CIA Threatens 9/11 Researchers After Discovery Of Cover Up

THE CASE FOR A COVER-UP AND HOW IT CAN BE DONE

On multiple occasions, I have seen people saying "a cover-up of that scale can not be done...too many people would have to be involved"

Well...this is how you do it...without too much hoopla.

Reread the OP scenario. So 50 CIA agents are doing their job...investigating...writing reports. All these reports pass through a bottle neck...you simply stop a report...cover it up. 3000 people die.

How many are involved ? Just one guy...who is in a position to break the chain of information. Everybody else pretty much innocently do what they do. After the event...no CIA agent is going to yell..."hey...I wrote a report about that ?? what gives George ??? "

They aren't in a position to call it. Only authorized persons can give out public statements which are prepared by the higher ups.

Also, remember Bush and his 9/11 commission interview...he could have hidden the fact that he is a child rapist for all we know. Nobody could do anything about it. He chose what to disclose and in what manner.

Remember the Iraq WMD's ? Was the entire military, congress, govt. , in on the lie ? No they weren't. Only the analyst and the receivers of analysis needed to be. The chain of command prevents from lower levels knowing everything. No soldier on the field knows exactly why is he fighting there. He just follows orders.

This is how you cover it up...no need for armies of people to be involved. I many cases...1-2 people in the right positions of power can make sheep out of all of us...and we would probably never know it.

There is a cover-up of EVERYTHING the government does. There truly is. Why? Because they do what any entity will do...collect the information and make a decision on how to react. The problem is, we act like they will react in a manner best for the American people. They don't. They react in a manner of their best interest DESPITE how it affects the American people.

9/11 as one example. The government may have known absolutely everything including the targets and the time frame. While we would say the government should stop the whole thing, the government could have looked at the possibilities and decided it was in their best interest to allow it to happen. That is our government...that is what they do. They are an entity...a creature that protects itself and grows itself. All the evils in our country are either created, generated or allowed to happen by the government. Very few things of scale happen here that aren't completely known by government. That is why you see stories and comments made in advance or too quickly. That is why there is always a story directing your attention to how they want the aftermath to affect you and that is why no one is ever held responsible for NOT knowing the event would happen.

The government is the enemy much like SkyNet from Terminator. It has grown and become self-knowing and self-serving. Sure...people are at the heart of it, but there is little difference. Think about it.

MarioOnTheFly
THE CASE FOR A COVER-UP AND HOW IT CAN BE DONE

On multiple occasions, I have seen people saying "a cover-up of that scale can not be done...too many people would have to be involved"

Well...this is how you do it...without too much hoopla.

Reread the OP scenario. So 50 CIA agents are doing their job...investigating...writing reports. All these reports pass through a bottle neck...you simply stop a report...cover it up. 3000 people die.

How many are involved ? Just one guy...who is in a position to break the chain of information. Everybody else pretty much innocently do what they do. After the event...no CIA agent is going to yell..."hey...I wrote a report about that ?? what gives George ??? "

They aren't in a position to call it. Only authorized persons can give out public statements which are prepared by the higher ups.

Also, remember Bush and his 9/11 commission interview...he could have hidden the fact that he is a child rapist for all we know. Nobody could do anything about it. He chose what to disclose and in what manner.

Remember the Iraq WMD's ? Was the entire military, congress, govt. , in on the lie ? No they weren't. Only the analyst and the receivers of analysis needed to be. The chain of command prevents from lower levels knowing everything. No soldier on the field knows exactly why is he fighting there. He just follows orders.

This is how you cover it up...no need for armies of people to be involved. I many cases...1-2 people in the right positions of power can make sheep out of all of us...and we would probably never know it.

Excellent post MOTH!

I would add to that the msm scripting that was so obvious and so successful. Whoever was speaking up was ridiculed from the start. Here is a good example of that:

And here is a good example of how far reaching msm scripting can be, just in case anyone is in doubt about that:

It's not a stretch to imagine that the offial 911 story was spread in the same way, immediately after the event no less. The reporting of the WTC 7 collapse before the event (LOL!) is clear evidence of this. Especially when we see that this event was hardly ever presented again in the msm after that day.

soulwaxer

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by andy1972

 

Yes. Listening to Clarke I got the impression...that he could do nothing about it. Even if you gathered all the evidence in the world...they are above prosecution.

Yup, exactly that. Clarke knew the CIA was blowing smoke up his ass, but he couldn't do anything about it.
He says clearly the order had to have come from George tenet to block the information coming to him.
If the information was blocked why?
As Clarke states they would have done a country wide sweep and they would have been arrested in less than 24 hours. But they couldn't be arrested or they wouldnt have had time to find new patsies.

It's exactly the same as Mohammed Atta's june 4th arrest warrant for not appearing at court did'nt show up on the police computer when he was stopped for speeding on July 5th 2001.

Whats the chance of that happening??

If they, the patsies, had been taken down, especially Atta being the "ring leader" the big day would have been seriously in jeopardy.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly



You know absolutely nothing about the Agency or how it operates. The only thing you claim to know is a warped version of government from countless hours in front of a television.

I really hate to burst your bubble but the agency could care less what '9/11 truthers' think. As far as citizen groups being subversive fundamentalist primitive Baptists congregations in the south worry the bureau much more than truthers could ever do. You see they are a real threat with an organizational structure and are well funded from a host of donors seeking to unseat the government. In other words they are dangerous and the response from an agent or operator about the threat from 9/11 'conspiracy' groups would be to laugh right in your face.

If anyone believes otherwise then their ability to separate fiction from their beloved television and fact are truly in conflict.

reply to post by soulwaxer


Not a fairy tale, they usually have a happy ending.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Allow me to summarize my argument.

It is quite a big leap to go from hearing Clarke admit that a he did not get a memo that in hindsight could have prevented the attacks to arguing that this is proof there was a deliberate attempt to let the attacks happen as par to of some grand government conspiracy. This is further backed up by the body of literature (including Clarke's own book) that exists most of which highlights that prior to 9/11 inter-agency cooperation with the the National security apparatus of America was lacking due to mostly red tape and poor leadership.

If you want to prove otherwise then you will need to find proof that someone at the CIA deliberately withheld this document so that the attacks could go ahead uninterrupted not read what you want between the lines of what Clarke is saying.

There's a lot of reasons these agencies don't share information, the first probably being money from congress. If the CIA gave away intel, and the FBI cracked the case, the CIA wouldn't get any credit AND the CIA is NOT supposed to be doing any "internal" investigations (internal to US boarders). The CIA is supposed to be limited to outside US stuff.
Bottom line, yes, I think agencies within the US knew something was up but failed to connect the dots.

Richard A. Clarke wrote A gainst All Enemies

and has many pages in Philip Shenon's - The Commission the Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation

reply to post by spooky24


Spooky...I know you want to be on the side of winners...so your comment is of extreme importance concerning the thread topic.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

If you want to prove otherwise then you will need to find proof that someone at the CIA deliberately withheld this document so that the attacks could go ahead uninterrupted not read what you want between the lines of what Clarke is saying.

Coin,
If , by some feak accident, what Clarkes says is true and they didnt tell anyone because they wanted tp "flip" the arabs, and piss off the FBI, and because of this lack of inter-departmental co-operation 3500 people died on 9/11, if it is so and they wern't part of a conspiracy, and it was just a bad call on part of the CIA, don¡t you think heads should roll.
As i learnt very quickly in her majestys armed forces, # rolls down hill.
I would have been easy and convinient for the agency to give the commision a sacrificial lamb and close the rumour mill, but they didn't, they havn't, and they never will.

Tenet chose not to inform because what had to happen, had to happen and people much more powerful than the director of the CIA had much more to loose if the 9/11 attacks never happened.

Agency after agency warned 9/11 was going to happen. Ahmed Massoud, the lion of pashtun warned the European parliment only 7 DAYS before 9/11 Al Qaeda was planning a huge attack on the U.S mainland.
There was simply TOO MUCH evidence that a large scale attack was about to happen, and 10 of the 15 Saudis were in the U.S thanks to visas (issued under pressure by the CIA) from the US consul in Jeddah.

That something so FUBAR could happen in the USA and the agency couldn't stop it happening, for me, is just unbelieavble.

What would be best for thr CIA -
1 - That the world thinks that they were part of the plot and they let it happen or,
2 - That they are so incompetent at what they do they wernt capable of defending the USA and 19 camel jockeys armed with stanley knives outwitted the multi billion dollar international most technically advanced spy agency in the world...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I've made a conclusion in the OP...that I'm certain there was foreknowledge. And that is almost an undisputable fact. Even the OS people will admit that there probably was "some" foreknowledge...and that's not due to this video. This was already proven. This video only made me more certain.

Very highly positioned official inside the government stated that a specific report about the hijackers in question was blocked...

If you want to ignore this Clarke interview and pretend it doesn't matter at all...fine by me.

Whether this means...that if it was an inside job...or...that a certain rogue govt. faction merely "let it happen" for their own purposes...is of no consequence to me.

There is very little difference to me...and I'm sure...the victims families would be full of understanding...if they only let it happen.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I am not ignoring anything

There was a body of evidence before the attacks held across the span of the American National Security infrastructure I accept that I am not arguing that memos were not sent or that the PDB never had Bin Laden mentioned.

What i am saying is that they did not connect the dots because of poor inter-agency cooperation they failed to connect the dots.

Additionally they received and still do, hundreds of threats a day and god only knows how much raw intelligence, most of these threats turn out to be nothing, some are disrupted before they get of the ground and some are very serious.

With 9/11 to my knowledge there was never a bit of evidence that said "these 19 guys on this date will fly these planes into these targets at this time" that could have been acted upon.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

What i am saying is that they did not connect the dots because of poor inter-agency cooperation they failed to connect the dots.

As there is much speculation form the conspiracy people about the entire event...this statement of yours is as much speculation.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


It is not speculation.

It is well documented time and time again by the officials involved that poor inter-agency cooperation was a big contributing factor that resulted in the possibility that they might have missed the dots. Note how i said might. Even if they were all communicating and working together as we should expect them to do so today it is still possible that the intelligence pointing to the attacks could have been missed as a result of the volumes of intelligence that they receive.

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.

There was a FBI field agent who was tipped off that one of the hijackers was wanting to learn how to pilot a plane, but not how to land or take off.

They were told to back off and just wait to see where that led, and those were orders sent from the president himself. So that leads to the Bush family/Saudi-Arab link over oil.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Fine Coin. I didn't start this thread to convince anyone...as I know that's near to impossible. I presented video that clearly states there was a report block.

Clarke...."somebody intervened and blocked that specific report" by credible government employee, charged with reviewing terrorist threats.

ATS member..."it was unintentionally overlooked"...

I'll let you chose your own truth.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I do think it was deliberately blocked but not to further any kind of covert action carried out by the CIA.

It was either like Clarke says and the CIA where covering their butts; or someone at the agency saw it and made a bad judgement call that the intelligence was not pointing to a credible and immediate threat to the United State and was not pushed up the chain of command. I have to say the first seems more likely based on this interview that the CIA were trying to recruit these guys.

I think it is a interesting video in that you could take it either way depending on your views on 9/11.

This reminds me of what happened after JFK was assassinated. A very large number of people who were direct witnesses, or who were working to expose that there was a conspiracy, were mysteriously and untimely found dead. Others claimed their lives were threatened, and I am not talking about just 5 or 10 people either. That would still be a lot, but there were even more than that, and it is a good indication that something else actually happened than what the official report stated.

Take 9/11 and you find the same thing. There were quite a few people who could prove they were actually involved as witnesses or otherwise with the events of that day, and who stated that they were threatened, etc. And even more importantly, there were people killed, both witnesses and investigators. The lady who had information directly from top officials who were involved, officials who were a little too loose with their words around the working girls, and who attempted to expose what she knew...she was even asked if she was suicidal on the air, and she definitely claimed that she was not; meaning that if something happened to her, it was likely a coverup. And of course, she was found dead, and it was ruled a suicide.

That is not the only instance either. Just like the JFK conspiracy, the evidence starts stacking up against the official report. I mean we have got very proficient professional people who have formed organizations, people who know what they are talking about when it comes to things like buildings, and they are saying that there are inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are all over the place, and this points to a conspiracy.

reply to post by soulwaxer

They never boarded any of the 4 flights that crashed, or can someone provide some proof that they did (besides a passport found in the streets of New York...)?

You honestly confuse me with some of your questions. This only happened a little over 10 years ago. Airports DID have cameras back then. It wasn't that long ago. These scumbags were filmed going through airport security. They were filmed in departure areas. There isn't any doubt they were at the airports and then...weren't. As if, they boarded a plane and took off.

Then their vehicles were found, about where expected, and with junk in those as well.

All this has been part of the open public record and discussion since shortly after it happened though? Were you not aware they were filmed that morning clearly and where one would expect they'd have been for what later happened?