Interview with former FBI agent Mark Rossini

[paloalto]

Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time? Would you say the number of suspects would be greater than a handful or several hundred (thousand)?

After the fact it's easy to identify the ones you should have focused on. My question to you would be, should we have rounded every suspected person with ties to terrorism, using any evidence proven or not? Do you think we have enough man power to do this?

Were the terrorist individuals you focus on the only known suspects in the US at the time?

No, one more was know, his name was Zacharias Moussaoui, but he had already been arrested by Minneapolis FBI, so he was no longer a threat. But Minneapolis FBI asked the CIA for help to get enough probable cause in order to request a FISA search warrant for his possessions including his duffel bag.

Even though this information was given to CIA Director George Tenet on August 23, 2001, he and the CIA completely refused to help the FBI, even though he was fully aware of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US. Tenet had in fact ordered the rest of the CIA not to help the Minneapolis agents in their desperate request for help to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui's possessions. In this duffel bag was a receipt from Ramzi bin al-Sheebh, for $14000, which allowed Minneapolis FBI agents after 9/11, to find all of the terrorists in just few days.

So August 21, 2001, out side of Moussaoui, the only other known al Qaeda terrorists that were also known to be inside of the US were Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and his brother, Salem al-Hazmi. They were all found inside of the US and known to the CIA and FBI HQ's by August 21, 2001.

There were not hundreds, just these three that were in the US.

Of course Tom Wilshere said that the CIA and FBI HQ's were just overwhelmed trying to locate these three al Qaeda terrorists, while the evidence shows they had given this search to a single inexperienced FBI agent, Robert Fuller, and then they shut down his investigation by refusing to let him call Saudi Arabian Airlines to get Mihdhar's credit card number.

 

[paloalto]

Your venomous sarcasm won't win you a flower pot. Why waste your breath?

Try a little modesty and admit that you cannot read minds; that you argue from (in)credulity; that you used extreme hyperbole when mischaracterizing the intent of certain agents.
It seems that your intent is to make damned sure that no serious, rational person is ever convinced by your arguments that an investigation into those matters is warranted.

Get your act together - correct it.

At cut out that sarcasm crap.

Reread the post. In fact this is not sarcasm.

Tom Pickard stated at the 9/11 Commission public hearings on April 13-14, 2004, that the FBI clearly knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US and knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US.

He stated in fact that he called all 56 JJTFs, and told them that they should have their evidence teams ready to go after this attack took place. They weren't requested to stop this attack, just to pick up the evidence after the attack took place.

But he stated that no way did the FBI know that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack.

The 9/11 Commission itself stated that they could never figure out why the CIA had never connected the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission just could never figure this out, to them it just didn't make sense that the CIA and FBI could not connect the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US.

This was in fact their excuse why the attacks on 9/'11 had not been prevented!

No one at the FBI HQ or the CIA had ever connected the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were in the US to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack.

So your statement that is is just "venomous sarcasm", is belied by Tom Pickard, Director of the FBI and the even by the 9/11 Commission itself.

 

[Axxman300]

The CIA let it happen...blah, blah,blah...

Your fixation on the CIA to the exclusion of the FBI's acknowledged mistakes, along with Customs, and the fun bunch at the NSA who had ALL of the relevant intelligence to stop the hijackers - but didn't know it due to the volume of electronic intercepts they make on an hourly, daily basis, and didn't find it until their internal audit after 9/11/2001, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

You make all of your statements without the historical context. You ignore the previous eight years where AQ was ignored by the White House, and the CIA, and the FBI until the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack. Most all of the middle management of all of the relevant agencies were holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and the fact is that the only official known to cover-up their (possible) role in the failures leading to 9/11/2001 was Sandy Burger...

http://deadline.com/2017/05/shane-s...amilton-disruptors-interview-news-1202094039/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

Omitting these facts shows your bias.

Edited to add that as of today the FBI's post 9/11 AQ investigation files are still classified and unreleased, so you don't know what you don't know.

 

[paloalto]

The CIA let it happen...blah, blah,blah...

Your fixation on the CIA to the exclusion of the FBI's acknowledged mistakes, along with Customs, and the fun bunch at the NSA who had ALL of the relevant intelligence to stop the hijackers - but didn't know it due to the volume of electronic intercepts they make on an hourly, daily basis, and didn't find it until their internal audit after 9/11/2001, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

You make all of your statements without the historical context. You ignore the previous eight years where AQ was ignored by the White House, and the CIA, and the FBI until the embassy bombings, and the Cole attack. Most all of the middle management of all of the relevant agencies were holdovers from the Clinton Administration, and the fact is that the only official known to cover-up their (possible) role in the failures leading to 9/11/2001 was Sandy Burger...

http://deadline.com/2017/05/shane-s...amilton-disruptors-interview-news-1202094039/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

Omitting these facts shows your bias.

Edited to add that as of today the FBI's post 9/11 AQ investigation files are still classified and unreleased, so you don't know what you don't know.

Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11.

"Connect the dots" is usually conspiracy-speak for "create wild unfounded allegations". Let's see if your post is any different.

Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum.

No, not hard. Ill-advised. Speculation from a mixture of paranioa and hindsight is not a good way to analyse history.

The CIA, FBI HQ’s and even the Bush administration had been getting numerous warnings of huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US, since April 2001

You keep saying this. None of what you have posted so far backs up the idea they they know the attack would be "huge". Please cite evidence for this claim.

Now as many, many posters have clearly pointed out on this forum, how could anyone have connected the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to the fact that several, it turns out there were three, al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US.

I don't recall anyone here saying that. What I have said, and others have said repeatedly, is that it was not possible to precisely predict what kind of attack, or the time and place of said attack, Al Quaeda was planning. No-one disputes that the CIA and the FBI were aware of these people.

Lets simplify this just a bit.

A huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US of A, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US of A.

Lets see how incredibly hard this world have been.

Warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attacks inside of the US, and two, actually three al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US. See how exceedingly hard this is.

None of which goes to show that anyone knew when, where and what was planned. America is quite a big place, you know.

There was just no way for anyone to connect these so called dots. This was what might be called a “bridge too far”.

Please cite the evidence you have to support the allegation that members of the CIA and/ or FBI knew when, where, and what was planned. Please show, given the information available to them at the time, how you would have deduced what was being planned.

To have connect these dots, or so we are told, would have taken Einstein-ian intelligence, but since the only person to have had this intelligence was Albert Einstein himself and since he had died in 1953, unless he came back from the dead, an rather unlikely occurrence, there was just no one, as many people have pointed out on this forum, smart enough to connect these dots. After all connecting dots was very, very, hard

No-one has said this. You are wasting everyone's time (your own included) with this pointless drivel.

We are further told by many posters on this forum, that the information that could have connected these dots was only found after 9/11, that I am using 20/20 hindsight to connect the dots. But hold on here. Wait a minute. Lets look at this in greater detail.

Wasn’t the fact that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place, was known by the CIA, FBI HQ's and the administration, since April 2001, and the fact that it was definitely going to take place inside of the US was known, by late July 2001. And wasn't the fact that al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and in fact his brother, Salem al-Hazmi were all found inside of the US and known by the CIA and FBI HQ's on August 21, 2001.

Now I know people on this forum have pointed out that the information that could have stopped these attacks was only found after the attack of 9/11. But, unless I am wrong, August 21, 2001 is over three weeks prior to the attacks on September 11.

So it would appear that the information that could have been used to stop these attacks was known over three weeks prior to the attacks on 9/11, actually well before the attacks actually took place, attacks which took place over three weeks after August 21, 2001.

But several posters have rightly and correctly pointed out, and this is just very important to note, that on this forum, one really just should never, ever get confused with facts.

Again please show how the information you have mentioned above could have been used to predict that Al Qaeda would hijack 4 planes and use them as missiles to attack the WTC, the Pentagon and (we presume) the White House, on September 11th. That would be a good way to show your case has merit.
Otherwise, we are back in CT-land, pretending that unevidenced assertions, paranoia and hindsight represent legitimate historical investigation.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.

I will gladly read this document. However, Google is giving me nothing.
Link, please?

 

[DGM]

There were not hundreds, just these three that were in the US.

What is your source for this? After 9/11 the FBI collected up hundreds of suspects for questioning. Did they all just show up that day?

You seem to want to paint a picture that the suspects that became the key players in 9/11 were the only ones on the FBI radar. I suspect the number likely extends into the thousands.

I've heard that the FBI receives and responds to hundreds of threats to US security a day. Do you think this could be an accurate assumption?

 

[paloalto]

What is your source for this? After 9/11 the FBI collected up hundreds of suspects for questioning. Did they all just show up that day?

You seem to want to paint a picture that the suspects that became the key players in 9/11 were the only ones on the FBI radar. I suspect the number likely extends into the thousands.

I've heard that the FBI receives and responds to hundreds of threats to US security a day. Do you think this could be an accurate assumption?

No, I think this just total BS.

Where are the hundreds of suspects today?

All released.

How many were known al Qaeda terrorists?

None, just Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

How many had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, photographed by the CIA and were at that time inside of the US?

Just three, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

 

[paloalto]

I will gladly read this document. However, Google is giving me nothing.
Link, please?

See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense.html

 

[paloalto]

See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense.html

Make that DE 950, and 950A.

 

[DGM]

No, I think this just total BS.

Where are the hundreds of suspects today?

All released.

How many were known al Qaeda terrorists?

None, just Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

How many had been at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, photographed by the CIA and were at that time inside of the US?

Just three, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

No source?

Would you think it would be unreasonable to believe there could be a thousand plus individuals that would want to do harm to the US on any given day (inside the US)?

Would you think the FBI might be aware of this?

 

[benthamitemetric]

Make that DE 950, and 950A.

It's a great summary of how the Wall, along with some incompetence, bad luck, and a lack of perfect foresight, all contributed to the failure of the US government to unravel the plot. Not once does it state that any of the people involved failed to follow the investigative protocol applicable to them, except for the one hapless agent (Fuller) who made a mistake (not a crime) in filling out a form for the INS records.

You should just post this document without your silly spin. It's a much better summary than your editorialized nonsense wherein you embellish every other line with half-baked unproven assumptions.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Read DE 650. This is a real eye opener.

This is the FBI outline and summary of the information they had prior to the attacks on 9/11. This document was never intended for public distribution.

See the Defense Exhibits in the link below:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense.html

OK, read it thanks.
However, I found nothing that supports your version of events, and plenty to support what everyone else here is trying to tell you.
Was it your intention to disprove your own argument, because that's what you just did.

 

[Oystein]

Reread the post. In fact this is not sarcasm.
...

Reread your own post. In fact it was sarcastic.

 

[paloalto]

No source?

Would you think it would be unreasonable to believe there could be a thousand plus individuals that would want to do harm to the US on any given day (inside the US)?

Would you think the FBI might be aware of this?

I would not know, my information only comes from the many government investigations done on the 9/11 attacks, the DOJ IG report, the JI report, the 9/11 Commission report, and the CIA IG report, the DE's entered into the Moussaoui trial, along with other main stream media sources that had information on 9/11 found no where else, Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower, on Ali Soufan, Bob Woodward's book State of Denial, on the meeting in the White House on July 10, 2001, the article in Harpers, by Kne Sliverstein, Meet the new Bagdad CIA Chief Richard Blee.

I have never seen any mention of other terrorists in the US at that time, other then the three I had listed in my prior post, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi.

 

[paloalto]

OK, read it thanks.
However, I found nothing that supports your version of events, and plenty to support what everyone else here is trying to tell you.
Was it your intention to disprove your own argument, because that's what you just did.

DE 950 was an out line in Power Point, it was never intended to be a exhaustive account of 9/11. I pointed it out only since it was the only document that detailed FBI Agent Dina Corsi's refusal to give permission to Fuller to get Khalid al-Mihdhar's credit card number. Fuller told Corsi that without this number his search for Mihdhar was getting no where.

Why she refused to allow him to get this number has never been explained.

 

[paloalto]

Reread your own post. In fact it was sarcastic.

THAT'S RICH!.

Statements that I posted right from the 9/11 Commission and right from the Director of the FBI Tom Pickard at these hearings himself are labeled sarcastic.

You yourself have just proved my very point, in spades!

How utterly absurd and asinine were the statements by the Director of the FBI and by the 9/11 Commission on the CIA, attempting to defend the indefensible, the inexplicable actions of these two agencies, actions which had allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11.

When anyone repeats these asinine and absurd statements, the statements are so totally absurd they are labeled sarcastic!

Thanks for making my point, in fact making my point several times!

Keep up the good work!

 

[Oystein]

THAT'S RICH!.

Statements that I posted right from the 9/11 Commission and right from the Director of the FBI Tom Pickard at these hearings himself are labeled sarcastic. ...

FALSE.
Ok, I get now why you are so self-deluded about 9/11: You can't even read your OWN posts correctly for comprehension.

Re-read your own post of 18th May (this being the post we are discussing here, right?), which starts with "Let’s see if anyone on this forum can connect the dots based on the information at the CIA and FBI HQ’s just prior to the attacks on 9/11. Now this is very, very, very, hard as many posters have already pointed out on this forum"! To help you parse your own post; The quoted bit - which is the beginning of the post - contains no statements from the 9/11 Commission. Instead, it contains sarcasm. There are more instances of venomous sarcasm in that post.

Again, I ask you, for your own good, to cut out the crap and the sarcasm and stop pretending you can read minds. This crap distracts heavily from all the valuable and legitimate problems you point towards, so much so that I am growing more and more convinced that your intention is to NOT convince anybody of the actual problems with the CIA/FBI operations prior to 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

...my information only comes from [list of legit sources]

No, FALSE.
A major other source is your hubris. It makes you believe you can read minds and know intents far beyond that which is actually stated in the sources you list.

 

[DGM]

DE 950 was an out line in Power Point, it was never intended to be a exhaustive account of 9/11. I pointed it out only since it was the only document that detailed FBI Agent Dina Corsi's refusal to give permission to Fuller to get Khalid al-Mihdhar's credit card number. Fuller told Corsi that without this number his search for Mihdhar was getting no where.

Why she refused to allow him to get this number has never been explained.

Where is it stated that Fuller told Corsi that his search was going nowhere without it?

It says she recommended that it would not be prudent to ask for that information from Saudi Airlines. This appears to be in-line with recommendations from the National Security Law unit.