A few years ago, the brief New York Times report that the CIA had offices within that structure intrigued me, so I tried to find out more. Those findings deserve some presence on the net, even if the matter does not, in the final analysis, carry tremendous weight. What follows below the asterisks is yet another chunk from my yet-unpublished piece on WTC7 (the final version of which will have complete footnotes):
* * *
The Spooks of 7 World Trade Center
Of all the government agencies which called 7 World Trade Center home, one name rivets the attention of parapolitical researchers: The Central Intelligence Agency.
Only those “in the know” can say which of the building’s offices housed the CIA. That famed three-letter acronym did not appear in the lobby directory, nor did it appear on any phone bill sent to that address. The Company did not advertise its presence in New York City because the CIA’s charter prohibits domestic operations. Of course, the Agency’s interpretation of that charter may differ from yours or mine.
According to James Risen, the New York Times journalist who broke this story, “The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify.” I was not a party to this deal, and I have never understood why the American taxpayer should remain forever ignorant of data which foreign intelligence organizations must consider old news. Two sources – one of them a private detective based in New York City – have informed me that the CIA has often used the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) as a cover when operating within the United States. In 1999, the DIS changed its name to the Defense Security Service, or DSS.
Of course, the scuttlebutt one hears from private detectives sometimes proves off-kilter, but in this case the suggestion makes sense. The Defense Security Service (DSS) is the agency of the Department of Defense charged with “clearing” individuals entrusted with sensitive military information. Many civilians undergo these background investigations, which are a routine fact of life for anyone who wants to work in an industry related in any way to defense. To establish a job applicant’s trustworthiness, DSS agents pry into credit histories and criminal records, and will even interview friends and family members. The goal: Weeding out individuals who show signs of instability or susceptibility to foreign influence.
One does not need much imagination to understand why the CIA would view DSS/DIS as an excellent domestic cover. If (presuming you are an American) someone showed up on your front step, flashed CIA credentials, and started asking intrusive questions about a friend’s personal habits, you might well become anxious or indignant; the scene could even end with a shouted reference to George Orwell and a slammed door. But if that same visitor showed DSS credentials, you would probably go out of your way to cooperate – after all, you would not want to ruin your friend’s career prospects.
The DSS web site lists the service’s field offices. In the state of New York, offices are located in Westbury, Syracuse, Liverpool, Rome, and Griffiss Air Force Base; no mention of any past or present office in New York City proper. News accounts of the disaster do not record either DSS or DIS as a tenant of any building in the trade center complex. Yet in the fall of 2001, the Southwest Bell SMARTpages online directory listed a phone number for the “US Defense Investigative Svc” at 7 World Trade Center.
Perhaps someone forgot to tell CIA about the name change.
An official told reporter Rizen that CIA personnel vacated these offices “soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers.” This version of events places the evacuation order after 9:06, the time of the second strike, even though most other building tenants left immediately after the first strike at 8:48. The account, if accurate, conjures up a grimly amusing image: Were the intelligence professionals the last people in the building to figure out that they were under terrorist attack?
The New York Times report raises the question of classified material falling into the wrong hands:
The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.The implication here is that CIA personnel destroyed scads of documents during that all-important 49 minute period between 9:06 and 9:55. One wonders why they would bother. Why not simply leave and lock the doors? After all, according to the official chronology, fire had not yet broken out within 7 WTC -- and even if smoke alarms were already ringing, no-one should have expected a building collapse. Nothing of the sort had ever happened before.
As a result, a C.I.A. station today should be able to protect most of its secrets even in the middle of a catastrophic disaster like the Sept. 11 attacks, said one former agency official. "If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around," the former official said.
In all likelihood, un-shredded classified materials were left inside the building, and went down with the proverbial ship. A federal judge gave the CIA jurisdiction over the building 7 clean-up operations, no doubt to prevent sensitive documents from falling into the wrong hands – presuming that any such documents survived.
The fact that the CIA gained this jurisdiction bears upon a related matter: Remarkable caches of gold, drugs, and arms were stored beneath the WTC complex. Since much of this material rested beneath structures other than 7 World Trade Center, we shall deal with this issue in a separate chapter. (Some conspiratorialists will tell you that the existence of this underground trove somehow “proves” the intelligence community’s complicity in the attacks. This argument -- if it can even be called an argument – resists any attempt at logical analysis.)
* * *
Forgive an in medias res ending. One day, I really must finish that book. And now is the time for certain readers to do precisely what they were asked not to do; no doubt, they will take umbrage at my accusation of fanaticism while providing evidence of same. If you must, you must. Take it away, bomb-brigadiers...!
6 comments:
I don't know what the modern use of the CIA NYC station is, but during the 1950s, it was a location for recruiting people with needed language skills. (Note that it wasn't in WTC7 during the 1950s)
Joseph, I hope you will quickly pull together your work in a preliminary version, perhaps for a magazine or web article. It would be a valuable contribution to the WTC lore, and would expose your blog to new readers.
A cogent presentation on WTC7 appears in the last few pages of Dr. Griffin's essay "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True," which you can read here:
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
What interests me about WTC7 is the controversy surrounding the investigation. FDNY brass claimed there was major structural damage, but photos don't show it. The ASCE/FEMA report says fires brought the 47-story building down but they can't explain how.
NIST's preliminary report resurrected these reports of structural damage, but NIST's final report on WTC7 has been postponed many times.
fascinating about this discussion copied from a comment at the rigorousintuition blog. How fascinating to think that the WTC twin towers were big lemons to costly to maintain, so cheaper to pull it down via terrorist guise.
on WTC asbestos, pricing, etc.
"Hauss doesn't say it's impossible that somebody wanted those buildings demolished; he just says it's unnecessary to presume that somebody needed it."
Wrong. He's just another clueless idiot cherrypicking his facts to fit a preconceived "boundary of possibility" view so the rest goes down the memory hole. Hauss is not analyzing or ratiocinating, he's already picked out his conclusion and he is attempting to selectively justify it to fit his preconception of reality, always a useless method to use to parse reality or others motivations or actions as I am sure regulars here at RI know. Particularly in the bizarre closing of the article above, I see that even Jeff rubs his own boundaries the wrong way quite often as well, and when that happens he angrily lets his boundaries win with a lot of empty hot air, instead of allowing them to be penetrated.
From that memory hole:
...
POINT ONE: the secret research team
IN 1989, regarding the recent information coming out by Karl Schwartz about the plans to take down the WTCs legally (and expensively) which would cost around 5.6 billion dollars then: [Plans To Scrap WTC
Towers For $5.6 Bn In 1989!, From Karl W. B. Schwarz, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305386.shtml .] Due to the exorbitant price, they decided against it. However, instead of simply thinking of something else, they make the information gained about the WTCs as completely unstable a total secret from the world. Why would they do this? This preserved ***artificially high insurance rating*** of the WTCs. This secrecy is important; plus, it's probably illegal to withhold such information about building safety danger due to WTCs "galvanic corrosion". I'm sure WTC insurers could sue for insurance fraud on this information alone.
Interestingly, all architects were fired and all information about "legally" dismantling the WTCs was confiscated. They were threatened into silence. However, there are two witnesses--one of the architects and a photographer--have come forward after 9-11 to talk about these secret research teams to remove the WTC being disbanded in 1989. Information on that is posted here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305386.shtml
POINT TWO: FBI sponsored terror op in '93 to take down WTCs "cheaply" (for free! who wants to spend that 5.6 billion to do it!) with patsies to blame.
Jan. 1993, a mere few weeks into Clinton's first plurality win term--where less than 50% of an already small voting public wanted him--sort of like Bush! This was because of a split-right effect of Perot's campaign. This may have intentionally have been a strategy to shoe Clinton in, as well as punish Bush I's reelection attempt--because Perot was told to "stand down" from Bush on information he learned about Vietnam still holding live POWs--he was sent by Reagan to see what he could find out. Made enemies with Bush that way who was covering up the POW-MIA team/groups being used to run drugs into the USA. ...[taking out editoral unrelated comments about 1993 'election']... Anyway, back to early Clinton: Jan. 1993, a handy dandy "terrorist" operation involved internal explosions in WTC1. This almost took down the exorbitantly expensive to remove building--for free! However, the people parked the van in the wrong place. I guess that's what the FBI gets when it relies on "hired help." What do I mean? Well, later it was revealed (NYT of all surreal places amongst others--revealed years later I think) that FBI was directly involved in providing some live explosives to the very people they were "investigating" (FBI alibi) in a so-called "sting."
Very interesting "sting."
Particularly when the agent on the scene was told to give these patsies both the ideas for particular sites to hit and the technical knowledge for making some bombs involved. In other words, the FBI was writing the list of priority "terrorist hits," suggesting "FBI-recommended locations," to hit--while for public consumption this was only a "sting."
What that sounds like to me is that they were creating a subsidiary operation they could have to do the work--or some part of it--and take the blame in the all important cover story--and then voila, they could appear and arrest them simultaneously after providing them with the live bombs they let get into the building to destroy the towers. Very clean operation.
However, since the towers failed to fall, those two quarter mile tall 5.6 billion dollar lemons still gave some people sour faces. So, they had to get more "professional" whether they liked it or not. They required more information to get it done right. After all it is assumed that with galvanic corrosion dangers that had already developed in the mere 20 years of the WTCs standing, time was of the essence. The WTCs were getting more and more unstable by the year. The Port Authority, a key suspect of course, wanted to avoid spending billions of its own money to take it down. By the way, one of the people the FBI blamed in 1993 was put in the odd position of returning rental cars/vans to the UHAUL places...after he presumably blew up the WTCs? That's what the FBI said. Hardly a criminal behavior of someone who was on the run. FBI targeted someone who was "mentally challenged" for this part to play it seems. So in summary, Mr. Hicks, the FBI was actually "training the terrorists" in 1993 to take down the buildings for free. There is a history then of certain FBI higher-ups (obviously conspiring with people who would benefit financially) as suspects to force the towers down for free.
This is just the exact set up used in several years in the Murrah Building in 1995--where a distraction/pasty outside is linked with an actual internal demolitions arrangement to destroy a building for "counterterror legitimation". In short, I have yet to see a 9-11 book to deal with 1993 in any fair manner.
POINT THREE: US Gov't Geologist Phil Schneider evidence claims, WTC in 1993 hit by micro-nuke explosion in addition to the van bomb
Well, just like Murrah's plan in 1995, there were other internal explosions besides the van in the WTC in 1993--just waiting for the cover operation to work. Even these powerful "real" demolition charges failed miserably however. I guess that's what you get, when you rely on people who were at best amateur demolitions people or patsy's who seemed to have "parked the van in the wrong place" according to the real expert demolitions people.
So next, you bring in the actual professionals. Real American demolition expert professionals.
Real American COVERT OPERATIONS demolitions professionals--people like Phil Schneider. [editoral comment: who blew the whistle on it, and was murdered in 1995 or 1996 I think...]
They picked Phil because they wanted to be sure in this highly sensitive ongoing operation to remove the WTCs without any cost that the people picked to even relay any information to, about actual 1993 WTC bombs being much more than van bombs, would be forced to maintain such information in strictest silence.
They wanted to get someone so high up in the top secret infrastructure of the U.S. that they would be unable to tell anyone--thus, presumable completely trustworthy with the information.
So, he is first hired as a mere "consultant" on "post terror investigations" in 1993 to guage his reactions first to learning about the real WTC terrorism of 1993 which had nothing to do with the van bomb though which ran parallel though independent to the van bomb. These investigations--at least the publicly acknowledged ones (there may be more secret ones--Phil didn't exactly say who hired him), though the public ones were done by TriData which is CONNECTED WITH FEMA.
Who is Phil Schneider? Phil was an ex-US government geologist, NATO geologist, Rhyolite security clearance. Phil only reported or was answerable to three people he said: "directly to the President, to the head of the CIA, or a base commander."
"Hey he seems secure enough: let's let him in on what actually happened in 1993."
Schneider, after his resignation [in disgust at what they were doing] from the US gov't in 1995, began to talk about these confidences he was taken into regarding the actual 1993 WTC hit.
He was hired "as an investigative consultant" at first to do an entirely secret report about the condition and the explosion damage of the WTC. He was given some photographs to work with. Now, Phil knew explosives. He claimed he was daily familiar in his job with the explosion signatures and particular characteristics of more than 90 different kinds of explosives. He even invented some himself for particular US gov't/NATO secret operations, tunnelling, and underground base creation.
Demolitions were only his later US gov't geologist speciality where he designed charges and explosions based on his geological expertise at rock analysis to pulverize huge underground caverns in different kinds of rock for secret military bases. Before these types of jobs, he used to work for Bechtel [George Schultz connected--they are in Iraq soaking in war profits presently; Bechtel does lots of top secret projects] and worked for at least a dozen other military industrial complex operations in top secret "black technologies" mostly at Nevada's Groom Lake/G4 bases.
Phil in 1995 revealed what he saw in 1993 to the public.
He was handed photographs that he claimed showed "only one possible type of explosion due to the damange shown--damage like steel extrusion or steel stretching up to six feet at the site of the blast" where steel was stripped and pulled out of the reinforced concrete and actually pulled like taffy. Phil, from his expertise, said "that could only be caused by one thing: a construction-type nuclear device. And those are only housed as Mathers Air Force Base." [These are radiologically clean except for short term--at most a week or so--intense alpha radiation. Most Geiger counters don't even bother looking for alpha. These 'micro-nukes' interestingly enough are a speciality of the Israelis at Diamona, their illegally unmonitored nuclear weapons program [Mordichai Vanunu blew the whistle on Diamona], helped along by the U.S.] Phil writes his WTC 'micronuke' report.
He is asked, afterwards at last when they bring him into a large boardroom meeting, whether he "would be willing to injure Americans for us to serve your country's(TM) intersts?" In so many words.
In other words they were priming Phil to do the WTC demolition right, since they had just hired him to learn all about the buildings construction and damages from 1993.
He would be the perfect candidate. However, Phil balked: he attemped to walk out on them right then and there. They blocked him from the door he said. He threated to assault them, and they got out of the way.
However, he was convinced later that he had to complete the existing deep underground military base project that he was working on at the time. He does so. However, when his father was dying, he asked to be "released" from the top secret base site to visit him. He was released. His father died soon after. However, Phil did not come back--to even claim his last paycheck.
He began to write a book about everything he knew--writing from his Portland, Oregon apartment. He mailed back his security passes, ripped up. To gain credibility, as well as likely to protect himself should something arise, he had photocopied them. He began to show these photocopies--and tons of more information--to public audiences. Slowly at first. Then larger venues. He spoke publicly for about 9 months from 1995 to 1996.
As the speeches went on he got more confident in his message, and a handful were videotaped and we still have them: his basic message was that the U.S. military is seriously out of control and it is out to destroy constitutional democracy.
Inbetween these talks, he was repeatedly asked to "rejoin", though he refused. He says he is turning down his 1 million dollar a year guaranteed "retirement" package by talking because he is so concerned about what he knows they are doing.
During his talks, the Murrah incident happened.
He reported that from data he had seen, that there was no way that it was a truck bomb only; plus, he identified with his expertise in such things, that from the odd demolition signature, some type of scalar weapon had been utilized as well. Next, people simply wanted to assassinate him outright for speaking. Phil actually killed an FBI officer in a gun firefight. However, nothing happened because they didn't want the publicity. They attempted to kidnap his daughter. His ex-wife, who had custody of the daughter at the time, pulled a gun on the FBI agent. Nothing happens to her either. A local Sherrif who knew Phil even arrested an FBI officer stalking Phil. This FBI was either ready to kill Phil after breaking into his home or ready to take him away somewhere first. Still nothing happened. Phil says in late 1995 that he had survived well over a dozen assassination attemmpts, and that retired FBI officers who volunteered their services to Phil were even killed in gunfights protecting him. Still nothing happens: better to keep this hushed up.
Phil was very likely killed in early Jan 1996. No one was allowed to see the body--not even his wife.
Phil attempted to warn everyone what was going down--with very sensitive inside information. Some of that you can see here: http://www.bielek.com Beware: your snowglobe world will be shattered on many levels,...]
POINT FOUR: take two, in 2001: internal demolitions once more, witnesses
You could bother to ask some real witnesses to internal demolitions that did take down the buildings. I'm hardly apologetic for ripping out the word 'theory' from the word conspiracy here because they don't belong together in the first place: that is just what happened. TWO EYEWITNESSES to prepatory subbasement demolitions of WTC1&2, coincide w/ WTC1&2 hits http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/304905.shtml
[Many more WITNESSES TO SECONDARY DEMOLITIONS as well as the DEMOLITION SQUIBS THEMSELVES can be seen in the film Loose Change:
911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage
Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe
1 hr 21 min 50 sec - Feb 5, 2005
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true
---
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305829.shtml
And what could be added of course was that Marvin Bush (brother of George W. Bush) was on the Board of Directors of the security company (Securatech) at the WTCs site. And, in an appropriate continuity to Barbara Bush/Crowley potential genetic link, Barbara mentions in her autobiography that Marvin's contract at the WTCs for security just happened to end on September, 11, 2001. She said it in the book.
And speaking to all, if reality is "too big" for you, writing and reading fiction calls...though this pursuit of reality is of course far more intellectually rewarding.
The short of it is that ever since 1979 and Three Mile Island--which happened to go off just to test FEMA that had been first authorized several days earlier and even illegally just to sync up the event), the U.S. Goverment and FEMA have been testing out ever larger frameworks of state terrorism, gaining information on how to perfect a society run by state terorrism and its political repercussions;
Clueless Yanks attacked to the TV and those north of the border unfortunately and unaviodably soldered to the U.S. political economy and culture in Canada are really hardly any wiser despite the fact it's been going on their whole lives.
Who can say whether to laugh or to cry at it that it works so well to have been doing this for 25 years or more solidly and successfully each time.
A society run exactly like Patrick McGouhan's "The Prisoner" series has been invented, and many even reading this blog still dislike even thinking about it, I believe, and still view this blog as some form of fictional entertainment.
I would like to know how you found out about the "caches of drugs, gold, and money" allegedly stored under the WTC complex? Please write a post about it soon! I want to investigate it too.
Check out this blogsite:
PROPHECY333.BLOGSPOT.COM
Since the UN meets in New York, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a CIA presence to keep tabs on all the diplomats.
As to whether the senstitive documents would have been destroyed or not, I'd really want to know more about what specific procedures are in place. When the second plane hit the WTC it was obvious a terrorist attack was underway, and the possibility of additional strikes still existed. Depending on the rules in place, that alone might have justified shredding everything.
hey Joseph,
your theory about the Sears Tower in Chicago being the next "target" might be correct:
if it costs more than say $2billion to tear down this scrycraper lemon of a building, then it's cheaper to do an in-place demolition under the guise of having another terror attack and then the owners/leaseholders of the building make off like bandits just like Silverstein did on collecting insurance proceeds on the WTC towers. this is based on the anon post who copied from the rigorous intuition blog site.
your thoughts?
Post a Comment