An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

[Magda Hassan]

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

In a new documentary, ex-national security aide Richard Clarke suggests the CIA tried to recruit 9/11 hijackersthen covered it up. Philip Shenon on George Tenet's denial.

By Philip Shenon

August 11, 2011 "Daily Beast" - -With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks only a month away, former CIA Director George Tenet and two former top aides are fighting back hard against allegations that they engaged in a massive cover-up in 2000 and 2001 to hide intelligence from the White House and the FBI that might have prevented the attacks.

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 speculates and readily admits he cannot prove -- that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda. After the recruitment effort went sour, senior CIA officers continued to withhold the information from the White House for fear they would be accused of "malfeasance and misfeasance," Clarke suggests.

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.

Clarke said that if his theory is correct, Tenet and others would never admit to the truth today "even if you waterboarded them."
Clarke's theory addresses a central, enduring mystery about the 9/11 attacks why the CIA failed for so long to tell the White House and senior officials at the FBI that the agency was aware that two Al Qaeda terrorists had arrived in the United States in January 2000, just days after attending a terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia that the CIA had secretly monitored.

In a written response prepared last week in advance of the broadcast, Tenet says that Clarke, who famously went public in 2004 to blow the whistle on the Bush White House over intelligence failures before 9/11, has "suddenly invented baseless allegations which are belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration."

The CIA insisted to the 9/11 Commission and other government investigations that the agency never knew the exact whereabouts of the two hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, inside the U.S.let alone try to recruit them as spies.

Agency officials said the CIA's delay in sharing information about the two terrorists was a grave failure, but maintained there was no suggestion of deception by CIA brass. Tenet has said he was not informed before 9/11 about Hazmi and Mihdhar's travel to the U.S., although the intelligence was widely shared at lower levels of the CIA.

The 9/11 Commission investigated widespread rumors in the intelligence community that the CIA tried to recruit the two terroristsClarke was not the first to suggest itbut the investigation revealed no evidence to support the rumors. The commission said in its final report that "it appears that no one informed higher levels of management in either the FBI or CIA" about the two terrorists.

But in his interview, Clarke said his seemingly unlikely, even wild scenario a bungled CIA terrorist-recruitment effort and a subsequent cover-up was "the only conceivable reason that I've been able to come up with" to explain why he and others at the White House were told nothing about the two terrorists until the day of the attacks.

"I've thought a lot about this," Clarke says in the interview, which was conducted in October 2009. He said it was 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.

Clarke, now a security consultant and bestselling author, has hinted in his writings in the past that there may have been a CIA cover-up involving Hazmi and Mihdhar, although he has never made such direct attacks on Tenet and others at the CIA by name.

He did not reply to requests from The Daily Beast to expand on his comments or to explain why he has not repeated them publicly since the 2009 interview. The documentary's producers, FF4 Films, said they had been in contact with Clarke this month and that he stood by his remarks in the broadcast.

The producers, John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, had previously made a well-reviewed film documentary, "Press for Truth," (http://www.911pressfortruth.com), on the struggle of a group of 9/11 victims' families to force the government to investigate the attacks.

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.
"Richard Clarke was an able public servant who served his country well for many years," the statement says. "But his recently released comments about the run-up to 9/11 are reckless and profoundly wrong."
"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."

Clarke, who led government-wide counterterrorism efforts from the White House during the Bush and Clinton administration, has said in the past that he was astonished to learn after 9/11 that the CIA had long known about the presence of Hazmi and Mihdhar inside the United States.

"To this day, it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn't tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn't tell me," Clarke said in the interview for the documentary, referring to Tenet and Cofer Black. "They told us everything except this."

He said that if he had known anything about Hazmi and Mihdhar even days before 9/11, he would have ordered an immediate manhunt to find them and that it would have succeeded, possibly disrupting the 9/11 plot.

"We would have conducted a massive sweep," he said. "We would have conducted it publicly. We would have found those assholes. There's no doubt in my mind, even with only a week left. They were using credit cards in their own names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven's sake." He said that "those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...harge.html

[Charles Drago]

So Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar become perfect patsies.

Sound familiar?

[Peter Lemkin]

Yup, Charles, While I feel it didn't quite go down the way it is described by Clarke, it has the same exact chilling hollow 'ring of untruth' as does Dallas and a few hundred other similar ops........:gossip:

[Jan Klimkowski]

So Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar become perfect patsies.

Sound familiar?

Many limited hangouts involve the creation of perfect patsies.... :mexican:

[James Lewis]

So Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar become perfect patsies.

Sound familiar?

And Charles, don't forget the ultimate patsy, Mr. Osama bin Laden. Or, the Incredible Disappearing Assassin.

[Magda Hassan]

Who at Alex Station knew what in August-September 2001?
By Kevin Fenton
Recent allegations made by former counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke against former CIA Director George Tenet and two other former CIA managers, Cofer Black and Richard Blee, have thrown one of the key unanswered questions of 9/11 into sharp relief. What happened at Alec Station, the CIA's bin Laden unit, after an officer there discovered that two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, had entered the US?
The officer, Margaret Gillespie, says she made the discovery on August 21 and the record indicates she began to notify the FBI and other government agencies on this day. However, while a substantial amount of information has been made public about how the news circulated around the FBI, almost nothing is known of how Alec Station dealt with it.
In an interview recently broadcast as a trailer for the forthcoming audio documentary "Who Is Rich Blee?" Clarke alleged that the CIA had deliberately withheld from him information about Almihdhar and Alhazmiin particular the news that Almihdhar had a US visafor over twenty months before 9/11. Clarke also highlighted the importance of the information, saying it was more important than, for example, any of the key pieces of intelligence discussed at a controversial meeting with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001.
According to a statement recently released by Tenet, Black and Blee, neither Tenet nor any other senior CIA official was told of the visa or of travel to the US by Alhazmi and Almihdhar before 9/11. This was also the 9/11 Commission's conclusion, although this conclusion was hedged. If this is true, then one appropriate question would be: why not?
After the attacks, it emerged that the FBI had arrested one of the possible hijackers, Zacarias Moussaoui. However, it blew the case, failing to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings and even failing to inform its own director of what was happening. This later failure became a badge for the FBI's general uselessness. And Thomas Pickard, the acting director whom the information did not reach, made matters worse when he suggested Tenet, who had been informed of the case, should have stepped in and done the job Pickard's staff failed to do.
In his 2007 book At the Center of the Storm Tenet piled on the agony for Pickard (emphasis in original):
During the 9/11 Commission hearings, I was stunned to hear Tom Pickard, who was acting FBI director in August 2001, suggest that I had somehow failed to notify him about Moussaoui. Failed to tell him? Hell, it was the FBI's case, their arrest. I had no idea that the Bureau wasn't aware what its own people were doing.
However, the CIA's failure to inform Tenet of the Almihdhar and Almihdhar information must be regarded as more serious than the FBI's failure to inform Pickard of Moussaoui. While the local Bureau agents who arrested Moussaoui thought he may well be a terrorist, they did not even realise he was a bin Laden operative, let alone connected to a suspected forthcoming al-Qaeda attack. On the contrary, the CIA knew Almihdhar was linked to the next attack.
In a July 23, 2001 e-mail published following Moussaoui's trial in 2006, one of Blee's former deputies, Tom Wilshire, warned CIA Counterterrorism Center (CTC) managers of Almihdhar's link to the next attack: "When the next big op is carried out by UBL hardcore cadre, Khalad will be at or near the top of the command food chainand probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid Mihdar should be very high interest anyway, given his connection to the (redacted)."
Khalad (usually spelt Khallad) was a known al-Qaeda leader, currently in Guantanamo. The redaction is probably a reference to al-Qaeda's global operations hub in Yemen, to which Wilshire knew Almihdhar was linked. The e-mail appears in none of the relevant reports published by the Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission and Justice Department inspector general. It was a follow up to one sent ten days earlier that Blee is known to have read. Wilshire, who was on loan to the FBI at this point, is one of the officials who failed to pass on notification of the Moussaoui case towards Pickard.
The scenario that Tenet, Black and Blee are selling is this: Gillespie found that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had entered the US and notified multiple other agencies. Four weeks previously, Wilshire had informed his former CTC colleagues that Almihdhar was "very high interest." Yet, nobody at the CTC was able to put this together. Indeed, the significance of the two militants' presence in the US would usually necessitate prompt notification to Tenet, even without Wilshire's e-mail. Yet this was not done.
Here, then, is a very simple question: If Tenet did not know that Alhzami and Almihdhar had entered the US after August 21, who failed to tell him?
# # # #
Kevin Fenton is the author of Disconnecting the Dots: How CIA and FBI Officials Helped Enable 9/11 and Evaded Government Investigations.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/...%98-to-do/
Please consider making a donation to Boiling Frog as they are solely dependent on individual donations and do a great job.

[Ed Jewett]

Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots

by Jim Fetzer (with Preston James)

One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is. E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996)


9/11 appears to have been a classic "false flag" operation in which an attack is planned by one source but blamed upon another. In this case, the evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the atrocities of 9/11. That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but which were of much greater political utility. And in each case, qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false beliefs that they were "the real deal".

The situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where "Track #1", as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as "the lone assassin". Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that Cuba had done it. Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union. But these were superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.

Deep black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in layers of secrecy, protected by the "need to know" and sensitive compartmentalized information (SCI). Since WWII, however, major covert operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as unacceptable.

This is related to Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs". When basic primal survival fears are activated in the "group mind" of the masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more protection from the boogeymen. This principal is the basis for successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in "quiet desperation", which is the actual intended result of those who plan and activate them.

Deep Black/False Flag Ops
The "shroud of secrecy" they afford provides perfect cover to plan and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert operations and keep them secreteven from those operatives who are involved as well as the government's own agents who do the investigations. The "national security" cover can be dropped on any matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be invoked again at any time. Thus, alphabets who discover what really happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery of a "national security letter".

One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex design, best referred to as "multi-track, enmeshed". This involves using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of which could individually do the job if they were actually "taken live". These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more taken live.

This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators, thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was actually done and how it was done. Multi-track and interwoven deep black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live as the predominant op.

As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we discover there are at least five different alternative theories for which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots, which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is knowable. Such deep black cover op designs can thereby provide sufficient "after the fact" cover to keep the truth buried in confusion forever.

Palestinians Did It
Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It! Efforts were being made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and employees. Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though it were contemporaneous to convey the impressionmeant to be indeliblethat the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting misery on America.
An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11and that was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower! So during that brief interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to implicate the Palestinians was well under way. The immediate availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be cast
And that might have become the official cover story, were it not for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who watched as five young men, dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers, cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they were not the problem: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign passports in their possession. Urban Moving Systems would subsequently be identified as a Mossad front. After 71 days of incarceration, the Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Once they had been arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of 9/11.

Arab Hijackers Did It
Cover Story #2: 19 Arab Hijackers Did It. If these attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless. We know "the official account"that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.

But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq. Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by government officials or the main stream media: If 15 of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt, then why were we attacking Iraq?

Osama bin Laden with al Qaeda
Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no "hard evidence" that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is deep. Elias Davidsson, for example, has shown that the US government had never produced evidence that the alleged "hijackers" were even aboard those four planes. Muslims. David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.

Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the "official account" of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia
Cover Story #3. The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to buy expensive "K Street" lobbyists and gain influence with high officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to gain from a "staged terror attack" such as 9/11. It was the next layer of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn't work any longer and was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed, it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. It certainly raises the prospect that the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of 9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were "pulling the strings".

"Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers," Meecher writes, "was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?" Although a number of reasons have been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions a number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.

Sibel Edmonds
Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or of the countries involved, she has said. "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".

Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including "that foreign operatives who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who have been selling America's nuclear secrets on the black market; that foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an intimate relationship' with the United Stages government right up until 9/11." While most of this is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to implythat Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy terrorist army to promote its own agendamay be true in its own right, but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.

The US "Let it Happen"
Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen. The distinction between "LIHOP" (let it happen on purpose) and "MIHOP" (made it happen on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the "Able Danger" contretemps. As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.
The evidence, however, indicates that was not the caseand, indeed, that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad. As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven. The first one was the creation and trackingprincipally by the Mossadof some "low tech" terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US and other intelligence agencies.

"Able Danger" discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which we can call "Track A". The operation was designed to be discovered to create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, other members of the "Able Danger" team, and Coleen Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis. Track A, however, was designed to be discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

When the folks from "Able Danger" swear that they uncovered "a real terrorist cell plot", they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling the truth. But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be merely hugely incompetent. After all, how could government officials of this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert operation?

The US "Made it Happen"
Actual Story: The US "Made it Happen". Track B, by comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on 9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some of them live and substituting high-tech weapons and in order to target the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce false leads confusing investigators and researchers.

A perfect example turns out to be the "hard science" 9/11 Truth group's insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in the demolition of the Twin Towers. This position, which has assumed a status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosiveor, at best, a feeble explosiveand cannot have been responsible for blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of steel by means of shockwaves. To a bona fide explosives expert, the claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious deception. If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11 along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the wildest intel dreams as a classic "red herring".

Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building. The evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling, however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine, USA (ret.), perhaps the world's leading expert on image analysis and interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it and other powerful proofs of governmental fakery and has taken this evidence out of the public domain:

"From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully," Stubblebine has explained, "it was not an airplane." During an interview in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the façade of the Pentagon. "If it had wings, it would have left wing marks. [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the ground first and lost a wing. But airplanes have two wings, and he could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs." Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, "Look at the buildings fallingthey didn"t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake."

Whistleblowing as Deception
The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science. So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror cell plot, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a false track. When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she could not get a search warrant for Moussaui's hard-drive because he was involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth. When a Sibel Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she is telling the truth. Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended to support the theory of US incompetence.
Clarke, who was the nation's leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed, "It's not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn't somehow recognize the significance of it," Clarke said during an interview. "No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only theories about the CIA's failures to communicate vital information to the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well."

Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of Homeland Securitywhich leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed "an inside job" and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney administration, has been its primary beneficiary.

But Israel cannot have done this alone. The NORAD "stand down" and the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has observed, "Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq, putting an American army squarely at the center of the world's largest pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without 9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to appease the fundamentalist Christian Right."

The Fourth Reich
Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in the Mideast may have created huge future trap for them in their role as "classic cutouts", which can be later exposed in a limited hangout admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure. This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.

Richard Clarke, Anti-Terrorism Czar
It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory, according to which the US "let 9/11 happen". Even on the assumption that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends in the Mossadwho, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest level of control over the atrocities of 9/11. Because Clarke was in the crucial position of being the nation's anti-terrorism czar, his affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that "if only we had done better" and "we must not let this happen again", oblivious of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about 9/11.
We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch list and considered as "potential domestic terrorists" by Homeland Security, which somewith ample justificationview as "The New American Gestapo." If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the process of Nazifying America, as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could lead to a "Fourth Reich" run by offshore banks and large international corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.

So If you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the government's own experts, who would be assigned to investigate themand even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew what happened and, even among them, only a few probably knew the full dimensions of the plan. The objective throughout, accordingly, has always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where everything about these events is believable and nothing is knowablewhich is the ultimate objective of disinformation.


Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, "false flag" and covert operations by the US government.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/...thin-plots

[Peter Lemkin]

Good piece, Jim! Expand it into a book!.... While not in anyway a fatal flaw, IMO, I have a different 'take' at this time on the Mossad connection. It is clear [to me and you and others] that Mossad [or elements within/close to it] had foreknowledge - foreknowledge is not sufficient to demonstrate being involved in the planning nor execution. I site 'Russian' foreknowledge via Nigel that JFK's 'number was soon up' - yet can see NO way in which the Soviets were involved. There is the added possible layer as to whether in 911 the Israelis discovered this on their own [likely as they spy more on the US Intel community more and better than anyone else] - or they were tipped off [even secretly] to further muddy the waters.

For the 'average person', who has not studied covert ops generally and false flag and patsy ops in particular, this is all TOO complex for them to contemplate, let alone feel the 'bulk' of society/intelligence/journalism/etc. would miss it - those of us who have studied all these kinds of things over the years/decades and beyond KNOW this is Standard Operating Procedure and the 'norm'. The more complex, the more layers [all but one false], the more false sponsors and false actors, the more seemingly unbelievable and even contradictory, the 'better' for the real perpetrators to pull it off with impunity and without accountability. :darthvader:

[Ed Jewett]

Richard Clarke Only Proves that 9/11 Blogger is LIHOP Disinfo
Posted on August 14, 2011 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton

Scroll down the front page of 9/11 Blogger (once the flagship website for the Truth movement and now an empty shell of it's former self populated by LIHOP sock-puppets aka supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory) and the ONLY articles you see are about the Richard Clarke "revelation" that the decision was made in the upper ranks of the CIA (George Tenet) to keep information about the future hijackers from the FBI and the White House and everyone else that supposedly would have acted to stop the attacks of 9/11. Apparently the story goes something like this:

The CIA was attempting to recruit the al Qaeda terrorists for some project or another and therefore they were in the country. That effort failed and the CIA did not inform anyone that they were around which Clarke then says would have been useful information that the FBI could have used to stop 9/11 from occurring.
If anyone thinks they have heard this story before, you're right. It's already the official version of what happened in the "defense/intelligence failures" that supposedly led up to 9/11. This of course is how they justified creating the Department of Homeland Security so long ago to serve as the central hub of intelligence gathering and processing so that things like this didn't happen again. This aspect of the story is certainly not news.

The notion that the CIA was trying to "recruit" the al Qaeda operatives is the only new twist to Richard Clarke's latest effort to prop-up the official story's failing opinion ratings. Back in 2001 not many people understood how the US worked with and even created al Qaeda. But that isn't the case now. Most Americans understand that the CIA has been using this shadowy group for destabilization campaigns for decades. Hell, now they have an office in Washington DC since they are closely affiliated with the fake "rebels" in Libya.

Seems to me Clarke is trying to explain away the fact that the CIA (and the FBI by the way since two of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant for a year or so) had close contact with these men. Clearly they were setting them up to be the patsies but according to Clarke, this is one of the first times the CIA approached a group of angry Muslims and did not get them to blow something up for them. They also seem to have left them to their own devices here in the states after the failed attempt which of course defies all credibility.

The fact that this obvious spin-job of Clarke's is pasted all over 9/11 Blogger as "news" goes to show you how far Blogger has fallen down the Cass Sunstein psyop hole. The film was made by the same two guys who produced Press For Truth, a film that finishes out by claiming it was Pakistan who attacked us on 9/11. Pakistan folks. Who does that "revelation" serve these days?

This is Jon Gold style LIHOP at it's best, full of evil Muslims, scary terrorists, and renewed calls for even more Homeland Security intel industrial complex cooperation. It has no business being seriously debated on a Truth site of any kind. Gretavo over at WTCdemoliton, one of the last real Truth advocacy sites, copied one of the threads for posterity sake so that in the future we could all look back and evaluate the "contributions" of all the various sock-puppet personae inhabiting Blogger these days.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/08/...p-disinfo/