Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots



Sep 18, 10:20 PM (ET)

By KEN GUGGENHEIM

(AP) Eleanor Hill, staff director for the House and Senate intelligence inquiry into the Sept. 11...
Full Image


WASHINGTON (AP) - Intelligence agencies failed to anticipate terrorists flying planes into buildings despite a dozen clues in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden or others might use aircraft as bombs, a congressional investigator told lawmakers Wednesday as they began public hearings into the attacks.

Just a month before the attacks, intelligence agencies were told of a possible bin Laden plot to hit the U.S. Embassy in Kenya or crash a plane into it.

The preliminary report by Eleanor Hill, staff director of the joint House and Senate intelligence committee investigation of the terrorist strike, showed authorities had many more warnings about possible attacks than were previously disclosed.

The reports were generally vague and uncorroborated. None specifically predicted the Sept. 11 attacks. But collectively the reports "reiterated a consistent and critically important theme: Osama bin Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States," Hill said.


Despite that, authorities didn't alert the public and did little to "harden the homeland" against an assault, she said. Agencies believed any attack was more likely to take place overseas.

Just two months before the attacks, a briefing for senior government officials said that, based on a review of intelligence over five months, "we believe that (bin Laden) will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks."

"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning," it said.

Hill read most of her 30-page report to House and Senate members sitting together in what is believed to be the first joint investigation by standing congressional committees. The committees have been meeting behind closed doors since June to examine intelligence failures leading up to the attacks and recommend changes.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the report revealed "far too many breakdowns in the intelligence gathering and processing methods."

"Given the events and signals of the preceding decade, the intelligence community could have and in my judgment should have anticipated an attack on U.S. soil on the scale of 9/11," he said.

Pressed by Rep. Ray Lahood, R-Ill., about whether agencies had enough information to have prevented the attacks, Hill said it was possible, but there were no guarantees.

Details of intelligence about terrorist use of airplanes could embarrass the White House. After questions were raised in the spring about what President Bush knew about terrorist threats before Sept. 11, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the threats were vague and uncorroborated.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," Rice said then. "Had this president known a plane would be used as a missile, he would have acted on it."

Hill outlined 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible terrorist use of airplanes as weapons, beginning in 1994 and ending with the Nairobi plot in August 2001.



In August 1998, U.S. intelligence learned that a "group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center," says the report. The report was given to the Federal Aviation Administration and FBI, which took little action. The group may now be linked to bin Laden, the report says.

Other intelligence suggested that bin Laden supporters might fly an explosives-laden plane into a U.S. airport, or conduct a plot involving aircraft at New York and Washington, the report said.

While generally aware of the possibility of these kinds of attacks "the intelligence community did not produce any specific assessments of the likelihood that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons," the report said.

Hill also said that between May and July 2001, the National Security Agency reported at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack. Asked why intelligence agencies didn't do more about the terrorist threats, Hill said they have complained about a lack of resources and the massive amount of intelligence they were receiving. "They were overwhelmed by almost a flood of information," she said.

Senior CIA officials noted Hill's report also recognized their efforts to report on the immediacy of the threat from bin Laden before Sept. 11 and did not look to assign blame on U.S. agencies.

Hill stressed the investigation is continuing and a future report will deal with what was known about the 19 hijackers before the attacks.

She also noted that CIA Director George J. Tenet has declined to declassify information on two issues looked at by the inquiry: References to intelligence agencies supplying information to the White House, and details of an al-Qaida leader involved in the attacks. That leader is believed to be Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind.

Hill said the White House and Tenet believe "the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this inquiry remains classified" even when the information itself is declassified.

Also Wednesday, two spouses of Sept. 11 victims urged the committees to fix intelligence shortcomings that allowed the attacks. "Our loved ones paid the ultimate price for the worst American intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor," said Stephen Push, whose wife died aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.



---

okay..i know this is a lenghty read..if its too long, at least note the bold paragraph...i know it bothered me to find this out.

To quote part of this article, "In August 1998, U.S. intelligence learned that a 'group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center...'" 1998, right?

You changed "U.S." to "Bush" -- but many more than just him plan the ways of the world through events such as this, and it doesn't matter which political party since they play us by "playing" against each other. And that's all I got to say about that.
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 21:09:00 PDT 2002 by Jasziah]

Jasziah said:

why is that all you have to say? share more of your views...please do...dont be a soundbite politician?


Let me clarify that I didnt change any of the text of the article. Yes, i created the headline and mentioned Bush because he is our current President. I also added Government to the heading becuase I fully understand that it was the beauracracy (sic?) that is also partly at fault.

and like the bold section points out...Why is the President's knowledge considered classified when all evidence/information pertaining to the event has been declassified...just sounds interesting to me..nothing partisin...nothing to do with "playin against eachother"...are you claiming that this whole incident was the result of beckering between Republicans and Democrates?



have an affair on the edit!!
[This message was edited Wed Sep 18 21:17:36 PDT 2002 by SkletonKee]

Jasziah said:

That's all you have to say about that? who are you, Forrest Gump? Its very strange on the org... people are posting information which suggests that the US were informed about 9/11 before it actually happened, and they are called "revisionists", "fundamentalists" and "conspiracy theorists". now the theory has turned into a fact (at least according to the reliable quote by Eleanor Hill) and this thread remains dead, because the conservative fraction of the org is hiding...
I would like to hear opionions on this by:
TheMax
Nep2nes
2the9s
and anybody else...
btw, to throw in my two cents: I do not participate in speculation. I have never believed the theory that the US knew enough in order to be able to prevent 9/11, not because I wouldnt think its possible, but because I did not have any proof. This one seems to be pretty reasonable enough to reconsider my opinion..

soulpower said:

I don't see how this article has turned that speculation into a fact; nor however, do I see the need for it to be "fact" in order for it to remain damning to the administration.



Typical soulpower, which is why I don't like to "debate" with you. I am now part of the "consertavtive faction" of the Org because I asked you to provide some context and an interpretation of some statistics that you posted? (On September 12th mind you!)

Furthermore I am "hiding" because I don't like constantly getting lathered up on a message board? Also, please note that you engaged in an ad hominem attack on Jasziah, (Forrest Gump) something that you always claim to be above, or that has no relevant place in "argument."



"Pretty reasonable" = speculation. I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate, why would it be? But what in this article makes you reconsider your opinion on whether the administration knew or not? Of course they could have known. That remains the same. The point is we are being prevented from finding out who knew what when, especially the president. I find that disturbing.

The main bit of information this article provides (as Skeletonkee points out) that is damning to the president is that his access to the the information and the decisions that he made based on that access is being hidden from us as "classified."

Now, go back to your daily meeting and get reamed by your editor.

What I'd like to know, before I lambast a President who I'm on record as not liking, but for whom even I am not cynical enough to beleive allowed those attacks to happen to further his own self interests, is the context through which this information was received. In other words, would one have to sift through 500 "intelligence reports" per day, each one detailing a "possible terrorist plan", ranging in nature from "terrorists have a plan to poison our water supply", "plans are in the works to blow up Times Square on New Years Eve", or "Osama Bin Laden is planning to gas The Super Bowl.

As cynical and as dark as my world view has grown over the years, and in particular my opinion of the US Government, it's going to take one of a hell of a huge smoking gun for me to believe that President Bush, in spite of my dislike for his policies in general, KNEW this attack was coming and let it happen to further his political career. Perhaps I simply don't WANT to believe it because that means I would have to drop everything, move to the mall in Washington DC and enact a hunger strike of protest until The President resigns. Really, I'm not up to it, and frankly, I don't think Bush is smart enough to pull this off. We're giving a hell of a lot of credit to someone who's most ardent supporters will admit is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, suppose this administration HAD alerted the public prior to Sep. 11th. What do you think the public at large, and particularly the left leaning members of Prince.org., would've said? He's doing this to increase his military budget", "this is just a smokescreen to divert us from the economy", "Bush just wants an excuse to invade the Middle East to appease his oil buddies"...etc. I know that I, for one, wouldn't have bought into any of it. Honestly, what would any of you have done or said prior to what we now know can happen?

I'm sure our intelligence communities hear a lot of things. I find it hypocritical that leftist, anti-military, cynical "peacemongers", who for years have cried "foul" whenever the issues of surveillance, spying and covert operations came into discussion, or demanded more money and power, are the loudest voices against this administration when it comes to matters such as these - and I'm pretty left myself. We can't have it both ways. We'll criticize them if they DO act on something, like the highway stop on I-75 in Florida, and criticize them when they DON'T, wondering aloud what in the hell they're doing to protect us.

What would any of YOU do in their place, and how forthright would YOU be with your knowledge regarding the events leading up to this dilemna? I'm no fan of Bush, his policies,or his administration, and I didn't vote for him or his old man, but I think we should be fair.

I for one, dont think that Bush *allowed* the events to happen..I, however, think that he was aware that these types of attacks were being planned...and he didnt set a priority with it...


just like he has made other errors with his administration...

the enviroment

the economy

stem cell research...



with all these screw ups, im shocked at how still give the President the benefit of the doubt...anyone care to share their thoughts?

2the9s said:

GOTCHA! of course I know you are not part of the conservative fraction! I know you are a harmless ecoli-gargler who loves peace as much as I do! Now this was truly an attempt of provocation and it worked! I love you, man.---
P.S. was serious about forrest gump though. I called him like that because "thats all I have to say about that" is a quote from that movie.
[This message was edited Thu Sep 19 11:56:01 PDT 2002 by soulpower]

SkletonKee said:

I hope you don't think he's getting "the benifit of the doubt" from me, outside of a basic unwillingness to accept that our elected President would allow 3,000 of his own citizens to die needlessly on global television, combined with a touch of "innocent until proven guilty" logic.

What's "shocking" to me is that this thread generates 1/4 of the response that a topic like "Top 10 TV Theme Songs" generates. Shows what we care about.

And nobody has EVER answered my question inre: "what would we have said or done about it?" Would any of has believed it?

"Suppose this administration HAD alerted the public prior to Sep. 11th. What do you think the public at large, and particularly the left leaning members of Prince.org., would've said? He's doing this to increase his military budget", "this is just a smokescreen to divert us from the economy", "Bush just wants an excuse to invade the Middle East to appease his oil buddies"...etc. I know that I, for one, wouldn't have bought into any of it. Honestly, what would any of you have done or said prior to what we now know can happen? "

Or is it just easier to cry "foul" and scream "conspiracy" after events have taken place, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight?

more breaking news
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA had information about three of the Sept. 11 hijackers at least 20 months before the attacks occurred but failed to pass the information on to other agencies, a congressional investigator said on Friday.

The CIA and FBI had no information linking 16 of the 19 hijackers to terrorism or terrorist groups before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America and they may have been picked for that reason, Eleanor Hill, staff director of the joint inquiry into Sept. 11 attacks, said in testimony at a hearing of the House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees.

The other three hijackers, all of whom were on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, did come to the attention of intelligence agencies before Sept. 11. They were Saudi citizens Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and his brother Salim al-Hazmi.

Four hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington and a Pennsylvania field, killing about 3,000 people. The United States has blamed Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.

Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attended a meeting of suspected associates of bin Laden's network in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from Jan. 5 to 8, 2000, she said.

Also at that meeting was Khallad bin-Atash, "a key operative in Osama bin Laden's terrorist network," and it was held at a condominium owned by Yazid Sufaat who in October 2000 signed letters identifying Zacarias Moussaoui as a representative of his company, Hill said.

Moussaoui is the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Although it was not known what was discussed at the Malaysia meeting, the CIA believed it to be a gathering of al Qaeda associates," Hill said. Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi then went to another Southeast Asian country, she said.

CIA DID NOT KNOW WHAT NSA KNEW

By the time the suspected hijackers entered Malaysia, the CIA knew al-Mihdhar's name, passport number, and birth information, and that he had a U.S. multiple-entry visa issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, that expired on April 6, 2000, Hill said.

The CIA did not know that the National Security Agency, which eavesdrops on global communications, had information associating Nawaf al-Hazmi with bin Laden's network because the NSA did not immediately disseminate it, she said.

One of the main criticisms of the intelligence agencies has been that they did not adequately share information within their agencies or with each other.

The names of al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi could have been added to the State Department, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U.S. Customs watch lists, denying them entry into the United States, but they were not, Hill said.

A CIA communication in early January 2000 said al-Mihdhar's travel documents including his multiple-entry visa for the United States were shared with the FBI for investigation, but no one at the FBI recalls receiving them, she said.

The CIA continued to be interested in al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi after they left Malaysia with help from foreign authorities.

In March 2000, CIA headquarters received information from an overseas CIA station that Nawaf al-Hazmi had entered the United States through Los Angeles International Airport on Jan. 15, 2000.

"The CIA did not act on this information," Hill said. Nor did it consider the possibility that because Nawaf al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar had been together in Malaysia there was a probability they would travel further together. Al-Mihdhar traveled with al-Hazmi to the United States on Jan. 15, 2000, she said.

Although the two had already entered the United States, sharing the information with the FBI and other agencies could have prompted an investigation to find them and keep their activities in the United States under watch, Hill said.

"Unfortunately, none of these things happened," she said. "The failure to watchlist al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi or, at a minimum, to advise the FBI of their travel to the United States, is perhaps even more puzzling because it occurred shortly after the peak of intelligence community alertness to possible millennium-related terrorist attacks," Hill said

herbthe4 said:

sure, i am going to concede and agree with this...yeah, i might have complained and said it was all political...and your point is?

because, if we had all been aware, maybe the people who boarded the plane might have gotten suspectious...maybe an airline attendant would have noticed how nervous the guys were and brought it to the attention of the pilot who wouldnt have flown...maybe then they would have done a research test to discover that these three goones (from the above mentioned article) were under investigation and Sept 11th would have been just another day..

then I would have eaten my words (and possibly my tie) and said Bush was a great President...

but that didnt happen, and people died..yet, people are still trying to claim that Bush did a good job..even though the information he recieved and the timing of it is considered classified...

So Bush knew, eh?

Maybe we should start calling him Nostradumbass.

There's a saying in Texas, maybe it's in Tennessee: Fool me once, shame on... shame
on you... Fool me... You can't get fooled again." - George W. Bush
http://www.comedycentral....line_56.rm

This is the evil mastermind?

bump!!!

The administration probably was getting intelligence about terrorism coming from all sorts of groups, including domestic ones like white supremacist fucks like Timothy McVeigh.