Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Rogue Elements of US and Other International Intelligence Agencies Involved in 9/11?

April 2023 Update:


Updated 9/6/2019

Update from James Dorman:

The CIA Agent Larry Mitchell meeting Bin Laden is something I'm a bit Leary of. However, Summers and Swann(authors of The Eleventh Day) seem to believe it as well. They talked to the reporter who wrote the story for the French paper Le Figaro, then talked to the source of that reporter, and French Intelligence officials. They believe it happened.  I'm not denying it. It's just hard for me to believe they would actually meet with him face to face rather than have the Saudis handle whatever business they were discussing.

Rogue Elements of US and Other International Intelligence Agencies Involved in 9/11?

Mar 29, 2016

"Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved."

That statement from the top-post of this blog should be expanded to include rogue members of the US government, not just the intelligence apparatus, but I'll get there later in a very large post I have in the works. For now, I'd like to address the fact that I've recently seen "debunker" statements alleging that we have nothing to back up the first part of that statement as it currently exists, so here goes...

The CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9/11, Blocks Investigations That Could Have Stopped 9/11, & Meets with Wanted Terrorist Osama bin Laden, and Has Their Second Largest Field Office Destroyed in the Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7
The original WTC7 (World Trade Center 7) was a 47-storey reinforced steel building. It became a small heap of rubble in just 7 seconds at 5:20pm on September 11th, 2001. It was not until two months after WTC7's destruction on 9/11 that the presence of CIA offices in the building was revealed. In a New York Times article published on November 4th, 2001, James Risen wrote: 
"The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas."[1]


The Times article also stated, "The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area." Noting that that the CIA agents had searched the rubble for secret documents and that investigations had been "seriously disrupted." 

Seeing as how the government claimed in a non peer-reviewed closed source study that fire knocked this skyscraper down, a novel phenomenon. Whereas, an externally reviewed open source university study lead by a Civil Engineering Professor found that fire did not cause the 3rd tower’s collapse. Further stating, "all its supporting columns needed to give way at the same time to cause the observed collapse." You know, like they do in controlled demolitions?! Considering all that...

The motive of losing information on purpose comes to mind as it pertains to "a special CIA team scouring the rubble for intelligence reports either on paper or in computers."

Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3   Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

On 9/11 the Intelligence Agency the National Reconnaissance Office Conducts a Plane Into Building Drill -  All Members of an FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist Task Force Unable to Respond, Flown Out to Training Exercise During Attacks

The NORAD air defense stand-down and "debunker" arguments relating to it is covered in-depth HERE. That material also includes more info on the military drills on 9/11. For our purposes here we are just honing in on this bit of info that pertains to intelligence agencies...

Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11"Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day."

9/11 researcher Dr. Webster Tarpley puts the number of exercises taking place on 9/11 at 22.

(Note: I strongly disagree with many of Tarpley's conclusions about 9/11 and his unfounded allegations against several other 9/11 researchers.)

The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed

There were more “planes into buildings” scenarios going on that morning. “In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings… The National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise…in which a small corporate jet would crash into…the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. …The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.”43 
Finally, USA Today reported that “a joint FBI/CIA anti-terrorist task force that specifically prepared for this type of disaster” was on a “training exercise in Monterey, Calif.” Thus, “as of late Tuesday, with airports closed around the country, the task force still hadn’t found a way to fly back to Washington.”44 Furthermore, the FBI had deployed “all of its anti-terrorist and top special operations agents at a training exercise (complete with all associated helicopters and light aircraft) in Monterey, California.” While the attacks were in progress, then, “the chief federal agency responsible for preventing such crimes was being AWOL.”45 
A Summary of the Contradictions: 
There is a strong and clear contradiction between the White House and 9/11 Commission claims of wildly unpredictable surprise attacks, and the training exercises which were running to counter such attacks. In short, these training exercises reflected an expectation that multiple, simultaneous, internal hijackings using planes as weapons were very imaginable indeed. 
How did the Commission deal with this problem? With the exception of one footnote mentioning Northern Vigilance, it simply failed to mention the drills at all. By repeatedly claiming that no one had expected such attacks to have originated from within the United States, it diverted attention away from the drills, and away from warnings that there were Muslim operatives within the country who were learning to fly commercial airliners.Were these diversions merely cowardly flights from a failed responsibility, or were they more ominous indications of foreknowledge? This crucial question should be the subject of a new impartial investigation. 
If, as the evidence suggests, the White House and the Commission were not surprised by such attacks (whereas in fact they were aware of such events)46 the new investigation should ask why they said they were. 
  1. Did the 9/11 Military Training Drills Help or Harm the Response?
As mentioned above, the only reference made by the 9/11 Commission to the September 11th training exercises was to Vigilant Guardian, in footnote 116 from Chapter 1 of the Report: 
“On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).”47 
Unfortunately for the Commission, this conclusion has been contradicted by many military participants that day.
FBI special agent Mark Rossini expressed disgust because the CIA did not share, as Newsweek put it on 1/14/15,  "The Inside Information That Could Have Stopped 9/11."

He’s been at the center of one of the enduring mysteries of 9/11: Why the CIA refused to share information with the FBI (or any other agency) about the arrival of at least two well-known Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States in 2000, even though the spy agency had been tracking them closely for years. 
That the CIA did block him and Doug Miller, a fellow FBI agent assigned to the “Alec Station,” the cover name for CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, from notifying bureau headquarters about the terrorists has been told before, most notably in a 2009 Nova documentary on PBS, “The Spy Factory.” Rossini and Miller related how they learned earlier from the CIA that one of the terrorists (and future hijacker), Khalid al-Mihdhar, had multi-entry visas on a Saudi passport to enter the United States. When Miller drafted a report for FBI headquarters, a CIA manager in the top-secret unit told him to hold off. Incredulous, Miller and Rossini had to back down. The station’s rules prohibited them from talking to anyone outside their top-secret group. 
Photo of al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi Visas 
All these years later, Rossini still regrets complying with that command. If he had disobeyed the gag order, the nearly 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 would probably still be alive. “This is the pain that never escapes me, that haunts me each and every day of my life,” he wrote in the draft of a book he shared with me. “I feel like I failed, even though I know it was the system and the intelligence community on the whole that failed.”
CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9-11 "We had very, very good intelligence of the general structure and strategies of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.  We knew and we warned that Al Qaeda was planning a major strike.  There need be no question about that." - CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt

On Septemer 11th 2012, Kurt Eichenwald, reported in the New York Times:
9/11 Warnings Revealed: CIA Reported Attack ‘Will Occur Soon’ 
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
Those warnings not being heeded are one thing, but a report from the French paper Le Figaro claiming that a CIA agent met with bin Laden two months before 9/11 is undoubtedly suggestive of complicity given all that the CIA knew and that bin Laden was on the FBI's top ten wanted list sine 1998 The 9/11 "debunking" website 9/11myths.com tries to cast doubt on the validly of this report, while at the same time admitting possible confirmation, they state:
Author Richard Labeviere later wrote a book, where he said "a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain" confirmed the meeting, which had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy.
Hasn't this site ever heard that a good reporter never reveals their sources? In the words of John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star, "If you can't keep your gob shut about your sources, never, Never, NEVER become a journalist."

That being said, Labeviere did reveal some details about his sources, through who he revealed very detailed information, including the name of the CIA station chief in question! A 2003 Reuters report states:

Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department...

Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.
And as HistoryCommons.org points out:
French counterterrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It "is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.
We also have reports of an Al Qaeda trainer who it turns out worked with the Green Berets, CIA, and FBI"Triple Cross or Inside Job?"

Counter-terrorism Operation Able Danger 
Identified Several of the 9/11 Terrorists a Year Before 9/11

In 2005 it was revealed that five witnesses described as credible by the Pentagon asserted that a pre-9/11 counter-terrorism operation named Able Danger had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks. Their story could not be corroborated by computer records related to the operation because, as Major Eric Kleinsmith testified, he was ordered to destroy the information. "Debunkers" apparently do not find this suspicious, having argued that since Able Danger used open source data mining, proof that the project identified lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and connected him to a terrorist cell should have showed up in the press prior to 9/11. However, the project did not rely on open sources alone, but rather used data mining techniques to associate open source information with classified information.

The following excerpt from the Fox News article "Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta" makes it clear that Atta was not identified by open source material alone:
J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger"... said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.
An August 22, 2005 article on freerepublic.com explains that one of the reasons why the 9/11 Commission dismissed Able Danger is their timeline for Atta's arrival in the US was incorrect, having him arrive at least several months too early. However, the article notes that The Able Danger team could have "identified the cell overseas before they traveled to the US" or that the 9/11 Commission "got their timeline wrong."

As to the first possibility, Atta he could very well have been identified before he even came to America, because as the New York Times reported on February 24, 2004, before arriving in the U.S., Atta's room mate Marwan al-Shehhi was under surveillance by German intelligence who passed along his first name and telephone number to the CIA. The excuse that the "United States... failed to pursue the lead aggressively" aside, this story lends credence to the idea that both Atta and al-Shehhi were known about before ever arriving in America.

Regarding the second possibility that the 9/11 Commission "got their timeline wrong," the freerepublic.com article notes that "it appears that all of the information that the Commission used to establish travel timelines for the Atta cell came from interrogations... of two co-conspirators with plenty of motivation to mislead American investigators." One of these co-conspirators, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, stated that he "gave a lot of false information" and "made up stories" due to torture inflicted by his CIA interrogators. Later it was revealed that Mohammed confessed to attacking a bank established only after his arrest.

These co-conspirators lying seems a far better possibility than the noted least plausible alternative summarized on the freerepublic.com article, that the Able Danger members "all lied, and went out of their way to lie to the Commission not once but several times, despite the Pentagon themselves... noting the 'respected' service of the two officers."

In September 2009 Lieutenant colonel Anthony Shaffer wrote the following regarding his involvement in Able Danger:
I endorse the NYC CAN campaign and support the need for a new, independent, investigation of the events and failures that lead up to the 9/11 attacks.

The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.

I had no intention of joining the ranks of “whistle blowers”. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office.

Unfortunately, this was a minority view.

Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.

In 2006 I testified before Congress on the pre-9/11 issues regarding the systemic failures I was personally aware of – in both open and closed sessions – and yet nothing was ever done to correct these problems.

The families and victims of the 9/11 attacks are owed a real accounting of why their government failed them. We all deserve answers.

The full accounting has never been made. This accounting is long overdue. I hope the NYC CAN effort will result in a real, detailed, independent investigation that will reveal the full truth – whatever that truth may be.

Tony Shaffer
What is the motive in the theory that 9-11 was an inside job?

Saudi Intelligence Agent Handling of Hijackers Who Were Living with an FBI Informant

On September 11th 2002 CNN reported that two of the 9/11 hijackers were living with an FBI informant. As 9/11 researcher James Dorman has wrote, "When these two hijackers got to America, the person who picked them up and actually moved them into this informants apartment was Omar al-Bayoumi, an agent of Saudi Arabia."

As noted on HistoryCommons.org, "Acquaintances in San Diego long suspect al-Bayoumi is a Saudi government spy reporting on the activities of Saudi-born college students." Furthermore, "Chairman of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry Senator Bob Graham and his investigators will, in author Philip Shenon’s words, 'find it obvious that the amiable al-Bayoumi was a low-ranking Saudi intelligence agent.'"

Then as reported by Fox News on November 23rd, 2002, "Newsweek said... the FBI uncovered financial records showing payments to the family of al-Bayoumi from a Washington bank account held in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and daughter of the late King Faisal."

The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted to interview the FBI informant, however, the report states that, "The Administration... would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant." The Department of Justice/Office of Inspector General report notes that, "In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset."

Dorman concludes:
This is important. This investigation was halted by the President. This treasonous act needs to be addressed. Instead of calling for a new investigation how about allowing this original one to continue? What reason is there for supporting the idea that our elected officials representing us have no right to talk to an informant housing people who murdered 3000 Americans? But it gets worse... If you are an American tax payer, you paid this informant $100,000 in order to not cooperate with this investigation. I would like a debunker to explain to me why they are OK with this.
Similarly, author Phillip D. Collins, editor of The Hidden Face of Terrorism, writes:
Princess Haifa bint Faisal claimed she had no idea that the money was going to al-Bayoumi. The Princess' alibi was enough to satisfy the farcical 9/11 Commission and tug on the heartstrings of the gullible. According to her, the intended recipient of the cashier checks was Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, a woman seeking monetary help to treat her thyroid condition. Majeda would receive the checks and then sign them over to al-Bayoumi's wife. So Majeda was the terrorist financier, not the poor, unsuspecting Princess Haifa or Prince Bandar.

The only problem is that Majeda's husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a "vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer" (no pagination). According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan "celebrated the heroes of September 11" and referred to September 11 as a "wonderful, glorious day". Basnan is also known to have "met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States". This all makes Princess Haifa and Prince Bandar's actions look less like charity and more like the financing of terror.
Finally, regarding Saudi involvement, it's worth noting that a Saudi family living in Sarasota Florida, reportedly with close ties to the 9/11 hijackers, was investigated by the FBI after they fled just prior to 9/11...



"Essentially, the source claims the Sarasota family had links to not only to Mohamed Atta, a central person in the Sept. 11 attacks, but also other 9/11 terrorists; two of them even supposedly visited the family's home.

Then, two weeks before the attack, the family suddenly disappeared without much of a trace. The safe in the house was open, but other than that and a missing computer — nothing. Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who's led the charge on getting 28 separate pages on Saudi connections to 9/11 released, told The Daily Beast he saw the records alleging a connection between the hijackers and the Sarasota family.

Also see:

Activist 9/11 Widows: Obama Shielding Saudis from Justice

The Saudi split - a motive for 9/11?

Pakistani ISI Connections

On October 9th 2001 the Times of India ran the headline "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links." The article claimed that the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmud Ahmed, had $100,000 wired to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta through convicted terrorist Ahmad Umar Sheikh. The website 9/11myths.com has a variety of pages devoted to different aspects of this subject, trying to shed doubt on its validity, as well as downplay its significance if true.

Here is their take.

Here is the other side of the story.

Please take a look at both arguments, it'll take some time!

Now when weighing these two arguments out remember this. 

Condoleezza Rice was confronted by the press on May 16, 2002. The transcript of that encounter has been altered, doctored both on CNN and in the "FDCH Federal Department and Agency Documents REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE DATA." The words "ISI chief" disappeared from history, down the memory hole. This is black and white proof of cover up. - Source:http://www.911blogger.com/node/8713?page=1 

Q: Dr. Rice?
Ms RICE: Yes?
Q: Are you aware of the reports at the time that the ISI chief was in Washington on September 11th, and on September 10th $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to these groups here in this area? And why was he here? Was he meeting with you or anybody in the Administration?
Ms RICE: I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me. (...)
Although there is no official confirmation, in all likelihood General Mahmoud Ahmad met Dr. Rice during the course of his official visit.

The word 'ISI Chief' was later erased from the transcript and replaced with 'inaudible'.
Conclusion: This event didn't 'officially' happen in Washington, but there are various reports about it. -Source: http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Ahmad,GeneralMahmud.shtml 

The correct transcript with the missing words was made available by the Federal News Service. (See documentation at www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.htmlSource:http://justicefor911.org/iiA3_PakistaniISI_111904.php

Does this seem like the actions of people with nothing to hide?

The Israeli Mossad Connections 

This film covers the questions concerning Israeli intelligence and 9/11 and much more.

tracey cross 
This video has given me so many answers to questions I have been asking for 16 years. I was there on that day. I ran as the towers fell. I heard two explosions not long before the towers fell. I was told it was jet fuel exploding. I didn't believe it but the experience has haunted me for so long. It's only now I'm looking for answers. I lost my friend in the south tower. We were on working holidays from the uk. She was only 19 years old. I was meant to be there but felt sick and I'd be dead now if I had gone into work.


Fabled Enemies is an older, but higher production value film, covering these topics.

"Instead of the focus being on physical anomalies surrounding the attacks, it focuses on a vast intelligence network and how they were able to succeed almost 7 years ago."