TERRORISM: White House Declassifies Al Qaeda PDB From 8/6/01

Originally posted by Phoenix
First off mOjOm, the saying under my handle was an in your face response to a posting in the mud pit a while back, if you want to take it that seriously thats your problem.

Whatever man. It's the label that you chose to put under your ID, which BTW is still there. So if it had something to do with some other thread, meant as sarcasm, you may want to change it.

Now, if in fact you AREN"T a Neo-Conservative or Old-Conservative or whatever, fine, that was not the point behind what I said. My point was that the difference between Right and Left has become completely smashed together and mixed until there is no difference between the two. All the 'Party Loyalty' stuff is just stupid in my opinion, and I don't know why people continue to do it.

Again, that has nothing to do with you personally. Be a 'Green Party Independent Communistic Demo-Publican Nationalist' for all I care. Your defense of the 'Conservative' Administration matched with your Label. If that label was just a joke or whatever, fine, that just goes to show that 'Party Affiliation' doesn't matter which was my point anyway.

Now as to your assertion that this memo would lead to the conclusion that aircraft would be used as missiles is just 20/20 hindsight crap of people that can't intellectually put it in its proper context of the world as it existed before 9/11. BEFORE 9/11 the expectation was that a hijacking meant the capture of hostages to effect a political or economic aim. If your surmising of planes as missiles was so sharp why didn't you or someone else give the warning - I'll tell you why - its because you and others also believed a hijacking was a hijacking before 9/11. You have an unrealistic expectation of the government, any government for that matter, of possessing a crystal ball that shows an unexpected future, since yours is so accurate why don't you make some predictions so we can see how well it works?

Well, first of all, I'm not claiming that THIS ONE SINGLE MEMO, all on it's own should have been enough, hands down. I am also taking into consideration the other LONG LIST OF CLUES as well, including this memo. Those other clues, in case you'd like to know what they are, have been presented not only in this post by other members but all over ATS.

This memo, plus the other intel, a previous Administration and their Intel, & even the fact that the Current Presidents Father also had a war gong in Iraq as well, does still present enough of reason for Questioning WTF happened here??? I'm sorry, but I personally believe that the U.S. Intelligence Agencies CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., etc. are clever enough to have stopped this. There is NO SHORTAGE of clues leading up to this. You seem to be judging this as if they only had a couple months warning, which may be valid for this one little memo. But I'm looking at this one memo along with all the other stuff that came before it as well.

IMO, not only should this 'Hi-Jacking' (BIG F*CKING CLUE) not have happened, but these guys should have never even got close to this country let alone an airport in the first place. I mean there is evidence showing these guys had been being watched for a long time, as possible Terrorists. So what gives?? Someone smokes a joint in a park and you got a city wide man hunt. Yet I guess possible terrorists being watched by at least 2 different administrations, and being logged in CIA documents isn't much to go on. Some incredible intelligence there, don't ya think??

It reminds me of Pachino in 'Casino' when he tells the Dumb Hick watching the Slot Machines, 'Either you were in on it, or you're incompetent. It doesn't matter which, either way you're outta here!' The evidence is there. If you pay attention, it's been revealing itself in pieces, more and more, day after day, and that is what we get to see. They would of had access to all that info and more this whole time. That and the fact that they are 'The F*cking Intelligence Agency' they should have been able to figure it out, way before any Hijacking of anything ever even came close. But go ahead and make excuses for them all you want. It wasn't there fault they couldn't do their Job right. Give up some more of your Rights or Liberties, maybe that will help. Better give up more money and taxes too so they can spend more on Security that fails when you need it. That I'm sure will solve the problem!!

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by mOjOm]

mOjOm, what you have said speaks volumes about the complete and total failure of intell and leadership in the many years(8) leading up to 9/11, not so much the preceding 8 months. I am in total agreement with SO's well linked posts dealing with this matter.

None of this really matters to me since I already know I want the Bushies out and I already know I'm going to want Kerry out after four years too...hopefully by then we'll have a better 3rd party canidate, a moderate willing to stand up and say that too much power is concentrated on both sides.

With that said, the thing that bugs me the most about this briefing is that they did NOTHING! You can make long list on the Clintons but at least they did something, no matter how ineffective, they tried. The Bushies didn't do anything and that's just frightening. We will never know if they could've prevented it because they didn't even try. They have to be held accountable for that even if its just by history.

911 couldn't have been prevented...that's an opinion. Keep it real, we will never know because they did nothing to prevent it.

Who needs this memo when, as Micheal Ruppert writes:

As reported in the respected German daily Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on Sept. 13, the German intelligence service, the BND, warned both the CIA and Israel in June of 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.

The story specifically referred to an electronic eavesdropping system known as Echelon, wherein a number of countries tap cell phone and electronic communications in partner countries and then pool the information. The BND warnings were also passed to the United Kingdom.

According to a Sept. 14 report in the Internet newswire online.ie, German police, monitoring the phone calls of a
jailed Iranian man, learned the man was telephoning USG intelligence agencies last summer to warn of an imminent attack on the WTC in the week of Sept. 9. German officials confirmed the calls to the USG for the story but refused to discuss additional details.

According to a story in Izvestia on Sept. 12, Russian intelligence warned the USG that as many as 25 pilots were training for missions involving the crashing of airliners into important targets.

In an MSNBC interview on Sept. 15, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated he had ordered Russian intelligence to warn the USG "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings before the attacks on Sept. 11.

Conclusion: From just these five press stories, then, the USG had received credible advance warnings, some from heads of state, that commercial aircraft would be hijacked by as many as 25 hijackers at airports, with Boston a strong candidate, during the week of Sept. 9�

No known preventive measures were taken.

INSIDER TRADING

The documented pre-Sept. 11 insider trading that occurred before the attacks involved only companies hit hard by the attacks. They include United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill-Lynch, Axa Reinsurance, Marsh & McLennan, Munich Reinsurance, Swiss Reinsurance, and Citigroup.

SOMEBODY NEW

Throughout the world the independent media organizations have done an outstanding job of picking up and reporting on independently published stories which the major media overlooked. One of the most outstanding examples of this was a July 16, 2002 piece posted at the web site of Portland Indymedia (www.portland.indymedia.org) that reproduced the following short article originally found at The Memory Hole.

�NPR interview on 9-11 confirmed attack was �not entirely unexpected.'

�It's certainly one of the most disturbing and important indications that the government knew the attacks of
September 11, 2001, were coming. On that morning, National Public Radio (NPR) was presenting live coverage of the attacks on its show Morning Edition. Host Bob Edwards went to a reporter in the field�David Welna, NPR's Congressional correspondent�who was in the Capitol building as it was being evacuated. Here is the crucial portion of Welna's report:

�'I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton�a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services
Committee�who said that just recently the Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack�an imminent attack�on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected.'

www.fromthewilderness.com...

Ms. Rice perjured the 9/11 Commisson and the American people.

There will be another 'terrorist' attack and the US government will suspend the election...

September 2001 was a repeat of 1933...

www.newsgateway.ca...

www.newsgateway.ca...

Here ya go:
How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks

Personally, maybe this would have helped? Go ahead.....use it....predict the next one for all of us.
www.wehug.com...



seekerof

Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November

www.buzzflash.com...

On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his standard New Year�s predictions. This time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S. liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a major terror attack in the United States."

In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," he said.


Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004."

Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because it�s going to happen."


In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."

To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and deploy troops to America�s streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting America�s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for NORAD�s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained, "It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that goes with 'extraordinary operations�"? Nothing. He already has that authority.
________


What is most disturbing is the "official story": 19 'suicide' hijackers, most of whom couldn't fly Cessna's and which seven are still alive, pulled off an assault that military pilots stated on the record couldn't have been done by crack fighter pilots. Remarkably, there has been blind acceptance of this story, yet the US government has offered no proof whatsoever that bin Laden was behind these attacks. Go figure.

Something should have been done after they found out about Project Bojinka:

Phase II, CIA plane crash plot
Abdul Hakim Murad confessed details of Phase II in his torture and interrogation with Manila police after his capture. (for more information, see Section:Murad's Confession) Phase two would have involved Abdul Hakim Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot. Murad probably created this version of the plan.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

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 [the] 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, Virginia, the Washington Capitol (Washington, DC), the White House (Washington, DC), the Transamerica Tower (San Francisco, California), and the World Trade Center (New York, New York) would be the likely targets.

In his confession with Filipino investigators, Abdul Hakim Murad said that the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka.


www.nationmaster.com...

Exactly. The administration knew for years planes could be used as weapons.

If they wanted to stop these attacks they could have but they didn't - why? And yet we still don't know who did it.

Author Eric Margolis: "We are still not even sure al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11, as Bush claims. If the Bush Administration was so totally wrong about Iraq�s secret weapons and links to al-Qaida, why is its information any more reliable about the shadowy bin Laden?

After promising in 2002 to release proof of al-Qaida�s guilt for 9/11, the Administration never did. German courts recently determined the 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg, not Afghanistan, and could find no direct link to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida leaders applauded 9/11 �after the fact � but may not have been actively involved in planning or finance."

9/11 and Operation Bojinka have long dark ties...

Chaim Kupferberg: "What follows is a reconstruction of one of the most extensive disinformation campaigns in history, and the chronicle of a legend that may now shine a devastating spotlight on some of the cliques behind 9/11.

Many of the more popular theories concerning September 11 rest on a selective reading of the facts. In other words, they focus on certain elements of the story - failing, in the end, to account for a wide-ranging number of facts and anomalies that cannot be adequately accounted for by such theories. As one prime example, the complacency theory for 9/11 only works so long as one studiously and consistently ignores the compelling circumstantial evidence for all the various well-timed coincidences that stubbornly recur in practically every rudimentary recitation of the facts.

Whether the 9/11 disinformation campaign has been conducted for the purposes of a truly new world order, or simply for oil, geopolitical stability, monopolization of utilities, water, food, or population control by way of viral threats - any one specific agenda at this time cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (in the fullest legal sense). Perhaps an intended new order encompasses all of the above, involving an intersection of a number of common interests.

What I am suggesting, then, is the existence of a covert global political network operating through an increasingly sophisticated corporate and media infrastructure. Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame), estimated that there were as many as 500 journalists in the United States on the C.I.A. payroll. Moreover, former C.I.A. Director William Colby had gone on record as revealing, "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media."

But my main point is that, like the Official 9/11 Legend, these counter-legends exist - and indeed were built in - so as to furnish a number of false leads, thereby obscuring the most essential fact that a long-standing covert infrastructure has stage-managed both the crimes and the cover-ups, while parceling out the information to various witting - and unwitting - operatives. It is the classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Likewise, we can not be sure as to which political players are kept in line through financial or sexual bribery, and which of those have come on board for purely ideological reasons.

As I stated before, one way to pull off a tightly compartmentalized conspiracy is to ensure that all key parties are potentially open to blackmail, thereby ensuring that no one individual player may grab the upper hand by unilaterally incriminating the others.

We need to counter the psychological herd mentality which compels the masses among these groups to follow the designs of those higher up in authority. There are, at present, likely thousands of decent law-abiding Americans who have witnessed many aspects of the anomalies described herein, yet they have been intimidated or discouraged from revealing what they know. Without a powerful countervailing elite group to harvest their testimonies and "mainstream" the incriminating evidence, they are left with no recourse but to remain silent."

globalresearch.ca...

This is a large document that reads like a Robert Ludlum novel - an historic opus that must NOT go unread.

Personally, I don't really don't care if it was Bin Laden or not. There are way tooooooo many roads leading back to the defunct previous administration. Myriads of questions come to mind here.

If this was not Bin Laden, based on past actionable intelligence, would it not indicate that this was an Al-Qaeda perpetuated plan or an affiliated group? Tall-tale signs leading like road maps and WARNING signs: WTC incident of 1993 and the admissions of the "Blind Shiek", Project Bojinka (1995 report) and the 1998-9 analysis intelligence report indicate(d) that Al-Qaeda (a use-all-word for groups of or affiliated with) was planning such activities and planning to use commercial airliners as 'missiles', targeting major business buildings (San Fran., New York, etc.) and major military sites (Pentagon, etc.). Hell, even the government and the Pentagon MUST have at least been symbolically heeding the warnings, though they, the previous administration, weren't letting onto the American citizens this knowledge. What were they doing? They were running crash simulations as late as October of 2000!
Here:
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 � The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.

If such, again, why was nothing substantially done within and by the previous administration?! There were how many terrorism incidents, events, and happenings with all roads and indications virtually leading back to whom? According to the past actionable intelligence......Al-Qaeda.

No, many can do all they can to pin this on an administration that had 8+ months to fix the screw-ups and lack of ACTION by and from the previous 8 year, two term administration as they so choose. The facts are that the blame goes just as readily to the previous administration. All this leaves them is one last GASP of "but, it didn't happen on our watch"........



seekerof

Seekerof: a Clinton fan to the last, huh? Nothing done by Clinton? I know it served your skewed rant to rifle those half truths ad nauseaum, but it simply does not hold water. How many time do you have to view the actions list of what the Clinton team had done - from financial assets freezes to indigenous Hit Squads put together for the Bin Laden team's head? A growing threat that was consistently actioned by the Clinton team had hit it's highest levels before the turnover of administrations - Al Qeda was born about 1996, I think, and at their inception they were not mentioning anything on US soil - far from the 8 year picture you're trying to paint. I guess the 12 years of complete standdown on the terror issue while Reagan let our Marines be slaughtered & Bush let our citizens be blown out of the sky, all without any type of action to retaliate, is perfectly fine with you because they were your party. ( and you forgot, I'm not a Democrat, I'm an anti-Republican )
All testimony has shown the immediacy that was given to the issue on that turnover. Honestly - did you see any stepped up actions taken in 2001 by the Bush team to address this? All actions by the AG-NSA-SD indicated a reduced threat of you sum up their actions of budget & security measures.
And while you are the Condi Rice of ATS, having spun so furiously on any issue or topic that casts a glimmer of dispersion on your beloved Bush, like her, at the end of the day despite her doctorate & your link craziness to either partisan sites or legitimate sites that don't support what you've linked to them for, you're still both wrong.
While I appreciate the 'going down fighting' posture that you've taken over your blind Bush support, it does still support an illegitimate cause.....one that I guess you'll spend December 2004 honing into anti-President Kerry fervor.

"WTF more were they supposed to do?" - serve American security instead of PNAC interests. They could have implemented the level of airport screening post 9/11 to pre 9/11 thus stopping 9/11. They could have continued Saudi intel gathering & not stop, like they did, immediately after taking office. People "Bitched" about heightened "terror warnings" because it was transparent, by the release date of them, that they served as a distraction for each new unraveling of the "War President" myth.