FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Ron Ecker]

Just as the FBI under Hoover served the interests of the Mafia, by denying that the Mafia even existed while being obsessed with Communists, so in the 1990's the FBI served the interests of terrorists by denying they existed while being obsessed with the Mafia. Thus no terrorists downed TWA Flight 800, despite all evidence to the contrary. No terrorists other than two homegrown rednecks blew up the Murrah Building, despite all evidence to the contrary. This serving of terrorist interests continued right through 9/11, through the thwarting of agents in the field whose efforts and information might have prevented the attacks, through the post-9/11 persecution of FBI whistleblower Sybil Edmonds, etc. One can argue that this serving of terrorist interests has not been deliberate, but assuming complicity of some part or parts of the U.S. government in 9/11, complicity on the part of some high-level FBI officials fits right in, just like complicity made sense in 1963. (I believe it was 5 high-level FBI officials who all kicked the bucket in 1976 before the HSCA hearings got underway.) I firmly believe that the FBI appears to be incompetent only when it deliberately wants to appear that way (e.g. in its JFK "investigation"), which is why "FBI" spelled out is Federal Bogus Investigations.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

My first official "new" topic.

I read a few threads where references were made to either Clinton or GW creating an atmosphere of opportunity for the terroist to flourish and 9/11 to happen.

I just picked up and skimmed through 9/11 Commisison Coverup by Peter Lance and he some interesting things about the Colombo family war and the first Trade Center attacks, TWA Flight 800 and 9/11. It dovetails with some of my thoughts about the FBI and their pre-9/11 priorities.

The FBI, for most the the 1980's and 1990's was obsessed with bringing down the Mafia. By the mid 1980's they had some major successes against The Commission in NY, families in Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, New Orleans, etc (except Tampa ) . By the late 1980's'/early 1990's transnational organized crime groups were moving into the United States in a big way and the FBI was slow to respond.

Some points:

- All the way back to 1980, investigators in some field offices complained at Senate Hearings that they were not allowed to look at any non-Mafia organized crime.

- In 1988, the FBI listed their orgnaized crime priorities in various field offices- The Mafia was listed as #1 in Denver, ahead of Asians and Hispanic drug gangs, but the Smaldone crime family was withered down to 4 guys- all over 70 years old. In San Francisco there had not been an active Mafia family since the late 1980's but the mob was listed ahead of the surging Chinese triads and other transnational groups there.

- The FBI did not dedicate a squad to Russian/Eurasian criem groups until May of 1994, 4-5 years after a huge upsurge in activity in the US and a full 20 years after they started in Brighton Beach.

The list goes on. Anyway after the First World Trade Center attacks, there was still scant attention paid to terorism and transnational crime groups ( the financiers of terrorism) as opposed to the Mafia. In the mid 1990's while most Mafia families were shrinking (and a few totally gone) Janet Reno started a huge program- Operation Button Down - to go after the remnants of remaining families.

So I wonder if this Mafia-centered obsession of the Justice Department did not divert resources that would have been better served in other areas, namely transnational OC (definitely) and terrorism (maybe). Of course hindsight is 20/20.

I missed this thread the 1st time around too. Thanks Scott and Bill

Lance has done some very interesting research into 9/11. “Inside jobbers” have taken bits and pieces of it out of context to fit their theories but he doesn’t agree with them. Rather he, like Lawrence Wright and other who’ve spoken to those involved (including Jihadists) and examined source documents, concluded that the government probably could have prevented 9/11 but failed to do so due to mix of infighting, lack of foresight, incompetence etc. He has not been shy about being interviewed or publishing magazine articles in which he discusses his research and conclusions or making excerpt of his books available.

http://www.peterlance.com/Peter_Lance/Home/Home.html

http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/oct03/lance4.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/29/tri..._peter_lance_on

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-lance/...ow_b_34336.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-lance/...ha_b_28270.html

[Len Colby]

Jun 04, 2007  

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience

in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in

structural design and analysis and project management of construction of major

projects, including large steel structures.

Essay 9/25/06: "The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...

It been a while since we’ve heard from Charles Pegelow, the structural engineer cited at the beginning of this thread. Perhaps he realizes that most people would think his ideas nutty and decided to clam up for the sake of the movement. As I pointed out previously based on comments he seems not to have read he ASCE or NIST reports when he made them though he could have read them since.

He believes that nuclear bombs were used to bring the towers down. His evidence? - Several thousand tons of steel that was “missing” for the ruble. I’m not sure where he got that from I never heard this claim before and was unable to find it with Google. Of course they must have bombs that did leave excess radiation or other signatures because none of this was found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrefK0B7FCo...feature=related

I think Troy was wrong to insult the guy at the end. As for his tactic of surreptitiously recording phone calls “truthers” do this all the time. He has called several members of ae911truth, none it seems have read the NIST report at least not the one on WTC 7

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7529B61DA50966DB

[Len Colby]

In the interest in 'full disclosure' - what agency of the USG do you get your talking points from...oh, let me guess...you'll claim they are your own thoughts and ideas....could be IMO with a chance of a few [less than 10]%...but I think not.....I also think you've never read the material on the alternative views of the 911 story. I'd ask members and visitors of this forum to review the posts of Mr. Colby and determine for themselves what his motive seems to be - or should I say: his agenda.

Watch here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15752.htm for something of greater substance and less genuflecting for the Secret Government and its ongoing Big Lie.

Peter’s post was predictable and pathetic. When unable to counter information presented by others (something he is rarely able to do) he resorts to attacking the messenger or changing the subject. In this case he did both.

One of the major tenets of the “truth” movement is that the WTC towers were control demo’ed. The fact that one of the handful of structural engineers to support this idea backs a theory that most people (even truthers) would think absurd is quite relevant (as is the fact he never seems to have designed a building)

For someone to have an expert opinion they have to –

1) have relevant expertise. To understand the collapse of the towers that would mean a structural engineer with experience designing multistory steel frame buildings. AFAIK none of the truther engineers meet this requirement. They have an oil rig engineer (Pegelow) and a ship hull engineer and a few who only seem to work on 1 – 2 (or 3 at the most) story structures.

2) have read the relevant parts of the NIST report and/or participated in one of the 4 major studies of the collapses (ASCE, UC Berkley, Weidlinger Associates, NIST or written a peer-reviewed paper on the topic. Once again AFAIK none of the truthers have done the former because their public statements don’t reflect knowledge of the report. Obviously none of latter group back the truthers because if they did this would be widely touted by “the movement”,

If anyone can rationally say why my criteria are overly stringent I’m ‘all ears’. And yes I can point to numerous engineers who support the collapse theory who meet both.

If any one can point me to a “truther” who meets BOTH requirements I’d like to see what they have to say. Even if there are 1 or 2 they are vastly out numbered by those who don’t

Bring up the book was an obvious smoke screen presumably everyone (or just about) reading this thread is already aware of it and none of the authors have relevant expertise in civil (let alone structural) engineering or controlled demolition.

Some might find the following relevant in light of Mr. Lemkins post above: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/...3988&page=1

[Charles Drago]

I want to bring Obsama bin Laden to the nearest thoroughbred racetrack.

You pick 'em, I'll bet 'em, baby.

Anyone who can choose a day to attack U.S. air defenses when they are all but eliminated due to scheduled security exercises can place my bets any day.

Other than that, not much new here. While I'm thinking of it, I'll find some material related to methods of penetration by intel agencies of Internet forums by utilization of cover legends. Of course this method is not foolproof; more often than not the multi-posters behind the legends give themselves away by too rapid responses and obviously mutually exclusive literary styles.

As a matter of fact, I've already exposed such an operation targeted on this forum.

And since the owners don't seem to mind ... never mind.

[Guest]

And since the owners don't seem to mind ... never mind.

We like free speech.

[Charles Drago]

And since the owners don't seem to mind ... never mind.

We like free speech.

You missed your period.

[Craig Lamson]

And since the owners don't seem to mind ... never mind.

We like free speech.

You missed your period.

You think Andy is pregnant? roflmao!

Things a bit slow in the deep?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

This is not a period of free speech. Such a state cannot exist where ONLY the government's version of events goes coast to coast, and dissent only allowed to disagree in small groups of 13 people at a time. There is no way to create a mediated dialogue to reach the truth.

This is why there is no debate on JFK or 9/11 allowed on prime time in the major media.

The dialogue would then be mediated and therefor could actually lead a sizeable audience to a mediated conclusion, that would have too many variables in common, even if they disagreed on some points.

THe medium of the internet in some ways only stregnthens the never-challenged position of the government which is alone allowed to reach a critical mass. It divides the oppostion into increasingly smaller groups, the left hand never knowing what the right hand is doing.

No this is not a period of free speech. I now think it is less free than in the Soviet Union, if measured by the standard of "are dissenting views given the opportunity of being heard by an audience large enough to make a difference."

I missed my period of free speech too.

[Len Colby]

I want to bring Obsama bin Laden to the nearest thoroughbred racetrack.

You pick 'em, I'll bet 'em, baby.

Anyone who can choose a day to attack U.S. air defenses when they are all but eliminated due to scheduled security exercises can place my bets any day.

This truther myth has been discussed and debunked elsewhere, there is no evidence the exercises slowed down response times because intercepts are the purview of jets on scramble alert and the normal contingent of 2 each at 8 bases in the US were on duty. Intercepts of flight over the US mainland are rare and tend to take a while, Payne Stewart's took 80 minutes, in a similar incident in 1980 it took over 2 hours.

Other than that, not much new here. While I'm thinking of it, I'll find some material related to methods of penetration by intel agencies of Internet forums by utilization of cover legends. Of course this method is not foolproof; more often than not the multi-posters behind the legends give themselves away by too rapid responses and obviously mutually exclusive literary styles.

As a matter of fact, I've already exposed such an operation targeted on this forum.

LOL not counting occasions when you’ve flashed or mooned people the only thing you’ve ever exposed is yourself to ridicule. I’d truly be fascinated to see what ‘material’ you’re gonna dig up. Perhaps you should take a look at the link I offered to Peter in my previous post.

I luv how when a thread doesn’t go their way the truthers change the subject. So are there any qualified STRUCTURAL engineers who support the CD theory? Have any of the handful of truther structural engineers actually read the NIST report? How many of them like Pegelow and Woods (a mechanical engineer) support nonsense theories like the towers were destroyed by nuclear bombs or space beams?

Nate wrote:

This is not a period of free speech. Such a state cannot exist where ONLY the government's version of events goes coast to coast, and dissent only allowed to disagree in small groups of 13 people at a time. There is no way to create a mediated dialogue to reach the truth.

This is why there is no debate on JFK or 9/11 allowed on prime time in the major media.

The dialogue would then be mediated and therefor could actually lead a sizeable audience to a mediated conclusion, that would have too many variables in common, even if they disagreed on some points.

THe medium of the internet in some ways only stregnthens the never-challenged position of the government which is alone allowed to reach a critical mass. It divides the oppostion into increasingly smaller groups, the left hand never knowing what the right hand is doing.

No this is not a period of free speech. I now think it is less free than in the Soviet Union, if measured by the standard of "are dissenting views given the opportunity of being heard by an audience large enough to make a difference."

I missed my period of free speech too.

Nate what are you going on about? The underline passage is particularly absurd. Griffin and Fetzer have been on network TV spouting their theories. There have been articles in Time, New York and elsewhere about the "truth movement". 4.5% of the population thinks the Bush administration did 9/11, that's less than the percent of the population that believes: Elvis is alive or that the Holocaust was a hoax. About 10x more people believe in UFOs, ghosts and creationism. Yet the proponents of these ideas don't get interviewed very often by Fox or the others, obvious censorship right?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

I have to agree - there are web sites galore, books, public rallies, meetings, movies and documentaries, radio shows, podcasts, etc. How much more free speech do you want?

[Len Colby]

Free speech / freedom of speech is defined as

“The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.” (Am Heritage)

“the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.” (Random House)

Or

“: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) esp. as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (Webster’s)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=f...ech&db=luna

Nate is conflating that with his perceived right to have controversial views he holds presented by the mainstream media. Creationists are far more numerous and thus have a better claim to such a “right”

At this point I doubt there are many adults (except recluses or the senile) in the Western world who haven’t heard such theories, any of those with access to the Internet have access to thousands of site presenting such views.

[Len Colby]

The ‘truthers’ of course have various theories about how the towers were demolished. The original theory was fairly conventional CD but the problem is exploding cutter charges produce very loud explosions and none of the various videotapes of the collapses record such noises before collapse initiation and very few witnesses reported hearing any. The Steve Jones and D.P. Grimmer another physicist proposed that some form of thermite was used.

There are a few problems with this theory

1) Despites Jones’ claim it is commonly used in CD neither he nor anybody else has been able to cite any cases when it has been used in such away. Thermite is much cheaper than demolition charges and doesn’t produce the noise and shock waves that they do which are major head aches for CD firms. They spend time and money apply protective netting and other materials to building to be destroyed and sometime to neighboring structures. If it is so efficient and practice why isn’t it used? More on this below.

2) Based on Grmmer’s own calculations the amount need would seem to be prohibitively large. http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__ther...nd_the_wtc.html

3) No one has proposed a plausible way the thermite could have used especially to cut vertically with the fraction of as second timing required 1/10 second on average per floor if you assume an 11 second collapse time

4) Perhaps most telling, neither Jones, nor Grimmer nor anyone else had been able to show that it is practical to cut structural steal with a thermite or thermate. The problems are that it is gravity driven, cuts much more slowly than cutter charges and the steel tends to re-solidify quickly. It is used to weld far more often than to cut.

In the video below, which seems to have been meant to show the practicality of using thermite, it took severall seconds to cut through a ½ horizontal steel plate of unknown quality. The WTC columns were made from special high density high grade steel whose wall thickness of the varied from 4 inches at the base to a ¼ inch at the top. It would have been ½ or more from about the 95 floor down above the impact zone of either building.

It took about 8 second for thermite to cut through the 2 inch roof of a safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW2D9PAsDpk

It seems like cutting through tops of safes with thermite is an English thing it took a few minutes in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lD2sVxY0UU

Jones made some vague promises to cut structural steel with thermite or thermate but never got around to it.

A dedicated truther decided to show that thermate/thermite is the little compound that could. He erected a “Truth” sign made with 1 inch tick steel columns. The plan was to cut it down with thermite at the 2007 “Burning Man Festival” in the Nevada desert.

Despite the fact that the thermite said “I think I can” over and over again the attempt to cut the sign down failed. The excuse given was that it was too windy but Burning Man 2007 was an 8 day event, was it really too windy the whole time? And if thermite is so efficient why won’t it work in the wind?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11173#comment

A a consolation prize they burned some thermite in a pot and proved that thermite burns, something which no one disputes

The sign is now on display in Marin county though the artist mentioned sending it on a gallery tour he made no mentoin of trying to cut it down again. I presume he realizes it won't work but doesn't want to admit it.

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/

[Evan Burton]

I'll give that person kudos for at least attempting to reproduce the conditions they claim are possible. Most will make a claim, and fail to back it with any solid evidence whatsoever.

[Paul Rigby]

I'll give that person kudos for at least attempting to reproduce the conditions they claim are possible. Most will make a claim, and fail to back it with any solid evidence whatsoever.

A quite devastating critique of NIST! Well done, Evan, I didn't think you had it in you.

Paul