Reply With Quote
It would appear that this guy agrees:
Seven serior CIA veterans call the official 911 commission report a sham and a cover-up and call for a new investigation by Congress....I say, what took so long?
Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”
More Links at Oped NewsSeptember 23, 2007 – Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,” said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. “There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,” he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a pe ion to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]
Raymond McGovern
During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration’s advocacy and use of torture.
In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole “war on terror” was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of ‘paranoid conspiracy theorists,’ my highest possible recommendation.”
William Christison, a 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis also describes the 9/11 Commission Report as a “joke” and offers even more outspoken criticism. In a 2006 audio interview[4] he said, "We very seriously need an entirely new very high level and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all.”
William Christison
Earlier this year, in an endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Christison wrote[5], “[There’s] a strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.” And in an online essay[6] in late 2006, he wrote, “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.”
Prior to his retirement from the CIA in 1979, Christison served as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 200 analysts who collected intelligence and provided analysis on all regions and every country in the world. Prior to that, he served as one of only a handful of NIO’s in the intelligence community. NIO’s are responsible for the intelligence community efforts in a particular area and are the principal advisors to the Director of Central Intelligence. Christison was NIO for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.
Melvin Goodman, PhD, is another former senior CIA official who calls the 9/11 Commission Report a “coverup” and who signed the pe ion to reinvestigate 9/11.[7] Goodman was the Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004.
Melvin Goodman, PhD
In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing on the 9/11 Commission Report[8], Goodman said, “I want to talk about the [9/11] Commission itself, about the flawed process of the Commission and finally about the conflict of interest within the Commission that is extremely important to understand the failure of the Commission. … The final report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it." Goodman is currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of Government at Johns Hopkins University.
Robert Baer is another well known CIA veteran who has questioned the official account of 9/11. A 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, Baer was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. After retirement, he wrote two best-selling non-fiction books about the CIA, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil, the former of which was the basis for the Academy Award-winning movie Syriana, starring George Clooney. Baer was also the writer and on-camera commentator for the Emmy Award-nominated do entary Cult of the Suicide Bomber.
Robert Baer
Baer has repeatedly questioned whether al-Qaida could have accomplished 9/11 alone. The 9/11 Commission Report categorically found al-Qaida to be entirely responsible for 9/11, stating, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." However, this 9/11 Commission finding directly contradicts the earlier finding of the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 Report[9] (p.415) of "sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers.”
In a 2002 essay[10] for The Guardian, Baer wrote, "Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I'm far more certain and emphatic: no." In subsequent interviews, Baer has suggested that support for the attacks could have come from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
In 2006, during an interview by Thom Hartmann[11], Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is it not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no -- any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."
In his blurb for the revised and updated edition of David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Baer wrote[12]: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation …, we will never know what happened on 9/11.”
"I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war,” wrote well-known intelligence analyst Robert David Steele in 2006 in a review of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley[13]. Steele is the author of numerous books on the intelligence services and is currently the CEO of OSS.net, a proponent of Open Source Intelligence. Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. He also served as the second ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Steele continued, “I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers.”
Robert David Steele
In a subsequent interview on the Alex Jones Show[14], Steele said, "The U.S. government did not properly investigate this [9/11] and there are more rocks to be turned over," and added, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that, as far as I'm concerned, means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
In late 2004, a group of 25 intelligence service and law enforcement veterans sent a joint letter to Congress[15] expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation. Their letter was apparently entirely ignored. Among the signers were four CIA veterans; Raymond McGovern and Melvin Goodman (both mentioned above) and Lynne Larkin and David MacMichael.
Lynne Larkin was a CIA Operations Officer who served in several CIA foreign stations before being assigned to the CIA's Counter-Intelligence Center. There, she co-chaired a multi-agency task force, which, among other functions, provided direction to other federal agencies for coordinating intelligence efforts among the many intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Lynne Larkin
David MacMichael, PhD, is a former Senior Estimates Officer at the CIA with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Prior to joining the CIA, he served as a U.S. Marine Corps officer for ten years and for four years as a counter-insurgency advisor to the government.
David MacMichael
Their letter read:
And they and thousands of dedicated, loyal, and experienced military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, and government officials still stand ready to provide assistance for a thorough, impartial, and honest investigation into the terrible acts of 9/11."[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …
Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission’s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …
The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...
The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and cir stances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. …
We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.”
It would appear that this guy agrees:
Maybe Ahmad, Chavez and Mouse can fund a new congressional investigation?
....still the 911 Commission report is a joke.....the Thugs spent almost 10 times more to investigate Cisneros....
So what do they think really happened on 9/11?
Determining what Cisneros did and how was the subject of far more uncertain than determining what the 19 hijackers who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 did.
bull . Nobody's disputing the planes or who were the hijackers.
We still don't know who didn't do what in the weeks before 9/11, directly because the WH stone-walled, emasculated the 9/11 Commision, and is still stone-walling.
What is the WH hiding behind the stone-walling? Why are they stone-walling?
Tenet said his personal warnings to the White House went unheeded, with Wolfowitz saying the security agencies were victims of a disinformation campaign.
dubya in Crawford listened to an FBI guy reporting on all the chatter and then said "You've covered your ass" and kept on vacationing.
etc, etc, etc.
There a WH-created blackhole about the WH inactions prior to 9/11.
A lot of people thought the reasons for Iraq were bull , and the reasons were proved to be bull . Now Greenspan has confirmed that "everybody knows" Iraq was about oil. "Everybody" being very probably the kind of powerful people that Greenspan knows and works with, insider-est of the insiders.
dubya, head
We also want to know what head did with his still-classified National Energy Plan done in total secrecy with energy company honchos. Why classify the meeting attendees and the National Energy report itself?
interesting you never see OBL and GW in the same place at the same time. Makes me wonder.
Trust me, boutons, if that was dan's argument, I'd be inclined to listen. Dan's argument, however, to the extent that he's willing to reveal any portion of it, seems to start with the notion that there was some sort of conspiracy undertaken to bring down the WTC towers -- a notion that substantially exceeds your questions about indifference or neglect.
"bring down the WTC towers"
I have no inclination to think the Towers were brought down intentionally, and separately from the planes. I'm amazed these ex-spooks think the planes alone weren't enough. That kind of conspiracy noise distracts from the questions in my post.
I agree with you on that issue as well.
People should ask mookie.
He knows.
...
It was them toll roads and NAFTA.
...I never said that....
Each sentence begins with a capital letter. This tip is on the house.
Hmm, so veteran CIA agents and officials call to re-open the investigation isnt worth it because.....?????
All I know, Building 7 collapsed under its own weight. It was never hit by a bomb or a plane. It must have felt guilty and decided to die with his homies.
And my, my, my how the world was so radically changed on one day at the expens eof 3000 people's lives. We have a new "War on (insert idea here)" to spend billions on, new theaters of war to participate in and a new political climate that revolves around the first 2 premises.
Convenient, I say.
Or is it more to the fact that no one is willing to entertain the idea that yes, you college grad with above average, if not elite IQ score and masters degree, were duped by the government. The immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor represents what we are experiencing now. Do you think the American people knew 6 years after the fact that the US had ample warning of the imminent Japaneese attack? Did they know that the Administration ignored that intel intentionally? Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, Churchill wanted America in the war. Why stop something that would meet both their goals?
And even with that knowledge, we dare not think about WW2 any differently. For that would sully the men who served and died in the fight against the Nazis. So, its a moral quandry....ask the tough questions which would produce answers you certainly will not like, degrade the lives of willing participants and expose this charade of government we live under? Or keep the status quo, "Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies" and honor the dead with our ignorance and ambivalence to cause of our global shift?
Tough question. I'd like to think the answer was pretty clear.
Damn I wish building seven hadn't gone down. But then again
what would Dan have done for something "interesting" to
research.
Dan what part of your math degree does looking up
conspiracy theories on the internet have to play in your
studies? Just curious.
I wish none of the buildings came down, but thats just me. Surprisingly, new York has, in fact, experienced tall building fires before. Amazing, I know.
But building 7 is the first in recorded history to collapse from "fire and debris" that fell on it. No partial collapse either, right down the center, imploding onto itself limiting the damage to the surrounding area kind-of collapse.
Its all bull . Another Reichstag/Pearl Harbor to drag us into a war. Only this time, the enemy isnt another country, its an ideal. Theyve managed to convince the cowards of America that we are at "war" with an idea. When did people get so stupid?
I cannot believe we still have threads about conspiracy and 9/11.
The three building collapses are understandable. They can and have been explained. Large parts of one of the towers took out structural support of building 7. Heat and damage brought down all three. The damage alone or the fire alone would have left the buildings standing.
As for the claim of building 7, one key piece of evidence is one video clip showing the windows breaking long before the building fell. This is a clear indication of the building shifting, losing its ‘squareness,’ therefore breaking the windows.
As for the 9/11 report, yes. It was a sham. The only thing covered up, was politicians asses who through policy, made 9/11 possible. It was not a cover-up about 9/11 it self.
No, I'm not going to expand on that. I have debated this to death in past years. I am sick of the subject.
Another rare instance where I agree with you.
post 4!!! chumpdumper what a great comeback
as oscar might say
i dont what it is but in the past, ive said the exact same thing
Really, most of these agents are probably cheesed that the CIA came out looking so bad in the commission report and would like a chance to speread the blame around a bit more. The couple who buy into the more moonbattish views of the "truth" movement need to say what they really think happened on 9/11 just like all of the other nonconspiracists.
]hyeahmost of these agents are probably cheesed that the CIA came out looking so bad in the commission report and would like a chance to speread the blame around a bit more
The 911 Commission didn't even investigate what Atta was up too after he re-entered the U.S. in early 2001...the Bush administration, the CIA, and the State Dept. simply lost track of Atta...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
