Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Reaction to Alex Jones on Joe Rogan

It's all quiet on the blue checkmark front.

The Reaction to Alex Jones on Joe Rogan


Alex Jones in the News Again for Sandy Hook Lawsuits - What Exactly Did He Say FOR REAL NO SPIN and Why is Free Speech Never Brought Up? - Jones Has Been Targeted for What He Gets Right Not Something He May Have Got Wrong

Rogue Members of the US Government Involved in 9/11?

More Damning In A Larger Context
: Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001: Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

As succinctly summed up in Jesse Ventura's book 63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You To Read:
A little more than a month before 9/11, the Bush White House received an intelligence digest from the CIA with a two-page section titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The president headed off for a month's vacation to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, right after that.

What these warnings---and there were others---tell me is that (a) either the Bush Administration allowed 9/11 to happen; (b) took part in it happening, or (c) were the most inept administration we've ever had. These warnings were so plain and simple that, if you didn't "get" them, you'd never win on Jeff Foxworthy's show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader. 
Excuse #1: Memo did not contain current information

Then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, tried to dismiss the memo as some sort of a summary of past threats, instead of a current warning. Rice's bio on Wikipedia bio contains this tidbit:

Former United States Secretary of State Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting." Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America.
Was Rice telling the truth or trying to cover up the truth? A article (July 13, 2004: CIA Analysts Who Drafted August 2001 PDB about Bin Laden Tell 9/11 Commission Briefing Was Neither ‘Historical,’ Nor Ordered by Bush ) shows that the evidence points to the latter option:
PDB Item Not 'Historical' - According to author Philip Shenon, the analysts are “confused” and “appalled” by claims by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others at the White House that the PDB item only contained an “historical” overview of domestic terrorism threats. The analysts say that this was not its purpose and that it was supposed to remind President Bush that al-Qaeda remained a dire threat in August 2001 and that a domestic attack was certainly a possibility. For example, the item referred to “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.” Barbara S says, “That’s not historical,” and adds the threat of a domestic terror attack by al-Qaeda was thought “current and serious” at that time.
Excuse #2: Warning not specific enough

There was a section that mentioned "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," and "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." But the self-proclaimed "debunker" Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has commented that, "...  federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."  

But neither claim is very accurate. The 2001 attack on the WTC center was not a truck bomb attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but plenty of evidence proves that pre-planted explosives were nevertheless used to bring down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The federal government did not own these building but various federal agencies had occupied the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Several federal agencies occupied WTC 7 in 2001, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the United States Secret Service (USSS). It would be extremely foolish to think that terrorist would refrain from targeting this buffet of federal agencies just because the federal government did not also own the building.

And the WTC complex had indeed been identified as a potential terrorist target by several reports. Note that the infamous memo said "recent surveilance." This would be in addition to what the Office of Special Planning Report called the "most attractive terrorist target," as also detailed by several other reports in the 1980s. Then in 1994 "the New York Port Authority hires private security company Burns and Roe Securacom to prepare a further report, and tells them that the WTC is a terrorist target." And yet again, in 2000 Charlie Schnabolk "a security consultant who wrote a secret report in 1985 about the security of the World Trade Center is asked what are the greatest terrorist dangers to the WTC? He replies, 'Someone blowing up the PATH tubes from New Jersey,' and 'someone flying a plane into the building.' All of this combined with the statement that Bin Laden wanted to "follow the example of the World Trade Center bomber Ramsi Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America,'" might have been a good reason to keep the World Trade Center in mind as well. 

Excuse #3: Chasing down "recent surveillance" lead nowhere

Bush claimed that the "recent surveilance" mentioned above was looked into and found to lead nowhere. As noted by "As best he could recollect, [National Security Adviser] Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis’ surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence." This may have been what Bush was told, but was far from the truth. This intelligence was acted upon but not followed through in time. Had it been investigated properly in time, it could have led straight to, as The Telegraph put it, "the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks," Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.


May 30, 2001: Yemenis Are Caught Taking Suspicious New York Photos 

Two Yemeni men are detained after guards see them taking photos at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. They are questioned by INS agents and let go. A few days later, their confiscated film is developed, showing photos of security checkpoints, police posts, and surveillance cameras of federal buildings, including the FBI’s counterterrorism office. The two men are later interviewed by the FBI and determined not to be a threat. However, they had taken the pictures on behalf of a third person said to be living in Indiana. By the time the FBI looks for him, he has fled the country and his documentation is found to be based on a false alias. In 2004, the identity of the third man reportedly still will be unknown. The famous briefing given to President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001 (see August 6, 2001), will mention the incident, warning that the FBI is investigating “suspicious activity in this country consistent with the preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” When Bush’s August 6 briefing will be released in 2004, a White House fact sheet will fail to mention the still missing third man. [New York Post, 7/1/2001New York Post, 9/16/2001Washington Post, 5/16/2004] In 2004, it will be reported that Dhiren Barot (a.k.a. Issa al-Hindi or Issa al-Britani), an alleged al-Qaeda operative in British custody, was sent to the US in early 2001 by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to case potential targets in New York City. He headed a three-man team that surveyed the New York Stock Exchange and other buildings. While there are obvious similarities between the two Yemeni man with an unknown boss and Barot with two helpers, it is not known if the two cases are related. [New York Times, 8/7/2004]
Hijacked jets were anticipated as being used as weapons and the World Trade Center was a known target for such an attack.

Then there is the fact that contrary to Bush's claim otherwise, hijacked jets were anticipated as being used as weapons and the World Trade Center was a known target for such an attack.

As noted on, President Bush says, “Never (in) anybody’s thought processes… about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets… never.” [US President, 9/24/2001] A month later, Paul Pillar, the former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, will say, “The idea of commandeering an aircraft and crashing it into the ground and causing high casualties, sure we’ve thought of it.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/14/2001]

Again noted on is that, Bewteen September 16-23 the "North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) practices" two different "scenarios based around suicidal pilots planning to deliberately crash stolen aircraft." The first scenario imagines a plane being crashed "into the United Nations headquarters—a skyscraper in New York." Then on September 6, 2001 an NORAD exercise included terrorist hijackers threatening to blow up airliner

Similarly, FAA Head Jane Garvey stated that before 9/11, “No one could imagine someone being willing to commit suicide, being willing to use an airplane as a lethal weapon.”

However, the FAA received 52 pre-9/11 warnings, including five that "specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings," and warned airports in the spring of 2001 that "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion."

From Wikipedia:

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack... to take place in January 1995...

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot the men were cooking up would have involved hijacking of more airplanes. The Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), The Pentagon (Arlington County, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, DC), the Transamerica Pyramid (San Francisco, California), and the World Trade Center (New York, New York) would be the likely targets. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks, only hitting the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage).
As stated by this "clearly shows that the US 'intelligence community' knew about the threat of a 9/11 type event years before it happened." Despite this fact, many government officials, including President Bush and other key White House officials, would claim that they thought the first WTC strike was just an accident.  Not so, however, for counter-terrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke who wrote in his 2004 book Against all enemies that a member of his White House staff told him that, “Until we know what this is, Dick, we should assume the worst.”

And in Bob Woodward's 2002 book Bush at War it was reported that when CIA Director George Tenet learned of the strike he was told specifically that, "The World Trade tower has been attacked,” after which he immediately suspected bin Laden

On November 12, 2015 Politico Magazine published an article revealing more than ever why Tenet would have reacted this way:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming. 
By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.” “There were real plots being manifested,” Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. “The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continues to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.” The crisis came to a head on July 10. The critical meeting that took place that day was first reported by Bob Woodward in 2006. Tenet also wrote about it in general terms in his 2007 memoir At the Center of the Storm
But neither he nor Black has spoken about it publicly in such detail until now—or been so emphatic about how specific and pressing their warnings really were.

Even Hollywood seemed to have gotten the message. While on the Alex Jones radio show, Actor Dean Haglund, "confirmed that government officials would regularly attend Hollywood parties and submit ideas to be planted in film and TV scripts." Interestingly, in a section entitled September 11th parallel on Wikipedia's page on the television show The Lone Gunman, which Haglund starred on, we learn that the pilot episode had, six months before 9/11, depicted a "secret faction within the USgovernment plotting to hijack a Boeing 727 and fly it into the World Trade Center by remote control." The stated motive was to increase the military defense budget by blaming the attack on foreign interests."

An article on points out that in the 1996 movie The Kiss Goodnight a character is told in "explicit detail by the shadowy government official that 4000 people will be killed in a fake terrorist event on American soil in order to "get some money out of congress". Of course this event will be 'blamed on the Muslims, naturally'."

Carol A. Valentine of Public Action, piles this one on, "Tom Clancy wrote two bestselling thrillers about a pilot deliberately flying a fuel-laden jet into the Capitol building and killing the President and top leadership (Debt of Honor , 1994; Executive Orders, 1996)." After Clancy's death on October 2, 2013 it was reported on that, "Iconic author Tom Clancy questioned the Bush administration’s claim that they knew nothing about the 9/11 plot in advance because he had written a book 7 years beforehand based around that very premise, his co-author Steve Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show."

So it seems that the President thought of the PDF as only historical due to his apparently being oblivious to the past history of related warnings and not being a fan of popular books and movies.

However, when we look at the PBD within an larger context that we now know Bush didn't miss, we get an even clearer picture of the situation. Before going on it's worthy to note that the case thus far, no matter how improbable, can be chalked up to incompetence. It certainly stains credulity to think that neither Bush or any advisers would connect the dots of recent intelligence regarding hijackings and targets in New York to the well-known terrorist targets at the World Trade Center and plans to use planes as weapons, but it could be the case. Bin Laden wanting to "follow the example of the World Trade Center bomber" shows the "historical information" claim is certainly bunk and a cover-up, but not of incompetence. As so aptly put it in a short piece entitled, "Prosecute Bush and Company for their Criminal Negligence and Cover-Up Regarding 9/11."

Gangsters have been jailed for life based on convictions for tax fraud.

Investigations into small misdeeds often turn up evidence of major crimes.

And covering up the crime is itself a crime. Even if the prosecutor isn’t sure how you did it, if he can prove you covered up the crime, destroyed evidence, committed perjury, etc., you’ll end up in the big house.
So if government agencies are too spineless to prosecute for anything else, prosecuting those complicit in 9/11 for criminal negligence and/or cover-up is worthwhile.

Is there strong evidence of criminal negligence with regard to the 9/11 attacks?


If the only politically feasible way to do it is to start with a prosecution solely for criminal negligence or cover-up, then start there.

So remember that although I will not be providing any signed confessions or smoking gun documents like that of Operation Northwoods, although a real investigation and/or prosecution might produce such caliber of evidence, as we progress and the case for complicity becomes stronger, strong enough I suspect for a good number of jurys, the case for criminal negligence becomes as certain as could be. Meaning that if laid out correctly for a jury, the odds would heavily favor a conviction, but you be the judge, or juror if you rather.
Excerpt  from story:
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international Community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, Communist Fidel Castro. 
All emphasis added below regarding imminent attacks.

On Septemer 11th 2012, Kurt Eichenwald, reported in the New York Times:

9/11 Warnings Revealed: CIA Reported Attack ‘Will Occur Soon’

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

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.
In an 2004 NPR interview counter-terrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke stated:
"If you look at what the President said himself to Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who wrote the book Bush at War, in an interview with Woodward, says, 'this was not at the top of my list or my national security team, I was not on point, I did not feel a sense of urgency about Al Qaeda.'

"Frankly, how he could not feel a sense of urgency, given the fact that he was being briefed every day by CIA about an impending attack, I still don't understand."
President Bush talks about the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) he was given on August 6, 2001:

“There was nothing in this report to me that said, ‘Oh, by the way, we’ve got intelligence that says something is about to happen in America.‘… There was nothing in there that said, you know, ‘There is an imminent attack.’

9/11 Truth News April 29, 2013 - New NSA Documents: 9/11 “Attacks Were Imminent”

In this April 2013 article for, Jordan Michael Smith, noted, "With a new release of more than 120 official intelligence documents concerning the 9/11 attacks it becomes even more clear that the Bush Administration had very strong cause to anticipate the 9/11 attacks. Documents included clearly suggests that the ‘attacks were imminent,’ calling into question claims by the Bush Administration that it had no advanced warning.

As summed up on

In retrospect, the [August 6, 2001] briefing is remarkable for the many warnings that apparently are not included (see for instance, from the summer of 2001 prior to August alone: May 2001June 2001June 12, 2001June 19, 2001Late Summer 2001July 2001July 16, 2001Late July 2001Late July 2001Summer 2001June 30-July 1, 2001July 10, 2001, and Early August 2001). According to one account, after the PDB has been given to him, Bush tells the CIA briefer, “You’ve covered your ass now.”
HistoryCommons notes that this quote comes from an account relayed by journalist and author Ron Suskind, in his 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, "which is based largely on anonymous accounts from political insiders."It indeed seems to be a genuine statement made by Bush, who clearly never thought the related documents proving him a liar would ever surface. This begs the question, is it possible Bush thought he was covering his ass too by accepting the comparatively vague warnings in the PDB, said to have "kept secret, until it is leaked in May 2002?" Could this have been an intentional leak of less damning information that could be brushed off as historical or having been ignored due to incompetence?

Very few will dare utter the word conspiracy even now regarding all this, let alone back when the August 6th PDB stood alone as the case that Bush Knew. Exceptions at the time, were The Guardian newspaper who stated a few days after the leak that, "[T]he memo left little doubt that the hijacked airliners were intended for use as missiles and that intended targets were to be inside the US.” Further stating that, “now, as the columnist Joe Conason points out in the current edition of the New York Observer, ‘conspiracy’ begins to take over from ‘incompetence’ as a likely explanation for the failure to heed—and then inform the public about—warnings that might have averted the worst disaster in the nation’s history.”

Some Other Info Bush Likely Would Have Caught Wind of and Other Suspicious Bush Related Facts January 16, 2002 - Was the US government alerted to September 11 attack?


Warnings from foreign governments

The governments of at least four countries—Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel—gave specific warnings to the US of an impending terrorist attack in the months preceding September 11. These alerts, while fragmentary, not only combined to foretell the scale of the attack and its main target, but indicated that hijacked commercial aircraft would be the weapon of choice.

According to an article in one of the major daily newspapers in Germany, published just after the destruction of the World Trade Center, the German intelligence service BND told both US and Israeli intelligence agencies in June that Middle East terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” Sept 27, 2013 - Newly Declassified Government [DIA] Documents: Pre 9/11 Bin Laden Hijack Plot Was Ignored By US Intelligence 


File this under 9/11 government prior knowledge with the mountains of other examples from the past twelve years. Newly uncovered government documents show that the US government ignored a specific warning in 2000 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack a commercial airliner headed for the US...

Former intelligence officials cited within the report indicate that the information came from France’s foreign intelligence service, and that the information was also directly passed to the CIA...

The DIA documents provide solid proof that a branch of the US intelligence community had been provided detailed warnings about the hijacking plot...

The fact that no one within the intelligence community believed bin Laden, living in a cave, could pull off such a plot is telling. Indeed, many Americans believe that he didn’t pull it off, that the plot itself was hijacked and put into operation by rogue elements of US intelligence, in co-operation with Saudi and Israeli counterparts.
The DIA documents represent an important revelation, because they are declassified US government documents that confirm what intelligence insiders have already leaked, thus bolstering previous revelations of government prior knowledge.
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 offensive 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 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 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 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
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, "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. - The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration's order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O'Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

Here is a quick low down on these points, minus the Sibel Edmonds and David Shippers cases, that are instead detailed more in-depth shortly thereafter. - Robert Wright Jr.

A counterterrorism agent in the Chicago field office from 1993 to 1999, Wright has written a book manuscript entitled Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission that the FBI in turn refused to let him publish. According to press accounts, the gist of Wright's complaint involves FBI management's alleged scuttling of pre-9/11 investigations of foreign-national terror suspects inside the U.S. on the grounds of political sensitivity. The particulars of Wright's claims remain out of public view, but in a May 22, 2002, letter to Wright's boss, attorney David Schippers (who served as lead counsel in the House's impeachment of Bill Clinton) writes that his client wishes to speak publicly about "matters that he originally brought to the attention of a prior Chicago SAC in March, and again in June, 2001. At that time, my client expressed his serious concern that FBI management was failing seriously to investigate Middle East terrorists residing in the United States and the intentional obstruction by the FBI bureaucracy of his efforts to identify and neutralize known and suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations." Wright filed a lawsuit against the FBI in 2002.

Wikipedia - Coleen Rowley


After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks.block - Harry Samit 


FBI Minneapolis agent Harry Samit learns that an unnamed man plans to travel from the US to Afghanistan to train militants there, and that one of his relatives has applied to join the Minnesota National Guard. Samit wants to run a check on him and notify the National Guard, as he is worried because guardsmen have access to local airports. However, he is blocked for several months by Michael Maltbie, an agent in the Radical Fundamentalist Unit at FBI headquarters, who becomes “extremely agitated” and says this is “just the sort of thing that would get the FBI into trouble.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 3/21/2006Knight Ridder, 3/21/2006Hearst Newspapers, 3/21/2006]

The Phoenix Memo 

From Jesse Ventura's book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read:
Two months before the events of September 11th, 2001 [July 10th 2001], an FBI agent in Phoenix named Kenneth Williams sent a memo to the bureau brass in D.C. and New York. The agent was warning about an unusually high number of Muslims being trained at American flight schools, perhaps part of  "a coordinated effort" by Osama bin Laden. His memo was ignored at the higher levels.
SECTION OF W199I DOCUMENT: From Greg Palast's book 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'. 

Press Association - FBI 'was told to back off bin Laden family'


London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, a BBC television program has claimed 

'Operation Bojinka' often refers only the most deadly element of the plot -- the plan to destroy jumbo jets in mid flight. All of the targeted flights were trans-oceanic routes between east Asia and the United States. All had two legs, and the plan involved placing bombs aboard the planes on the first legs, and then detonating them on their second legs...

The Wikipedia article, like most covering Operation Bojinka, does not raise the question of whether the plan was in fact a false-flag operation designed to make al Qaida appear more capable and threatening than it actually was. It is interesting that, prior to 9/11/01, no actual attacks blamed on al Qaida either killed large numbers of U.S. civilians or had a sophistication even approaching that of Operation Bojinka. - John O'Neil - Killed in the September 11th Attack

On August 22, 2001, John O'Neal, a top counter-terrorism expert, quit the FBI in disgust over repeated obstruction to his investigations. He was the government's "most committed tracker of bin Laden and al-Qaeda." The following day he started a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He was killed just over 2 weeks later in the attack. The day before the attack he had met with his friend Robert Tucker in the lobby of the North Tower to discuss security at the World Trade Center. O'Neal's body was identified On September 28th, 2001, a thousand mourners gathered at St. Nicholas to honor O'Neal.    END OF BIG BLOCK QUOTE SECTION

FBI special agent Mark Rossini also 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.

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.”
All of the above lends credence to...

The Most Specific Claims of 9/11 Prior-knowledge June 13, 2011 - EXCLUSIVE: New Documents Claim Intelligence on Bin Laden, al-Qaeda Targets Withheld From Congress' 9/11 Probe

In 2011 a government whistle-blower revealed to that intelligence activities between the summer of 2000 and June 2001 revolved around al-Qaeda's interest in striking the Pentagon, the World Trade Center (WTC), and other targets. However, this and other information was withheld from Congress. His claims were bolstered by "a declassified copy of the six-page complaint he filed with the inspector general's office" that was "related to intelligence work he did on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda." The exclusive story on notes that the allegation this whistle-blower mishandled classified information:
Stems from a decision he made to email the briefing slides to his DIA account. Iron Man declined to elaborate about the circumstances of the allegations leveled against him. Still, what he reveals in his carefully worded letter in response to those charges is explosive. 
"I kept the original classifications on the slides, as historical documents, although the fact that al-Qa'ida was likely to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was clearly no longer classified." (Emphasis added.)... 
In other words, the Bush administration was fully aware the terrorist organization had set its sights on those structures prior to 9/11 and, apparently, government officials failed to act on those warnings.
9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets 

The whistle-blower's claim is supported by the fact that in November 2007, Patty Casazza, one of the four New Jersey widows known as the "Jersey Girls" who helped instigate the formation of the 9/11 Commission, revealed that whistle-blowers told her "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets."

David Schippers, Head Prosecutor in the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton -  Agents Knew, Months Before 9/11, Names of Hijackers, Targets of Attacks, Proposed Dates, and Sources of Funding

As Fran Shure at pointed out to me, Casazza's account corroborates an earlier account by David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Claimed CIA Asset Susan Lindauer - Attack Would Encompass the World Trade Center and Involve Airplanes 

Jesse Ventura's book American Conspiracies recounts another similar warning passed along to John Ashcroft, Ventura writes:

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, said under oath in a New York courtroom that a longtime associate of his, Susan Lindauer, warned him several times and as late as August 2001 "that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center," an attack "that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon." Lindauer, who says she was a CIA asset, claimed to have made an attempt to inform John Ashcroft at the Justice Department, who referred her to the Office of Counter-Terrorism.
Dismissal of these three accounts as corroborating evidence, but rather hearsay doesn't debunk the fact that we will never know if any of these individuals are pulling off an unpaid con job unless we have an investigation willing to investigate their accounts.

Commenting on Jon Gold's book 9/11 Truther The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability Pat Curley of Screw Loose Change has wrote:  

The "ignored and censored whistleblowers" include Patty Cassazza's mysterious roadside informant who claimed that the US government knew everything about the attacks including the date and method. Gold bitterly notes that I "debunked" that claim by saying that Patty was duped by a conman. But note the oddball response from the Truthers to that particular claim. Sibel Edmonds comes up with the LIHOP faction's dream witness and what happens? Complete and utter lack of curiosity about him or her. If I were a Truther, I'd be asking Patty about this person--was it a man or a woman? How old? Did he say what branch or agency of the government he was in? Can we get him on tape?
FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar - 9/11 Foreknowledge Involving Major Cities, Approximate Timeframe, and Operatives Already in the US

As Gold points out in his "Facts Speak For Themselves" article, Cassazza stated that most whitleblowers did not come forward because they were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission, which in doing so would ensure them not being retaliated against like FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was, as detailed in the ACLU article, "Sibel Edmonds: A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe." So shame on the 9/11 Commission, not truthers.

As transcribed in Gold's article, Casazza states on video that, " order to be a whistle-blower, and not be retaliated against, most whistle-blowers need to be subpoenaed, cause then their co-workers, and those who might retaliate against them, know that under penalty of... law, they could be... accused of being traitors and what not, and put in jail, or executed." Stating that she met with many whistle-blowers Casazza revealed, "I submitted them personally to Governor Kean, who was the Chairman of the Commission. And I said, 'these people are not being subpoenaed. They will not come before the Commission voluntarily unless they are subpoenaed.' And, he promised me... to my face that 'every whistle-blower would be... indeed heard.' And, most were not heard."

During the course of the 9/11 Commission's investigation both Edmonds and fellow FBI translator Behrooz Sarshar informed the commissioners that before 9/11 there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This information came via "a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990" and was shared with the Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism at the FBI Washington Field Office at the time, Thomas Frields. Edmonds noted, however, that, "no action was taken by the Special Agent" and after 9/11 the translators and two agents in the know "were told to keep quiet regarding this issue."

According to the watchdog organization 9/11 Citizen's Watch, Edmond's and Sarshar were both "refused twice" and given an interview with the 9/11 Commission "only after the Jersey Moms intervened directly." In the end, the information they passed along was omitted from the final report and only Edmonds was mentioned by being relegated to a footnote on page 473 in the back of the report pertaining to the need for improvement in the FBI's language services.

It has been argued that Edmond's is lying because in an open letter she wrote in August 2004 to Thomas Kean, the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, she cites a Chicago Tribune article where most of the specific details she mentioned: foreknowledge, major cities, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US, were not explicitly cited in that article. Thus, it is claimed that she lied to the 9/11 Commission about the contents of the article. First off, this is a straw man argument, being that Edmonds didn't cite the article as proof of her claims, but simply stated that the press had reported on the incident.

Secondly, in January of 2011, the website Cryptome posted 9/11 Commission memorandums, including one of Edmond's interview with the commission and one of Mr. Sarshar's interviewVirtually all of Sibel's testimony and most of what is under the heading "September 11th information" for Mr Sarshar's testimony has been classified.

A couple of weeks later, Sibel posted the testimony Mr. Sarshar gave to several congressional investigations, including the Office of the Inspector General. The information she posted perfectly corroborates what she wrote in her letter to Thomas Kean.

Furthermore, on August 8, 2009, Edmonds affirmed the information as factual under oath on a video taped deposition.

And finally, as a commenter on Screw Loose Change pointed out, "The State’s Secret Privilege was invoked twice on Sibel. The SSP is the neutron bomb of legal gag orders. Anytime it is used it is a significant occurrence, and its application automatically lends some credibility to the person it is subjected to. That kind of legal firepower is not rolled out to gag someone, if they are fabricators or can be easily discredited."

Similarly, The ACLU has called Edmonds "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."

Still it is argued by the likes of Pat Curley that if we were to ever see the unredacted testimony, it will bear no resemblance to what Edmonds posted. Well, how about supporting the truth movement in a quest for a new investigation so we can maybe see it unredacted then? Do any debunkers? No. Of course not.

In July 2006 Edmonds openly discussed the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job with radio talk show host Alex Jones. When asked if she believed "the evidence" was "leaning towards that," she stated that, "Considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information-- this information from coming out, I would say yes."

Excerpt from Nick Redfern's New World Order Book:

Then there is the theory that, as per the claims surroundingthe December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was allowed to happen in order to justify an invasion of the Middle East and the ushering in of a secretly planned New World Order. Michael Meacher was a British government's environment minister from 1997 to 2003. His words, as a senior official of the government, did not go unnoticed. They were picked up widely: "It is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at lease 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation. The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. 
"It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with airplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that 'al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House.' 
"Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bring them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden. It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s. 
A terrible event, one that was allowed to happen since it worked in favor of the long-term goals of the New World Order? Don't bet against it.

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