A new 9/11 mystery: the monitored Yemen hub

[paulthompson]

Here's a new bunch of entries in my timeline. I outlined what to research and did a lot of editing, but the 9/11 Forums' very own KJF did most of the heavy lifting to make these entries:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline_yemen_hub

What are these entries about, you ask? Basically, by 1998, if not earlier, the NSA began very closely monitoring a safe house in Sana'a, Yemen, that was a vital communications hub for the entire al-Qaeda network. Bin Laden himself called there lots of times. The house was owned by 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar's father in law, and Khalid and a couple other 9/11 hijackers frequently called there (sometimes from the US) and visited it as well. Monitoring this hub gave US intelligence an amazing look at al-Qaeda operations throughout the world. So how could they have had such an intelligence bonanza and not stopped the 9/11 plot, as well as the USS Cole bombing in 2000, which was partly planned from the hub?

I believe this hub is very important, but its story has been lost in obscurity and over classification, buried in report footnotes and the like. Only now are we beginning to understand just how thoroughly US intelligence was monitoring the al-Qaeda network before 9/11. I'm sure what US intelligence knew about al-Qaeda operations would be even more stunning if more information about this hub and other phone tapping operations were declassified.

Kudos to KJF for his fine work on this! :)

[mirandapriestly]

1. When did they start calling it "Al Qaeda"?eom

[paulthompson]

2. Probably...

...from the beginning, when it was formed in 1988. But it naturally was a secretive organization and the name wasn't bandied about in the early years. A training manual that fell into US hands in 1992 had "al-Qaeda" written on the cover, and Ali Mohamed told US intelligence about the group in 1993. The term was first used in the media in 1996 (spelled al-Qaida). As you may know, the word means "the base" or "the foundation" or something to that effect, and it was less the official organization title than a concept, like bin Laden saying this is "the core" group of people I trust. While there was an official membership list from the very beginning (bin Laden had a business background and a bureaucratic streak), people on the list probably didn't think of themselves so much as members of "al-Qaeda" as members of the core group bin Laden says he trusts. The name didn't really catch on in a big way even within the group until after the Western media started using it a lot after the US embassy bombings in 1998.

It's a bit confusing, but if you want an example, imagine a guy who leads a working group within a business but is reluctant to give it a name. Everyone starts calling it "working group" for lack of a better name, and eventually it becomes the official name.

[mirandapriestly]

8. the fact that it was a group formed by the U.S. originally

makes me wonder about it's authenticity as a true "terrorist" organization. IOW, I feel like
"Al Qaeda" (qaida whatever) is a catch phrase for every random berserker, false flag suicide bomber (we know it happens, they've been caught), and iraqi defender (i.e insurgent)against the U.S. Prior to Iraq, I can't help but think that there wasn't really an "al qaeda" but that it is revisionist history to give a "name" to a terrorist threat that isn't as all powerful as they would have us believe.
When did the mujahadeen in Afghanistan stop working against Russia and start being against the U.S. similarly, when did bin laden stop working for the CIA and start working against us (I know the official answer, but really..) If you get my drift...

[Nozebro]

11. CT'ers want you to think it's an actual ORGANIZATION, but you'll notice

they (CT'ers) never provide any (credible) proof for that claim (as with all other CT'er 9/11 claims), and there's a very simple reason why: it's impossible to prove a lie is the truth.

[paulthompson]

27. It has become that

There's no doubt that the term "al-Qaeda" has been picked up and bandied about and overused. A lot of people in this world aren't that bright, so it's easy to give them a single organization or single individual to hate. A classic example is how the US government overhyped Zarqawi to personify the resistance in Iraq into a single easily hated individual. Check out this article which points out the blatant psychological operations about this used on the US public:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

However, that doesn't mean there isn't some "there" there. Zarqawi was a real individual who was mythologized and propagandized until it becamse pretty much impossible to separate the truth about him from fact. But there was the kernel of real truth that was run with and blown all out of proportion. Ditto with al-Qaeda.

And you raise a good question about the ties between al-Qaeda and Western intelligence. That's something I'm still trying to get to the bottom of. While I wouldn't go so far as to say al-Qaeda is or was a puppet of Western intelligence, I think it's clear there's been a lot of manipulation going on all along. The close monitoring of the group all along (the original point of this thread) is a good example of that.

[Nozebro]

31. Odd statement, IMO. As though the booshco 9/11 perps had nothing to

do with promoting lies and propaganda to try and establish "al Qaeda" as some powerful, ORGANIZED group of evil terrorists who are fiendishly clever and fully capable of defeating the entire U.S. National Defense system.

On the other hand, you (probably inadvertently) seem to be implying what 9/11 Truth Seekers have known for years: That Osama and Company (aka "al Qaeda") made for very easy-to-frame scapegoats.

[paulthompson]

32. Al-Qaeda was...

...an organized group of terrorists before 9/11. However, its size and capability has been vastly exaggerated. At the time of 9/11, there were less than 1000 al-Qaeda operatives in the world. It was in a loose alliance with a number of other groups around the world, and it helped train lots of people belonging to other groups, but those people generally couldn't be trusted for operations. Since then, it has scattered and decentralized. Now it's more important as a concept than an organization. But there was a time when it was a hierarchical organization with formal membership and salaries and so forth.

But it's also true that it has wildly hyped to be an all purpose boogeyman, and this started happening even before 9/11. For instance, the US government has made claims that al-Qaeda has thousands of sleeper agents in the US alone, which is patently absurd and an obvious scare tactic. So I would agree that they've frequently been made scapegoats, but I don't understand why that should mean al-Qaeda never existed in the first place. One can have a real group that is wildly overexaggerated and misrepresented and scapegoated.

[Nozebro]

34. What is the source for those claims?

No doubt you or anyone else can find sources (maybe even unbiased sources, but that remains to be seen) that claim al Qaeda was an "actual" organization with a hierarchical chart, salaries and so forth. Whether courtesy of CIA propaganda or not, do those same sources provide proof that al Qaeda was an actual organization whose mission was the carrying out of acts of terrorism? BTW - I don't consider fighting the Russians in Afghanistan to be terrorism.

[paulthompson]

42. Asking...

...if there was an organization called al-Qaeda is the wrong question. There's a mountain of evidence there was (start by looking at my timeline, sourced from 7,000 plus articles). I've never heard anyone deny that there was (and maybe still is?) a millionaire named Osama bin Laden. I've never heard anyone deny that he gave dozens of interviews and statements before 9/11, many of which made threats and praised terrorist acts and said things like attacks on US civilians were justified and necessary. So if that's true, it stands to reason that he wasn't acting alone but that he used some of his money to pay people to work for him. Everyone has to eat and live. Thus, people had salaries. The questions are how big was his support structure and what were their capablities. Bin Laden went to university and studied business administration, and further all through his childhood was expected to work with his family construction company, and further, when he started out he ran many businesses. So, not surprisingly, he ran al-Qaeda with a business mindset.

But additionally, we must ask was al-Qaeda manipulated? Coopted? Used for false flag operations? What all were they doing exactly? Who else were they working with? Working with intelligence agencies? Etc... But to simply deny there ever was such a thing as al-Qaeda flies in the face of a mountain of evidence.

Here, by the way, is an interesting response to this type of question from a different DU thread I saw yesterday. I greatly admire Sibel Edmonds and I highly trust what she has to say:

Now, as I was poking around on the Internet, I came across an interview Sibel Edmonds gave to the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel in May 2004. Notice the conclusion of Edmonds' statement, when asked, "What is Al Queda?"


This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Now, where is there a big scandal unfolding surrounding a gigantic lobbying and money laundering operation, where some of this money could get into someone's political campaign? Hmmmm... "And people don't want to be traced back to this money." Hmmmmm...

<snip>

------

In short, in my opinion, she's suggesting a connection between al-Qaeda and some in other countries, incluing Western countries, and massive drug profits are a glue tying them together. The drugs coming out of Afghanistan are worth $100 billion a year, street value. Forget bin Laden's personal fortune or even Saudi donations, a cut of that has been al-Qaeda main source of money. When she talks about sub-sub organizations, think about the prototypical shady business that creates a whole chain of interlocking shell companies and front companies to mask the money trail. Al-Qaeda was the same way, except they mostly used fake charities.

[ftr23532]

54. Gama'a al-Islamiya and Egyptian Islamic Jihad...

...are two groups that I've found useful in both attempting to grapple with the larger network and support infrastructure that a group like al-Qaeda operates in and the confusing way in which all these groups work together. Here's a few reasons why it's worth it for folks to learn more about these two militant groups:
- Both Gama'a al-Islamiya and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad(EIJ) are closely affiliated with al-Qaeda (at least branches of them), and have been so for a long time.
- They both have ties to some of the most notable terrorist attacks since the end of the Cold War. Ayman al-Zawahiri was an EIJ leader. Sheikh Rahman, the "spiritual guide" for Gama'a al-Islamiya, was the "mastermind" behind the 1993 WTC bombing. And both groups had factions merge into al-Qaeda during the 90's.
- They both have a history of relationships with intelligence agencies. Sheikh Rahman was involved the Afghan Mujahedeen support effort here in the US. Ali Mohamed, an EIJ member, was, well...Ali Mohamed ;-).
- They are both direct offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and appear, as far as I can tell, to be sort of actively violent proxy groups for the Muslim Brotherhood ever since it was partly blamed for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1980. And the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be another one of those glues that really ties together much of the modern terror infrastructure. It's got roots going back to the fascists movements of the 30's. It started developing CIA and close Saudi ties in the 50's. Many of the religious leaders in Muslim communities around the globe that advocate holy wars appear to be Muslim Brotherhood members. Many of Osama bin Laden's teachers were Muslim Brotherhood members. And many of the charities and financial institutions that help supply the money and weapons to terrorist groups.

For folks interested, check out http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-5-muslim-brotherhoods-nazi_11.html">Part 5 for some interesting history on the development of the international branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, and how the CIA began establishing ties with it in the 1950's. Also note that the eventual manager of the Munich Mosque involves some of the same folks that set up the al-Taqwa bank, so we're talking about some fairly old personal networks behind our modern-day financial networks.

In http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-7-muslim-brotherhoods-radical_11.html">Part 7 there's an admittedly egregious and confusing amount of information on Gama'a al-Islamiya and the EIJ, but it's worth sifting through if you have time since it covers some of the background on the fusion of these two groups with al-Qaeda and gives some historical context for the emergence of militant Islam in Egypt (and Egypt cannot be neglected when it comes to trying to understand this topic). There's also lots of little tid bits on the cooperation of US intelligence with these groups and figures like Ali Mohamed.

In http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-8-charitable-brotherhood_11.html">Part 8 there's more info on how the Muslim Brotherhood/Saudis' charitable networks(and there are more than just the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood involved here...they're just very significant players in it all) were used to supply the Jihadist outposts in places like Bosnia and the Philippines. Make a note of Talat Fouad Qassem, who was the leader of Gama'a al-Islamiya's international military branch. He was apparently sent over to Europe to start laying the groundwork for a Bosnian Jihadist replay of the Afghan war back in 1990, which is when Yugoslavia was really starting to dissolve. Mr. Qassem was also the first fellow extraordinarily renditioned by the US in 1995, and just weeks before that took place he was running around Europe with Mahommed Akef, a fellow that not only helped set up the Muslim American Society in Virginia but is also current the "Supreme Guide" of the Egyptian Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also note in Part 8 how the Bosnian Jihadists initially had extensive covert support by the US military along with plenty of other nations in the Bosnian civil war. And it was after the Dayton accords, when all the foreign fighters were supposed to be removed from Bosnia, that private US corporations came in and took their place, helping usher in the age of privatized warfare that we're seeing playing out in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-10-look-at-world-of-money_11.html">Part 10 has some useful info on how easy it can be for these groups to launder drug money with the complicity of the international financial system, so that could be worth looking at too.

One of benefits, for me at least, of learning about the terrorist-financing/global Jihadist side of things when attempting to make sense of 9/11 (which cooperativeresearch is just magnificent for), it both helps highlight the incestuous ties these groups have with Western intelligence, but also demostrates the extent to which the true-believer radical Islamists really have their shit together in a lot of ways. These guys aren't idiots and it's another part of what makes the US's current situation so dire. The Muslim Brotherhood and Gulf-financed support network is a pretty amazing structure. Not only does it help provide the support needed for terrorist groups operate, but it simultaneously helps radicalize vulnerable Muslim populations across the globe and get them ready for a Long War too (Not that bombing them doesn't do the trick anyways, as 9/11 demonstrated in a sort of reverse manner).

Another nice thing about the taking a look at Muslim Brotherhood is that you find it's really quite large. And as such, it's sort of like the CIA or other intelligence agencies where the "bad actors" are only going to be factions within a much larger organization. I always find that kind scenario a bit more hopeful. It makes it that much more likely that there are folks on the inside of the Muslim Brotherhood that have a sense of what's going on and are trying to stop it, like we've seen with all the intelligence community whistle-blowers. Maybe it's wishful thinking but I hope that's not the case.

[KJF]

5. After the US did

My understanding is that the organisation wasn't originally called Al Qaeda - this was just a name for part of it, a military camp or system in a camp of camps, or group of people there. Bin Laden started using the term to refer to his entire organisation after the western media did (I don't know what it was really called before this, maybe it didn't have a name at all). I guess somebody found the name for part of the organisation, but the CIA (or whoever) then (wrongly) figured it was the name for the whole organisation.

Footnote relating to a statement dated October 21, 2001 from "Messages to the World: the Statements of Osama Bin Laden":

Bin Laden uses the term "al-Qaeda" very rarely throughout his statements; indeed this is his first use in this collection. In May 2001, he issued a communique to "members of al-Qaeda". The term itself (the "foundation" or "the base") is a common Arabic word used by Islamic radicals drawn from all over the Muslim world to fight alongside local resistance groups in the Soviet-Afghan War. It was also a term used by those who believed that their struggle would not end with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan... The first reference to "Al Qaeda" appeared in a CIA report in 1996; it was used by the State Department for the first time in 1998 (who described it not as an organised group, but rather as "an operational hub, predominantly for like-minded Sunni extremists"...
P. 108

On 7 October 2001, in response to a question about Al Qaeda's global reach Bin Laden said:

... So the situation is not as the West portrays it: that there exists an "organisation" with a specific name, such as "al-Qaeda", and so on. That particular name is very old, and came about quite independently of me. Brother Abu Ubaida al-Banshiri created a miliary base to train young men to fight against the Soviet empire, whcih was truly vicious, arrogant, brutal, and terrorized the faithful. So this place was called "The Base", as in a training base, and the name grew from this...
p. 119-120

[mirandapriestly]

9. this part

"...word used by Islamic radicals drawn from all over the Muslim world to fight alongside local resistance groups in the Soviet-Afghan War.."

and who financed the Soviet resistance?

[KJF]

13. The Saudis, mostly

The Saudi government matched whatever the US government put in and then Saudi private donors made up most of the rest. Hip-shot guess: the US paid about 40% of the muj's expenses.

Slightly off topic: I don't think there's much mileage in claiming Osama is a nice guy and would never do any of this. If it is a false flag attack, then surely Osama was picked as the person to pin it on because he heads the organisation most likely to do an operation like 9/11.

[mirandapriestly]

15. I did not say he was a "nice guy"

neither has anyone else, don't do that. I just don't know how we can believe accounts of 911 involvement considering that there was no attempt to "catch" him and try him and he was intentionally let go at ToraBora. Also, he did not admit it despite phony recordings and tapes to the contrary.

[KJF]

18. This and that

There are alternative explanations for the lack of effort to catch Osama, for example:

(George W. Bush) is an ambitious man, atop a nation of ambitious and complex desires, who knows that when the al Qaeda leader displays his foreceful presence, his own approval ratings rise, and vice versa.
Ron Suskind, The Once Percent Doctrine, p. 336

Think of it like this: if we had caught Osama at Tora Bora, would we have invaded Iraq?

Setting aside the video with the double, Osama has admitted it several times:

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

...

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

...

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:d8acjx1VgnMJ:english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm+Osama+towers+Lebanon&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&strip=1

You can't have it both ways with Osama, either he's a US asset (and helped the US "frame" him for 9/11), in which case his denials shouldn't be taken seriously (all part of a pre-arranged event), or his denials should be taken seriously, in which case he isn't a US asset (at least any more). Which do you pick?

My take: Osama is a bit like the Blind Sheikh, they're trying to manipulate him without him being a witting asset (at least directly, most of the time), but this can get a little tricky...

[RedSock]

25. admitting and denying

OBL has also been quoted as denying involvement in 9/11.

September 12, 2001: "I don't have any link to the US attacks."
http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/sep/12ny15.htm

So ..........

[KJF]

36. What it means

If he's both admitted it and denied it, then he must have been lying once. Therefore we shouldn't base our assessment of his guilt or innocence on a denial or admission, but on whether there is evidence that goes back to him, did the alleged hijackers attend his camps, did they work for Al Qaeda, does the money trail go back to him, etc.? The strength of this evidence differs by hijacker, the strongest being for Al Mihdhar and the Al Hazmi brothers, the weakest being for Banihammad. In addition, although some of the evidence has been disclosed, lots of it still hasn't. For example, we only have four of the passenger records for the hijackers' flights to the states, whereas I would like to see all of them.

[DrDebug]

22. The official story is that they were watching the wrong road and missed 100-200 vehicles

According to Newsweek, approximately 600 al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, including many senior leaders, escape Afghanistan on this day. This is the first day of heavy bombing of the Tora Bora region (see November 16, 2001). There are two main routes out of the Tora Bora cave complex to Pakistan. The US bombs only one route, so the 600 are able to escape without being attacked using the other route. Hundreds will continue to use the escape route for weeks, generally unbothered by US bombing or Pakistani border guards. US officials later privately admit they lost an excellent opportunity to close a trap.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1116toraborabegins

"I saw Osama in the sixth or seventh truck and behind him were from 100 to 200 vehicles. At the end of the convoy there were five armoured vehicles. Arabs from across the city were gathering here, coming from all directions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/23/wbin23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/11/23/wbin23.html

There was of course nothing unusual about 200 vehicles. According to The Power of Nightmares they also caused a minor traffic jam in the middle of the night...

Q: "What's that traffic jam in the middle of the night on route to Pakistan?"
A: "That's probably a wedding party. Boosh said that we were supposed to watch this road, so it's none of our business."

[KJF]

39. Agreed

Off-topic: did you ever check out the ACE Elevator company?

[DrDebug]

40. No, never looked into ACE Elevator

I see that they left before the buildings collapsed:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mechanics.htm

And there was lots of critism though
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

All the references to Ace Elevator seem to be either WTC or a UK firm and the UK firm only has offices in Great Britain. And a search on a New York location only gives 3550 Two World Trade Center and they've been declared bankrupt Jan. 20, 2005. It's not completely clear whether it was the same company as the British firm, since the UK firm is spelt Ace and not A.C.E.

Is there anything in particular?

[KJF]

47. It was just wierd

The way they ran off, whereas in 1993 they stayed and released people from the elevators. The way Otis lost the contract to a small company like ACE was odd too. I was just wondering if you'd come up with anything, that's all. No big deal.

The UK company is completely different by the way.

[seatnineb]

17. and Osama was doin the US a favour by fighting the soviets.

But the official story would have us believe that Osama only got peeved with the US when the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia for the 91' war with Iraq.........what a sack of horse shit!

[paulthompson]

26. Unfortunately, KJF...

Your understanding on this is wrong, because your sources are wrong. Bin Laden blatantly lied all the time, for instance denying involvement in bombings he was definitely involved in, or claiming not to know people he definitely knew. He's a master propagandist. Sometimes he tells the truth, sometimes he doesn't. You can't always take what he says at face value. There are internal al-Qaeda documents that flatly contradict his quote here.

The 9/11 Commission is similarly untrustworthy. In this case we can prove they're definitely wrong. For instance, they say the State Department first used the term in 1998, but that department actually issued a public statement using the term in 1996!

August 14, 1996: ‘Al-Qaeda’ First Mentioned in US Media
Based on a review of the Lexis-Nexus database, the term al-Qaeda is first mentioned in the mainstream media on this day. A “United Press International” article draws from a State Department fact sheet released the same day (see August 14, 1996), and states, “Earlier, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Usama Bin Ladin drew on his family’s wealth ‘plus donations received from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region’ to organize the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida. The group established recruitment centers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that enlisted and sheltered thousands of Arab recruits to fight the Soviets. ‘This network remains active,’ the State Department said.” (The spelling is the same as in the original.) (US Department of State, 8/14/1996; United Press International, 8/14/1996) However, the term will remain little used and little understood by the media for the next several years. For instance, the New York Times will first mention the term two years later in quoting the courtroom testimony of one of the plotters of the 1998 US embassy bombing. It is referred to as “al-Qaeda, an international terrorist group, led by Mr. bin Laden.” (New York Times, 8/28/1998)

Similarly, their claim that the first reference was in a CIA report in 1996 is also blatantly wrong. Check out this entry, for instance:

Autumn 1993: Ali Mohamed Gives FBI First Glimpse of Al-Qaeda
Double agent Ali Mohamed is interviewed by the FBI. He volunteers the earliest publicly known insider description of al-Qaeda. He says that bin Laden is running a group called “al-Qaeda.” Apparently, this is the first known instance of US intelligence being told of that name. Mohamed claims to have met bin Laden and says bin Laden is “building an army” that could be used to overthrow the Saudi Arabian government. He admits that he has trained radical militants at bin Laden’s training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan to help defeat the Soviets. He says he taught them intelligence and anti-hijacking techniques. Mohamed also apparently fails a US government polygraph test around this time. However, he denies links to any criminal group or act. An FBI investigator later will say, “We always took him seriously. It’s just he only gave us 25 percent of what was out there.” Supposedly, the FBI interviews him because his name had surfaced in connection with the al-Kifah Center as part of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing investigation. (Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2001; New York Times, 12/1/1998; Chicago Tribune, 12/11/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 11/4/2001)

There's a lot of misunderstanding and disinformation on this point. For instance, the 9/11 Commission has systematically downplayed the importance of al-Qaeda in the early 1990s to justify them not looking deeply into anything before 1996, and this fits that pattern.

[planeman]

3. This indeed interesting.The incompetence of our administration

is indeed overwhelming.but that is all it is.Incompetence.there is no goverment conspiracy theory here.The Arabs had the means,motive,methodolgy and the belief to carry out 9-11 with Pakistan and saudi Arabia funding them and facilitating them as they hatched their evil plan.
Let us hope that those responsible in both the Pakistani and Saudi goverments eventually pay for their deciet.

[paulthompson]

4. Okay...

Let's say for argument's sake that you're right with the incompetence theory. But there are different kinds of incompetence. Is it all "Keystone Kops" type bumbling, or could there be systemic and even criminal reasons for such so-called incompetence? For instance, let's say you commit a crime and later on you're appointed to investigate that crime. Surprise, surprise, you find yourself innocent and manage to place the blame on someone else! That's called "CYA" - cover your ass behavior. It can quickly rise to the level of a criminal act and then conspiracy as the lies pile up and the cover up has to grow to maintain the original lie.

Or, there's another type of incompetence, which has to do with conflict on interest. 60 Minutes ran a very interesting segment several times showing that there is basically zero security around chemical plants in the US, literally no fences or security guards. A small bomb planted near certain tanks of chemicals shown on the program could kill a million or more people. Yet even after 60 Minutes showed this program repeatedly, pointing out exactly where one could blow these tanks up, there STILL is no security in these places! Why? The program makes a convincing argument that lobbyists for the chemical industry have successfully lobbied the Bush administration not to do anything because they don't want to pay the marginal fees to have security there, and the Bush administration doesn't want the government to foot the bill either.

So is that "incompetence"? In a sense, yes, but really it's gross criminal negligence to leave these targets so completely undefended. If one of these tanks ever blows up, I hope top people will go to prison.

The more I research, the more I discover there are usually systemic and disturbing reasons for what on the surface at first appears to be simple incompetence. Often "bumblers" are promoted precisely because it serves some higher up's purpose to have a bumbler there. A case in point: the FBI STILL has no modern computer system or information sharing system and they are years away from getting one. Most FBI agents are incapable of making a simple Google search relating to their cases, and if they try to do so at home, that's a crime. One could call the failure to get such a system a decade plus series of incompetent acts, but I would argue it serves the interests of FBI headquarters not to have FBI agents able to communicate with each other or share data, so FBI headquarters can completely control the flow of information.

And incompetence often slides into conspiracy. I don't think the division is as clear cut as people ususally think. Government officials can become more and more compromised for a variety of reasons until they are all but forced to commit what are essentially criminal acts.

[RedSock]

7. excellent response!

It brings to mind the line from Dylan's License to Kill: "mismanaged with great skill".

[mirandapriestly]

10. One of many red flags, IMO

"...the FBI STILL has no modern computer system or information sharing system and they are years away from getting one... "
The democrats are talking about implementing the 911 commission. It will be interesting to see if they do (not as interesting as a real investigation)

[Nozebro]

12. I'm surprised that you would believe Democrats will be ANY different when

it comes to False Flag operations. History proves it.

[mirandapriestly]

14. well, judging from everything else

I know damn well they won't . Conyers was talking about impeachment and election fraud and now that he's in power....pfffffft

[AZCat]

16. News Flash...

Conyers isn't in power yet - that won't happen until January.

But you knew that, right?

[mirandapriestly]

19. He's already talking about "no impeachment"

They are talking about their intent already, but you knew that, right?

[AZCat]

33. I think it's debatable that "off the table" means no impeachment.

We'll see how this all plays out, of course. I don't think they'll have any choice.

[Nozebro]

35. There is no choice. It's just not possible for them to have a choice.

nt

[AZCat]

38. There's always a choice.

But the consequences of one of the options is, at least in my opinion, a dire threat to our system of checks and balances. We need to decisively veto this idea of the executive branch being able to use the Constitution "buffet style" and I think impeachment is the only available venue to do so.

[Ferry Fey]

28. What do the insurance companies think about that?

Or, there's another type of incompetence, which has to do with conflict on interest. 60 Minutes ran a very interesting segment several times showing that there is basically zero security around chemical plants in the US, literally no fences or security guards. A small bomb planted near certain tanks of chemicals shown on the program could kill a million or more people.

Has there ever been any movement to lean on the insurance companies to mandate better security? You'd think that the money they'd lose if that happened would be a powerful incentive.

[petgoat]

30. My understanding is that the EPA could require better

security procedures and infrastructure under its existing rules, but it doesn't.

Greg Palast in "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" talks about Bush's connections
to the petrochemicals industry--they make big contribs to the Republican party
rather than to individual candidates and that's all ok legally.

Could be the insurers are not much motivated to press for anti-terrorist procedures
if their coverage has exclusions for terrorist acts.

After all, if they did, the client might go find another insurer, right?

It's only under rules that apply to ALL the chemical plants that security procedures
will be implemented. No plant is going to implement them voluntarily because it
puts them at a financial disadvantage with respect to their competitors.

[Ouabache]

76. Insurance doesn't cover it in lots of instances

Read your homeowners policy.

War, civil disturbances (riots), and nuclear events ARE NOT COVERED, I know that for sure. My guess is that some acts of terrorism are no longer covered either. IOW, if your house becomes uninhabitable from a nuclear accident, you can't recover anything from the insurance company.

[wildbilln864]

77. hmmm...

.

[LARED]

78. I'm glad you brought this up

I work in the chemical industry. The 60 minutes piece was a hack job, filled with misleading and inaccurate information. But they did correctly bring important imformation to the public. Chemical plants are playing catch up with security system since 9/11. Many (not all) companies have spent many millions of dollars improving security systems. Most chemical plants were not designed with high security in mind so it is a difficult and very expensive task to upgrade to levels that the public would deem acceptable.

To answer your question, insurance companies, chemical companies, as well and the government are keenly aware of the problems and are demanding risky chemical companies make improvements.

And contrary to what the media portrays, there has been vast improvements made since 9/11.

[CJCRANE]

83. But Bush-Cheney

obviously know that Saudi and Pakistani assets funded 9/11 (in fact these people were political allies, if the allegations are true). And both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have benefitted from Bush-Cheney foreign policy.

[wildbilln864]

84. Kick!

:hi:

[ftr23532]

6. Here's some more info

on the Yemen Hub, the monitoring of bin Laden's communications via satellite phones, and how it ties into the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Gama'a al-Islamiya (a faction of which has quite close ties to al-Qaeda). Goto http://fortherecordessays.blogspot.com/2006/11/part-7-muslim-brotherhoods-radical_11.html">Part 7 and skip down to the section "The London Implications of the Luxor Massacre" for some info on bin Laden's base in Yemen, and it's relationship to Gama'a al-Islamiya and the Muslim Brotherhood. Following that part, the "Bin Laden's London Connection" section has a bit on bin Laden's presence in London and the monitoring of the satellite phones given to him by Khalid al-Fawwaz. This monitoring by British and US intelligence (and the resulting inaction) is especially curious since Mr. al-Fawwaz was implicated in the 1998 African Embassy attacks and was apparently under surveillance by British intelligence at the time. Lot's of head-scratchers in there...

[mirandapriestly]

24. According to Michael Shaylor

(the former MI5) Britain allowed radical Muslims to recruit and train in Britain so they wouldn't bomb in Britain - called the "Covenant of Security". So, for example, Haroon Rashid Aswat was supposedly a mastermind of the London bombings and yet he was hidden and protected by MI6.



David Shayler, ex-MI5, narrates an exploration of the 7/7 bombings; with references to 9/11
and the nature of how Western intelligence agencies interface with Islamic "terrorists".

Mind the Gap -here is the documentary and information -
http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/mindthegap/Google/mindthegap.html

This doesn't deal directly with your post, but maybe it sheds some light on all of this.

[ftr23532]

29. John Loftus also asserted that Aswat with working for MI6

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782">On Fox News. And here's an article about Shayler's claims that the http://www.guardian.co.uk/shayler/article/0,2763,837332,00.html">Brits prevented the arrest of bin Laden in 1996 and used an al-Qaeda cell for the purposes of assassinating Gaddafi. Yeah, there's no shortage of whistle-blowing about the Brits.

[mirandapriestly]

20. "The Myth Of Al Qaeda"

from Newsweek by Michael Hirsh

"...But it is true that the more we learn about Al Qaeda, the
more we have to conclude that the group contained a lot
more Abu Zubaydah types than it did Muhammad Attas. In
contrast to the truly terrifying Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker,
and 9/11 master strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—both of whom
took terrorism to new levels of competence—most Al Qaeda
operatives look more like life's losers, the kind who in a
Western culture would join street gangs or become a petty
criminals but who in the jihadi world could lose themselves
in a "great cause," making some sense of their pinched, useless
lives. ...Like Richard Reid, who tried to set his shoelace on fire....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/page/2/

[mirandapriestly]

21. Duplicate...Delete

[Beam Me Up]

23. "Monitoring" or "running." Just curious. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

37. Exactly.

There is quite a nice, flamboyant trail to follow, just to make sure we have any doubt there were any "hijackers". That guy, Khalid Almihdhar was living in San Diego with a FBI informant while taking midnight runs in a limo and reportedly drew the planes of an airplane upside down in a test at a flight school (lol), the FBI didn't seem to care too much about what he was doing here. But then they claim to be "left out of the loop" by the CIA. Conveniently for them, they can always blame another agency or whoever the former head was, and the uppers blame it on the lowers and vice versa, plus it's secret for an added bonus.

[medienanalyse]

41. "I believe this hub is very important" Good

In our book we described it - more than three years ago.
Except that we can doubt that the NSA "monitored" the place.

I am not only talking about the Cole and the embassies.
- Al Midhar went to Kuala Lumpur (Bojinka) amd the NSA knew it.
- John O`Neil tried to raid the house, came with one hundred feds and WAS BLOCKED by the US officials (who pretended that the Yemen government complaned). O Neill was THERE ! And now he is dead ....

And there was a raid: in 2002 - half a year later after 9/11. That means: when the Bushists "got out" that Al Midhar was part of 9/11 they immediately knew about his "involvement" in all the things before. And they still waited half a year.
Because of the Yemenite government ? For sure not. They cooperated like hell.

No. The story is short and simple: Al Midhar was and is a NSA/CIA asset. He and Binalshib lured Atta and some others into the Florida flight schools, he was and is the link to a lot of terror. Remember how he got his "new identity" some days before 9/11 - but did not use it ! And it was never revealed what his new name was ...

Maybe he just looks into this forum and spreads some nice additional red herrings.

[Crim_n al]

43. That would explain certain posts ... n/t

[paulthompson]

44. Raid

I hadn't heard anything about that John O'Neill raid and I'd be very interested in more details. MA, could you explain about that some more, including links?

[medienanalyse]

49. serving Mr. Thompson and his "timeline"

is like filling wine into a barrel without bottom.

You seem to be unable to put O`Neills name and additional the word "yemen" into the google machine ?

Even the Wikipedia files offer the conflict with Barbara Bodie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill

and the reliability of Wikipedia tends like the reliability of the "timeline", that is zero. But it has the Yemen episode.

Why should I give you, Paul Thompson, any support since you follow an ideology which is Bushist in its core: the "Hijackers are the Hijackers" - without any doubt, qustion marks and "alleged" ?

You tell the public exactly the same as the Bushists about who the perpetrators were - and you kill all information which yould be controversial to that theory.

It is the same with wikipedia:
there is no chance at all to introduce any sentence what Rumsfeld did in those two hours of his entire life when America was under attack and he was secretary of Defense.

You may have opinions as you want about his coffeee meeting with senator Cox - but the most important two hours of Rumsfelds life are not even mentioned.

And that is what I am telling you, Paul Thompson: you have an agenda and you do not tell it to the people.

This dishonesty I will not support. Never.

[paulthompson]

50. MA...

I'm puzzled how you keep saying inaccurate things about me and my research. I have never said the "hijackers are the hijackers" or anything similar to that. If you look at the table of contents of my timeline, what do you see the title of this section is?

The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
Alhazmi and Almihdhar (99)
Marwan Alshehhi (62)
Mohamed Atta (108)
Hani Hanjour (34)
Ziad Jarrah (17)
Other 9/11 Hijackers (63)

It's true that I call them hijackers a lot in the timeline, but that's just a matter of convenience. It's in the title - I don't need to repeat it every single time I use the word hijacker. If you actually look at the content of my research, I put any and all information out there that supports the idea that they were NOT the hijackers and if I missed anything, let me know and I'll add it. Of course the timeline if far from perfect or complete, but I'm trying. Regarding alternate identities, do you forget that I wrote the essay about the two Ziad Jarrahs? As a matter of fact, just yesterday I started this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x125267

And there will be a new entry on that very soon, I'm sure.

Here are a couple of entries about Andreas von Bulow, to show you the kind of material in my timeline that you seem ignorant of:

January 13, 2002: Former German Minister Believes CIA Is Responsible for 9/11
Andreas von Bülow, former German Minister for Research and Technology and a long-time member of German parliament, suggests in an interview that the CIA could have been behind the 9/11 attacks. He states: “Whoever wants to understand the CIA’s methods, has to deal with its main task of covert operations: Below the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to be influenced by inciting insurrections or terrorist attacks, usually combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering. ... Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out that there is an intelligence agency behind it, all traces are erased, with tremendous deployment of resources. I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90 percent of its time this way: creating false leads. So that if anyone suspects the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of paranoia. The truth often comes out only years later.” (Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), 1/13/2002) In an example of covering tracks, Ephraim Halevy, head of Israel’s Mossad from 1998 till 2002, claims, “Not one big success of the Mossad has ever been made public.” (CBS News, 2/5/2003)

July 2003: Former German Government Minister Releases Book Alleging US Government Complicity in 9/11
Andreas von Bulow, a former German government minister, releases a book called “Die CIA und der 11. September” (The CIA and September 11), in which he alleges US government complicity in 9/11. Von Bulow was Federal Minister of Research and Technology under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and before that was high up in Germany’s Ministry of Defense. (Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 9/8/2003) He argues that 9/11 was a covert operation in which the CIA and the Israeli Mossad played a role. He suggests remote control could have been used to direct the hijacked planes into their targets; that the WTC towers collapsed due to explosives; that no planes crashed into the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania; and that the CIA had faked mobile phone calls from Flight 93 passengers. (New York Times, 10/1/2003; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/9/2003; Daily Telegraph, 11/20/2003) Von Bulow tells the Daily Telegraph, “If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.” The book is a bestseller in Germany, selling over 100,000 copies. (Daily Telegraph, 11/20/2003) He previewed some of his theories in a January 2002 interview (see January 13, 2002). (Daily Telegraph, 11/20/2003)

As for Rumsfeld, I go into great detail about Rumsfeld's curious behavior that day. Please point out what I don't have there that I should:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=donaldRumsfeld

In any case, of course I know about the conflict between John O'Neill and Barbara Bodine, I have an entry about that:

October 14-November, 2000: Investigation Into USS Cole Bombing Is Thwarted
FBI agent John O’Neill and his team of 200 FBI investigators enter Yemen two days after the bombing of the USS Cole in an attempt to discover who was responsible. However, they are unable to accomplish much due to restrictions placed on them and due to tensions between O’Neill and US Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine. All but about 50 investigators are forced to leave by the end of October. Even though O’Neill’s boss visits and finds that Bodine is O’Neill’s “only detractor,” O’Neill and much of his team are forced to leave in November, and the investigation stalls without his personal relationships to top Yemeni officials. (New Yorker, 1/14/2002; Sunday Times (London), 2/3/2002; Miller, Stone, and Mitchell, 2002, pp. 237) Increased security threats force the reduced FBI team still in Yemen to withdraw altogether in June 2001. The Prime Minister of Yemen at the time later claims that hijacker “Khalid Almihdhar was one of the Cole perpetrators, involved in preparations. He was in Yemen at the time and stayed after the Cole bombing for a while, then he left.” (Guardian, 10/15/2001) The Sunday Times later notes, “The failure in Yemen may have blocked off lines of investigation that could have led directly to the terrorists preparing for September 11.” (Sunday Times (London), 2/3/2002)

But do you have any specific evidence that O'Neill wanted to raid that safe house? I haven't seen that and the Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about a safe house.

[medienanalyse]

53. Wrong in some parts, Paul Thompson

1. The al-Hada safe house was stormed in Feb. 2002:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/13/attack/main329289.shtml

that is half a year after 9/11.

"do you have any specific evidence that O'Neill wanted to raid that safe house?"Maybe. I am to lame to look for it. Let us guess what else he wanted to raid if not the object which was well known as exactly the hub you describe. Well known in Sana`a and in the services community. Do you believe a man like John O`neill packs a or several planes with hundreds of FBI agents without even a CLUE where and what to look for ?

2. "I put any and all information out there that supports the idea that they were NOT the hijackers..." Oh I missed that. A new development which I appreciate very much and which I will have an eye on it. I might open up my archives to see how devastating wrong you were before, but I prefer to concentrate on this sentence and to find verification.


3. "Here are a couple of entries about Andreas von Bulow, to show you the kind of material in my timeline that you seem ignorant of"
I will stay ignorant of such material. Mr. von Bülow asked me to visit him at home about five years ago. Since then I did not meet him anymore. I am not so much interested in what he "means" and "his opinion" is. I prefer hard facts and logic. So you do not impress me by citing his thoughts even if I see the world in most percentage like he does. Which leads to:

4."I'm puzzled how you keep saying inaccurate things about me and my research." I do not say anything about your research at all. My guess is: it is brilliant because you get service from all over the world. I talked about the RESULTS, so about your puvlication. Now I know you do not spit on the alleged hijackers. Fine.

Let us take it as you wrote just now:
"As for Rumsfeld, I go into great detail about Rumsfeld's curious behavior that day. " Besides that I did not want to make it the issue here ( I only pointed to Wikipedia and took their article as an example for treatment of facts and opinions), but now you said it clearly again: "Rumsfeld's curious behavior"

What is Rumsfeld's curious behavior? "America is under attack" since at least 9:05 officially, and the secretary of defense goes on to take his coffee. Bush makes NOTHING, Myers NOTHING, CHENEY NOTHING, RUMSFELD NOTHING, Wolfowitz NOTHING, Winfield NOTHING and so on. "Curious.
Andrews AFB scrambles NOTHING
Langley NOTHING
Otis NOTHING
and the Atlantic city fighters are ordered back.

Dolce far niente everywhere.

Schroeder just wrote his autobiography. on 9/11 immediatly the closest officials joined him in his office, Doris (his wife) was sobbing at the telephone (she just was in New York), Fischer rushed in still in his jogging dress.
They all had NOTHING to do with the events and were not resonsible.
They had NOTHING of knowledge about the hijackings before - which are a surplus of information which Bush and Rumsfeld had).

Do you really think that "curious behaviour" is adequate for the obvious and clear like hell obstruction of the responsibilities he had to overview, confer and manage the crisis?

This is the way you act: you pack the important main facts under a heap of NOTHING.

Example: the titles you give in your link: "9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Fighters Do Not Have Shootdown Authority"
This is as big as the information that Rumsfeld stays in his office. It implies: that any fighter jet was THERE in New York which is definitely WRONG
It implies that the weaponry was anyhow substantial that day which is definitly WRONG.
it implies a shoot down order was important which is definitely WRONG
It implies that rumsfeld staying in his office is not so much important because the air policing routine worked at least which is definitevly WRONG.
It implies that Rumsfeld staying in his office is of the same imprortance as orders to a single pilot which is definetly WRONG.


And I make it up , al this, just on a simple title. Imagine how I would take the whole article. Smile.

[paulthompson]

55. You have...

...a good point. Namely, the timeline presents a very big amount of information, and often the most important points can get lost in all that. Partly this has been by design. My goal has been to be very comprehensive and leave it to others like David Ray Griffin to use the timeline to highlight the most important facts and make comments on them. But as it grows and grows, facts getting buried is becoming a bigger problem. So in the near future we hope to make a "greatest hits" of the timeline that will be a selection of the most important facts for people who don't have so much time to go through everything. One idea is to have any people who want to vote on which entries are the most important to help make sure the most important ones get picked.

Re: John O'Neill and that hub, it is known that he was very aware of it and in fact he knew about it since 1998. Also, by this time there were a few obscure mentions of it in the media. So he might have wanted to raid it, thinking that it had been exposed already, or was close to being exposed. But on the other hand, the hijackers continued to call it long after the Cole bombing (there was even one call to it from the US in August 2001) so he may have thought it would be more valuable to continue monitoring it, if the people using it were clueless about the media coverage. Or there could have been a battle, with some people wanting to do one thing and other people wanting to do another. I can make educated guesses, but I've never heard any reports about it one way or another, so I'm hoping you have. I think it's an interesting question, because as the book The Looming Tower and other sources make clear, there was a deliberate effort to keep information from O'Neill.

[Nozebro]

56. Which "hijackers" are you referring to? EOM

nt

[paulthompson]

57. Read the link...

...that this thread is supposedly about, though none of the discussion seems to be about it. Did anyone actually look at it? Here it is:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=complete_911_timeline_yemen_hub

If you read that, you'll see the NSA listened in as hijackers Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhami called the al-Qaeda hub in Yemen, from the spring of 2000 till August 2001. Most of the calls from the first two came from the US. I also recently discovered that at the end of 1999 those three hijackers were recorded as they called each other several times (Almihdhar was in Yemen at the hub, Nawaf was in Pakistan, and it isn't said where Salem was).

I would think all this monitoring of the hijackers would be a big deal, not to mention the calls between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohamed Atta that the NSA listened to as well. I would think it would be one of the biggest smoking guns - how could the US not stop the 9/11 attacks if it knew about these calls? The last call between KSM and Atta was even the call to give the final go ahead the day before the attacks, and that was heard as well.

Why is it there are a thousand threads in this forum about explosions in the WTC, but virtually none about this kind of thing?

[Nozebro]

58. Flawed assumptions. Calling people "hijackers" isn't proof they are.

nt

[medienanalyse]

59. Nozebro screened and recognized you

Post # 50 Paul Thompson: "I don't need to repeat it every single time I use the word hijacker. If you actually look at the content of my research, I put any and all information out there that supports the idea that they were NOT the hijackers and if I missed anything, let me know and I'll add it."

The HIJACKERS "they were NOT the hijackers" Paul Thompson.

Post # 57 the very same person writes: "But on the other hand, the hijackers continued to call it long after the Cole bombing"

WHO THE HELL do you mean ? There is no problem at all if you say: Khalid AlMidhar called his family. But this is exactly what you do not.

Same with the heap of niceties you spread to bury the obvious fact that O`Neil was after the same persons who were not MONITORED but fed and helped and safehandled and cuddled by the embassador, the NSA and the CIA.

Same with the obvious fact that HALF a Year aftzer 9/11 these people were raided although all the connections were known since YEARS. The home of the alleged hijacker Atta in Hamburg was searched the day after although he did not live there since more than a year. The hub of the allged hijacker alMidhar was raided 6 month later although as you say - there is a vivid communication.


Paul Thompson: when you write that you are going to make a hitlist, that you are going to highlight things I already know that you will do nothing to change your agenda. Hope they pay you good enough.

[paulthompson]

60. Goodbye

"Hope they pay you good enough."

MA, I have tried to remain civil despite your insults. However, when you insinuate that I'm some kind of government agent, you make clear that there's obviously no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You're going on my ignore list.

[medienanalyse]

61. watch list - ignore list

1. Your ignore list seems to be very long (as you ignore a lot of findings as we had to state)

2. In comparison with what you allegedly do I act differently: I DO SPEAK with government agents and I have no problem with that.

3. “trying to discuss anything with you” is YOUR problem all the time, not mine. It is YOU who changes the isssues, it is you who calls people hijackers (and takes the Bushist stance by that), it is you who tries to elegantly evade to accept the facts. Not sophisticated enough - to evade the facts and the discussion now reached the most laughable point.

4. You “have tried to remain civil despite your insults” ? This implies that I did insult you. I did not. If you feel so, check why. And you say you remained civil as if this would be a special moral category. No - it is normal. Unnormal is to call people “hijackers” and by that to call them massmurderers without any proof, again and again and even here. This behaviour is insulting to those people, it insults reason, it helps the Bushist ideology, it is the cause for attacking at least Afghanistan, it follows Huntington and makes a “clash” out of simple differences.

All in all I find I react very calm when I discuss with people who talk about “hijackers” and “terrorists” although they do not have any court judgement which supports their insults.

Paul Thompson: you are and you stay on my watchlist. Which means: maybe you ignore me. I am not going to ignore you.

[Nozebro]

62. You hit a lot of nails on the head, M.A. -- very good post.

I believe you are "right on the money". It makes me wonder when someone issues a non-denial denial, framed in such a way that unless they're wearing a uniform with a badge, it would be incorrect to say they work for the Gov't directly or INdirectly, as on a contract basis. The people who told the lies to Congress about the alleged incident in the Kuwaiti hospital where babies were supposedly being left in incubators that had been turned off and so on...you could say that they too (the PR agents from Hill & Knowlton) are "gov't agents" because their PR firm was under contract to the U.S. government. The government has employed various journalists and PR specialists over the past what - 60-70 years?

One difference I've noticed between the CT'er crowd and Truth Seekers is this. CT'ers use labels as substitutes for evidence and reason. They do so almost reflexibly. Truth Seekers are more circumspect.

[nam78_two]

63. Thanks for the work you do Paul/nt

[Andre II]

64. Alleged or not alleged

"It's true that I call them hijackers a lot in the timeline, but that's just a matter of convenience. It's in the title - I don't need to repeat it every single time I use the word hijacker."


You call them only a single time "alleged hijackers" and this is in the table of contents. In the entries I always read hijacker Mohamed Atta. Over and over again.
Repeating this over and over again isn't a matter of convenience. By reapting it you end up creating the impression that the very person is a hijacker. It's a fact: I'm very puzzled. For somebody who knows all in and outs about the rhetorical tricks of the mass media this is a strange lack of what otherwise you always want to achieve: objectivity.

Either you can prove that these guys are hijackers (and then prove it) or you certainly should refrain from using the word "hijacker" over and over again (it also save bandwith if you don't wish to use the correct "alleged hijacker").

While I'll admire the huge body of work in the timeline I'm puzzled by the insistance of calling them hijackers.

[Andre II]

65. Adding information

"put any and all information out there that supports the idea that they were NOT the hijackers and if I missed anything, let me know and I'll add it. Of course the timeline if far from perfect or complete, but I'm trying."

I very much hope that you keep on adding information on the alleged hijackers. Yet, I must admit that I'm extremely disappointed that I don't see anything that you've added concerning all the stuff that has been found this year (especially by John Doe II) that there were doubles at work. Even your entry on the Shuckums drinking hasn't been changed. More than half a year you've promised to add these things. Yet, nothing has happened.

Of course i know that the timeline demands a lot of work but on the other hand it is puzzling that you've written this below already more than half a year ago:



"My timeline has lots of holes, and one big series of holes has to do with the hijacker's movements. Now that John Doe II has put a lot of that together, I hope to build on that and fill some of those holes.I suspect that when more is done, there will be more instances of hijackers being two places at once that come to light."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=73072&mesg_id=73142

„I'm definitely going to work on updating some of this material in my timeline to make the time conflicts clear.“
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_
id=59071&mesg_id=62628


"Certainly I will get to looking at these conflicts you point out, they are high on my list."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=78977&mesg_id=80030


"I'll be adding it to my timeline,"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=40000&mesg_id=40023

[KJF]

66. There is some new stuff

For example there is an entry about Atta being in Boston on the morning of 9 September and being in New York on 10 September. To see new entries just click on "recently added events". To check what was added in a particular month click on "Timeline entries sorted by the month they were published" and then select a month. You can see how, when the problems with the system were sorted out at the end of the summer, there was a big increase in alterations and additions - there was 1 alteration/addition in July, but 731 in October.

[Andre II]

68. This is not the point

I didn't question that there is a huge amount of new entries. That's great.
What I find simply extremely disappointing that although Paul Thompson is very interested in the research on the alleged hijackers and also promised to add new found material in fact he didn't add anything at all from the new findings that strongly indiact the presence of doubles. Especially that the entry on the drinking in Shuckums didn't change at all is hard to understand. I hope that after some nine month he'll find the minutes to add the new findings.

[paulthompson]

69. good point

Andre II, you're absolutely right that more of that stuff needs to be in there. As to why it isn't, it's simply because I'm overwhelmed. I haven't made that getting in the timeline as high a priority precisely because some other researchers such as yourself have covered it well (whereas there are other topics that have been more neglected). If you want to see it in the timeline sooner rather than later, I invite you to make some timeline entries yourself. I know you're a very good researcher and I'd love to have your help on this. The website has recently switched over to an on-line entry form for entries that makes inputting them a lot easier than it has been in the past.

On a similar note, I've had a bunch of articles about the Bukharis and Amer Kamfeer etc saved for ages but I've never gotten around to making entries about them. Realizing I probably wouldn't for a long time to come, I asked Red Sock at this forum if he'd want to do it since he took an interest in that topic. He graciously agreed and so hopefully that'll be another gap that gets filled soon. There's just too much material for a single person to cover which is why I love it when people help out.

[Andre II]

79. Hi Paul

thanks for the invitation and sorry I overlooked your post somehow!

In how far would my entries be changed?
Given the fact that you always call "hijacker Mohamed Atta" and your treatment on the doubles seems to differ clearly from mine I don't know if we could agree on the entries. Therefore I prefer to ask your idea before.

Happy new year btw

:party:

[KJF]

70. The entry that says...

... Al Shehhi was not there (he was at a bank) has actually been input and should appear soon. The one that says Atta was not there is just buried somewhere in the backlog, but it will get done.

[noise]

45. New book claims al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi could have been GID agents

From the recently published book Unsafe at any Altitude: Failed Terrorism Investigations, Scapegoating 9/11, and the Shocking Truth about Aviation Security Today by Susan and Joseph Trento (found on http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/10/09/book-review-unsafe-at-any-altitude/">Christian Becker's blog Homeland Security):

For example, on page 137 and page 192:

The biggest secret was that Saudi Arabian government agents whom the CIA had relied on for inside information on al Qaeda were, in fact, working for Osama bin Laden. Two of those agents were among the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 out of Dulles. Those two men were the ones the CIA and FBI had asked Steve Wragg to watch on the video at Dulles Airport. The CIA had known since 2000 that they were in the United States, but it hadn’t notified the FBI until June 2001. The FBI had been looking for them all summer in connection with the October 2000 bombing of the Navy’s USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, but had not been able to find them.

Prior to 9/11 senior CIA officials had convinced themselves that GID, the Saudi intelligence service, had placed agents inside al Qaeda. Because these two men - Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - were thought to be Saudi agents, the CIA did not tell the FBI about them when they came into the United States from a terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia. Had the CIA shared what it knew, the FBI might have had a chance to at preventing the 9/11 attacks.

Bizarre. The authors don't explain why senior CIA officials would resort to guesswork on such important matters.

The question always comes back to why nobody told the FAA to put al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi on their watch list since the record shows that these two men used their real names to reserve and purchase the airline tickets.

July 10th: Tenet has his "red alert" meeting with Rice.

August 25th: al-Mihdhar books a reservation.

August 27th: al-Hazmi purchases two tickets.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaykhalidandnawaf">Cooperative Research

[KJF]

46. Good catch!

That would make a lot of sense. The Congressional Inquiry Report says that Al Hazmi disclosed information about the embassy bombings in Saudi Arabia, but the to whom is redacted. The redacted section could well be "to Saudi intelligence". One of their associates in San Diego, Adel Rafeea, also suspected them of being Saudi agents. It's an interesting idea, which would explain a lot. I think I'll order the book, sounds like my cup of tea.

[paulthompson]

48. That's an interesting theory, but...

Let's say that it's true. The CIA, knowing that these guys attended an important al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia, aren't going to cease caring for them simply because they're Saudi agents. We know now the CIA knew these guys flew to the US and probably even had agents following them on the flight (I have a new timeline entry about that). At that point the CIA wouldn't simply say "whatever." Naturally, they'd keep a close eye on them and see who they meet and what they do. The CIA was well aware that the Saudis were completely untrustworthy, as this entry indicates:

1997: CIA Deems Saudi Intelligence ‘Hostile Service’ Regarding Al-Qaeda
The CIA’s bin Laden unit Alec Station sends a memo to CIA Director George Tenet warning him that the Saudi intelligence service should be considered a “hostile service” with regard to al-Qaeda. This means that, at the very least, they could not be trusted. In subsequent years leading up to 9/11, US intelligence will gather intelligence confirming this assessment and even suggesting direct ties between some in Saudi intelligence and al-Qaeda. For instance, according to a top Jordanian official, at some point before 9/11 the Saudis ask Jordan intelligence to conduct a review of the Saudi intelligence agency and then provide it with a set of recommendations for improvement. Jordanians are shocked to find Osama bin Laden screen savers on some of the office computers. Additionally, the CIA will note that in some instances after sharing communications intercepts of al-Qaeda operatives with the Saudis, the suspects would sometimes change communication methods, suggesting the possibility that they had been tipped off by Saudi intelligence. (Risen, 2006, pp. 183-184)

So it's not like the CIA would just say we'll trust the Saudis completely with these fantastically important al-Qaeda moles living in the US - that would be insane. The CIA would very quickly learn about the other hijackers (since Atta, Hanjour, and others frequently visited them in San Diego, not to mention what they'd learn from monitoring the phone calls), and there's no way they couldn't learn about the 9/11 plot from even the most cursory surveillance of these guys. So if they were Saudi agents it wouldn't be any excuse to explain why the CIA didn't do something about what they must have known.

[mirandapriestly]

51. If the Saudi's had agents in "al qaeda" then wouldn't it

stand to reason that the U.S also had agents in "al qaeda"? given the roles both parties played in it's inception?

[Old and In the Way]

52. Actually, I recall reading a link on DU to a CNN article that mentioned

CIA assets in OBL's top ranks....but I never saw anything else about that again. That's always stuck with me and I wonder why, if we did have assets that were in the thick of things....why didn't they tip the CIA off? Perhaps they were double agents and they were stove piping bad info? That seems plausible too.

[wildbilln864]

67. and yet...

another kick!

Thanks KJF

[wildbilln864]

71. darn...

kicked again!

[wildbilln864]

72. kick...

.

[wildbilln864]

73. good thread!

to kick!

[wildbilln864]

74. well....

:wtf:

[wildbilln864]

75. they knew it was coming...

they planned 4 i! MIHOP,MIHOP,MIHOP!

[wildbilln864]

80. Exposure...

is good!

[wildbilln864]

81. Why didn't...

they stop the hijackers?
Who has been held accountable for any incompetence/complicity?
No one!

[wildbilln864]

82. kick!

:hi: