Former FBI Director Louis Freeh Questions 911 Commission

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559

    An Incomplete Investigation
    Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"?

    BY LOUIS FREEH
    Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

    EXERPT

    It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."

    Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?

    There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?

    The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.
     
  2. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'd like to ask the Sec. of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff whether there were extensive war games occuring on Sept. 11. In what way did these impede with the unacceptable and inexplicable failure of our air defenses to scramble and intercept the airliners attacking our nation. All the attacking aircraft should have been intercepted and dealt with by the book. Could this failure have occured because the fighters weren't dispatched from the nearest air base due to the war games or other reasons?

    Why didn't Bush give the order to shoot down those aircraft if necessary rather than Cheney, belatedly?

    If the U.S. was under attack, which it presumably was, why didn't Air Force 1 have a fighter escort when it left Florida?
     
  3. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Why did WTC building 7 fall perfectly into it's own footprint if it wasn't hit by any aircraft or have any huge fires? Why wasn't this investigated by the 911 Commission? Why did Silverstein say they decided to "pull it"?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Pulling" a building means that firefighting personnel are evacuating (pulling out) of it and letting it burn. This is commonly done when structural integrity is compromised, and letting the building burn out and collapse poses minimal threat to life.

    It makes no sense that WTC 7 was a "controlled demolition". There simply wasn't enough time to plant explosives for an explosion. Normally, it takes a few days to install the charges on a much smaller building. It would have been considerably easier to call it a total loss and have it demolished with the other WTC (and surrounding) buildings that did not collapse, but were damaged beyond repair.

    Additionally, there doesn't appear to be any motive for conspiring to collapse WTC 7 (or WTC 1 and 2, for that matter).
     
  5. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another brilliant statement coming from the credibility experts. [​IMG]
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like the Clinton administration has a lot to answer for during its time in power.
     
  7. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    "Pulling" Building 7
    http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

    A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:

    I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

    This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:
    ... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

    Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

    An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay folks, I've made a few phone calls:

    I've since verified with my local firefighting agency that "pulling" and "pulling out" are phrases that fire authorities use when abandoning a building. Common reasons for abandoning a building are if the structure is free from potential victims and is in imminent collaple, or if allowing a building to burn out poses significantly less risk than fighting a blaze. I'm sure that if you call your local agencies, they're tell you something similar.

    Also, many have heard of Louizeaux family, who are world renowned for imploding buildings. Do a google search on the name, or simply call their office. You'll find that implding demonitions take weeks of preparation, and the rigging of the explosives cannot be done in just a few hours.
     
  9. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trying to equate the neglect to investigate anything at all with Atta's name on it with crackpot conspiracy theories seems like a misdirection ploy from some people who don't really want to discuss the real issue.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Sorry Carpro,

    Didn't mean to redirect the discussion. Any time the subject of the 911 commision comes up it just reminds me of how many questions they didn't even try to answer by avoiding them.

    The whole 911 commision was an excercise in misdirection IMHO. Instead of centering on finding out who the actual guilty parties were or how the buildings were actually brought down or not brought down by planes crashing into them they seemed to be more interested in hyping the bad intelligence theory and shuting out a real investigation.

    Able Danger is just one piece of evidence they actively tried to avoid.

    BTW, Johnv I wasn't disagreeing with you just trying to say the term is also used to mean demolish or bring down. [​IMG]
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you are correct, poncho. "Pulling" is also used by the demolition industry.


    BTW, it's also a term used by skeetshooters [​IMG]
     
  12. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Dentists use the term also. I'm not theorizing that dentists had anything to do with 911 BTW. ;)
     
  13. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some chefs use the term with pork, or some beef, and I like it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...