CIA Threatens 9/11 Researchers After Discovery Of Cover Up

DId a little search...perhaps missed it.

Found this very interesting video of an interview with Richard Clarke. Done by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, the producers of the documentary '9/11 Press for Truth'. The video is 13 mins long but I think it's worth it.

Although the thread title speaks of a threat by the CIA...this is not the meat of the thread and is perhaps the least relevant. The thread is titled like the youtube video.

The meat is...Richard Clarke states....not in so many words...that there was an obvious cover up of the arrival of Al-Qaeda operatives in to US territory. An executive(CIA) order not to disclose a potential threat to the FBI...and he names some names.



He states that it's not just good old "agencies not cooperating"...that in fact there was a specific order not to share that specific info...otherwise he would have gotten it through the usual channels.

The threats mentioned in the interview bio by the CIA, are perhaps "understandable" since the producers claimed they will reveal full identities of the agents in question, which is probably not entirely "legal".

Not that this video clears up anything...but it defo confirms...IMHO...there was foreknowledge...the terrorists were followed, observed and under watch while in the US. The threat was however...not revealed on any of the "threat meetings" (he mentions this, but I'm unsure how these meetings go and who attends them).

Clarke states "those guys were using credit cards under their own name, stayed in a hotel...we would have picked them up in 24 hours" had we known they were in the states.

I think there was foreknowledge. In fact, I'm certain of it. And no...I don't think incompetence card will cut it. Intentional destruction of the Able Danger documents and other info like this here...confirms it for me.

There were many calls to incompetence that day...if you believe that...than you should be fearful for your lives...since you seem to be surrounded with incompetent people...all the way to the top.

Please try to comment on the subject at hand...not the entire event.

Just watched the video. Very interesting, yet very damning of the CIA and the culture they work within.

Personally, I think the interviewee doesn't want to believe that there was even more to the CIA not sharing the information they had and as a consequence has drawn his own conclusions on why they didn't share the information.

However, as stated the head of CIA and the head of counter terrorism within the agency have managed to get away with this for so long and even testified at numerous committee meetings and the 9/11 commission hearings, without mentioning any of this.

Why isn't there more being made of this and why are they allowing them to get away with it?

Well maybe if this was to be exposed on a larger scale, then the whole O.S would come crashing down faster than WTC Building 7?

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Personally, I think the interviewee doesn't want to believe that there was even more to the CIA not sharing the information they had and as a consequence has drawn his own conclusions on why they didn't share the information.

Perhaps. But he went in to great lengths to explain...that he would have expected such information to come across his table. He also stated that since it didn't, he can only explain it as an explicit order not to share.

Granted...there is some speculation here on his part...yet...he is probably in a very good position to speculate and not to be way off in it. That's not some guy who started working yesterday.

Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I agree and he is in a far better position than you and I to come to this conclusion. He is looking at it purely from someone inside the Government mechanisms and has come to the most logical conclusion, which I can appreciate. I'm just questioning wether it was their only motive.

However you look at it, information was withheld and that alone needs to be exposed at a higher level and a full investigation carried out.

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

I agree and he is in a far better position than you and I to come to this conclusion. He is looking at it purely from someone inside the Government mechanisms and has come to the most logical conclusion, which I can appreciate. I'm just questioning wether it was their only motive.

However you look at it, information was withheld and that alone needs to be exposed at a higher level and a full investigation carried out.

You say that you question whether or not it was their only motive. Can you elaborate on that? I think I know where you are getting at, and if so, I would agree. But I would like to hear your thoughts before I jump to any conclusions. Thanks!

soulwaxer

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

The 9/11 commission was close to filing criminal charges against various government departments

The OS is that the government was uncooperative because they didnt want their failures to be highlighted.

The rest of us believe that that they are trying to conceal something much more sinister.

In their own words, the "[9/11] commission in many ways was set up to fail".

soulwaxer

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

I agree and he is in a far better position than you and I to come to this conclusion. He is looking at it purely from someone inside the Government mechanisms and has come to the most logical conclusion, which I can appreciate. I'm just questioning wether it was their only motive.

However you look at it, information was withheld and that alone needs to be exposed at a higher level and a full investigation carried out.

You say that you question whether or not it was their only motive. Can you elaborate on that? I think I know where you are getting at, and if so, I would agree. But I would like to hear your thoughts before I jump to any conclusions. Thanks!

soulwaxer

I just look at who had the most to gain from allowing an event like 9/11 to take place and their affiliation with CIA. As was suggested in the interview, the CIA had the opportunity to reveal the names of the terrorists as late as the 4th September and this would have given the U.S Government plenty of time to round them up.

Yet, this never occurred and consequentially the atrocity was allowed to be carried out. Whether CIA were actively involved in the atrocity or whether they simply withheld information to cover themselves is now by the by.

They had this information and did not fully share this with other agencies. They were complicit and they need to be brought to justice.

reply to post by soulwaxer

You say that you question whether or not it was their only motive. Can you elaborate on that? I think I know where you are getting at, and if so, I would agree. But I would like to hear your thoughts before I jump to any conclusions. Thanks!

Not directed at me...but still...what are you thinking ? Come one guys...feel free to speculate.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

They had this information and did not fully share this with other agencies. They were complicit and they need to be brought to justice.

Yeah...if it were that simple. These institutions are almost above the law. They can destroy documents and choose not to disclose anything. Nobody can force them. "National security" card trumps all known laws.

For instance, what good is a FOIA request when they can simply black out everything and provide you with an essentially empty piece of paper ?

CIA has done some attrocius things all over the world...but the agency it self will never stand trial for anything. They may occasionally throw a couple of their foot soldiers to the wolves...just to appear lawful though.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

You say that you question whether or not it was their only motive. Can you elaborate on that? I think I know where you are getting at, and if so, I would agree. But I would like to hear your thoughts before I jump to any conclusions. Thanks!

Not directed at me...but still...what are you thinking ? Come one guys...feel free to speculate.

That's ok.

Speculation:

I have been thinking for years that those planes were empty and guided to their targets remotely. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that they were not piloted by the "hijackers". I am referring to their inexperience, and to the incredible arial acrobatics performed in their little plot to penetrate US defense, and hitting the jackpot by dustifying 3 skyscrapers with only 2 planes.

This would mean that all these so-called hijackers were just pawns put in place as evidence. I may be wrong, but to me, this is what everything in this grand scheme points to.

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer


I have always wondered how a bunch of amateur pilots managed to take control of commercial airliners and guide them with such precision that even airline pilots have doubted. The plane going into the Pentagon is the one that convinced me that all was not right with what they were suggesting.

Also, that very same day Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was holding a meeting with the intentions of gaining an increase in the anti terrorism budget. Sat around selling the fact that the U.S was in danger of an attack on their own soil, when whammy, the plane hits. Must have been one hell of a pilot to hit with such precision, but we are sold amateur Arabs were able to do this.

Cobaltic1978
Why isn't there more being made of this and why are they allowing them to get away with it?

Well maybe if this was to be exposed on a larger scale, then the whole O.S would come crashing down faster than WTC Building 7?

Sorry to say it's not that simple. You are about to enter a new tunnel in the rabbit hole...

soulwaxer

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I'll go ahead and comment. It looks like now that it is out in the open that governments are corrupt, it is starting to be a crime to point it out. Things are really starting to go in the wrong direction.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I think you really hit on where I believe events turned for the dark and conspiratorial more than anything.

These evil men replayed the darkest moves of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and watched it play out in full horror within our largest city. I think some very much did know there were cells here, in flight training and with a very good idea of what they planned to do. I really doubt they knew the day or time ...and the Hijackers themselves may have been loose on those specifics until the end ..but the Patriot Act wasn't written on the 12th.

They had that sitting there waiting patiently for nature to take it's course.

Just like now and pushing the public so hard in every way to a fit of anger. Something will break and they don't need to make that happen...just be ready when it inevitably does. Cold Cold people...

Cobaltic1978
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

I have always wondered how a bunch of amateur pilots managed to take control of commercial airliners and guide them with such precision that even airline pilots have doubted. The plane going into the Pentagon is the one that convinced me that all was not right with what they were suggesting.

Also, that very same day Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was holding a meeting with the intentions of gaining an increase in the anti terrorism budget. Sat around selling the fact that the U.S was in danger of an attack on their own soil, when whammy, the plane hits. Must have been one hell of a pilot to hit with such precision, but we are sold amateur Arabs were able to do this.

Nice to see someone thinking straight!

We were sold a fairy tale, and it's very sad to see so many people still falling for it.

soulwaxer

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

I think you really hit on where I believe events turned for the dark and conspiratorial more than anything.

These evil men replayed the darkest moves of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and watched it play out in full horror within our largest city. I think some very much did know there were cells here, in flight training and with a very good idea of what they planned to do. I really doubt they knew the day or time ...and the Hijackers themselves may have been loose on those specifics until the end ..but the Patriot Act wasn't written on the 12th.

They had that sitting there waiting patiently for nature to take it's course.

Just like now and pushing the public so hard in every way to a fit of anger. Something will break and they don't need to make that happen...just be ready when it inevitably does. Cold Cold people...

I have a question for you, Wrabbit.

Do you really believe that the CIA would watch these hijackers and let them go ahead with their little plot, without any control of the situation? They just sat it out in the hope that it would be successful??

soulwaxer

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

I think some very much did know there were cells here, in flight training and with a very good idea of what they planned to do. I really doubt they knew the day or time ...and the Hijackers themselves may have been loose on those specifics until the end ..but the Patriot Act wasn't written on the 12th.

Another question:
So you think that the CIA knew the plan (and would obviously be watching everyone involved to a T), but they weren't able to figure out the day or time? Are you serious?

And another:
Are you seriously proposing that the hijackers embarked on this mission without knowing all the details, and succeeded? How would that work?

soulwaxer

reply to post by soulwaxer


Lets not go assuming each other's positions. I didn't say the CIA knew and tracked them to a T. FDR and those history has come to suspect knew of and allowed Pearl Harbor didn't have an itinerary for the attack or schedule to expect, either. They just knew something was in the works, it was BIG, and letting it happen was preferable to quietly preventing it for FDR's belief that the US HAD to get into the war and that was the way to see it happen.

For 9/11? I don't know anything for sure, and that''s the first thing to establish, of course. It's all theory and until or unless we get a real investigation worth the name? We may only ever have theories to guess on, for how messed up everything related to this has become.

However, US Intelligence (CIA is just one piece and not the most powerful OR dangerous piece, at that) has been known to "let nature take it's course" before and Pearl Harbor was only the most visible and catastrophic example (prior to 9-11..possibly).

In terms of knowing the date and hour? There is also a very real factor of not WANTING to know details beyond a certain point. Plausible deniability down to a poly exam later is part of that, I'd think ...but it's also enough to know it's coming, when timing isn't important to long term planning and the men watching have infinite patience.

Do you really believe that the CIA would watch these hijackers and let them go ahead with their little plot, without any control of the situation? They just sat it out in the hope that it would be successful??

Do you honestly believe, if you've done the hours of legwork to read up personally, Pearl Harbor came as a total shock from left field to President Roosevelt? .....I think Bush was just as surprised, and in roughly the same ways for the same reasons. Not expecting it that day ...but knowing it was coming soon.

Early warnings about Al-Qaeda threat
Within a week of the inauguration, Clarke wrote to Condoleezza Rice and Stephen J. Hadley asking 'urgently' for Cabinet-level meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat.

When Clarke first briefed Condoleezza Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave him the impression she had never heard the term before."

Rice told Clarke that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies

"Rice" made a decision that Clarkes position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
Chain of Command aLtered before 911
-------------------------------------------------------------

Dick Cheney & his chief of staff , (PNAC member)"Scooter" Libby, had several of his allies on Rice's own staff – , including deputy national security adviser "Stephen Hadley" and (PNAC member) Elliott Abrams – & were able to run circles around Condoleezza Rice

Stephen Hadley
From 1972 to 1974, Stephen Hadley helped supervise an "analysis group" for the assistant secretary of defense under Donald Rumsfeld, before moving to the "Office of Program Analysis"

Until 1977 when he became partners DC law firm ,when in 1986 he serve as counsel to President Ronald Reagan in response to the Iran Contra scandal.
Tower Commission
Bush's "Top Lieutenant"
--------------------------------------------------------------


Condoleezza Rices rise to power
Condoleezza Rice studied Russian at Moscow State University in 1979, and was an intern with the RAND Corporation (workin for the agency ?)

With the election of George H. W. Bush Sr. ,,Condoleezza Rice was asked too give advice about the Russians & how to deal with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

In 1992 Condoleezza Rice was recommended for a spot on the Chevron Corporation board ,, Chevron was pursuing a $10 billion development project in Kazakhstan and, as a Soviet specialist, Rice knew the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. She traveled to Kazakhstan on Chevron's behalf and, in honor of her work, in 1993, Chevron named a 129,000-ton supertanker SS Condoleezza Rice (OiL)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

There were many calls to incompetence that day...if you believe that...than you should be fearful for your lives...since you seem to be surrounded with incompetent people...all the way to the top.

Having lived five decades, much of which was spent working at airports, in the military and for the gov't, I can assure you that the incompetence level is pretty high. As you say, All the way to the top. And that alone scares me as I saw it on a daily basis.

All too often I saw people get advanced either based upon their connections or quite often just to get rid of them and make them someone else’s problem. Doing this is a disaster in the making.

Incompetence is just one of the problems as apathy plays a role as well, and so does ego at the higher levels.

Working with just the above three mentioned helped make my decision to retire and leave it all behind. I was sick and tired of banging my head on the wall.

At the moment though, I am not about assigning blame, but rather fixing the mess that came out 9-11. We have to repeal many of those unconstitutional (IMO) laws. That should be first and foremost.