• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Interview with former FBI agent Mark Rossini

How was the information the CIA was to pass to the FBI obtained? None of these suspects rights would have been violated, correct?

Some of the most significant information that the CIA had had come from the NSA. All of the terrorists found inside of the US were all connected by the NSA to the East Africa bombings that had killed over 200 people including 12 Americans. The killing of 12 Americans automatically gave the FBI jurisdiction over investigations of al Qaeda terrorists. FBI criminal investigators already had a criminal investigation open for the east Africa bombings.

Furthermore the CIA had photographed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid bin Attash, identified by the FBI as the mastermind of the Cole bombing that had killed 17 US sailors, Khalid al-Mihdharm Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi.

Except for the information on KSM, this was information that the CIA had given to FBI Director Louis Freeh, FBI Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi and FBI Supervising Agent Rod Middleton. At the time the CIA photographed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at Kuala Lumpur, he already had a $2,000,000 FBI reward on his head.

When the CIA had secretly identified Walid bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting on January 4, 2001, they immediately knew that all of these terrorists at this meeting were directly connected to the planning of the Cole bombing. In spite of many people at both the CIA and the FBI having this information, this information was never given to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, a major Federal felony that should have gotten all of these people at least 20 years or more in a Federal prison.
 
Do you feel this answers my question? I suspect you know it does not.

Certainly their right to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US would have been violated. I not sure any one would object to that right being violated.
 
Certainly their right to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US would have been violated. I not sure any one would object to that right being violated.

Certainly not but, it's hard to stop a plot if a first year law student could get the suspect out. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you think we should be able to arrest and hold people like the patriot act (sort of) allowed. I have to assume you do.
 
Certainly not but, it's hard to stop a plot if a first year law student could get the suspect out. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you think we should be able to arrest and hold people like the patriot act (sort of) allowed. I have to assume you do.

No one is going to get people released from pretrial incarceration that had taken part in the murder of 12 Americans in the east Africa bombings or who had taken part in the planning of the murders of 17 US sailors in the Cole bombing.

Who is this first year law student "HODINI"
 
No one is going to get people released from pretrial incarceration that had taken part in the murder of 12 Americans in the east Africa bombings or who had taken part in the planning of the murders of 17 US sailors in the Cole bombing.

Who is this first year law student "HODINI"
Don't be so sure. How was the evidence obtained?

You and I both know that the information was not shared because no one really knew for sure what information they could share. It became clear after the fact most could have been. What you need to show is they all knew this at that time and consciously withheld it although they knew there was no reason to. All reports I've read (including the ones you quote from) determined this was not the case.

I've said it before. Make your case for intent.
 
Last edited:
Don't be so sure. How was the evidence obtained?

You and I both know that the information was not shared because no one really knew for sure what information they could share. It became clear after the fact most could have been. What you need to show is they all knew this at that time and consciously withheld it although they knew there was no reason to. All reports I've read (including the ones you quote from) determined this was not the case.

I've said it before. Make your case for intent.

"You and I both know that the information was not shared because no one really knew for sure what information they could share."

This is complete and utter hog wash.

I don't know where you got your information.

I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these investigators. Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!
 
"You and I both know that the information was not shared because no one really knew for sure what information they could share."

This is complete and utter hog wash.

I don't know where you got your information.

I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these investigators. Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!
Why can't you get any prosecutor to file indictments? It's crystal clear, right?
 
We have had this conversation before. Nothing in that report (assuming we are talking about the same one) supported your conclusions. I pointed this out in detail to you some time ago.
I also find it strange that the US government would release a report containing concrete evidence that the US government is guilty of premeditated murder and treason. Do you have an explanation for this?


This is completely untrue, as I have pointed out above. Just because you ignore any refutations and continue doggedly spamming the same tried nonsense does not validate your conclusions or make that statement correct.

Furthermore, if your so-called proof is indeed "iron-clad", why have you not taken this to the courts, or at least the US media? You could bring the murderers and traitors to justice, and vindicate yourself at the same time. What are you waiting for?

Seconded.

paloalto, you say that "no person on this forum has ever provided even one single even semi-intelligence refutation of the information I have described" - maybe that's semi-intelligent and somehow true. I'll grant that, for the moment and the sake of argument.

Your takeaway, however - "had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people" - still is nothing but a "hot teenage fever dream", as I told you already two weeks ago; it simply does not follow from the information you provide. It is your personal interpretation, your personal attempt at mind reading, fully loaded with your own personal emotions and bias.

Stop that stupid nonsense, and by and by you might win a rational person or twp over.

Stop posting those walls of text - you can link to any of your previous walls of text. Just correct your previous walls of text by excising this stupid nonsense mind reading BS.

Why can't you get any prosecutor to file indictments? It's crystal clear, right?

paloalto has yet to answer this point. Why would the US government publish "iron-clad" proof of it's own murderous treason? If this "proof " is indeed "iron-clad", why has no-one, inside or outside that government, done anything about it? paloalto's only argument so far is that no-one has read all the reports, which is, as far as arguments go, about as weak as Budweiser and just as unsatisfying.
 
paloalto has yet to answer this point. Why would the US government publish "iron-clad" proof of it's own murderous treason? If this "proof " is indeed "iron-clad", why has no-one, inside or outside that government, done anything about it? paloalto's only argument so far is that no-one has read all the reports, which is, as far as arguments go, about as weak as Budweiser and just as unsatisfying.

Have you taken at honest look at the state of the GOVERNMENT?
 
"You and I both know that the information was not shared because no one really knew for sure what information they could share."

This is complete and utter hog wash.

I don't know where you got your information.

I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these investigators. Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!

What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time? Please provide them word for word. Please also cite the law that criminalizes failures to follow them.
 
Have you taken at honest look at the state of the GOVERNMENT?
-: you support BS conclusions because you look at the state of the government.

? Thus : paloalto can make up lies about 9/11 because you don't like the government. It is okay to lie because you look at the state of the government.

Actually I found the state of the government had some zen, as congress can't find the money for the wall: maybe we can use the money for something useful. Guess you can't find evidence to help the fringe conclusions, aka lies, of 9/11 truth; so you go off on a tangential anti-government statement... how will that help a fantasy conclusion. Go help 9/11 truth nuts at Loose Change Forum like JFK, manangainstcrime who offer no evidence. How long can 9/11 truth followers be fooled? Rational, intelligent 9/11 truth followers leave 9/11 truth and wake up in days or weeks.

BTW, paloalto is not a 9/11 truth guy, he is a CIA/FBI let it happen on purpose, not only let it happen, but knew it was going to happen and could have stopped the exact plot, or some BS. paloalto does not support your melted steel CD thermite fantasy based on old men with insane ideas.
paloalto knows 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11 with four planes, no thermite, but the CIA made sure it happened.

Ironically, anyone before 9/11 could have killed the pilots by cutting their throats and take a plane and crash it; it was a one time deal based on the way the USA treated hijacked planes and hijackers... it was an endrun, or the first forward pass, a surprize.
You jumped on the official story with a twist wagon; By Mistake? Or what
 
Last edited:
Maybe you are right. It was not deliberate. The CIA and FBI HQ's shut down these FBI criminal investigations again and again and again accidentally. Their numerous and careful actions to shut down these investigations, when they all knew it would shut down or block investigations that could have stopped the al Qaeda terrorist attacks that these agencies had been warned about since April 2001, and allow this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to take place that would kill many people in the US, were numerous actions that were all completely accidental.

Their testimony was that the people in the CIA and at FBI HQ's were just all way to stupid to know that the three al Qaeda terrorists that the CIA found on August 21, 2001, inside of the US, were connected to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that was just to take place inside of the US, is correct. How could anyone have been smart enough to have connected these two. Even the 9/11 Commission stated that they could never figure out why the CIA had never connected these two.

After all, as you have pointed out, how could anyone be smart enough to know that three al Qaeda terrorist inside of the US were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US. Maybe the CIA and FBI HQ's thought they were here in order to get a little R&R before going to Outer Mongolia to carry out this attack.

It is now clear that no one could ever have been smart enough to connect several al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US.

And how would anyone know when you shut down the FBI criminal investigations of these al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US, by FBI criminal investigators who wanted to under take to find these terrorists before they had time to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US, and told the FBI HQ's agents that if they shut down their investigations of these terrorists, people in the US will die, that this would allow these terrorists to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US.

To connect these two, the fact that al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US to the many warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US, is as you said, is just nonsense.

You are speculating at great length about the psychological state of people you never met many many years ago.
 
What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time? Please provide them word for word. Please also cite the law that criminalizes failures to follow them.

"What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time?"

Very simple, and I have already provided this information once:
I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators. Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!


The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony

The Penalty shall not exceed 8 years if the withholding involves withholding from a terrorism investigation.


See 18 USC 371 Conspiracy:

Conspiracy is an offense that is charged in combination with another. When a person commits a criminal offense together with another person or group, the agreement among them to commit the crime is a conspiracy and its own offense. Conspiracy is an inchoate crime, which means that the offense is committed before any action takes place. It is the agreement to engage in a criminal offense that is the crime. The criminal offense itself does not have to take place. Under 18 USC 371, a person can be charged with conspiracy based on two elements:
1. An agreement to commit a criminal offense.
2. An overt act that furthers the conspiracy.
The US Attorney does not have to prove that the agreement was in writing. It can be verbal and still subject the parties to criminal liability.
The statute provides that the sentence for conspiracy is up to 5 years imprisonment:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The only defense to conspiracy is that the defendant withdrew from the agreement. To prevail at trial, the defendant must convince the jury that he withdrew from the conspiracy by communicating his withdrawal to the co-conspirators and taking some action that is inconsistent with the conspiracy. Not only must the defendant disavow the agreement, he must also do something that defeats the purpose of the conspiracy. The defendant must take affirmative action against the conspiracy.

Constructive manslaughter:

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

Criminally negligent manslaughter

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability.[6] A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself or herself in a position where the defendant will be unaware of facts which would render him or her liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment.

Offense Mandatory sentencing
Involuntary Manslaughter 1-10 years

Voluntary Manslaughter 1-20 years

Second Degree Murder 10-30 years

Murder & Felony Murder Death, Life without parole, or Life with parole eligibility in 25 or 30 years
 
"What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time?"

Very simple, and I have already provided this information once:
I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators. Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!


The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony

The Penalty shall not exceed 8 years if the withholding involves withholding from a terrorism investigation.


See 18 USC 371 Conspiracy:

Conspiracy is an offense that is charged in combination with another. When a person commits a criminal offense together with another person or group, the agreement among them to commit the crime is a conspiracy and its own offense. Conspiracy is an inchoate crime, which means that the offense is committed before any action takes place. It is the agreement to engage in a criminal offense that is the crime. The criminal offense itself does not have to take place. Under 18 USC 371, a person can be charged with conspiracy based on two elements:
1. An agreement to commit a criminal offense.
2. An overt act that furthers the conspiracy.
The US Attorney does not have to prove that the agreement was in writing. It can be verbal and still subject the parties to criminal liability.
The statute provides that the sentence for conspiracy is up to 5 years imprisonment:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The only defense to conspiracy is that the defendant withdrew from the agreement. To prevail at trial, the defendant must convince the jury that he withdrew from the conspiracy by communicating his withdrawal to the co-conspirators and taking some action that is inconsistent with the conspiracy. Not only must the defendant disavow the agreement, he must also do something that defeats the purpose of the conspiracy. The defendant must take affirmative action against the conspiracy.

Constructive manslaughter:

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

Criminally negligent manslaughter

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability.[6] A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself or herself in a position where the defendant will be unaware of facts which would render him or her liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment.

Offense Mandatory sentencing
Involuntary Manslaughter 1-10 years

Voluntary Manslaughter 1-20 years

Second Degree Murder 10-30 years

Murder & Felony Murder Death, Life without parole, or Life with parole eligibility in 25 or 30 years

None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols. You have repeatedly said that you are sure they were not followed, which implies you actually know exactly what they were. So what were they exactly?
 
Last edited:
None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols. You have repeatedly said that you are sure they were not followed, which implies you actually know exactly what they were. So what were they exactly?

My GOD man can't you read:

"What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time?"

Very simple, and I have already provided this information once:
I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators.

Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!

In fact, I m sure I can't make this any clearer than this.

It makes no difference if the agency that has the information is not the same agency doing the criminal investigation or a completely different agency, the law is exactly the same in all cases.

READ THE POST!
 
Last edited:
The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony

Could you show the section that the bold refers to? Thanks.
 

Back
Top Bottom