And maybe it's just me, but #7 (pinkish-brown building, center) sure looks like it's burning.
Posted on 11/04/2001 5:59:00 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
|
Published on Sunday, November 4, 2001 in the New York Times
|
|
Secret CIA Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11
|
|
by James Risen
|
| WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say. The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said. The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building. Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage. A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas. The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things, depending on the nature of their intelligence operations. 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. 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. The agency's New York officers have been deeply involved in counterterrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. Many of the most important counterterrorism cases of the last few years, including the bureau's criminal investigations of the August 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa and the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen have been handled out of New York. The United States has accused Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network of conducting both of those attacks. But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex. With their undercover station in ruins, C.I.A. officers in New York have been forced to share space at the United States Mission to the United Nations, as well as borrow other federal government offices in the city, officials said. The C.I.A.'s plans for finding a new permanent station in New York could not be determined. The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area. The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States. The bureau's New York office, at 26 Federal Plaza, was unaffected by the terrorist attack. The destruction of the C.I.A.'s New York station has added to the intense emotions shared by many of its employees about the agency's role in the battle against terrorism. For some, the station's destruction served to underscore the failure of United States intelligence to predict the attacks. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, morale suffered badly within the C.I.A., some officials said, as the agency began to confront what critics have called an intelligence failure on the scale of Pearl Harbor. But the terrorist attacks have also brought an urgent new sense of mission to the agency, which has been flooded with job applications as well as inquiries from former officers eager to return to work. Congress is pouring money into the agency's counterterrorism operations, and the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war. The attacks were not the first in which the C.I.A. was directly touched by terrorists. In 1983, seven agency officers died in the suicide car bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut. Among the others killed was the agency's station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley, who died in captivity after being kidnapped by terrorists in 1984, and Richard Welch, the agency's Athens station chief, who was shot to death by Greek terrorists in 1975. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company |
I wonder if this gets yanked by the "Posting Police?"
LOL ;-)
"Posting Police": In the aftermath of the Sept 11th tragedy, I tried to post replies on NUMEROUS articles that FReeper management would remove right in the middle of my attempts to post the replies.
It would have been so easy to say "the CIA had offices in #6 WTC and also across the street in #7", but no, now they have to make me wonder if they know what they're talking about at all.
(Congress' Sept 11, 00 Subpoena For Clinton's Criminal Evidence Blocked By Bush Exec Order)(Thead4)
. . .you'll find this text:
Above AP Story here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1102-01.htm
That's the same website I found my article on the CIA this morning.
Have a lovely day, good FReeper! ;-)
This guy was tortured.
As for a secret CIA ofice, it couldn't have been too secret if everyone knows where it was. Not that anyone can seem to get the address right.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, morale suffered badly within the C.I.A., some officials said, as the agency began to confront what critics have called an intelligence failure on the scale of Pearl Harbor."
Gee, I hope that they were able to get the Diversity Quilts, affirmative action programs and the pink ribbons out before the building collasped!
Since Jan 20 1993, most of the hires and promotions by the Farm, are diversity queens and affirmative action drones. They were more interested in advancing their left wing agendas than doing intel on terrorists!
Of course we shouldn't blame them. Thanks to Jake Reno and X42, we know that from Jan 20 1993 to Jan 20, 2001, the most dangerous terrorists to America were Bill Gates and the American, white heterosexual males, who belonged to that evil sect, Christianity, were veterans, another evil sect and belonged to the NRA, the most vile evil sect in America.
As we know the CIA's charter prevents them from spying on Americans in America. So with these evil white guys living in America being the prime terrorist targets, the CIA pink panty brigade had nothing better to do than diversity quilting parties and affirmative action work shops!
This is a REPRINT from the NY Times. Are you referring to them as the commies?
;-)
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
You must be kidding. #7 was burning like a mofo all afternoon until it collapsed. You could see it easily on television.
It was the farthest away in the complex from the Twin Towers.
But at 40+ stories it was the tallest except for the Twin Towers. More surface to be struck. It was hit by more debris from the plane impact on Tower 1, and also as the tower collapsed, and they believe that is what started the fire.
Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.
The Marriot (22 stories) was right at the foot of both towers and was COMPLETELY destroyed when the towers fell on top of it. There was very little of the structure still standing, and it was the first building cleared away. There was no trace of it left by the weekend.
The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble.
A lot more than roof damage, since #4 was torn down several weeks ago (that's the newly-clear where the memorial service was held last weekend, and where the Bank of Nova Scotia gold was retrieved this Wednesday), and #6 is scheduled to come down soon. The damage was way more than superficial, I've seen pictures that show they were completely torn open in places. But those buildings were only about 10 stories each, and didn't totally collapse.
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
No, I wonder where you were on 9/11 if you weren't watching television, and what your purpose is in putting forward a premise that can be so easily contradicted by anyone with a TV set. Where do you supposed all the news footage came from as it was happening? News helicopters. And there were THOUSANDS of pictures and videos taken, both professional and amateur. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
And maybe it's just me, but #7 (pinkish-brown building, center) sure looks like it's burning.
*What* is "after the fact"? Bottom photo is #7 BURNING on 9/11 before it collapsed, contrary to your claim. The top photo shows the "roof damage" to which you referred, and clearly shows how the Tower One debris (some of it flaming) was able to fall right over low buildings #5 & #6 and strike #7, just north across the street. You can see huge chunks of the Tower framework on Vesey St where #7 used to be. Look to the left of #6.
The Winter Garden (across West St. near the Hudson) is further away from the Towers than #7, and it was also set on fire from falling debris. I suppose you think the CIA had something to do with that too.
Yes, they did, which is why I get really torqued when certain people deliberately lie about what happened that day (in MY city, mind you) in order to prolong their tiny little conspiracy-theory hard-ons.
"Roof damage", my @$$. Those are huge holes punched all the way through to the floor, and into the basement in places.
It was also a blatant lie to say that the hotel didn't come down until it was taken down later. The overhead shot was taken after 9/11 but before the remnants of the Marriott were demolished; between what it left of Tower One and Tower Two you can see a small part of the foundation and lower floors (it appears as a dark rust shape, angled, casting a small shadow to the left; I recognize the shape from many visits to this area or I never would have been able to find it in this picture). That's all that was left to demolish of a 22-story hotel. It wasn't "taken down later", it was completely destroyed on 9/11. The wrecking ball just did a little cleanup.
Anyone who knows this area and understands the scale of the Twin Towers realizes that those flying pieces of facade from Tower 2, in this picture, are already WAY across the street. They did not fall gently or neatly.
Just doing my bit to contradict deliberate disinformation. You will notice he hasn't been back to address any of the points I made. He cannot defend any part of his original post, because the only part of it that was true is that "7 WTC collapsed at 5:00 in the afternoon".
Building #7 IMPLODED at 5PM, September 11.
If you didn't see it--and you're the one who said news choppers and photographs were forbidden, so you obviously couldn't have seen it if that were true--how do you know the building imploded? Maybe it just fell down, hmm? And it sure was messy for an "implosion"; there's a huge breach in the building *behind* #7 from all that imploding..
From the exterior no fires were seen at the time of implosion.
Apparently they were only "not seen" by you. Does that huge plume of smoke count for nothing? If there were no fires, why were there firemen in the building who had to rush out and clear the area (for the third time that day) before it collapsed?
Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.
I have just provided visual evidence that you are dead wrong.
The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble.
I have just provided visual evidence that you are dead wrong.
Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....
Maybe you should talk to the pilots if they weren't close enough to #7 at the time of its collapse to suit you. They have a thing about flying into areas of zero visibilty, go figure. But I saw it, and it certainly looked like a building on fire to me. I don't care if the cameras were on helicopters or on a rooftop. The images were broadcast, and that building was on fire.
and that pictures were forbidden?
There were photographers everywhere all day long on the 11th, and you know it. How else could I have found the "forbidden" photographs so easily? There are plenty of others online. Find them yourself.
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for you to explain why you posted what you did.
Please realise that I am aware that there was much video coverage on September 11. The news heliocopters did an excellent job. Fox was my favorite but we watched other channels, too. It was puzzling and disappointing to see this TV news reporting stopped. After that the only filming shown was supplied by the government and the mayor ruled that no pictures would be allowed.
The entire country watched in horror that first day when the towers imploded. When the issue was broached that they were imploded, the media and many on this board reacted with a vengeance stating that this was an impossibility.
Many articles flowed from the media trying to rule out the implosion concept. There were conferences at MIT, etc. Each posited the logicality of an airplane strike causing the towers to fall. MIT admitted then that it no explanation for building #7.
We do have more to say, perhaps at another time.
P.S. I do believe it odd that the implosion concept is denounced so vehemently.
Hey, Moo! Check out this article, btw!
I wonder if this gets yanked by the "Posting Police?"
Gee, what *could* you have been implying then? < /sarcasm >
Please realise that I am aware that there was much video coverage on September 11. The news heliocopters did an excellent job.
In your post #24, you said, and I am quoting directly, Building #7 IMPLODED at 5PM, September 11. From the exterior no fires were seen at the time of implosion. It was the farthest away in the complex from the Twin Towers. Building #3, a hotel, did not come until it was later demolished.The other buildings had roof damage from the rubble. Did anyone wonder why the authorities refused to have news heliocopters in the area?....and that pictures were forbidden?
Now you admit there WERE helicopters and photographers on the scene on 9/11 at the time of the collapse of #7. So, for the last time, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY by hinting that "the authorities" ordered helicopters and photographers away, and that no fires were seen in #7 prior to its collapse? You know it's not true and yet you posted it anyway.
It was puzzling and disappointing to see this TV news reporting stopped.
That didn't happen for another week or two. It was not stopped on 9/11, though that's exactly what you were insinuating.
After that the only filming shown was supplied by the government and the mayor ruled that no pictures would be allowed.
Complete and total BS. The coverage was not supplied by the government but by local and national news reporters. Not just on 9/11 but afterward.
The "No Camera" rule handed down by the mayor applied to TOURISTS ONLY at the barricades around the frozen zone. The crowds were getting out of hand, posing for stupid group shots, and climbing the barricades to get their Pulitzer-wannabe angles of it all. And since it was not enforced until at least A WEEK after the attacks, it has absolutely nothing to do with the building collapses on 9/11. You were trying to claim it did. And don't play innocent, I DO know why. You're as transparent as glass.
The entire country watched in horror that first day when the towers imploded. When the issue was broached that they were imploded, the media and many on this board reacted with a vengeance stating that this was an impossibility.
An architect here on FR said that what happened to the Towers was not "imploding" but something called "telescoping", and that telescoping is not what anyone would want to happen in a planned demolition. An implosion would mean that it collapsed inward onto itself. You saw the way those towers fell; down and out.
It's a wrong use of the word, the way so many people think "decimate" means "destroy".
You're being a bit cagey about the furor in the media re the question of "implosion"; I know and you know that you are now talking about a deliberate set implosion using explosives. And that's utter nonsense. There would be no need for the planes. And the planes did just fine on their own.
Many articles flowed from the media trying to rule out the implosion concept. There were conferences at MIT, etc. Each posited the logicality of an airplane strike causing the towers to fall. MIT admitted then that it no explanation for building #7.
I highly doubt that, since it's obvious to most people what took down #7--a great big old fire happened after debris strikes from a height of over a thousand feet weakened the structure. A no-brainer. I have heard of no such conference at MIT, and I've been paying attention--so let's have your sources. Now.
We do have more to say, perhaps at another time.
No, I don't think so. It's now or never, or I guarantee you won't enjoy any future conversations you have with me! I don't go easy on chicken-sh*t liars who would rather believe an utter lunacy than objective reality, and particularly those who refuse to answer direct questions (you haven't answered even one of mine yet), or admit it when they cannot logically defend their asinine positions.
P.S. I do believe it odd that the implosion concept is denounced so vehemently.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. You would find it odd.
LOL. Brace yourself--it's not just in the movies. The CIA is not listed as a tenant at either #6 or #7 WTC. Government agencies appearing as themselves include the Secret Service, IRS, BATF and U.S. Customs.
Maybe I'll post the tenants' list and we can all play "Spot the Spooks". :D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.