9/11 and the CIA

I am puzzled by the role of the CIA in 9/11. It is obvious to me that there are elements in the CIA that absolutely loathe the Bush administration and, as seen in the Plame affair and the Iraqi WMD, won't hesitate to leak damaging information to the press. The Freepers absolutely froth at the mouth about the traitors at the CIA.

So why have there been no leaks from the CIA concerning the 9/11 plot? Does it mean that the CIA was not involved? If that is the case, does it also mean the plotters were so good at hiding their actions that the CIA as yet to figure it out?

Not a big deal but a question that has been nagging me - any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

My hope was that the CIA would want revenge on BushCo, but then it seems like there are also more diabolical elements who are funding terrorism and are in league with the WH. I have heard reference to a "wall" in the CIA and behind that wall is where much of the evil takes place. There sure are a lot of FORMER CIA agents who speak out against the Bush admin. Apparently, there is a rule that someone who has worked for the CIA can not turn around and run for office. Bush Senior managed to get around that rule and some say that is the cause of many of the problems that still exist.

dead by means of "suicide" or "accident". They want bigger fish than him. (and may well get them). Don't forget however, that the CIA is a criminal enterprise. But, temporarily, the enemy of our enemy could be called a temporary friend, not they we have any say in the matter.

All those articles about German, Egyptian, Israeli, etc. intelligence foreknowledge may have come from honest and panicked agents that leaked it to the press.

And the 199I-WF-213589 directive that prevented agents from getting too close of Benny & Saudis was probably leaked as a safeguard "Hey, it's not the _agency_ who did it!".

Who knows? The only things I can think of is that they were preempting a strike that was destined to happen anyway or protecting our economy. Remember, it was Osama and his buddies that brought down the Soviets. Maybe they were worried that the same thing may happen to us and they wanted to engage. It's been suggested that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen to get us in the war. Maybe the same thing happened here. This is pure speculation of course but it's the only thing I can think of that could even remotely explain thier silence. The other alternative could have been to cushion the collapse of the market after the Worldcomm, Tyco, Enron etc... scandals. Had 9/11 not happened, whose to say that the damage those collapses would have caused wouldn't have been much greater, possibly even triggering a collapse of our financial system and resulting in another Depression. Since 9/11 did happen, people took the collapse of those companies stock values almost in stride. When Tyco's stock fell from 60 to 6 in one day, a lot more damage would have been done to our economy if people began panicking. As it turned out, we were more concerned with Anthrax and snipers and foriegn terrorists to worry about little things like the collapse of our economy. Who knows? Certainly not me, but it's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense at all.

organization. There could well have been factions of the CIA that were involved and others who weren't.

It's top down control, so many underlings , agents and reporters may not be "in on it" but any serious efforts to bring evidence to light will be stopped from the top.

were? I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I believe you're right. I just want to know why there aren't any whistleblowers from the CIA. You'd think by now, with as many people who know, someone would come forward.

even imagine. My god this is the CIA we're talking about - the kings of covert Ops. They could torture and kill your whole family tree and make it seem like a series of accidents and suicides. They could also be holding another fake terrorist attack over people's heads as well.

Who in their right mind is going to mess with these guys. They weed out the ones who can't keep quiet real fast. Also the guys that play ball (like the team running the WTC demolition) usually get rich courtesy of Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer.

Because compartimentalization is the name of the game (so you know only what you NEED to know to function properly), another name is "oath of secrecy" and when you go whistleblower, I guess your comfortable life goes down the drain too.

Maybe alot of them know that what they know is only a little part of information (inherent to the structure of their agency) and are afraid to go whistleblower (and suffer tremendous stress, have trouble find a job for the next 10 years, lawyer fees, etc etc.) only to reveal a chunk of information that the MSM won't pickup at all.

Who knows, there might be a faction of whistleblowers getting ready and coordinating their knowledge so it makes an easy story for the MSM to pick up.

that opposing factions have anything worth leaking? This presupposes more insiders with useful knowledge than the operation actually needs.

Like the old saw: "Gee, thousands must have been involved! Why aren't they all lining up to confess what they know and be ignored, ridiculed, fired, gagged and suicided? Erm, excuse me, I meant to say, why aren't all these hungry attention seekers lining up to become rich and famous as Hollywood Whistleblowers. Don't we know from all those past examples how people are just dying to talk? You can't keep any secret! All government agencies are monolithically spectacularly incompetent and perpetually leaking all the juicy stuff, etc. etc."

This also ignores the many whistleblowers who have come forward, including a variety of CIA-associated figures (some already mentioned on this thread), and others who may be among the anonymous sources serving to keep doubt alive.

How many people are hankering for the Sibel Edmonds treatment? (Or the David Kelley treatment, for that matter.)

What are the FAA employees who know their taped testimonies of 9/11 were shredded supposed to think they can do?

Many other examples...

Ptech is a CIA clandestine operation with ties to terror financing. Its Enterprise Architecture software (and similar software named PROMIS and PROMIS progeny) has back doors and is used by the government and affiliated agencies, and by many large corporations.

Amongst others: IBM, Federal Aviation Agency, Sysco, Motorola, Honeywell, Internal Revenue Service, ABN-AMRO, Sprint, United States Postal Service, House of Representatives, United States Senate, The Executive Office of the President, the Secret Service, The Department of Navy, Air Force, NATO, Mitre, FBI.











9-11 Citizens Commission
http://911busters.com/911-Commission.html (video, audio)
- Indira Singh Sibel's Letter
- Indira Singh and Ruppert Questions and Answers
http://www.justicefor911.org/September-Hearings.doc (transcript)

I just heard the second part of Singh's interview today on Guns and Butter. I couldn't believe it! It seems like no one knows about it. It is the most serious indictment yet of the governments involvement with 9-11 and worse!

• Why did the CIA fail to notify the FBI and other authorities that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, 2 of the alleged hijackers who were living in the U.S. in San Diego, were on the CIA terrorist watch list?

is strictly verboten.

Things like the Plame outing and/or the Monica scandal and/or Watergate are "fair game." But state sponsored terrorism is not and never has been.

Things like Operation Northwoods only come out 40 years after the fact, if ever. That's the rule, not the exception and hence requires no additional explanation.

If the CIA was involved in 9/11, why would they leak it? Any any significant leak about 9/11 would almost certainly be punishable by assassination-- the people who did 9/11 are not light-weights.

It is also not clear the mainstream CIA had anything to do with 9/11 but rather private intelligence contractors may have done the heavy lifting under the guidance of a few key CIA bosses. Real CIA operatives probably had the simple role of looking the other way and facilitating the hijackers rather than directly carrying out the plot.

Of course, the CIA as an institution is not averse to the goals of the Bush administration, and as Mike Ruppert says, the CIA is Wall Street and Wall Street is the CIA-- they are all about money. Some elements may disagree with Bush but overall I'm sure they take their orders from the administration.

On the other hand, some in the CIA might try to frame Bush for 9/11. We can't rule out that Bush was set-up in some ways and there are booby traps for Bush that haven't even gone off yet. If Bush wanted to come out and outright blame the CIA for 9/11, I'm sure they would have some way to keep him from doing that. Some of the info that implicates Bush/Cheney in 9/11 may well be a CIA frame-up-- particularly the forewarnings that were never acted upon. I wonder if Mike Ruppert's blaming of Dick Cheney for 9/11 was some sort of CIA Psyops job, since Ruppert has CIA connections.

I should also point out former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has doubts about 9/11, though he doesn't take it very far.

In general, I think it is extremely rare for active CIA agents to publicly leak anything about some sort of covert operation. I certainly can't think of a case where this has happened.

Finally I don't think the CIA and the Bush administration are as antagonistic as you make out. They have similar geopolitical goals.

If you listen to Indira Singh's story, she could talk to lower-ranking officers at FBI and they were as concerned as she was. But when she went ihgher, she was told to "shut up and go away or be killed". I would expect similar situation in other agencies. Lower-level people are not "in" on the dealings of the higher-ups, and they are the ones who sincerely work for the good of the US. Even if one assumes some CIA complicity in 9-11 hypothetically, there's no reason to believe that regular low- or mid-ranking officers have any idea about it whatsoever.

BTW, Indira Singh claims there is a law on the books that forbids CIA chiefs from running for president or VP, and that the rule was bent for Bush senior. Is this true and was any justification given at the time? I find this quite unsettling, given the history of Bush clan and how nothing ever stick to those people.