A news in July 2001 may reveal that FBI knew the coming hijaking.

Quote, "WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001
Attorney General Ashcroft, with President Bush (AP) "There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines." FBI spokesman (CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart."

"Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond. "

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. "

Be noticed the news was on July, 2001, two months before 911. And Janet Reno, Ashcroft's predecessor as attorney general, routinely flew commercial. She didn't enjoy the special benefit of security. Can you explain why?

When FBI is accused of failure to warn the nation of 911 attack, this news revealed they did do something to deal with coming threaten already. Though only to their boss.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

I think the interpretation of (and re-interpretation of) various pieces of information, hither and yon, and the piecing together of bits and scraps (they were THEN...), and the grand amalgamation that THIS EQUALS THAT...is total bullpuckey!

Lefois, you got that one past the robot! Good for you! The last thing I heard of such a high order of tripe was that the Pentagon had not actually been hit by a plane!
That it was all fabricated.

CBS might be punished for that news

On December 2001, I had my opinion in message "My view of anthrax attack". Which talked about the first victim Bob Stevens is likely a revenge target of US celebrities more than a target of terrorist. Now it looks like CBS is the same. Though originally CBS was only pointing at corruption, FBI knew what it could really mean as it now does. CBS was a victim of anthrax attack. CBS Anchor Dan Rather's assistant tested positive of skin form of anthrax. Small trace was found in Rather's office.

Re:My view of anthrax attack

On Sept. 18, taking advantage of 911 WTC bombing, perpetrator mailed letters to NBC news. The anthrax inside was brown granular which might mean perpetrator intending at first not to kill but to intimidate.
Perhaps disappointed with little reaction, they did it again(on Oct. 8), this time with a military grade anthrax. The letter to Senator Daschle and Leahy contained fine, white powder which mixed with a material designed to kill. And a man, Bob Stevens, died of anthrax on Oct. 5. His death caused fear of bio-chem attack nation wide. Anthrax crisis reached its peak on about Oct. 20, then faded away. During the period, it created a situation of bio-attack horror, put a pressure on legislation to pass through "patriot Act" to let Justice Department having more police power, push media and public to support government's war policy and also gave an excuse for government to extend war to Iraq. (The "Patriot Act" was proposed on Sept. 24 and passed in legislature on Oct.24. US started war in Afghan on Oct. 7)

Rosenberg, a biologist, has testified on biological weapons before Congress, has recently published a paper contending that a government insider; or someone in contact with an insider, is behind the lethal attacks." (Excerpt from: San Jose Mercury News, page 9A,Dec. 2,2001. Topic:'Inside job probed in anthrax attack') One official (law enforcement agency) called Rosenberg theory " the most likely hypothesis".

I believe the anthrax attack was done by Federal law enforcement agency. They have motives and resources.
They are the one to be benefitted by the attack. They expanded their power by creating public's fear. They intimidated the media and legislation which are the check and balance to their power. They have the authority to access the secret lab under the name of 'security'. (like the case of Wen Ho Lee.)

And
1. The first victim is an editor of tabloid, a dislike of powerful US celebrities. His wife was the manager of apartments which had been rented to some 911 terrorists. He was possibly under FBI's surveillance. (consider thousand of aliens who even had no relationship to terrorist were detained by FBI)

2. Government released information that Atta visited crop duster aircraft. Hinted Al-quada relating to bio warfare. Matching perpetrators' intention to owe it to 911 terrorists.

3. Government released conflict information. Such like at first they said the material mixed in anthrax was bentonite, purposely to target at Iraq. Then admitted the material was silica, not used by Iraq, but US. It may proved that the perpetrators are not expert, only know little about the anthrax they were using and gave a wrong information when they making use of it.

4. At the same time, government released information that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. It matched the theory of bentonite, made Iraq a big suspect.

Most of these information can be only released by intelligence.

5. . Though government said first that there were 30 to 40 places had access to the anthrax and much more people could produce it by cheap equipment, it's only an excuse that they are unwill to find real criminal. The anthrax in Senator's letter is military grade. A fruit of years' research and experiment. And even in US there maybe only one secret lab carrying it. And access to it must be very strict.

6. US rejected a UN resolution condemning the anthrax attack. For what reason they did so if it's done by OBL, Al-quada, or domestic perpetrators? Unless it's done by they themselves.

7. My personal experience told it was a practice of Federal law enforcement agency. From their swift response to my comments. And I think they originally only planned one death(Bob Stevens) to raise the public attention and fear. The later four deaths were cover up to the comment " Least casualties to raise public's scare".

This elected government administration tries to hide something from people. They started a war but failed to give evidence, said that was for safety of informant. Then they want a military tribunal, what secret do they want to keep even they win a war? On Dec. 10, newspaper reported that Russian scientists had helped OBL to produce anthrax. Workshop was bombed away in war, but unknown quantity of anthrax might have been in abroad already. There was no detail, obviously let out by military or intelligence. An attemption to owe anthrax attack to terrorist when they failed to find a scapegoat of lone wolf? Perhaps that's why they limited media's report in Afghan war, and want a secret court. When US is the strongest power in the world, why there are so many things to be hided? If we have reason believe those who being sent to court are guilty, a military court only covers up corrupt government and criminal activities of it's official.

If they knew EXACTLY that it was going to happen, they would of told before hand to make sure it never happened. That wouldn't of let such a horrible event just let happen, EVER.
Now what I heard is that the CIA and FBI both had info but never talked, they are like and are two complete seperate agencies.
Now if the both discussed what info they had with one another, they would have the missing puzzle that would explain and show that this is what was going to happen.
In conclusion, no they did not know of the upcoming attacks.

[ June 04, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Mack ]

Also, you have to realise that both the FBI and CIA get so many warnings a year, many more than most people realise.

It's a case of hindsight is 20-20... Now that we know what happened, it is easy to look back and say 'hey! that's referring to September 11th..."

Although I do like how Atty General John Ashcroft decided last summer, before the attacks, that it wasn't safe for him to fly on commercial airliners ... while simultaneously cutting the FBI's counterterrorism budget on the order of $60 million.

And if you've been reading this stuff about Coleen Rowley, the FBI didn't exactly distinguish itself ... there's a serious problem with the corporate culture there and at the CIA, one that must be addressed at the root. But the idea that the FBI was responsible for the anthrax mailings is patently absurd. They can barely buy paper clips at a mark-up without someone blowing the whistle. Do you think the government could keep murder a secret, especially doing it in a way that maximizes damage to the government? (It costs a lot to irradiate all that mail, folks ...)

The U.S. government did do a good job of keeping the deaths of thousands of Cambodians a secret during random bombings in the early 70s...at great government expense if you consider the costs of all those ill-placed bombs.

It does seem odd that the anthrax attacks petered out so quickly and with so little damage, relatively speaking. You'd think that if a 'real' terrorist were responsible, they would have caused a bit more damage than they actually did, especially considering the quantity of anthrax they seemed to have available. The whole thing stinks and none of us will ever learn the actual truth about it...maybe no one ever will.

Quote, "If they knew EXACTLY that it was going to happen, they would of told before hand to make sure it never happened. That wouldn't of let such a horrible event just let happen, EVER.
Now what I heard is that the CIA and FBI both had info but never talked, they are like and are two complete seperate agencies.
Now if the both discussed what info they had with one another, they would have the missing puzzle that would explain and show that this is what was going to happen.
In conclusion, no they did not know of the upcoming attacks."


Who need this terror attack and war?

When I first published "FBI knew terror attack in advance", I got an intimidation from someone said that now it's in war times,

"The FBI receives literally hundreds of 'tips' every day. I would suggest that you consider the fact that this administration is operating as if this were wartime, which it essentially is. In these times even the paranoid and conspiratorialist 'warnings' must be handled judiciously.

There is nothing untoward in John Ashcroft's using a private airplane to go on his fishing trip."

That's the point. They need "war times" so they can do whatever they want to do to their dislikes. And who are benefit from this attack? President got high approve rate, intelligence got extended police power, Pentagon got a fat budget. Who are the loser? Civil liberty eroded, budget turned into deficit from surplus. And they even try to tap the social security fund which will face a financial crisis 20 years later. Yet they make this war endless. OBL is still at large. Iraq is on the waiting list. Perhaps Iran.... . Who benefit from it?

"Although I do like how Atty General John Ashcroft decided last summer, before the attacks, that it wasn't safe for him to fly on commercial airliners ... while simultaneously cutting the FBI's counterterrorism budget on the order of $60 million."

Question and answer

"Maybe the threat was personal, not terror related."

Someone said this might be a personal threaten. But we know a personal threaten to celebrity is used to be assassination, such like President Kennedy's, Martin Luther King's. And a private plane is more vulnerable for a personal threaten, such like Jr. Kennedy, (died in 1999) whose political potential is a nightmare to those who assassinated his father and uncle. Carnaham, former governor of Missori, in campaign for Senator against Mr. Ashcroft,(in 2000) and a Disneyland executive, in campaign for CEO of Disney,(in 1993) were all died in accidents of private plane. Commercial flight's hijacking? In world, we know mostly done by Mid east terrorist. In US domestic flights? So far I know there was none until 911. So it goes back to the topic, how did FBI knew there would be an 'personal threaten' on commercial flights which hadn't happened before?

Public know little of other 18 terrorists but Atta. He was the most familier one for people among 19 terrorists.Such like his background; his student life in Hamburg, German; "his allergy hands"; "his visiting crop dust plane"; "his visit to Czech"; and his passport was even found two blocks away from WTC after 911 attack....Newspaper called him terrorist leader as if they had taken part in the meeting. But how could they know he was the leader, not the others?

Intelligence always benefited from terrorist attack.(more police power and increased budget) In anthrax attack, they released an information that 911 terrorist leader Atta had made contact to Iraq diplomat. They discussed a plot of bombing US broadcast station. I think the release of information was on purpose that Iraq had connection to terrorist so there was excuse to extend war to Iraq. But this also meant terrorist leader Atta's talking was eavesdropped. And he was under surveillance of intelligence at least as early as this spring. Do you believe that intelligence knew nothing of 911 bombing in advance?

I posted in January that Atta was under surveillance. I April, news said, " Czech Officials Say Story That Sept. 11 Hijacker Atta Met with Iraqi Agent in Prague May Be Wrong;"

When they need excuse to extend war on Iraq, they let out the news that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. Once it becomes an evidence that government knew terror attack in advance, they say it maybe wrong. Both news were let out by intelligence. Its strategy office made conflict information. Which one do you believe?

On 6/6, a news proves what I said is right, Atta did under surveillance

quote, "NSA didn't share key pre-Sept. 11 information, sources say
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A secretive U.S. eavesdropping agency monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the alleged chief hijacker, but did not share the information with other intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by the National Security Agency, or NSA, an intelligence agency that monitors and decodes foreign communications.

The NSA failed to share ...."

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3416632.htm

Mystery informant and evidence

If you still remember when Bush started war in Afghan, they didn't show people the evidence that OBL was behind 911. They said they had evidence, but couldn't make it public for the sake of safety of informant. Now, after eight months, where was that informant and evidence? Was he still with OBL? If so, why couldn't we capture OBL? There is another explanation, they did have evidence that OBL would attack. So there was such "threat assessment" for charted plane. And they need it like 'Perl Harbour' in WW2. They couldn't show it to people otherwise it also revealing they knew attack in advance. Perhaps that's why they want a military court. Perhaps that's why there is little news activity from Afghan. Most we got are from Army's saying. They want to bury the truth forever.

A lot of sources said there were more accomplices involved in OKC bombing. And after Waco event, FBI had penetrated militia organizations. Quote, "Some time prior to the bombing, the DEA planned a raid on Elohim City, from which McVeigh is alleged to have worked out his plans. but the FBI warned the DEA not to make their raid, because the FBI had “an informant in place", That informant seems to have been Strassmeir himself, who was never even sought for questioning… until months later, shortly after he had left the country.
” (http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/06/arwh080601.htm)

The motive of OKC bombing by McVeigh is to revenge government's injustice in Waco. His target was FBI and BATF in Murrah Federal Building. Yet on that day, all staffs of FBI and BATF were absent. They knew the bombing in advance. Other federal employees became scapegoat.

The content of "Patriot Act" which G.A. Ashcroft proposed after 911 attack had been proposed by FBI director Freeh after OKC bombing. Freeh failed to pass his proposal but Ashcroft succeeded. Perhaps with the help of anthrax attack. From two similar terrorist events, we can see the culture of FBI. They value their lives very much, they absented in office on OKC bombing day, they gave a 'threat assessment' for their boss before 911 attack. (fact) They tried to get more police power from the panic of terror attack (motive) and neglected public lives' loss. As a matter of fact, only the huge loss made people give away their civil right to FBI.

On June 10, Ashcroft announced arrest of Padilla for dirty bomb plot. Then there was an interesting discovery on Padilla in internet. People found he is identical to John Doe, alleged accomplice of McVeigh in OKC bombing. . A coincidence?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/697881/posts

From another angle:

In my opinion, FBI had their informant everywhere. They penetrated militia organization and Arabs too. I think they knew OKC bombing and 911 attack in advance but didn't say it. Because they could benefit from it.

It's no surprise if Padilla could be an informant recruited when he was in jail. (in 91) To work for an Pakistanian food owner two years was the first step to penetrate into Arab world.(in 92, 93) Just think he was with Zubaydah then Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan. Think government announced much earlier that Al-Quada would use dirty bomb. Also think why government insisted McVeigh acting alone in OKC bombing while a lot of source said there were more accomplice and informant.

Padilla's arrest is unusual. There is no evidence, said only resemble to what Zubaydah's description whom was not considered as cooperating witness. But it made Ashcroft to announce his arrest in Moscow. And also made Bush sign a directive naming him as enemy combatant and put him into military custody until "war against terror" is over.

Quote, "It's certainly one of the most disturbing and important indications that the government knew the attacks of September 11, 2001, were coming. On that morning, National Public Radio <http://www.npr.org> (NPR) was presenting live coverage of the attacks on its show Morning Edition. Host Bob Edwards went to a reporter in the field-David Welna, NPR's Congressional correspondent-who was in the Capitol building as it was being evacuated. Here is the crucial portion of Welna's report:

I spoke with Congressman Ike Skelton-a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services Committee-who said that just recently the Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack-an imminent attack-on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm

BBC news story - Taleban 'warned US of huge attack'

In reply to:

---

One US official explained why:

"We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff," he said.

"When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in, and it doesn't, a kind of 'warning fatigue' sets in."

---

I worked in London for 10 years and lost count of the amount of times we were evacuated because of IRA bomb threats, or had journeys interrupted because whole mainline stations had been shut down "just in case". Often these disruptions were unnecessary - but I'm sure glad the Met never got 'warning fatigue' ....

Quote, "The NSA cracked bin Laden's encryption code by February 2001

Even before April, the Bush administration HAD TO KNOW something was up and probably had info that was even more specific than the warnings given above. According to UPI correspondent Richard Sale, by February 2001, the National Security Agency had broken Osama bin Laden's communications encryption system. We know that the encryption was broken because the Bush administration reported AFTER 9/11 that it had intercepted encrypted calls bin Laden made to his mother two days before the attack, saying "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." If this message was intercepted before the attack, what others were intercepted as well that the Bush administration did NOT reveal? Most likely six-months'-worth of terrorist planning."

http://scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm

Is 9/11 an important event? Do America people have the right to demand an investigation on intelligence failure of it? Why it's so difficult to set up an independent commission for it? It seems a powerful group which was only interested in personal affairs such like Lewinsky scandal, but once it touches their own secret, they try to block any investigation even there was a big loss of lives.

Quote, "Cheney: 'Investigators, Keep Out'
by Michael Isikoff and Tamara Li pper
NEWSWEEK
Issue; 21 October, 2002

The vice president blocks an independent commission to investigate 9-11
NEWSWEEK -- Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss, sources told NEWSWEEK. "

kathak - again: Hindsite is 20/20. Ashcroft's flying on a private plane is nothing new - I'm sure if you dig up the records you'll find more public officials taking private aircraft as 'perks'. Remember during Clinton's tenure how there was a big thing about taking a Marine helicopter to go golfing?

If you look closely enough at all the records you'll find little things.

Please post when you find something that's more 'shocking'.

Mr.K: I believe the ideal site for you to post your beliefs is over at the Warner Brother's site! I am sure all the other inhabitant's there would be enthralled with your messages! I mean gee they are so profound and rational sounding! You do not contribute anything else to this Site and as it is a Family place I see no reason for Children to be exposed to your irrational ranting and ravings!
If you really want to espouse this stuff try going to the USA's Goverment site and see what kind of response you get!
You need serious medical attention and I urge you to run not walk to the nearest facility in your area who can help you!
Please stop posting this irrational garbage! It is starting to offend alot of the people on this site!
Not a Fan!

Mr.P, I believe the right of free speech. It's not the right way to ask people leaving because you don't agree with his opinion. And it's not the right way to diagnose other's senity in internet. Of course, you benefit from different standards here. BTW, if you have question on above message, I'd like to discuss with you. What you did seems not a rational one but.... I can't find a word for it.