterproductive when he criticises and belittles technical analysis.

I'm very disappointed in Tarpley. I thought he was more mature than that and I thought he had a broader appreciation of the whole process going on in the 9/11 truth seeking endeavour.

We're going to have to disagree on Clarke. To me he is much like Peter Lance orbiting around a theory of incompetence and cover up of incompetence. That's a fallback position for the perps and their accessories. I don't buy it.

I do believe there is an effort to make it look like incompetence, but upon closer examination, I believe it becomes more clear that Khalid Alminihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi are just a little too "lucky" to believe the incompetence story. . . . Someone was watching out for these guys making sure they stayed one step ahead. Who? Well that's the question.

Yes, I agree. These guys were ID'd to the government by the Louisiana dentist, David Graham. The government did nothing about them. The implications are obvious. 9/11 was an inside job. It was carried out in bits and pieces by a lot of people who may have known very little of the complete picture, but who knew that something was not right at work that day, or outright wrong about what they themselves were doing that day.

Covering one's butt might well have functioned as a tool of the perps to keep their puppets in line, but covering your butt can't account for all of the phenomena seen on 9/11. The numerous concurrently running military and civilian drills discussed by Tarpley being a prominent example of a centrally planned synchronicity.

The fact is, everybody knew about the threat and the did nothing, they even push their luck by doing a war game that same day.

He clearly says, 24 hours and the threat would had been remove, wich I believe, considering all the evidences they left behind.

Originally posted by eagleeye2
The fact is, everybody knew about the threat and the did nothing, they even push their luck by doing a war game that same day.

That's the kind of thing that they want people to believe. They want people to have a very fuzzy, foggy, fuggedaboudit, no use crying over spilt milk attitude . . . but they were running not one war game but over twenty war and emergency games that day. That's not just pushing your luck.

He clearly says, 24 hours and the threat would had been remove, wich I believe, considering all the evidences they left behind.

That statement of Clarke's, when you look at the overall picture put together by the 9/11 truth movement over the years since the day, amounts to muddying the waters, fooling the rubes, which is covering up, which is being an accessory after the fact.

I agree completely, when I saw the interview, I thought what the heck is Clarke doing? It's obvious, he's trying to downplay what he's saying to these two guys. But why is he making a play right now, he's a true insider, why is he outing these two people, especially Tenet, especially to these two guys? What does it all mean? I have to wonder if Clarke is trying to cover his own rear end somehow? I don't know, but don't be surprised if Clarke suddenly falls ill, or has a "accident" in the near future.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

When Clarke apologized to the American people, I think it was after the 9/11 commission report came out, I respected the guy. But not now.

When he says that these guys would have been mopped up in another 24 hours, he's right. But they left all their evidence lying around when they knew they were going to act in only two or three hours.

Clarke is talking carney barker talk to people he considers to be suckers. Ten years after 9/11, with all we know now, it is easy to see Clarke for the creep that he is.

reply to post by ipsedixit
Gonna have to disagree on Tarpley.He's right the technical minutia has bogged down researchers for years now,while the political analysis has been largely ignored.I personally think that Clarke may have unwittingly uncovered the members of the rouge network within the CIA they were in Alec station,they were heading up the CTC and in the DCI's office.As for the rest of the moles Ipsedixit like you said most of them were covering their asses and the network used that to keep them in line a good portion of them thought it just a drill until it was flipped on them.

reply to post by mike dangerously


You have a very good observation. Tarpley mentioned it just this last week where Clark shows up at the White House 911 for no good reason, yet he is the one that comes up with the Al Qaeda, Bin Laden fairy tale.

Clearly, he is apart of the criminal neocon mafia inside the government that is responsible for 911.

reply to post by ipsedixit


I have trouble with the blanket statement "9/11 was an inside job." Inside what? I may be wrong, but that phrase always represented to me 9/11 being done within our own government. I don't believe that is the case because we have proof of collusion between the hijackers and the Saudi gov't, the ISI, the CIA, and Mossad. We have undeniable proof of our CIA funding and training the mujahedeen. We know out of the mujahedeen comes Al-Queda. We have proof the Taliban supports Al-Queda. We know certain members of Al-Queda are also members of the ISI and the Taliban. We know our CIA worked with ISI to install the Taliban.

So the CIA trained and funded the mujahedeen. Out of the mujahedeen comes Al-Queda. This means Al-Queda was trained and funded by our CIA. Then the CIA works with the ISI to set up the Taliban giving Al-Queda a place to train and operate. The US is also giving aid to the ISI which has agents within the Taliban and Al-Queda, and they aren't there as spies. They are a part. So some of our money is obviously going to Al-Queda, and the CIA knows it because the CIA helped to set it all up. Taliban comes into power in 1996. This is after Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of WTC '93, is "caught' and Operation Bojinka, the blueprint for 9/11, is discovered. It seems odd that after Operation Bojinka is dicovered, the CIA and ISI work to set up place for Al-Queda to operate. They also continue to give aid. Almihdhar and Alhazmi are also on the radar around this time for getting caught trying to smuggle Russian weapons for terrorist attacks. Yet they continue to be able to move freely from country to country and associate with known terrorists. One of the countries they are free to move into is the US ... where they live with an FBI informant and live openly under their given names. These guys were on the radar long before 2001.

So ... "inside job"? I don't think that is an accurate statement unless you are saying inside Saudi intelligence, ISI, CIA and even though I haven't mentioned the Mossad, I feel they have a hand in it, too.

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
I have trouble with the blanket statement "9/11 was an inside job." Inside what? I may be wrong, but that phrase always represented to me 9/11 being done within our own government. I don't believe that is the case because we have proof of collusion between the hijackers and the Saudi gov't, the ISI, the CIA, and Mossad.

The phrase "inside job" in the case of 9/11 means an operation planned and directed by an entity, America, against itself. The other groups you mention are all American client entities and were all acting at arm's length to make it seem like the attack came from outside the US.

Tarpley is positing a small committee that exists at a rarefied level, comprised of oligarchical controlled intelligence assets and oligarchical controlled bankers who are dictating policy to the US and other governments and manipulating them and pushing them around.

This is typified by Tarpley's current stress on "Angel is next", the coded threat supposedly received by the White House on 9/11, threatening the life of the President.

I don't buy this myself for reasons I would prefer not to go into right here. It's a tangent.

Bottom line, the perps are still in place where they can protect themselves and influence policy and I believe Richard Clarke is, in the most benign interpretation, muddying the waters. This is an interpretation I don't subscribe to myself. He's smarter than that.

reply to post by mike dangerously


We'll have to agree to disagree on Tarpley. If I have time, I will start a thread on Tarpley. I am disturbed by his current attitude to the truth movement, but it will require more time than I can give it at the moment.