THE NATION
Memo on 9/11 Plotters Blocked
# New disclosures show that CIA information in 2000 about two Al Qaeda operatives in San Diego was squelched before reaching the FBI.

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.

The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

If the FBI had received the official communique from the CIA's special Osama bin Laden unit when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000, its agents likely could have tracked down the men, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with a newly declassified report of the Justice Department's inspector general.

Officials involved in the case of alleged would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui had attempted to block release of the report, asserting that it would compromise the outcome of his case. But Inspector General Glenn A. Fine went to court and won release of the report after deleting the section on Moussaoui.

The report does not draw major new conclusions or disclose significant new episodes about the months and years leading up to Sept. 11. Rather, it fills in blanks and provides new details about previously known matters — notably the failure to learn sooner about Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, the so-called San Diego hijackers.

An 18-month delay in the CIA's handing over of information about the two hijackers to the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies had been well-publicized. But the report's conclusion that an agent had written a memo specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the men's presence — and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from being sent — is new.

The reason the CIA official, identified by the fictitious name "John," put a hold on the communique remains a mystery, the report said[Duh ]. It said the officials involved didn't recall the incident. Even when the author of the memo followed up a week later with an e-mail asking if it had been sent to the FBI, nothing was done.

The memo was written by an FBI agent on assignment to the CIA's special Bin Laden unit. According to the report, rather than send his memo directly to the FBI, he sent it to the deputy chief of the CIA unit because only supervisors were authorized to send such memos to the FBI.

Fine's report contains extensive new detail about that incident, as well as several already reported missed opportunities by the FBI to track down the two men.

The report stops short of concluding that any of the failures was responsible for allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to move forward. But it is sharply critical of the FBI and CIA, laying out in 371 pages a series of systemic and individual failures by the FBI in particular — both internally and when dealing with other U.S. and foreign government agencies.

The report was compiled after Congress and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III asked the inspector general to evaluate how the FBI had handled intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks. More extensive inquiries were done by a joint House-Senate committee and by the federal 9/11 commission, which reached similar broad conclusions.

The report disclosed Thursday is an abbreviated version of a top-secret report submitted in July to the FBI, CIA, Congress and the commission that investigated Sept. 11.

In an interview Thursday, Fine said it would be "too speculative" to conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had it not been for the failures outlined in his report, which was based on interviews with dozens of FBI and CIA officials and a review of thousands of top-secret internal documents.

"But there were very significant failures, both systemic and individual, and we lay out the details behind them," Fine said.

His report made 16 recommendations to improve the FBI, including better training and management of intelligence analysts, integrating FBI lawyers into counterterrorism investigations, and creating clear procedures on how to document intelligence information received in informal briefings with other agencies.

In a statement, the FBI said it generally agreed with the inspector general's findings and was already carrying out most of them.

"We enhanced our cadre of intelligence analysts with hundreds of new hires, new training and a clear career path," the FBI statement said. "We changed the criteria by which special agents, field offices and investigative programs are evaluated to emphasize intelligence-related functions."

The report identifies five junctures, from March 2000 to August 2001, when there were opportunities for the FBI to learn about Almihdhar and Alhazmi and their presence in the U.S. Each episode has been previously reported, but not in such great detail.

The report documents day-to-day contacts among FBI, CIA and other officials — identifying them with names such as "John," "Mary" and "Rob" and, in many cases, assessing their performance. It quotes extensively from e-mails they sent and handwritten notes they kept of meetings.

Typical was the mild criticism of an FBI employee, "Lynn," for failing to respond to an e-mail from colleague "Jane" about the now-famous Phoenix memo. That memo by an agent in the Phoenix bureau urged the FBI to investigate the enrollment of Middle Eastern men in aviation schools, but it was never acted upon.

More evidence of deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers. Or was this simply more "incompetence"? Is this why we had a $30bil+ intelligence apparatus?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

Please point to the "theory" in that article. The pertinent points have been marked in bold. You can read it for yourself, I assume.

I suppose you're incapable of discussing the implications of the article, so you'd rather make "conspiracy theory" cracks. I'm not surprised.

In the post, not within the article.
"More evidence of deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers."
Whereas the author says "The reason the CIA official, identified by the fictitious name "John," put a hold on the communique remains a mystery, the report said"

                                            MARK

the report's conclusion that an agent had written a memo specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the men's presence — and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from being sent

You've yet to point to any theory.

FACT: There were deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers.

Period.

-sigh-

Please define the point at which "theory" enters the following statement:

"the report's conclusion that an agent had written a memo specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the men's presence — and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from being sent"

A memo

to alert the FBI to the presence of terrorists

to advance the investigation of terrorists

was deliberately prevented from being sent

therefore impeding said investigation.

No theory. Just facts. Brilliant.

Boy, you leave a trail of slug slime from one post to the next. Just look at what youve changed from your first claim-
" There were deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers."
and what youve changed it to below in an attempt to take some of the theory out of your claim.        MARK

There were deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers.

A memo

to alert the FBI to the presence of terrorists

to advance the investigation of terrorists

was deliberately prevented from being sent

therefore impeding said investigation.

"Trail of slug slime..." how eloquent.

Please wipe the sheep drool off your mouth and define the difference between:

and

There were deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers.

A memo

to alert the FBI to the presence of terrorists

to advance the investigation of terrorists

was deliberately prevented from being sent

therefore impeding said investigation.

Well now your just playing dumb. In one the memo was witheld with the intent to impede an investigation of 9/11 terrorists. In the other the memo was witheld with the intent that the memo be witheld.[?!?!?!?!?  ]  MARK

and
Well, I would accuse you of playing dumb, but the more you post, the more sure I become that you're not playing.

1) Why didn't NORAD fulfil its standard operating procedure and intercept the planes? Were NORAD intentionally confused by the wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 or were they ordered to stand down?

Flight 77 was known by NORAD to have been hijacked by 8:50am. Yet it is a full 48 minutes until any fighters are scrambled, as two leave Langley AFB just two minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:40am.

2) What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings. The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

3) What was the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7? The plane wasn't hit by a building and yet it collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers. Why hasn't Larry Silverstein offered a public explanation as to the meaning behind his comments on a September 2002 PBC documentary, America Rebuilds, where he admits the decision was made to "pull" the building. Pulling a building is the industry term for controlled demolition. The official FEMA report listed fire damage as the reason for the building's collapse, even though photos taken before the collapse indicate minimal fires.

How can the collapse of the building and also the twin towers be justified in light of numerous examples of high story buildings which burned for hours and even days without collapsing, such as the recent Windsor Building fire in Madrid?

4) How did Rudolph Giuliani know that the south tower was about to collapse? Giuliani told ABC's Peter Jennings, "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."

The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history.

Who told Giuliani the building was going to collapse and how did they know?

5) In the days following September 11th, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers.

At least four of these hijackers are still alive. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri ) was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

Other so called 'suicide hijackers' who have come forward to protest their innocence (being alive is a good enough alibi) are Abdulaziz Al Omari , Saeed Alghamdi and Khalid Al Midhar.

How can we take claims of paper passports that miraculously escaped the impact of the plane and the gigantic fireballs and fluttered mostly unscathed down to the ground seriously? At least a third of the victims were never identified and yet a paper passport survives. Was this an attempt to frame the very individuals the FBI would later blame for the attack?

6) Who told a number of public officials not to fly into New York on the morning of 9/11 and why didn't the people on the targeted planes get the same warnings?

Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his 'airport security' late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat.

Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the locations of the imminent attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.

7) From July 4th-14th 2001, Osama bin Laden was being treated for kidney infection at the American Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. There, on multiple occasions, he met with CIA station Chief Larry Mitchell. Bin Laden gave Mitchell 'precise information' regarding 'an imminent attack' on the US. Bin Laden also met with numerous members of his family, who left the US by
chartered flights after September 11th with the full blessings of the US government.

A 2000 Clinton presidential executive order was still in effect and mandated that bin Laden should have been killed on the spot. Bin Laden was allowed to leave of his own free will.

8) A record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'

9) Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls.

The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1997 by executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

Why wasn't Krongard taken in for questioning by the FBI and who else was involved in this insider trading?

10) Pakistan ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to hotwire $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta.

On September 11th, Ahmad was a guest of former clandestine CIA officer and CFR member Rep. Porter Goss and Skull and Bones/CFR member Senator Bob Graham. Since September 4th, he had met with top brass at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, including Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Joseph Biden and George Tenet.

Condoleezza Rice lied in a May 16th 2002 press conference when she claimed ignorance of Ahmad's visit and the $100,000 transfer. Ahmad had
already resigned from the ISI and the FBI had confirmed the circumstances behind this. Rice stated "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me."

What was the money man behind the terrorists doing in the halls of the US government before, during and after 9/11?

Who forms the base of believers for your theory again? Oh yeah, wacked out Libertarian extremists living in the booney lands of Texas.

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

You've yet to point to any theory.

FACT: There were deliberate efforts to impede legitimate investigations into the 9/11 hijackers.

Period.

Do you think executive order w199i is "theory"?

Sorry bub, I'm not into "prophecy".

"Not what it appears"... then what IS it, and what do you think it appears to be?

Buddy, they weren't even QUESTIONED. They weren't even to be INVESTIGATED.

And YES, in the United States, if you're wanted for a crime, they question your family.

How's that hole you've got your head in? Is it cool down there? Not too dusty? You sure seem comfortable, that's for sure.

Of course... since you still haven't explained the ten smoking guns OsManli posted, you don't have a leg to stand on either way.

Ok, I see where your coming from. You think that if the BL family was questioned this would all be over now? or maybe it just didn't matter.

We breathe, we think, we conceive, we deceive, we morass and we digress,  we cultivated  and mutilate, in the end to lives narrate, some lost in solicitousness, some in proficient dimensionless but most in fallaciousness.-Trader

"All be over now"? What "didn't matter"? No... apparently you don't "see where I'm coming from". But I understand, because I'm coming from the realm of objective independent thought.

"Listening to him"? You think he wrote those 10 points? I've been paying attention to this stuff since day one, I certainly don't "listen to OsManli". Of course, I don't know what I expect... you would obviously rather engage in more kindergarten nonsense than intellectual analysis. If his post was so "moronic", it should be easy as pie to go explain the 10 points he posted. But the problem for you is that it's NOT moronic... it's factual and it's legitimate... but since you can't answer it on that basis, you'd rather just talk sh!t.

My "style of debate" centers on documented facts, not kindergarten name-calling.

Second, Take smoking guns to prosecutors, if they are really smoking it is an open and shut case, don't bring them to me.  What am I gonna do?

Well, obviously you're not going to provide any facts to explain them in line with the official story. Obviously you're not going to stand up for your point of view with anything beyond vague assertions and baseless opinion.

What you SHOULD do is take a second to honestly contemplate those ten points (just as a primer, because there's a lot more where that came from). You should ask yourself how the official theory can be true in line with those points, and reevaluate your perceptions.

"What difference can it possibly make if your fellow Americans are living their lives (and casting their votes) based on lies?"

I'm trying to get sleeping folks like yourself to wake up and pay some freakin' attention. The only way anything's gonna change is if people get off their a$$es and start getting informed. It has nothing to do with "being a lawyer"... it has to do with knowing what's going on in the world around you.

Most of what you post is very old news seen by all, dismissed by most. Your w1991i bit I believe was put out by Palast in Nov of 2001. Of course this alleged memo has never been produced. And as far as the memo that is the topic of this thread, the article says the reasons it was witheld are not known. YOU claim it was a deliberate action intended to stop a legitimate investigation into 9/11 Hijackers, although you present absolutely nothing to support this conclusion other than your own desparate need to believe it is so.
I suspect the most likely explanation as to why it wasnt sent to the FBI is that it could not be because of Gorelicks "wall".  FBI investigates crime, and before the patriot act it couldnt investigate on suspicions and had to wait until they had probable cause to believe that a crime was committed or was about to be. The CIA on the other hand could investigate on suspicions. There are laws to prevent the CIA from sharing info. Gorelick went beyond the law.
"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
So while "appearance"s were being maintained, 3000 people died.   MARK

What are you talking about, w199i has never been produced? I've linked the copy in Palast's book plenty of times. See, what you don't get is that where these things not true, Palast would be sued for libel. Again: It's always your fellow Americans that you suspect of ulterior motives and fabrication of documents, when it's the government that's been shown time and time again to play fast and loose with the facts.

Oh, "you suspect" it was because of "Gorelick's wall". Well, that certainly holds so much more validity, even if the history of stifling of pre-9/11 investigations is well known (to anyone paying attention). If your theory were so, why would this not be stated? Why would it "remain a mystery"? In otherwords, if there's nothing to cover up, what have they got to hide?

As long as the gov has more ®s after people's names, you'll trust them to the ends of the earth.

P.S. You forgot to quote the most important part. Here, I'll repost for emphasis:

We breathe, we think, we conceive, we deceive, we morass and we digress,  we cultivated  and mutilate, in the end to lives narrate, some lost in solicitousness, some in proficient dimensionless but most in fallaciousness.-Trader

"What difference can it possibly make if your fellow Americans are living their lives (and casting their votes) based on lies?"

I'm trying to get sleeping folks like yourself to wake up and pay some freakin' attention. The only way anything's gonna change is if people get off their a$$es and start getting informed. It has nothing to do with "being a lawyer"... it has to do with knowing what's going on in the world around you.

Theoretically, when someone posts information with which you are not familiar that contradicts your opinion about a topic with which you are not fully informed, you investigate that information to perhaps enhance your understanding of that subject.

Unfortunately, most shmucks would rather just call names and never really address the issues or the underlying facts and circumstances.

And of course there's the lurkers/guests. They actually WANT to get more informed, and aren't interested in petty posts that don't contribute anything informative, or posts that simply try to attack the character, intelligence, or sanity of the person posting the information. And they're out there; I've gotten PMs from them... positive ones, from people who want to know more.

No matter how much you want to call it "fiction", the fact of the matter is that more and more people are waking up all the time, and this isn't an issue that is going to go away. You're going to find yourself coming across more and more people who agree with me, because the facts can't be ignored indefinitely. Even kooky-crazy White House economists are starting to take notice.

How about a nice change, like a properly researched and referenced "debunking" of the 10 smoking guns?... THAT would sure be a surprise.
Three simple responses:

1.) Indeed, why the need, as there is nothing to debunk beyond what others have easily done with your and Oslamsalmi’s chumps conspiracy of thumps.

2.) I believe Ben T gave an adequate response among others.

alternet's released, on THE CONSPIRACY NETWORK, in January 2003. THAT IS 2 Years, 5 months ago.

Nothing even close to it substantiating any of it has surfaced in any subsequent commission study or report since 2002.

That Gun, well it used smokeless power and has never smoked at all, except within the Gunjai deluted mindset nest, like you, since it's release nearly 3 year ago.

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002
By Mike Ward, PopMatters. Posted January 2, 2003.

http://www.alternet.org/story/14873

If one would, as I always do, look to see the sources and repetitive sites that disseminated this trite as to those with some veracity and objectivity, as you nimrods regurgitate these stories, they would find the equivalent of about 25 to 45 english spekaing sites that recite similar anti-bush, anti-war, ant-this anti-that that corrspond more or less in the same story a few rarely are sources in main stream media.

I call them the Anti-Humanity network, because they always find fault AT ALL HUMANITY but NEVER SOLUTION TO ANYTHING as do you ToT.

Google search of the exact order which is Bush's Executive Order W199I-WF-213589 or any combination thereof:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Bush%27s+Ex...n&start=10&sa=N

As you will note, if you use the essences of topic / subject that these nimrods use in their anti- this or that trite, you will see a pattern of between 25 to 45 of the same sites and or media sources, constantly appearing that recite similar anti-bush, anti-war, ant-this anti-that.

This delineates, even to the most simple minded among us, a specif agenda, to a constituency, a targeted audience that the authors and purveyors of this idiomatic gossip, innuendo and hearsay live and exist for as they have little else politcally to offer.

Two points:

1.) Go here to the White House and do a search  for Executive Order W199I-WF-213589 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=c...=19&submit.y=16

OF COURSE. THE SOURCE, WELL IT’S A SECRET EXECUTIVE ORDER, as it is the only way to justfies the myth, as does idea that 50 million who when asked, where at Woodstock in 1969 does.

OLD HAT GOSSIP, AS NO OTHERS HAVE SINCE 2002 HAVE VERIFIED THESE FACTS, THIS ALIEN CONTRIVED NETWORK AND EXCEPT IN A BOOK SELLING FORMER DISGRUNTLED FBI AGENT named John O’Neil, a man who screwed up big time during the initial anti-terror work of the unit he was in under the Clintion Administration, was reprimanded for compromising a safe house for personal reasons, was passed over many!  Many! Times, as unreliable, got into turf war in Somolia, was not allowed to investigate anti-terror ever again, left a briefcase with extremely sensitive documents that was subsequent stolen and eventually recovered but it was not known if the secret sensitive information was compromised.  He was then put on the can not be trusted list within the FBI and quits to be of all things a big wig manager as Security at of all places, the WORLD TRADE TOWERS.

  3.) Why would one attempt to debunk the debunked as this trite has been recycled and regurgitated by you lot since O’Neil's book promotion in 2002

A week after his body is found in the debris of the South Tower, about a thousand mourners attend John O'Neill's service in Atlantic City.

Ironic isn’t it!!!

2.) In your referenced article, it clearly says. mistakes were made but none were a conspiracy of premeditated collusion.

In an interview Thursday, Fine said it would be "too speculative" to conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had it not been for the failures outlined in his report, which was based on interviews with dozens of FBI and CIA officials and a review of thousands of top-secret internal documents.

"But there were very significant failures, both systemic and individual, and we lay out the details behind them," Fine said.

("digruntled" cadaver) O’Neil's book promotion in 2002

I see... I think...  Who is it you wish me to vote for that I can trust without having to wait until the end of their term to find out that a politician lied to me? 

Sooooo lets see this memo. Provide the link, dont just claim that you have. Youve not since Ive been here to my knowledge, but then I dont read many of your posts. And you know nothing of Libel law if you think that the President could sue Palast.                  MARK

The Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party seem to be on the right track.

->From the book of London Guardian reporter Greg Palast<-
(the image is too large to post in the forum; it will widen the page so you have to scroll left/right to read messages, and I hate that)

->From the book of London Guardian reporter Greg Palast<-
(the image is too large to post in the forum; it will widen the page so you have to scroll left/right to read messages, and I hate that)

The existence of this document was reported by the BBC and the Guardian.

Doing some reading on this. Googling w199i you can see that it is Alex Jones and Greg Palast that have been spreading this nonsense.
For instance
AJ: All right, let's talk about that CIA asset, Osama bin Laden and Bush signing W199I and ordering defense intel, CIA and FBI not to stop him. What does Bush say about that at the UN?
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=144&row=1

First from the document notice the glaring absence of any signature from Bush. Also, whatever W199i identifies, it appears to be a CASE from 2/96 thru9/96 when it was closed. IF ANY president signed it it would be Clinton. The document that Taste o shiite posted is dated 9/19/01?????? I thought you were going to show us something Bush signed stopping an investigation of the Bin Ladens BEFORE 9/11. Did you ever even read this document? I cant tell if your lying thru your teeth about what this document reveals or if youve simply adopted Palast's BS claims without ever reading it yourself.  Like I said before, this silly W199i executive order signed by Bush has never been produced. Knowing Palast's and Alex Jones past, I suspect it never did exist and they are both full aware of this fact but continue to spew the BS none the less.  MARK

That is an image of two of a reported 30+ pages of documents.

So first it didn't exist, and now that it does, you're an expert on it, I see. 30+ pages.

As I said, take it up with the BBC and the Guardian. Your "suspecting it never did exist" doesn't hold much weight in light of the fact that fake documents and phony sources are being exposed all the time, and this document has not been refuted.

Your beliefs are incorrect, being that NO ONE has been able to debunk those ten points

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002
By Mike Ward, PopMatters. Posted January 2, 2003.

http://www.alternet.org/story/14873

What the hell does that article have to do with anything?

"Well, they question 9/11, and you question 9/11, so it's all the same, right?"

Obviously, you don't bother to actually READ the things you link to, otherwise you'd realize that the only point in that article which parallels the ten points posted here is the issue of insider trading[/U]

And that's just a load of crap, because 1) I don't "find fault in all humanity", and 2) I have stated on numerous occasions the simple basis of what must be done to move toward a solution

Gee... I can't find any reference to Silverstein's statement in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" that "...the best thing to do is just pull it. So we made that decision, to pull, and we watched the building collapse.", on the PBS website. I guess it never happened. I guess this is just a very clever video (editing) job.

We breathe, we think, we conceive, we deceive, we morass and we digress,  we cultivated  and mutilate, in the end to lives narrate, some lost in solicitousness, some in proficient dimensionless but most in fallaciousness.-Trader

Well now your just playing dumb. In one the memo was witheld with the intent to impede an investigation of 9/11 terrorists. In the other the memo was witheld with the intent that the memo be witheld.     MARK