911 known of ahead of time

You probably already saw it at Zero Hedge [H/T IPJ]:

New York Times: White House Didn’t Stop 9/11 Because It Thought “Bin Laden Was Merely PRETENDING To Be Planning An Attack …

It has been thoroughly documented that 9/11 was entirely foreseeable … including Al Qaeda’s plans to fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:

(Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago; and the neoliberals are no different)

Right after 9/11, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accused Iraq of having a hand in the attacks. People may not remember now, but – at the time – the supposed Saddam-9/11 link was at least as important a justification for the Iraq war as the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Bush and Cheney then launched a systematic program of torture in an attempt to create false evidence – through false confessions – of a link between Iraq and 9/11.  The torture techniques used were Communist techniques specifically designed to produce false confessions.

This claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.

The 9/11 Commission found that the White House and its Defense Department obstructed justice in numerous ways to deflect blame for 9/11.

Today, the New York Times adds a bizarre new wrinkle to this story:

I have read excerpts from many of [the still-classified Presidential Daily Briefs] … and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence ….

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.


Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.


Post navigation

6 comments for “911 known of ahead of time

  1. Amfortas
    September 15, 2012 at 13:34

    Until all the facts behind any large event are in, only speculation exists. It is the same with ‘intelligence’.

    You deal with two quite distinct events here. 9/11 and plans for Iraq. As a military chap for 20 odd years, privy to a lot of high-classified material I can add the view that many ‘attack’ plans exist for any number of countries, including allies. It is called ‘contingency’ or ‘scenario planning’. It is of little moment that plans to attack Iraq existed. There are likely to be ones for Great Britain too and Israel, not to mention Grenada, the Scillies and Alderney

    As for ‘intelligence’ you mentioned ‘analysis’ and frankly that is the bulk activity with many wild as well as sound heads pouring over disconnected scraps. Recall that Pearl Harbour was ‘surprised’ even though the attacking aircraft had been seen a good half hour before any shots were fired. The British-built radar was ‘disbelieved’.

    It is very possible that suspicion (well founded or otherwise) may have existed from such scraps that an attack was planned by Al Quaida, but I hazard that the Twin Towers were (if at all) just one suspected target amongst dozens or even hundreds.

    The current and growing concern about being spied upon worries me more and for roughly the same reasons. A millieu of suspicion and a plethora of disconnected bits of ‘intelligence’, overwhelming in its nature and volume, is also likely to lead to poor, incompetent conclusions and perhaps a faster rush to action.

    Of greater concern is America’s propensity to see itself as having carte blanche to interfere in any country they like, or dislike.

  2. Seaside Sourpuss
    September 15, 2012 at 16:02

    I’m pretty certain that had the devastating death toll of 9/11 been known in advance, even George Bush would have attempted to halt it.
    20/20 hindsight is an amazing thing.
    20/20 hindsight, viewed through decade old glass, that still happens to fit a twisted logic and deep rooted paranoia is the bomb.
    No one knew, 13 years ago, that a bunch of suicidal, fanatical, Islamic desert dwellers, ranting about death to all infidels etc would turn out to have such a devastating effect on the Western World. Back then they were nothing more than desert dwelling ass hats.
    If I remember rightly, most of Britain was still trying to get to grips with the idea that the IRA were no longer going to blow them to fuck if they went Christmas shopping in London.

    There was no conspiracy regarding 9/11.
    It was what it was. A bunch of terrorists that hit pay dirt.

    The continuing desire, by certain people, to go over and over the events of that day, to scour the information that became available after the fact, to view it all through magical, rose tinted, hind sight enabled glasses, and in some kind of twisted way, turn the horrific events of 9/11 into some kind of world wide event, pre-orchestrated by the USA and covered up by the rest of the world grips my fucking shit.
    They deny the blatant, in your face, obvious fucking truth, whilst spending many an hour hunting down false statements, information, photos etc on the internet. Just to prove their point. It doesn’t just make them annoying, it denigrates the memory of every single person lost that day, and even worse, it is actually, slowly, altering the history of what actually happened that day.
    When the BBC showed the footage, that I watched, live, on the day, of both planes crashing into the twin towers my daughter stated, without a shadow of a doubt that it was all faked. To say I was shocked was a fucking understatement.
    I saw it, with my own two eyes, as did most of the world. It wasn’t fake, I still remember the pictures of living people leaping from that burning building, happier to plunge to their death rather than face the horror of burning to death.
    So, all you 9/11 deniers. Stop with your fucking conspiracy crap, stop with all the rubbish you post, every day, about how George Bush ordered the death of 3000+ people so the CIA could blow up some shitty building no one had ever heard of.
    It was a terrorist attack, pure and simple.
    The more you deny this simple fact, and pepper the internet with your total fucking bollocks, the more children, of the next generation will grow up believing that 9/11 never really happened.
    It did, I saw it with my own fucking eyes, and the more certain people say it didn’t happen, the more I hate them. Every day.

  3. September 15, 2012 at 18:32

    Blaming an entire Administration for things which went wrong in itself is wrong.

    I never blame one person alone for wrong things done where multiple people are involved.

    However, putting lazy unqualified people in positions they have not earned might be something which needs to be looked into.

    If I would have been placed in the right position, to receive intelligence and do something about it, September 11th never would have happened in 2001.

    Actions speak louder than words though, don’t they?

    To do gets the job done. A good public speaker alone does not a good President make.

  4. ubermouth
    September 16, 2012 at 01:34

    “So, all you 9/11 deniers. Stop with your fucking conspiracy crap, stop with all the rubbish you post, every day, about how George Bush ordered the death of 3000+ people so the CIA could blow up some shitty building no one had ever heard of.”

    A shitty building no one had ever heard of? Where do you live- Bedrock?

    And considering you find it inconceivable that any country’s figurehead could order such a covert operation , perhaps Bedrock is where you should stay. 🙂

    And FYI people don’t tend to ‘happily’ leap from burning buildings to their death,that’s panic and instinct to get away from the imminent danger.

    This post is excellent ,not the ‘rubbish’ or ‘bollocks’ you dismiss it as. Well researched and well written.

  5. September 16, 2012 at 19:09

    Yep that quote was a pretty stupid comment by someone who hasn’t bothered to investigate, just says, “pretty certain” and “would have” without basing it on anything.

  6. Amfortas
    September 17, 2012 at 03:50

    The WTC was bombed several years before, from ground level. Or rather underground, as it was the car park beneath.

    There exists a sound and sober documentary made about a gentleman (name I disremember) who was the ‘security’ chap for a major tenant in the building. He was sufficiently concerned that there would be a second attack that he took extraordinary measures to make the people in his firm far more aware of what to do in an event. His actions saved many lives. His recommendations and hard work had some moderating impact. Unfortunately, whilst he convened many relevant people in a number of quite ‘high level’ meetings and conferences, most of his ‘scenarios’ did not come to pass… Just the one.

    But, this is hardly ‘Knowledge’ of the event, before the event.

Comments are closed.