Whats the worst that could happen?

[TimeTraveler]

The problem is when you post a link to a source people try to discredit it because of the sources name, not by the material contained within the report. In this case its all over, I think it has gotten attention in most all media outlets.

 

Anywho here is a link to 72,000 articles about it.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=9%2F11+hijackers+still+alive&btnG=Google+Search

[Pangloss]

It's all over, there has been several different reports about it even in the msm. From eye witness accounts of seeing them, to some of them being caught on tape, to friends recieving phone calls from them and so on. Do a search on google, I'm sure you will find alot of reports on it.

 

I'm not interested in hearsay. I'm interested in Ruppert's source. Presumably he has an bibliography and/or citations page of some kind in the back of the book, does he not? I don't care if it's written-only; I'm perfectly capable of using a library.

 

What I want to know is whether he got this information from a reliable, independent, objective source, or if he made it up out of thin air (or something in-between).

 

I looked at the first page of the links you provided from your Google search. The only one I saw from a reliable news source was a BBC story about mistaken identity, which I vaguely recalled hearing about. If Ruppert thinks these guys had plastic surgery then this doesn't even pass the stink test -- if you're going to go to that kind of length, you'd at least change the guy's name!

 

You made it sound like this was fully documented and known to the public, but that does not appear to be the case. Common sense suggests that if they were alive we'd know it by now, because it would be the biggest news story of the century, so you need to overcome common sense with documentation and evidence. So let's see Ruppert's source, please.

 

In addition, please remember that I've also asked you to cite his source for the allegation that the White House edited Richard Clarke's book. I would like to know more about this, as I don't recall hearing about it before.

 

 

The problem is when you post a link to a source people try to discredit it because of the sources name, not by the material contained within the report. In this case its all over, I think it has gotten attention in most all media outlets.

 

That's almost right. The issue is not whether the source has a funny name, but whether the source is credible. I can list several thousand web sites from people who swear that they've seen UFOs, but that doesn't mean they exist.

 

It's not a matter of judgement, by the way. It's a matter of the tail wagging the dog. If you're going to sacrifice objectivity for information, you might as well salute and bend over, for all the freedom you will have. (It really doesn't matter WHO takes your freedom away, does it? So can we please not be so care-free about tossing it away? )

 

So yeah, if you cite a media source, it must be a mainstream news organization. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, AP, Reuters, UPI, New York Times, Washington Post, or the BBC will do for starters. Holler if you need more. If you're not sure, post away, and we'll figure it out.

 

 

The document was not released on live television, the document has never been releasesd. 1 and a half of the 11 and a half pages were declassified. And that came after Condi Rices testimony.

 

I've seen it on TV, haven't you? I'm confused by this argument. It's obviously out there, since we're talking about it. It's discussed extensively in the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't understand the problem.

[TimeTraveler]

I'm not interested in hearsay. I'm interested in Ruppert's source. Presumably he has an bibliography and/or citations page of some kind in the back of the book, does he not? I don't care if it's written-only; I'm perfectly capable of using a library.

 

What I want to know is whether he got this information from a reliable, independent, objective source, or if he made it up out of thin air (or something in-between).

 

I looked at the first page of the links you provided from your Google search. The only one I saw from a reliable news source was a BBC story about mistaken identity, which I vaguely recalled hearing about. If Ruppert thinks these guys had plastic surgery then this doesn't even pass the stink test -- if you're going to go to that kind of length, you'd at least change the guy's name!

 

You made it sound like this was fully documented and known to the public, but that does not appear to be the case. Common sense suggests that if they were alive we'd know it by now, because it would be the biggest news story of the century, so you need to overcome common sense with documentation and evidence. So let's see Ruppert's source, please.

 

As I stated above these are not Ruppert arguements. These are some things I am aware of, and was aware of before I read his book.

 

I think the first place I heard anything about this was on msnbc within a week after the 19 hijackers names were released to the press. Mahamed Atta's father claimed his son was still alive and he had talked to him the night before his name was dropped as the lead man in the mission.

 

In addition, please remember that I've also asked you to cite his source for the allegation that the White House edited Richard Clarke's book. I would like to know more about this, as I don't recall hearing about it before.

 

I remember seeing this on the news, I will try to find a source to verify it.

 

I've seen it on TV, haven't you? I'm confused by this argument. It's obviously out there, since we're talking about it. It's discussed extensively in the 9/11 Commission Report. I don't understand the problem.

 

I don't know what you saw but what I saw was Condi Rice testifying under oath and being cornered about this report as she tried to stumble her way out of it without answering the questions directly.

 

The panel gets 5 minutes each to ask questions, Condi does an amazing job of stalling and swaggering the questions to eat up more time and not answer them directly. This is before any of the PDB was declassified.

 

Here is a piece of the transcript:

 

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, COMMISSION MEMBER: Good morning, Dr. Rice.

 

RICE: Good morning.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Nice to see you again.

 

RICE: Nice to see you.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6 PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26 before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6 PDB.

 

Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6 PDB.

 

The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.

 

You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al Qaeda cells were in the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?

 

RICE: First, let me just make certain...

 

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited...

 

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important...

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president...

 

RICE: ... that I also address...

 

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you...

 

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will...

 

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

 

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

 

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

 

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

 

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

 

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

 

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

 

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

 

Now, the...

 

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

 

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

 

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

 

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

 

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

 

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

 

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al Qaeda involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct? You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al Qaeda attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.

 

As of the August 6 briefing, you learned that al Qaeda members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.

 

And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheikh warning of hijackings to free the blind sheikh indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6 consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

 

RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not -- you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6 that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations -- not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al Qaeda cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

 

RICE: What the August 6 PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

 

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

 

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

 

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

 

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

 

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

 

The fact is that this August 6 PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

 

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do -- speculative, much of it -- in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

 

RICE: It had a number of discussions of -- it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States -- Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

 

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

 

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing...

 

RICE: Now, we had already taken...

 

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

 

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

 

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

 

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

 

But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

 

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

 

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: We have explored that and we will continue to with respect to the muscularity and the specifics of those efforts.

 

The president was in Crawford, Texas, at the time he received the PDB, you were not with him, correct?

 

RICE: That is correct.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Now, was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?

 

RICE: I want to repeat that when this document was presented, it was presented as, yes, there were some frightening things -- and by the way, I was not at Crawford, but the president and I were in contact and I might have even been, though I can't remember, with him by video link during that time.

 

The president was told this is historical information. I'm told he was told this is historical information and there was nothing actionable in this. The president knew that the FBI was pursuing this issue. The president knew that the director of central intelligence was pursuing this issue. And there was no new threat information in this document to pursue.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Final question, because my time has almost expired.

 

Do you believe that, had the president taken action to issue a directive to the director of CIA to ensure that the FBI had pulsed the agency, to make sure that any information which we know now had been collected was transmitted to the director, that the president might have been able to receive information from CIA with respect to the fact that two al Qaeda operatives who took part in the 9/11 catastrophe were in the United States -- Alhazmi and Mihdhar; and that Moussaoui, who Dick Clarke was never even made aware of, who had jihadist connections, who the FBI had arrested, and who had been in a flight school in Minnesota trying to learn the avionics of a commercial jetliner despite the fact that he had no training previously, had no explanation for the funds in his bank account, and no explanation for why he was in the United States -- would that have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, made a difference in the ability to collect this information, shake the trees, as Richard Clarke had said, and possibly, possibly interrupt the plotters?

 

RICE: My view, Commissioner Ben-Veniste, as I said to Chairman Kean, is that, first of all, the director of central intelligence and the director of the FBI, given the level of threat, were doing what they thought they could do to deal with the threat that we faced.

 

There was no threat reporting of any substance about an attack coming in the United States.

 

RICE: And the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA, had they received information, I am quite certain -- given that the director of the CIA met frequently face to face with the president of the United States -- that he would have made that available to the president or to me.

 

I do not believe that it is a good analysis to go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by, quote, "shaking the trees." Dick Clarke was shaking the trees, director of central intelligence was shaking the trees, director of the FBI was shaking the trees. We had a structural problem in the United States.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of the FBI? RICE: We had a structural problem in the United States, and that structural problem was that we did not share domestic and foreign intelligence in a way to make a product for policymakers, for good reasons -- for legal reasons, for cultural reasons -- a product that people could depend upon.

 

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of...

 

KEAN: Commissioner, we got to move on...

 

BEN-VENISTE: ... the FBI between August 6 and September 11?

 

KEAN: ... to Commissioner Fielding.

 

RICE: I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.

 

Following this the PDB was declared declassified. What you were not told is the declassified version was 1 1/2 pages. However the original version was 11 1/2 pages. So where did the 10 missing pages go?

[Pangloss]

I think the first place I heard anything about this was on msnbc within a week after the 19 hijackers names were released to the press. Mahamed Atta's father claimed his son was still alive and he had talked to him the night before his name was dropped as the lead man in the mission.

 

So you can't cite a source, and even if you could, it would just be the next-day claim by the grief-stricken father, who may or may not have learned he was wrong five minutes after the reporter hung up. Okies, I guess we move on.

 

 

I remember seeing this on the news, I will try to find a source to verify it.

 

Well okay, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just flip to the back of this important, scholarly work and type in whatever source Professor Ruppert lists there.

 

 

Following this the PDB was declared declassified. What you were not told is the declassified version was 1 1/2 pages. However the original version was 11 1/2 pages. So where did the 10 missing pages go?

 

Thanks for following-up on that -- clearly my memory was flawed. So we modify your claim above from "PDB not released" to "where are the missing pages?" Understood.

 

But as I indicated at the beginning of the debate, circumstantial evidence is not acceptable. Hints and allegations are out of bounds. What I would need in this case, for example, would be something like a document showing that the missing pages listed the ways in which the US government was complicit in the terror attacks. You know, actual evidence of complicity, as opposed to missing evidence that could mean anything.

 

By the way, the fact that there's a PDB on Osama is actually counter-indicative of collusion. If they were in cohoots with the guy then they probably wouldn't need a scanty, confused, horribly dated intelligence briefing -- something even Richard Clarke thought was pathetic.

 

This would be the sort of thing you'd want to have cast a jaundiced eye towards when you were doing your critical thinking on this subject. You know, before you reached a conclusion sufficient to "reach a guilty verdict". ;-)

[TimeTraveler]

Well okay, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just flip to the back of this important, scholarly work and type in whatever source Professor Ruppert lists there.

 

Like I have said a few times, the stuff I posted is not from his book.

 

Thanks for following-up on that -- clearly my memory was flawed. So we modify your claim above from "PDB not released" to "where are the missing pages?" Understood.

 

No. The PDB was not released, only a page and a half, that leaves 10 pages absent. I would call that not released.

 

Sorry for not being more in-depth, just been busy the last couple days.

[Bettina]

Dang.....I missed all this

 

Bettina