WAR: CIA Didn't Tell FBI About 9/11 Hijackers, page 1

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:55 AM

link

An unclassified but redacted report reveals that the CIA didn't tell the FBI about the September 11th attacks. The CIA has publicly stated that they knew about the possibility of the attacks 20 months before 9/11 but decided not to disclose the information to the FBI despite the fact that key members of the September 11th attacks were the focus of an FBI investigation.

www.washingtontimes.com
Twenty months before the September 11, 2001, attacks, the CIA knew but never told the FBI that two of the al Qaeda hijackers were in California, where they befriended a Saudi national who was the focus of an FBI investigation and rented a room from an FBI informant, according to a report yesterday.

The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General, in the 371-page report, documented "at least five opportunities" for the FBI to have learned about the presence in the U.S. of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi "that could have led to an earlier investigation." The two al Qaeda terrorists helped commandeer American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.

The unclassified but redacted report also said the "limited information" that was given by the CIA to the FBI never was documented by the bureau or placed in any system from which it could be retrieved by agents investigating terrorist threats. It said FBI supervisors lacked adequate oversight of agents assigned to work with the CIA and failed to give counterterrorism investigations priority.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It's clear that the way the FBI and CIA handled these matters was a clear intelligence failure. However stating that the FBI could have prevented these attacks with prior knowledge falls under the realm of complete speculation.

The information in this unclassified report was made public in order to support the development of the new Patriot Act which will enable the FBI to have more power and less oversight.

Valhall

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:57 AM

link

Yes, so far the government agencies that are living off my salary that have been proven since 9/11 to be utterly worthless and nothing but warm bodies drinking coffee and eating my donuts (and that's on a good day when they aren't actually engaged in things that could hurt me) are:

FBI
CIA
NORAD

Incompetent, lying, worthless government phat that needs to be not only trimmed, but used to fuel our lamplights.

Simulacra

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:08 AM

link

Agreed. NORAD has proven itself utterly useless on September 11th when they blatantly ignored the fact that three planes were grossly off-course and 'misguided' for nearly a half-hour. And these are the same people that are supposed to be protecting the North American skies?

Valhall

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:10 AM

link

It's actually worse than that. Not only did they remain clueless through-out the day. But they decided to remain clueless afterwards.

If nothing else was proven on 9/11 the following was: the word "NORAD" is for show. They should reduce the staff at Cheyenne Mountain to the janitorial staff to keep the place clean for when the citizens of Denver need a bomb shelter.

subz

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:28 AM

link

Guys the tail does not wag the dog.

NORAD has proved time and time again how effective it truly can be. Its only failure, surprisingly, was on 9/11. One has to wonder why it failed on this occasion and so spectacularly on this day. A day that heaped god like power into your politicians hands.

Blaming these agencies that have proven themselves more than adequate for the decades they have existed is misguided.

If they were told to stand down, thats another matter.

Souljah

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:06 AM

link

Well ofcourse they KNEW about their OWN Operation in advance.

Silly.

Phoenix

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:16 AM

link

"The CIA has publicly stated that they knew about the possibility of the attacks 20 months before 9/11"

Well that squarely solves the dilemma of whose watch the failure of intelligence occured under.

Hmmm, what was on those documents Sandy B. had in his pants?

subz

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:27 PM

link

Originally posted by Souljah
Well ofcourse they KNEW about their OWN Operation in advance.

Silly.

Thats what I was implying. I just didnt want to come out and blatantly say it as the neophyte Republican zealots around here jump on you. Atleast writing it in that fashion prevents it.

St Udio

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:44 PM

link

Originally posted by Phoenix
"The CIA has publicly stated that they knew about the possibility of the attacks 20 months before 9/11"

well, that 20 months prior, figures out to be January 2000

which was right in line with the 'Millenium' (disaster/destruction) models that were flying everywhere, ; asteroids-tsunamis-cosmic radiations-alien invasions..
...this timely 'disclosure' is just more BS, as the Intell community had in place certain accepted and credible (albiet narrow minded) sources of info in their playbook & protocols!!
....and commandeered commercial aircraft,
piloted by zealot fundamentalists was not in their scope of believeability,
after-all, these were educated, rational, men (mostly) and such a un-realistic 'fantasy' was not worth consideration! They pigeonholed that
pesky, troublesome Agent John P O'Neil, for having similar 'exotic' views, already, didn't 'they'...??

Nothing is really going to change

Souljah

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 01:15 PM

link

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Souljah
Well ofcourse they KNEW about their OWN Operation in advance.

Silly.

Thats what I was implying. I just didnt want to come out and blatantly say it as the neophyte Republican zealots around here jump on you. Atleast writing it in that fashion prevents it.

Let them Jump.

And Dance and Sing.

I frankly dont Care!

I know how a Coup D'etat Looks.

And I know the "CIA Dirty Ops" Handbook.

subz

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 04:26 PM

link

Do you also know what a dead thread looks like?

benign

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 04:45 PM

link

on a long enough timeline, the survival rate of any thread is zero..

for some its as easy as simply looking at who benefitted, who suffered, and who knew beforehand.

the skeptics on this and other matters remind me of a parent with their first teenager, they'll take any answer the kid gives them as long as it helps them to maintain, in their own mind, the pristine image of their child. its not that people don't believe their own government sold them up the river, they just don't want to believe.

Souljah

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:06 PM

link

Originally posted by subz
Do you also know what a dead thread looks like?

Touche.

I wonder why only the people who already Know this are replaying to this thread...

MaskedAvatar

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM

link

With any such thing where an increasing number of constituents expects more heads to roll for the worst national security failure in US history, it is important for the guilty to have fingerpointing everywhere but where responsibility is centered.

The persons responsible for restructuring of the intelligence services and abolishing inter-agency communications in the two years before 9/11 were Cheney and Bush.

An example of the bureaucratic quagmire created to enable large national security breaches to slip through the cracks is here:

www.fas.org...

All dealt with at ATS over many months, but not well understood at all.

In summary: the Bush administration is a criminal gang pushing a corrupt foreign agenda, and 9/11 was part of the "trifecta" Bush needed (and talked about) to start war for no reason other than ill gain.

Valhall

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:42 PM

link

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

The persons responsible for restructuring of the intelligence services and abolishing inter-agency communications in the two years before 9/11 were Cheney and Bush.

WOW! They pulled off two years of restructuring the intelligence agency in less than two years of being in office.

Go Go magic-men!!

You didn't really think about this too much before you said it - did you?

[edit on 6-12-2005 by Valhall]

MaskedAvatar

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:03 PM

link

I didn't say it, it was generally reported.

The key part of the "restructuring" (a misnomer, simply an official word for reduction of agency powers to surveying and reporting only what was of interest to a very corrupt agenda) was abolition of inter-agency communications.

Valhall

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:32 PM

link

Who "generally reported" that two men who weren't in any way connected with the Clinton administration were "restructuring" the intelligence community during his term? And how is it that this "general reporting" in no way hit mainstream media - or even mid-stream media - or even backwater media?

Exactly what circles do I need to have the secret handshake for to find such an unfounded "general report"?

MaskedAvatar

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:47 PM

link

Just leave your own backwater and try the public record then.

Bush apologists are a dime a dozen. Tit-for-tat Democrat-Republican fingerpointing faultfinders are worth less.

There are enough people who care that what has happened should never happen again.

subz

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:56 PM

link

1 year and 9 months then. Closer to 2 years than it is 1 year, if you want to be pedantic.

It included 2000 and 2001 which are 2 years as well. Should this really be part of the discussion?

[edit on 12/6/05 by subz]

Phoenix

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:18 PM

link

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Just leave your own backwater and try the public record then.

Bush apologists are a dime a dozen. Tit-for-tat Democrat-Republican fingerpointing faultfinders are worth less.

There are enough people who care that what has happened should never happen again.

MA, I left the backwater and made my way to the ocean.

The Wall,

As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

The Gorelick Memo

Because I don't want it to happen again............................