FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS

[seemslikeadream]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/10/fbi-prevents-agents-from-telli.html
By Jeff Stein | October 1, 2008 6:00 AM


The FBI has blocked two of its veteran counterterrorism agents from going public with accusations that the CIA deliberately withheld crucial intelligence before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

FBI Special Agents Mark Rossini and Douglas Miller have asked for permission to appear in an upcoming public television documentary, scheduled to air in January, on pre-9/11 rivalries between the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The program is a spin-off from The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by acclaimed investigative reporter James Bamford, due out in a matter of days.

The FBI denied Rossini and Miller permission to participate in the book or the PBS "NOVA" documentary, which is also being written and produced by Bamford, on grounds that the FBI "doesn't want to stir up old conflicts with the CIA," according to multiple reliable sources.
Bamford, contacted by phone, said he could not comment because his publisher has embargoed his new book for release around Oct. 10.

The author of two other ground-breaking books on the NSA, Bamford also said his general policy is not to discuss his negotiations for interviews with intelligence agencies.

Pre-9/11 intelligence mishaps have been generally attributed to bureaucratic screw-ups -- a "failure to connect the dots," exacerbated by spy agency rivalries.

But Rossini and Miller, who were assigned to the CIA-run Counterterrorist Center during the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, are prepared to describe on camera how the CIA blocked them from sharing crucial intelligence with FBI headquarters - and then later pressured them not to tell the truth to investigators.





Subsequently, Rossini and Miller were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission to tell what they knew, even though sources say they were eager to do so.


"There was pressure on people not to disclose what really happened," said sources close to the IG investigation.

[hack89]

1. This doesn't surprise me

the CIA and the FBI hate each other - I can certainly see each of them undercutting the other over some perceived turf war.

This is the area that the truth movement should have concentrated on all along.

[Octafish]

84. Exactly. Bush Knew. The diversion with 'invisible planes' and 'gelignite' or whatnot creates noise.

The signal is that there is tons of credible evidence that the Bush administration ignored the coming attacks.

Plot to assassinate Bush – reports

Ashcroft Flying High

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

Genoa braces for G8 summit



Imagine what these FBI fellows can add.

Lots more here: http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

[William Seger]

85. When I first heard about the "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense...

... it was almost immediately followed by the theory that the CIA had really started it, to throw people off the track of their own malfeasance (or whatever more evil reason they may have had) in not preventing the attack, and to put most people in the position of feeling they needed to defend the government from crackpot "conspiracy theorists." I think that theory underestimates the amount of crackpottery in the world, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more plausible than "no plane hit the Pentagon."

Conspiring to silence anyone who could tell us more about what really happened would be an obstruction of justice criminal conspiracy, at the very least.

[William Seger]

2. So, do you now believe that there WERE Arab hijackers? (n/t)

[seemslikeadream]

6. link please

[wildbilln864]

9. they were Arab patsies who are alledged to be highjackers. nt

[William Seger]

19. Can you put that theory in the context of the article?

What was the crucial intelligence that CIA management prevented from being shared with the FBI?

[LARED]

3. And you think this is new?

The issue of the FBI and CIA not cooperating has been covered in a number of books.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Paul Thompson thinks it is huge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4141202&mesg_id=4141567

Yet amazingly, people who point out this stuff are still called "conspiracy theorists."

It's becoming increasingly obvious that the CIA knew about these two hijackers for a long time, and it's very hard to believe that they could have known about them and not learned of the other 9/11 hijackers, as Alhamzi and Almihdhar kept in regular contact with many of them by phone and sometimes even visited them in person. And its hard to imagine that the CIA would not have learned about the 9/11 plot itself because these hijackers were not very circumspect. For instance, shortly after Almihdhar arrived in San Diego in early 2000, he told an acquiantance (Mohdar Abdullah) that he was in the US as part of a plot to crash a plane into a building.

It's also not very likely that the CIA didn't know what these two guys were doing because they were in the US and the CIA was prohibited from conducting surveillance in the US. The two guys were frequently calling a known al-Qaeda hub in Yemen that was being intensively watched by the CIA and NSA, and sometimes Almihdhar traveled from the US to stay at the hub for up to a month. This hub was considered so red hot that not only were its phones tapped, but there was constant audio and video surveillance of the building, too. It beggars belief that he wouldn't have talked about the 9/11 plot with al-Qaeda associates living in the hub, including his own close relatives who were al-Qaeda, since we know he was freely talking about the plot to other associates around the same time.

The CIA cover story mentioned in the link above, that the CIA thought these guys were working on a Southeast Asia plot and didn't want the FBI to muck it up, just isn't credible. Even Bush's counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke discusses the mystery of what the CIA knew about Alhazmi and Almihdhar for several pages in his new book "Your Government Failed You" and basically admits he can't figure out just how much the CIA knew and why they didn't tell the FBI or act on the info.

I look forward to this new book, but I'm sure there's even more about these two hijackers that has yet to come out. We know the CIA monitored Alhamzi and Almihdhar attending an al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia in early 2000 that was attended by a number of key al-Qaeda figures, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. We know, from counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna who has unique access to classified US government material, that the 9/11 plot was discussed at that summit. It seems likely to me that the CIA did not just accidentally lose track of these guys shortly after the summit and then forget to tell the FBI what it knew. Instead, they followed them all the while from that point on and had a very good idea what they were up to. One can argue why the CIA didn't do anything about it, but it's becoming increasingly clear that the CIA knew more than enough info to stop the 9/11 attacks but did not do so, and then covered this up afterwards.

[SDuderstadt]

I thought you were a no-planer....

are you know acknowledging the hijackers flew planes into the Pentagon, WTC and ground in PA?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Debating your lack of facts and evidence...

isn't "disrupting", PG.

[petgoat]

69. There's no debate below. Just farts. You are disruptive, Sid. nt

[greyl]

73. Looks like SLAD's unwillingness to carry on a decent conversation and/or

be responsive to the simplest of questions - questions which strive for clarity - is the worst part of this thread.
The thread is totally wrecked, and it's pathetically shameful. The OPer hasn't exactly been a conscientious steward of the topic they posted, and you haven't added anything valuable either.

This is not a thread that inspires people to spread links to it with pride.

[petgoat]

75. Sid immediately derails it with no-planer baiting. It was about the FBI coverup.

Serious stuff.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Try to follow here, PG....

The OP concerns allegations that the FBI covered up foreknowledge of the hijackers. On several occassions, SLAD has, at least, alluded to a no-plane theory. Doesn't it strike you as odd that she now posts something about the FBI, yet overlooks their belief that planes struck the WTC, the Pentagon and the ground in PA?


Your notion of what constitutes "disruption" is seriously whacked.

[petgoat]

87. It was a discussion of serious stuff, and you derailed it by changing the subject

based on your attempt to get SLAD in an inconsistency.

Fitzgerald said the sign of a first class intelligence was the ability to
hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time.

The issue was the FBI agents. You want to make it be about SLAD. That's
disruptive.

[SDuderstadt]

88. The question is very valid....

does SLAD agree with the FBI's claim that planes were flown into the various buildings? Yes or no?

[petgoat]

93. The question is distracting from the important subject of the FBI coverup nt

[SDuderstadt]

101. No, it's not, PetGoat....

it goes to the issue of selectively believing the FBI.

[petgoat]

103. If I believe some things I read in the library and disbelieve other things I read in the library

is there something wrong with that?

Please learn to think, SDuderstadt

Where do you get the idea that "selective belief" is a thought crime?

Did you make that up yourself?

[SDuderstadt]

105. I don't recall stating "selective belief" is a....

"thought crime", PG. Stupid post.

[petgoat]

107. Have you fogotten post 101 already? nt

[SDuderstadt]

109. No, PG....

show me where I said ti was a "thought crime".

[petgoat]

111. You called it an issue. Why is it an issue if it's not a crime? Please write on one line

your posts aren't worth two.

[SDuderstadt]

112. It's pretty stupid to think all issues are....

crimes. Do you bother to think at all?

[petgoat]

113. Please stay on one line when you have nothing to say. nt

[SDuderstadt]

114. You mean like you? n/t

[petgoat]

115. Thx nt

[SDuderstadt]

116. I knew that would go over your head....n/t

[petgoat]

117. Pfft nt

[SDuderstadt]

80. Well, I'd stop farting, if I were you.

When you stop, feel free to join the debate, if you think you can keep up.

[SDuderstadt]

7. I thought you were a no-planer....

are you know acknowledging the hijackers flew planes into the Pentagon, WTC and ground in PA?

[seemslikeadream]

10. link please

[SDuderstadt]

24. Notice the operative word....

"thought". I'm not saying you are, I'm asking a clarifying question. Of course, we wouldn't be forced to ask clarifying questions if you'd bother to make coherent posts to begin with.

[seemslikeadream]

12. You have no idea whatsoever what I believe

[SDuderstadt]

20. Since most of the time no one can understand what you are saying...

that's an understatement. Perhaps you should try to be clearer.

[seemslikeadream]

26. link please

[SDuderstadt]

28. I don't need a lnk to have an opinion, SLAD....

perhaps you simply don't notice the numerous posts asking you to explain wtf you're yammering about or why you don't provide contaxt for your ponderously long, incoherent posts.

[William Seger]

23. That sounds like either incompetence or a LIHOP conspiracy theory

Are you a LIHOPer?

[wildbilln864]

5. why do you assume....

you know what the poster thinks? :shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

8. They are ALWAYS doing that

A-S-S-U-M-E

[wildbilln864]

11. Yes, I have been noticing.

ass/u/me :hi:

[seemslikeadream]

13. Yes you could put it that way

:hi:

[William Seger]

14. I haven't assumed anything yet

I asked you a question: "So, do you now believe that there WERE Arab hijackers?" Yes or no should do it.

Ya see, some of us think this is a discussion board, not a scrapbook.

[wildbilln864]

15. the reply wasn't addressed to you! nt

[seemslikeadream]

16. I don't care what some of you think

I've been here a very very long time, I have a journal here and I will post the way I want to and I'll thank you (all 5 of you)to not tell me how I should post

[William Seger]

18. Well, let's try a different question

Why did you post the article here? What do you make of it?

[SDuderstadt]

21. We're asking a simple question, SLAD...

I don't give a fuck whether you have a journal or not.

[seemslikeadream]

27. I don't give a fuck whether you have a journal or not.

or anything else for that matter

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

33. No, are you related to Meursault?

[seemslikeadream]

17. A discussion board?

I thought you guys believed it was tag team wrestling

[SDuderstadt]

22. No, SLAD....

You post nonsense and you get called on it. That's how discussion boards work. Maybe you should start your own.

[seemslikeadream]

25. link please?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Link please....n/t

[seemslikeadream]

32. Oh that's rich coming from you Mr. Tag Team

You never discuss anything, too busy calling people names like the little boy that you are

[SDuderstadt]

35. Link, please...

show me where I called ANYONE a name. That should be easy unless, of course, you're making it up as usual.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

34. Did you notice the question mark in the title?

It was much more of a question than an assumption?

[noise]

31. The turf battle excuse is nonsense

It's the same as the Gorelick wall excuse or the watchlisting failure excuse. Absolute nonsense.

Tenet cannot have it both ways. Either he wanted to prevent an attack or he didn't.

[victordrazen]

37. what is called when a fake conspiracy is invented

to make it look like that is the "real" conspiracy, because bad as it is, it is not as bad as what actually did happen? It's an intelligence term. Whatever it is called, that is what this is.

[petgoat]

38. I see the mosquitos have buzzed this thread into oblivion. What a waste of time! nt

[spoony]

40. I assure you, it was a waste of time from its onset.

And all those poor electrons being displaced, too.

[seemslikeadream]

41. Then why are you posting in it?

[petgoat]

72. FBI agents want to go public about a 9/11 coverup, it's reported in a CQ blog,

and you consider that a waste of time?

Paul Thompson, one of the top 9/11 researchers, called it "HUGE!"

[greyl]

42. The other DU thread on this where SLAD wasn't so involved did much better. nt

[SDuderstadt]

43. I noticed that, too...

There's a wake-up call there for her if she'd just listen to it.

[seemslikeadream]

45. BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN IT

AND THAT IS THE VERY REASON I STAYED OUT OF IT, I DID NOT WANT YOU TO TRASH THAT THREAD LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE, AND YOU SURELY WOULD HAVE IF I HAD POSTED IN IT. WHY DIDN'T YOU POST IN IT SD??

[SDuderstadt]

50. Because I didn't have time to go through the responses....

your sense of self-importance is starting to becaome a huge problem for you. Maybe you should stick to the journal.

[seemslikeadream]

48. Thanks for proving it's all personal for you SD

[seemslikeadream]

49. You not posting it it is definitely a wake up call for everyone in this forum

who have any doubt it is all personal with you

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

55. When I reply to your posts SD there's no reason to be intelligent about it

you would have no idea what I was saying, you can't even figure out who's replying to who :rofl:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

57. That's only when replying to you

Take you little personal trash talk elsewhere you've been busted and NO ONE will ever take you seriously again if they ever were inclined to at all

[SDuderstadt]

59. Well, then....

that should be easy for you because your posts lack intelligence as it is.

[seemslikeadream]

60. Like I said take your little personal trash talk elsewhere you've been busted big time now

[SDuderstadt]

63. You don't set the rules here, SLAD...

Maybe you should think about getting your own website where you can post your bullshit without people calling you on it. You are an embarrassment to liberals in general.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Because I'll post in whatever forum and whatever OP's I want to, SLAD...

You really need to get your own place.

[seemslikeadream]

71. As hard as you try SD you will never get me to stop posting in this forum

NEVER


You can keep up your baseless, annoying, ilconceived, illogical, redundant, boring, slimy, juvenal posts all you want. They only continue to demonstrate how irrevalant you really are.

[greyl]

74. Is it possible for you to take more pride in the quality of your "work"? nt

[SDuderstadt]

79. Do you honestly think "juvenile" is spelled "juvenal"?

You know, frankly, SLAD, you don't appear to be too educated, so maybe we need to take it easier on you. In the meantime, however, get one thing clear. No one, I repeat, NO ONE is trying to get you to stop posting here. What would we do for laughs if you didn't? Beyone that, believe it or not, this forum is not about you. Your narcissism and persecution complex are bound to get the better of you one day, if they haven't already. It's really comincal to watch. As I said before, you're an embarrassment to liberals everywhere.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Ummm, SLAD...perhaps I saw this one FIRST....

and I don't care (or have the time)to respond to the same subject in two separate threads. How is that "juvenal"? Why do you have so much trouble with grammar and spelling?

Please show me where I've "lied", SLAD. Put your "proof" out there for all to see. I'm calling bullshit on this. BTW, if you think that posting in one thread and not another proves anything about someone intent (as opposed to any number of possible causes), no wonder you spend so much time defending yourself. Liberals promote critical thinking. Perhaps you should try to learn some.

[seemslikeadream]

46. BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN IT

AND THAT IS THE VERY REASON I STAYED OUT OF IT, I DID NOT WANT YOU TO TRASH THAT THREAD LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE

[seemslikeadream]

47. SO INVOLVED?

SO INVOLOVED?

I did not post in it at all because I knew if I did you all would be all over it. Why, why have you not posted in it either?


IT IS ALL PERSONAL FOR YOU THANKS FOR PROVING THAT POINT

[SDuderstadt]

51. How many times are you going to reply to your own post, SLAD?? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

53. I didn't as.......

Try and keep up could you just accomplish that little task?

[SDuderstadt]

58. Okay, then....how many times are you going to reply to..

Greyl's and my posts? Can't you assemble your thoughts into one clear, coherent post, rather than make mutiple repies to the same post?

[seemslikeadream]

62. Don't you try and tell me how to post I will post any fucking damn way I feel like

For someone that can't even figure out how to tell who's replying to who you've got a lot of nerve


TAKE YOUR PERSONAL BULLSHIT ELSEWHERE, YOU'RE MAKING A LAUGHING STOCK OUT OF YOURSELF

[SDuderstadt]

64. Then quit telling me how to post....get it? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

65. I've NEVER posted in a thread of yours, I don't go around stalking anyone

that's your job, and we have that proof today, thanks so much for obliging and giving us all the evidence we need

[SDuderstadt]

68. You might have a point if I ONLY posted in your OP's, SLAD....

quit being silly.

[seemslikeadream]

54. I know you have trouble figuring things out SD but see that little rely thing?

Check it out sometime, upper right hand

[victordrazen]

61. Do you think I'm a mosquito petgoat?

I didn't mean to sound that way. I honestly think that this "weren't warned about the hijackers" stuff is meant to keep people thinking that most of the 9-11 story is true, but maybe there were some people who didn't act on the warnings. That way everyone who is so hungry for answers will follow these crumbs gratefully, and as time passes, nothing will come of it.
Most people fail to realize that the FBI and CIA are basically political organizations, the directors of them are working at the behest of the current administration, so they are only as good as whoever is in office at the time. Of course they "knew about" the hijackers, whoever was posing as them for later reference, was working for them.
The FBI is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department. Think of the preposterous corruption of that office - firing prosecutors for not doing what they were told, Alberto Gonzalez, etc... They are no different, probably worse, because there is so little scrutiny.

[petgoat]

70. No victor, I wasn't criticizing you. The substance of your post inspired my regret that the rest

of the thread was taken up by the Dude's puerile spamming.

Welcome to DU! :hi: I find your perceptions valuable and I hope
you won't be put off by all the airy nonsense that Dude, AZ, hack,
greyl, Seger, and a couple of others puff in here.

[victordrazen]

76. Well they are just the minority, but they are certainly

a vocal minority aren't they?

[petgoat]

77. All they post is hostile one-liners.

They chase away new people, and if you write anything of any substance, they'll
bury it under a hundred posts of spam.

[SDuderstadt]

82. What bullshit, PG....

It's really comical to claim all we post is one-liners. You're the one that keeps avoiding actual debate. Your persecution complex is stunning.

[Thorandmjolnir]

187. you're right

sometimes you post two-liners.

[SDuderstadt]

83. We certainly aren't a minority in the actual world...

notice that the "9/11 truth movement" isn't exactly gathering steam seven years after 9/11.

[William Seger]

78. Am I understanding you correctly?

You seem to be saying that you don't believe this article about the CIA management preventing "crucial intelligence" from being passed to the FBI. You seem to be saying you think this story was planted as a smoke screen to distract everyone from what really happened. Is that correct?

[victordrazen]

90. It's called "limited hangout"

For people who know there is something wrong, that won't actually do any damage.

[HamdenRice]

91. About the "swarming" -- On the positive side, not one barnacle ...

detached from the "hull" of DU to appear on deck to ruin the thread that was in GD and that Paul Thompson so thoughtfully contributed to.

At least their damage is confined to the hull.

[petgoat]

92. Good point. They have nothing to say about other progressive issues,

like impeachment and Obama and election fraud so you never see them on the Greatest Page.

You'd think a bunch of debunkers would have participated more enthusiastically in the
William Rodriguez thread, too.

[AZCat]

94. There you go, making assumptions again. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

95. making assumptions

based on a whole lot of reality

[AZCat]

96. Not really, SLAD.

I hope for your sake that DU is not the sum total of your reality. There's a whole wide world outside of DU, you know.

[seemslikeadream]

99. You misunderstood me

[AZCat]

100. Apparently so.

Care to explain?

[wildbilln864]

97. an accurate assumption too!

based on evidence.

[AZCat]

98. I thought you had me on ignore.

See my reply to seemslikeadream. While I understand that my posting at DU is the only evidence you have, it would be quite stupid to assume that is the only thing I do (or anyone else, for that matter).

[Thorandmjolnir]

188. I think its more an observation than

an assumption.

[SDuderstadt]

102. I have encouraged impeachment, as well as...

indictiment and conviction many times, PetGoat. Stupid post.

[petgoat]

104. I rarely, if ever, see any of the mosquito squadron on the Greatest Page. nt

[SDuderstadt]

106. Maybe you have more time on your hands, PG....n/t

[petgoat]

108. Like it's so important to hang out here spraying juicy farts on fires

that you have no time left over to be in favor of anything.

[SDuderstadt]

110. I'm in favor of a lot of things, PG....

encouraging your bullshit, however, is not one of them. BTW, don't you think you've flogged the "fart" thing long enough? Do you have some sort of obsession with flatulaence?

[petgoat]

118. I object to poofy substanceless posts that make this forum repulsive. Like yours. nt

[wildbilln864]

120. I too object to those disruptions! Just for the record. nt

[seemslikeadream]

121. I do too and so do many many people who read this forum and do not post here

What a freakin' reputation he has

[SDuderstadt]

122. Take it up with the mods or...

start your own website where you can make the rules...

[petgoat]

123. Unlike some people around here, I am slow to go running to mommy for help

But I've noticed that new people like RC and eomer and JerseyGirlDem
are gone after getting a lot of wind broke in their faces.

That's why I started the thread "Some people want to have substantive
discussions here."

I thought we might have some discussion about abating the disruption
problem.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Then quit complaining, PG....

debate sucks when, like you, you don't really have anything.

[petgoat]

126. There isn't any debate because you guys clog up the bandwidth with poof nt

[SDuderstadt]

128. There isn't any debate here because you guys insist on "faith-based" science and...

evidence. Half-baked cracker experiments don't help either.

[petgoat]

144. I don't insist on faith based science.

What's wrong with the cracker model?

[SDuderstadt]

145. Answer your own damn question, PG...

How in the world does smashing a cracker between your palms in any way model the pulverization of concrete floors in the WTC?

[petgoat]

148. I've told you many times how it models the functional and temporal relationships among the elements

in the system that pulverizes the concrete and ejects it out the window.


The lower palm represents the lower floor pans. The cracker represents the
concrete. The upper palm represents the upper floor.

The upper palm comes down, creating the mighty wind that ejects all the air
from the room.

The upper palm then impacts the cracker and the lower palm, pulverizing the
cracker. A little cracker dust may fall between the fingers, but it is
not forcibly ejected.

This models the pulverization and ejection mechanism in the WTC.

Now you answer the question. What's wrong with the cracker model?

[SDuderstadt]

150. Get it peer-reviewed by a structural engineer, then..

that is, if they can stop laughing long enough.

[petgoat]

151. Is that all you can find wrong with it? Lack of endorsement by some authority?

Are you incapable of independent thought?

Is that all you've got? You're not even going to try to
explain what the hell Seger's blathering about?


So basically you won't believe anything until it's said by NIST.
Right?

You were rofl rofl rofl about my model and you can't name anything
wrong with it?

[SDuderstadt]

152. It's not worth trying, PG...

No one can talk any sense into you, no matter how patiently we try. It's futile. If your model is valid, a structural engineer would certainly say so. Instead, they would laugh.

[petgoat]

153. In other words, you can't tell us what's wrong with the soda cracker model.

Even though you ridiculed it with rofl rofl rofl rofl.

The benchmark is not talking sense to me. After all, I'm just a loony conspiracy
theorist. The benchmark is presenting an argument that makes sense to you, to AZ,
to Seger, to hack, and to all the lurkers AND SHOWS ME TO BE WRONG.

Your invocation of a structural engineer as an authority is ludicrous.

Structural engineering is not the issue. It's process analysis.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Wtf?

A structural engineer would not be competent to assess your "model"? Really?

[petgoat]

160. You're the one who said it was ridiculous. Tell us what's ridiculous about it. nt

[SDuderstadt]

162. I've pointed it out numerous times....

why would two palms and one cracker be used? Wouldn't a more similar analogy be a cracker crushed between two other crackers????

[petgoat]

166. Two palms and one cracker represent the mechanism of pulverization of one floor.

A cracker crushed between two other crackers is not a good analogy because the floors
get crushed one at a time. The concrete of the top floor is already crushed before it
falls. There's no reason for two lower crackers. We're just modeling the crushing of
one floor. Why do you have a top floor falling on two lower floors?

[SDuderstadt]

167. I have to admit I have no fucking idea what you're babling about here....

Why would some floors be "palms" and other floors be "crackers"?

[petgoat]

176. For about the thirtieth time. The palms are the floor pans.,

The cracker is the concrete on the lower floor.

The upper palm is the upper floor, falling on the
lower floor, crushing the concrete (cracker) which is
held up by the trusses and the steel floor pan.

[SDuderstadt]

177. It's pretty silly to claim that you can clasp a soda cracker between your two palms....

and no particles or "dust" from the soda cracker will escape. Another one of your rather goofy claims.

[petgoat]

180. I didn't say no particles would escape.

Look, why don't you just try the experiment before
you tell us how goofy it is? Is that too much to ask?

[SDuderstadt]

181. I give up, PG....

so you're now admitting that concrete dust/particles WOULD have escaped. So, what's your point?

[petgoat]

183. The point is obvious and I must have stated it fifty times.

The mechanism of ejection of dust and the mechanism of creation of dust
are decoupled.

There is no way by natural means to eject the large quantities of dust--
and clearly the vast majority of the concrete material was powdered and
blown all over lower Manhattan.

The falling floors would have ejected the air before they pulverized the
concrete, just as the slapping hand comes down before it breaks the soda
cracker. Seger's "self-exploding" concrete model might possibly inject
a trivial amount of dust into the airspace below, but only a trivial amount.

[SDuderstadt]

185. Unless you can provide some sort of proof that...

"the vast majority of the concrete material was powdered and blown all over lower Manhattan", your claim is just that...merely your claim. You need to prove your initial premise but, frankly, I think you've beaten this to death. No structural engineer supports your claim that I know of. You might want to ask yourself why.

[wildbilln864]

119. please show uas some examples of that assertion. nt

[seemslikeadream]

125. LINK PLEASE?

[SDuderstadt]

127. I don't have to link to anything, SLAD...

I'll put my liberalism up against yours anyday.

[seemslikeadream]

129. But YOU have stated a so called fact and I want proof

[SDuderstadt]

130. I don't have anything to prove to you, SLAD...

When I was a HS student, I worked for RFK's campaign. After that, I worked for the McGovern campaign and for Mo Udall in 1976, EMK in '80, etc., etc. As stated earlier, I have nothing to prove to you.

[petgoat]

131. David Horowitz used to be leftier than that. Ancient history proves nothing, nt

[SDuderstadt]

132. Are you accusing me of being like David Horowitz or something?

I don't have anything to prove regarding my liberal credentials to you especially, PG. I have never voted for a GOP candidate for any office, other than a local, non-partisan race in which the nominal GOP candidate was actually better than the Dem candidate. But never for national, state or even local office, when the local election is a partisan race. Never.

[petgoat]

143. I'm not accusing anything. Learn to think. I'm shoing that ancient history proves nothing. nt

[seemslikeadream]

133. Quit changing the subject

Have you ever posted anything of value here at DU?

[SDuderstadt]

134. Prepare to look silly, SLAD...

for the life of me, I don't understand your masochistic tendencies. Remember the old adage, "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"? Hint: it was probably written for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213810

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x221272#221648

I told you I had advocated indictment and conviction. You could have found these posts easily had you bothered before you made yourself look silly yet once more.

[seemslikeadream]

135. Again I ask please link to one post that has any value to it

yea I saw those, we're talking about impeachment, etc? Remember what your assertions were? Do you have trouble remembering something you posted just a short time ago?

[SDuderstadt]

136. Can you read, SLAD?

Re-read the first post in which I call for indictment and conviction. You don't get to define what value my posts have. I'd much rather post what I post than one of your typical ponderously long, incoherent posts.

[seemslikeadream]

137. I know I want a link to where you have ever posted about indictment or conviction

I even put on my reading glasses

[SDuderstadt]

139. I gave you two already....

quit being lazy.

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-01-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I'm hoping the "average reader" will look at some of the really....
unsupportable claims of both the CT's and other "truthers" and decide for themselves as to what needs to be done. I'm also not particularly convinced that a new 9/11 investgation is likely and I also feel that ample resources exist other than an "official investigation". It's the "truth movement" that needs to sharpen its focus.

My "qualms" about the "official story" have mostly to do with the Bush administration's efforts to escape accountability for their negligence prior to 9/11 and their exploitation of it after the fact to engage in clearly illegal and unconstitutional conduct. I am much more disposed to indictment and prosecution of Bush and Cheney, which will probably go much further towards the aims of some in the truth movement. Frankly, my biggest reticence about discussing my "qualms" about the "official story" is that it will be hijacked by certain "truthers" and held up as proof of something I never ever said or even implied. It's a given that I don't trust either Bush or Cheney. Unfortunately, there are some parts of the "truth movement" I trust even less.
Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever - Will Ackerman

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-29-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. You'd better watch who you call....
an "operative" or accuse of "RW talking points". I'll put my liberal credentials up against yours anyday. I'd also invite you to study Logic, as you seem to think there are only two choices: be a "truther" or "push the government line". For the life of me, I don't know how one can look at the disparate sources of eyewitness testimony as to the events of that day (I mean, how many witnesses have to state that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?) and reason that sifting through it in its totality, then drawing conclusions from it amount to "obnoxious obfuscating". My own question is whether you "truthers" ever bother to read the large volumes of testimony and evidence outside of CT websites.

I despise the Bush administration with all my being. It would be delicious if MIHOP or even LIHOP were true and it could be proven. I'd lead the charge for Bush's indictment and conviction (which should happen even notwithstanding 9/11). As it is, I think they are most guilty of gross incompetence in the lead-up, the response, covering up their incompetence and using 9/11 as a rationale for truly stupid foreign policy and military moves. However, that doesn't mean they "planned it" or even "let it happen". If you find hard evidence that stands up to scientific, logical and evidentiary scrutiny, I'm all ears, If, instead, the "truth movement" persists in "rebunking" myths that have been repeatedly debunked or things that defy logical sense, it shouldn't surprise you that, after nearly 7 years, the "truth movement" is, at best, a fringe movement and, at worst, a total laughingstock.

Again, I would tread very carefully while questioning or even seeming to question the liberal credentials of people who simply disagree with you on the facts.
Sinners can repent, but stupid is forever - Will Ackerman

Are you tired of making yourself look silly, or do you want more self-punishment?

[petgoat]

142. We were talking about posts on the Greatest Page.

All you show us is claimed liberalism on the 9/11 page.

When have you ever posted on a non-9/11-related progressive
subject on the Greatest Page?

[SDuderstadt]

146. I done with this, PG...

I have nothing to prove to you on anything.

[petgoat]

147. You're done all right. You claim you have nothing to prove, but the fact is you can't prove.

Take a look at your journal: One essay cut and pasted from jrandi.

Take a look at my journal: Election fraud, the drug trade, fascism, 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

149. My journal?

What journal are you talking about? If I have one, I creted it by accident. I'm not interested in a journal of my posts and I don't feel any need to go tit-for-tat with you. If you're thinking you're some sort of stellar forum writer, I got bad news for you. I don't think many people are even aware of DU and certainly not you. I said I had advocated indictment and conviction and I proved I did.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

155. PG...think this through....

if, as you claim, the primary reason for making a post advocating indictment and conviction is to establish "credentials" as a liberal, don't you think we would have thought through the issue of posting it in multiple forums? Do you really think anyone takes you "9/11 truthers" as such a serious threat that they'd attempt to combat you on DU? Get over yourself.

[petgoat]

161. You clearly consider truthers threatening enough to devote energies to inhibiting them here.

And yes, I do think the Truth movement is extremely threatening to those who
seek to cover up the truth.

We have raised questions they can't or won't answer, and we have exposed
facts they find embarrassing and inconvenient.

[SDuderstadt]

163. No, I think they're stupid enough that they embarrass...

us liberals. Quit trying to second-guess my motivation. Do you see any of us obstructing your investigation? Why in the world do you think engaging someone in debate is "inhibiting" them? What is it about debate that "truthers" find so threatening? How silly.

[petgoat]

165. You and AZ and LARED and Seger and hack are disrupting this forum

Some of us would like to have substantive discussions involving
viewpoints from all sides. I've learned a lot from debating neocons.
I first learned about Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's work from a neocon
who claimed it proved fires brought the towers down (that claim was a
lie).

Instead of providing quality discussion the mosquito squadron swarms with
one-liners about how stupid Truthers are which have the effect of chasing
away newbies to the forum because they don't want to waste their time reading
all that shit, and because they get the impression that the consensus here
is that 9/11 questioners are stupid.

I've tried to raise any number of important issues here and all I got was
ridicule.

[SDuderstadt]

168. Your posts invite ridicule because...

they're riddled with errors and your "sources" appear to be roundly debunked "truther claims" that you're rebunking without taking the time to vet. If you think we're disrupting, take it up with the mods. Be specific. From my perspective, I think you're just whining because you can't keep up. As far as "one-liners", you're the king of them. It's rather silly to claim we don't engage in substantive debate when there are plenty of examples of well-researched and written technical responses from the likes of Seger, Flatulo, AzCat and many, many others. You want substantive debate? Respect your opponents to begin with and offer something substative to begin with. Implying that any of us "support the official story" or the Bush administration is patently offensive.

[petgoat]

169. Be specific yourself.

Instead of pointing out weaknesses in my arguments, and instead of
specifically identifying problematic sources, all I get from the
mosquito squadron is nonspecific assertions that my arguments are
stupid and unqualified.

AZ has been arguing for a couple of years now that I have no right
to criticize NIST's dishonest, unscientific, slipshod, and
unbelievable reports because I'm not an engineer.

Show me one time AZ offered a well-researched technical response.
All he ever offers is "You're stupid and I'm an engineer so I know."

Seger's stuff is impossible to read, and probably deliberately so,
because if you actually take the time to try to understand it you
find it's impossible at its core.

[SDuderstadt]

170. If Seger's stuff is "impossible at its core", it should be easy for you to refute....

Similarly, I have pointed to specific weaknesses in your arguments numerous times. Let me refresh your memory. Why would the floors colliding with each other be like a "cracker between two palms"? Are you saying that the floors are different? Are you claiming a cracker is the equivalent of a palm?

[petgoat]

171. I have refuted Seger's bullshit snow jobs.

My complaint is that I don't get specific criticism that allows me
to reject or improive my assertions and axioms.

All I get is nonspecific spraying of stink-water--like your objection
above to my soda cracker model. You don't provide any specific objection,
you provide only the vaguest and most general claim that disputes the
validity of the model without saying exactly what's wrong with it.

The two floors are like a cracker between palms because the palms represent
the steel floor pans and the cracker represents the 4" layer of concrete
on the lower floor. That is obvious to anyone.

Then you ask "Are you claiming a cracker is the equivalent of a palm?"
Why would anyone claim such a stupid thing, and why would anyone ask?

[SDuderstadt]

172. Because you're claiming that the floor pans would...

prevent the escape of concret dust from the building and you try to make the analogy of two palms and the soda cracker, which is absurd on its face. Why would the floor pans trap the dust again? Would you please explain that mechanism?

[petgoat]

173. Instead of claiming the analogy is absurd, why don't you show something wrong with it?

Floor pans trap the dust because dust can not flow through metal.
Any ruptures will be local and their presence is indicative of
fractured multi-ton floor segments, not completely pulverized
concrete.

[SDuderstadt]

174. How is the dust "trapped" on the top, PG?

Your analogy makes no sense.

[petgoat]

175. Are you claiming the floor lying on top of the dust doesn't trap it?

How does my analogy not make sense? You go on for post after post after post
with no specifics. Just poof poof poof poof. This forum has become a
wasteland because you and your mosquito squadron waste everyone's time.

[SDuderstadt]

178. Because you fail to provide any calculations as to how....

no dust would escape. It's rather silly to contend otherwise.

[petgoat]

179. I don't need calculations. You wouldn't understand them anyway.

The soda cracker model is a model of the mechanism of pulverization and
ejection of pulverized materials. It shows that first you get ejection
and then you get pulverization--there is no ejection of pulverized materials,
except whatever NEGLIGIBLE amount is "exploded" through ruptures in the
floor pans by accumulated strain energy per Seger's model.

You want calculations to prove to you that water is wet?

[SDuderstadt]

182. The fact that you can't model this mathematically....

tells all of us what we need to know, PG.

[petgoat]

184. I don't need to model it mathematically. The operational model says it all.

Your belief that it needs mathematics would seem to indicate
a deficit in spatial reasoning skills.

You seem to be subordinating the search for truth to the
quest to be right.

[SDuderstadt]

186. Are you saying it can't be modeled mathematically?

Really?

[Fainter]

190. No, PG Is Saying You're Being Deliberately Obtuse...

and that it is axiomatic that BEFORE pulverization the collapsing floor pans removed the only natural mechanism by which the bulk of the dust might otherwise have been expelled. PG makes a simple but brilliant observation here. He's right, quit trying to prove that water is wet.

[SDuderstadt]

192. If he's right, then why does no...

structural engineer back his claim?

[petgoat]

194. Who needs the argument from authority? Are you incapable of independent common sense? nt

[SDuderstadt]

199. No, you are....n/t

[AZCat]

189. No, it doesn't say "it" all. In fact, it says nothing relevant.

similitude

Prove similitude, or your analogy is useless. (hint: it takes math)

[petgoat]

191. The similitude is obvious. And you are just being an obfuscatory Elmer FUD again. nt

[AZCat]

193. Hmmm. I don't see any math in your answer.

Not relevant then.

[petgoat]

195. It doesn't need math. It's simple logic. First you blow out the air, then crush the concrete.

Blowing out the air does not blow out the concrete that hasn't been crushed yet.

Calling for mathematics on a issue of simple common sense is poofy obfuscation.

[AZCat]

196. Uhh, yes it does.

You didn't read the article, did you?

[William Seger]

197. Unfortunately, logic is the main thing missing in your "cracker model"

> "Blowing out the air does not blow out the concrete that hasn't been crushed yet."

Duh, really? But unfortunately that's completely irrelevant since I've already shown you what's wrong with your model: There's no way those thin 20ga steel pans could prevent concrete dust from being being blown into the uncollapsed floor space below -- they'll rupture -- and that air and dust will certainly get forced out of the building when that floor space collapses. There's also going to be dust in the uncollapsed floor space immediately about the colliding floors, and that air and dust must also be force out eventually. Your logic is faulty; your "common sense" has failed you; it's a silly model.

[petgoat]

200. Logic is what's missing from YOUR model.

Your mechanism of explosive dust generation can not powder more than
5% of the concrete, because it relies on the accumulation of the strain
energy of a large plate of concrete in a small zone to create any dust
at all.

There is no mechanism for forcing out the dust above the colliding floors.

[AZCat]

198. Nice chickenshit edit, by the way.

I was hoping that "calling for mathematics on a issue of simple common sense" would get you to address the fundamental disconnect between your model and reality. Appeals to "simple common sense" seem to have fallen on deaf ears. What you call "poofy obfuscation" is a common engineering technique. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

You know, I don't believe you've ever had a physics course in your life. Nobody could have been exposed to even the most elementary course and come away this ignorant.

[petgoat]

201. There is nothing chickenshit about my edit.

There is no disconnect between my model and reality.

You provide no argument whatsoever.

Please stop polluting this forum with your empty stinking poofs.

[AZCat]

202. No similitude, no relevance.

You're continuing a depressing trend here, petgoat. I must strongly reiterate my previous suggestion. After all, isn't this election more deserving of your time than this sub-forum?

[petgoat]

203. Truth takes no holiday for some of us. For others it's on permanent disability. nt

[AZCat]

204. Does that mean you won't be phone banking for Obama? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

157. I creted it by accident.

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

158. Just how clueless are you anyway?

See that little book up there after your name? :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

159. YOUR first clue would be that the "journal" contains only one entry...

from a month and a half ago. I don't recall creating (by the way, please show me were I have ever called anyone on a mere typo) it and I've turned it off. I'd like to find out how to delete it, because I never intended to have one to begin with. Sorry I'm not a "pro" like you but, of course, you put a lot more stock in your activities and "recognition" here.

[seemslikeadream]

164. WHAT ARE DU JOURNALS?

WHAT ARE DU JOURNALS?
Have you ever wanted to blog, but can't find the time? Are you intimidated by the idea of setting up and maintaining a blog? Are you looking for a way to attract visitors to your blog? Now you can maintain a blog while you post on the DU discussion forums! Introducing DU Journals -- a totally new and original idea that blends the best features of a discussion forum and a blog.

Use your DU Journal to highlight your best posts from the Democratic Underground discussion forums. Many DUers already have an impressive body of work published here on our website -- now you can easily publish all of it to your own individual Journal. Instead of just letting your hard work get lost forever in the flood of posts on the message board, you can now build an audience of people who come to your journal specifically to read your posts.


ACTIVATING YOUR JOURNAL
Every DU member can have a DU Journal. But you cannot use your Journal until you activate it. Here's how:

1. Make sure you are logged in to Democratic Underground.

2. Click this link to activate your journal.

[seemslikeadream]

138. TWO FRICKIN' POSTS IN THE DU 9/11 FORUM???

IS THAT ALL YOU GOT? :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

140. No, SLAD...

they're called "examples". Perhaps you've heard of them. You seem to be claiming that I have never advocated indictment and conviction. Even providing a single example dispositively disproves your rather silly claim. You seriously might want to consider trying to save face here or, at the least, begin "back peddling" (one of your silliest moments yet). I'd post even more examples. however, unlike you, I try to avoid ponderously long posts.

[seemslikeadream]

141. whatever

[go west young man]

205. Now if all these disrupters are finished messing up the thread this is the real story at hand.

FBI Prevents Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS
Advertisements Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 04:58 PM by seemslikeadream
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2008/10/fbi-prevent...
By Jeff Stein | October 1, 2008 6:00 AM


The FBI has blocked two of its veteran counterterrorism agents from going public with accusations that the CIA deliberately withheld crucial intelligence before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

FBI Special Agents Mark Rossini and Douglas Miller have asked for permission to appear in an upcoming public television documentary, scheduled to air in January, on pre-9/11 rivalries between the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

The program is a spin-off from The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America, by acclaimed investigative reporter James Bamford, due out in a matter of days.

The FBI denied Rossini and Miller permission to participate in the book or the PBS "NOVA" documentary, which is also being written and produced by Bamford, on grounds that the FBI "doesn't want to stir up old conflicts with the CIA," according to multiple reliable sources.
Bamford, contacted by phone, said he could not comment because his publisher has embargoed his new book for release around Oct. 10.

The author of two other ground-breaking books on the NSA, Bamford also said his general policy is not to discuss his negotiations for interviews with intelligence agencies.

Pre-9/11 intelligence mishaps have been generally attributed to bureaucratic screw-ups -- a "failure to connect the dots," exacerbated by spy agency rivalries.

But Rossini and Miller, who were assigned to the CIA-run Counterterrorist Center during the run-up to the 9/11 attacks, are prepared to describe on camera how the CIA blocked them from sharing crucial intelligence with FBI headquarters - and then later pressured them not to tell the truth to investigators.





Subsequently, Rossini and Miller were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission to tell what they knew, even though sources say they were eager to do so.


"There was pressure on people not to disclose what really happened," said sources close to the IG investigation.

[seemslikeadream]

206. Somethings are so blatant, are they?

Job one here for some folks, they seem to think they are ever so clever, but their biggest flaw is laid out for all to see and for most intelligent people to understand exactly what is going on here.




Yours truly

SLaD

[uwilllosedu]

207. google david benjamin burch

they are so busted, jref, hahahaha

:rofl: :evilgrin:

[uwilllosedu]

208. left gatekeepers:

fascists in progressive clothes