I Have A Question About The NSA And 9/11

I Have A Question About The NSA And 9/11

cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com

Jon Gold
5/1/2013

Hopefully, you remember the time right after 9/11. A time when we were told repeatedly that there were absolutely no warnings, and that no one had any idea something like that could happen. If not, feel free to browse the "9/11 Denials" section available at www.historycommons.org.

On May 15th, 2002, the first indication that they were aware of a threat became public. Since that time, so many more "indications" that they were aware of a threat have come to light.

On June 19, 2012, Salon released an article entitled, "New NSA Docs Contradict 9/11 Claims." The ar

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.historycommons.org
www.historycommons.org
www.historycommons.org
www.historycommons.org

How can an investigative body whose mandate was to give a full and complete accounting of the attacks would go out of their way to avoid the NSA.In fact Colonel Lorry Fenner, a former air force intelligence officer was shocked when she found out that the commission did not send anyone over to the NSA to check out what they had.Zelikow and his staff just found it much more interesting "easier" to focus on the CIA and the other agencies.Although,I think it's simply the fact that the Commission didn't want to know.

PS:I know some people consider History Commons to be a "conspiracy theory." site despite the fact it's well sourced.

cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If you want he truth and can not handle it the do not read this!!! form NOVA the SPY Factory

NARRATOR: In late December, 1999, NSA finds one very important dot: it intercepts an alarming call to the house in Yemen, instructing two Al Qaeda foot soldiers to fly to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for what sounds like a terrorist summit. The foot soldiers are Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. This is the phone call that sets in motion the 9/11 attacks.

JAMES BAMFORD: After picking up this critical call, NSA passed on their first names to the FBI and the CIA but not their last names. Nawaf's last name had been in the NSA's database for over a year, because of his association with bin Laden's operations center in Yemen, but apparently the NSA never looked it up.

NARRATOR: The CIA does find al-Mihdhar's name in its database. They ask security agents to make a copy of his passport as he passes through a checkpoint in Dubai. When analysts at CIA headquarters see it, they are astonished to find a valid U.S. visa inside. Alec Station, the CIA's bin Laden unit, now has two FBI agents detailed to it, Doug Miller and Mark Rossini.

MARK ROSSINI: Once they arrived in Kuala Lumpur, of course, the CIA requested the intelligence service over there in Malaysia to conduct surveillance of these subjects and find out as much as they can. They took photographs, followed them. And you read from that one of the individuals had a visa to come to the U.S.

NARRATOR: Fearing an Al Qaeda terrorist may be headed to the U.S., the agents are determined to tell the FBI, but a CIA official will not allow it.

MARK ROSSINI: I guess I was the more senior agent. So I went up to the individual that had the ticket on the Yemeni cell, the Yemeni operatives. And I said to her, I said, "What's going on? You know, we've got to tell the Bureau about this. These guys clearly are bad. One of them, at least, has a multiple-entry visa to the U.S. We've got to tell the FBI."

And then she said to me, "No, it's not the FBI's case, not the FBI's jurisdiction."

So I go tell Doug. And I'm like, "Doug, what can we do?" If we had picked up the phone and called the Bureau, I would have been violating the law. I would have broken the law. I would have been removed from the building that day. I would have had my clearances suspended, and I would be gone.

JAMES BAMFORD: This is one of the most astonishing parts of the story. The CIA had FBI operatives working within their bin Laden unit, but when the FBI operatives found out that one, and possibly two, of the terrorists had visas to the United States, were heading for the United States, the CIA wouldn't let them tell their headquarters that they were coming. Only the FBI could have put out alerts to stop Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi if they tried to enter the United States.

NARRATOR: January 15, 2000, Los Angeles International Airport: United Airlines Flight 2 arrives from Bangkok, where the CIA lost al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi's trail. They pass through U.S. Immigration undetected. Within two weeks they move into the anonymity of a San Diego suburb.

MARK ROSSINI: The FBI put together this chronology as part of its investigation into the 9/11 attack. The timeline, the declassified copy, is the movements and the activities of the hijackers while they are in the U.S., hiding in plain sight.

NARRATOR: They get drivers licenses in their own names. They use a local bank to pick up international wire transfers from a known Al Qaeda finance chief. Their telephone number is even listed in the San Diego white pages: Alhazmi Nawaf M 858-279-5919.

JAMES BAMFORD: The CIA was forbidden from operating within the United States, and the FBI didn't know they were here, so the only way to track the terrorists was if NSA continued to monitor the conversations as they called back to the house in Yemen.

NARRATOR: But nine days after al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar arrive in California, the NSA has a catastrophic failure.

FRANK BLANCO: I remember getting a phone call on January 24, 2000, that began with, "We have a problem." NSA systems had actually stopped working.

NARRATOR: The most technologically advanced intelligence agency in the world, capable of monitoring millions of simultaneous conversations, is deaf.

FRANK BLANCO: NSA was brain-dead. It took probably three to four, maybe even five days to bring everything back up the way it was.

Yes the US Intel new they where here!! and if your read or watch the Video you will learn that they could have been stopped but the NSA CIA FBI did not or would not talk nor tell each other what they knew out the terrorist. link to NOVA www.pbs.org...

reply to post by bekod
Have you seen what Richard Clarke had to say about all this:

reply to post by bekod

Yes the US Intel new they where here!! and if your read or watch the Video you will learn that they could have been stopped but the NSA CIA FBI did not or would not talk nor tell each other what they knew out the terrorist. link to NOVA

Hense the reason they were able to announce within hours "who done it".

No conspiracy just a bunch of alphabet agencies refusing to talk to each other because 'I know something that you don't know" mentality.

I think it's pretty obvious there WAS a conspiracy at least to allow an attack to happen. Having researched 9/11 extensively and specifically focusing on the pre-9/11 trail I cannot believe anyone wouldn't find everything that happened extremely suspicious.

Countless, countless "accidents" and "incompetence" and people being silenced and brick walls being thrown up and all the red tape like the above, where the FBI was not notified and people would have been fired for doing so.

Billions in anti-terror and counter intelligence and this is what we get? The NSA going deaf for 5 days? The FBI on their own not able to find terrorists that are on watch lists living inside the US using their own names? Who were able to get US visas in Saudi Arabia no questions asked?

Come on!

I can only speak for myself but it sounds to me that this plan was perfectly crafted and hidden behind roadblocks such as that.

reply to post by mike dangerously


Well that’s not strictly true if you read the 9/11 Commission report they do actually discuss the NSA on several occasions.

It would be incorrect to say that the 9/11 commission “avoided the NSA”…..

Just saying

reply to post by PatriotGames2

I can only speak for myself but it sounds to me that this plan was perfectly crafted and hidden behind roadblocks such as that.

Nothing the US government has ever done has had the term 'perfectly crafted' associated with it. Not even 'well done'.
The goings on surrouding 911 is classic government agencies doing what they do best.
Keeping secrets.
Protecting their own existance.
Doing as little as possible so as to limit liability.

Winston Churchill said it best.
"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After thay have tried everthing else."

Zelikow eventually had the NSA transfer their docs to the commission's offices but they were not all that interested in them.It was far more compelling to look at the CIA and FBI since not one person on staff really understood what the NSA does.Not that it mattered in the end The Zelikow/Hamilton Commission were simply there to cover up and minimize any liability the US government had.I have never bought into the OS or the Incompetence theory there were far too many warnings coming in.

reply to post by mike dangerously


No question Mike...You can claim government incompetence and classic information withholding till your blue in the face...The fact is any way you slice it the CIA knew the attack was coming, and they purposely withheld the information from just the right amount of people, long enough for the attacks to take place.

The known evidence is irrefutable, stacked with all of the lying and obfuscation that was done at the 9/11 Commission and one can only assume that we honestly don't have a clue how deep the rabbits hole really goes. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply in denial. This is no conspiracy theory. In fact their complete disregard for any known laws, American or international post 9/11, should be the giant elephant in the room indication of their willingness to do anything to achieve their goals.

The known evidence is irrefutable, stacked with all of the lying and obfuscation that was done at the 9/11 Commission

Some REAL examples 'irrefutable evidence' And 'lying and obfuscation' from the 9/11 report.

I can't wait for this.

Originally posted by spooky24

The known evidence is irrefutable, stacked with all of the lying and obfuscation that was done at the 9/11 Commission

Some REAL examples 'irrefutable evidence' And from the 9/11 report.

I can't wait for this.

Really? If your really interested read my thread here www.abovetopsecret.com... ..."The CIA's concealment of the 9/11 operation" I list all the most important ones I could find at that time...all of them come from main stream, non conspiracy witnesses or FBI reports/9/11 commission report notes.

I mean Spooky seriously, did you watch the Richard Clarke video Mike posted above??? Just that whole fiasco alone should be enough to convince any normal unbiased person that the CIA knew about the 9/11 operation and was concealing it in order to conduct their own operation(whether it was to flip their operatives as Clarke thinks or something more nefarious) either way ..they knew. And keep in mind the Clarke fiasco is just one of many of instances where the CIA was vigorously concealing any and all information about the 9/11 operation from other agencies and their various operations/investigations involving OBL and/or Al Qaeda attacks pre 9/11.

As far as the 'lying and obfuscation' fed to the 9/11 commission by the military/CIA, that's such common knowledge agreed on by both sides(debunker/official conspiracy people and people who don't believe we were told the truth) it's not even worth dignifying...Anyone that has even lightly researched 9/11 knows this, I mean come on.. commissioners resigned in protest, they debated bringing criminal charges against witnesses, and Keen and the rest of them openly admit they knew they were being lied to and that they basically barely scratched the surface.

You have some valid points and no one is proclaiming to understand this operation with perfect clarity. However, continuing to post statements that the 9/11 report is filled with 'lies and obfuscations' and then not being able to point them out with section, chapter, paragraph and sentence just defeats the entire debate you progress.

The 9/11 report has some serious flaws and it was never meant to be a detailed storybook of the events. Using those flaws to throw a blanket over the whole effort and dismiss it as 'lies and deception' is not debate, it's repression of discussion that show little effort has been put fourth to understand the difficultly of the telling of a highly sensitive matter.

My knowledge of that report along with the appendix and notes on the executive sessions is profound. I can point out dozens of instances(about 40 in all) in which misinformation is used to provide a balance between the public's right to know and our responsibly to protects our agents on the ground in highly sensitive operations.

I would estimate that about 95% of the people read 2 chapters-Attack and Heroism and Horror. The rest of the report just didn't interest persons because those 2, in themselves, were enough and diving into the who, what, where and why seemed pointless as it sure as hell couldn't bring anybody back or turn back the hands of time.

At the time of the reports evidence gathering and dissemination we (America) had over 400 agents in those areas-Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Saudi peninsula and to dismiss our need to protect those agents, with accusations of cover up, lies and deliberate misrepresentations for political reasons, is what groups persons that want to intelligently debate the attack, into the fodder who propose holograms of planes, phantom missiles and the deliberate planting of dead bodies in a massive, preposterous, all encompassing master plan of Government complacently to kill thousands of Americans for some quasi profit scheme.

Ali Soufan is a brave man. A true patriot and I regret, as I'm sure he does now as well, the political posturing of his narrative that was forced upon him by his British publishers. The same tacit used on British writers Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan as their narrative ,The Eleventh Day, was, again a politically slanted, ridiculous swipe at the person of George Bush with the events of 9/11 as a sideline.

They, of course, had little choice. Either the book is done our way-or there will be no book at all.

Dangling huge amounts of money in front of writers and researchers in exchange for their professional soul is as old as Herodotus and can be difficult to resist-believe me I know all to well-however the result is always the same. Selling out is selling out anyway you cut it and those still around to debate these issues can do so without being labeled one way or the other.

If you want to debate any, or all, parts of this report in a civilized manner that is fine. There are parts of it-regrettably- that are very deceptive and simply were not meant for the average person to dissimulate with impunity.