BioColeen Rowley is a former FBI agent and whistleblower. Rowley jointly held the TIME "Person of the Year" award in 2002 with two other women credited as whistleblowers. Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | Outshined 2009-10-27
Kjohn810: There are absolutely ZERO experts offering any information on how World Trade Center Tower 7 fell! And I am positive if it came out that there were explosive devices in World Trade Center Tower 7 it would mean quite a lot! You need to move past your preconceived notions that we are all conspiracy/911 Truthers, we are just Concerned Proud Citizens of the United States of America! The official story, doesn't make sense! We need to reinvestigate PERIOD!!!! And I see you posted possibly a concern regarding LARRY SILVERSTEIN, good call you may be on to something. And I agree with AJ Smith I will not bow down to these "Homeland Security Thugs", we have a constitutional right to FREE SPEECH.
Kjohn810, what you fail to relize is this, if 9/11 was an inside job, than this is just the tip of the iceberg. For God Sakes, I don't want any of this to be true but when you start doing your own investigation, you cannot help but find gapeing holes in the official story. NON of | AJ Smith 2009-10-26
kjohn810 - Firstly, I don't post under an alias. My username here is my real name, and I'm very proud to have it known when I post. I am not one bit cowed by the surveillance state/Homeland "Security" thugs, and I will exercise my right to freedom of speech whether they like it or not. Second, what I said about Rowley is that much of what she's said here can already be found elsewhere, so it is no great shakes. Lastly, do not attribute to me things you don't actually know or put words in my mouth (re: truthers, 9/11 theories, etc.) that I didn't say. | neoconbuster 2009-10-25
Kjohn810: You've made some good points, please watch this movie called "The New American Century" ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499&hl=en# ) Perhaps the best.
Regarding the Buildings collapses it takes at least 15 days to Demolish (Implode) a Steel frame building like Building 7. It CAN'T be done in a few hours. | kjohn810 2009-10-25
One more thought. The official version acknowledges that no building like #7 has fallen from normal fire heat alone. And they do not really answer the question why then did #7 fall the way it did. Does there need to be a full and independent investigation? Yes. Does the fact the #7 fell the way it did, prove anything? I think not yet.
There are so many things on the official record that cry out for investigation that do not require a battle of duelling scientists. The evidence of an active and deliberate effort by the administration to "allow" the attack is strong. Why not start there? | kjohn810 2009-10-25
I would add, it was the attack on Coleen Rowley that really got me going. Because some people have decided the planes were piloted by remote control or some such, Rowley must be the enemy. There could't possibly have been a guy that took flying lessons. This is where is gets delusional. If a fact doesn't fit the mental picture, just dismiss the fact as a part of the plot. | kjohn810 2009-10-25
I have no idea how those building fell. I am not an engineer so I have no basis for knowing which set of experts to believe. For every expert that questions the official version, there is one that supports it. That being said, I have no problem at all with people questioning the official science. But even if it turns out that the buildings fell because of some kind of explosive in the building that does not prove anything other than that. I’ve yet to see anyone make a connection between such explosives to anyone in government. There are other possible explanations. The guy that had recently purchased the buildings received more than 4.5 billion dollars from insurance companies. That’s not a bad motivation. My main point is the kind of discourse that goes on from certain, not all, proponents of the “inside job” theory of the buildings collapse. Anyone who disagrees is a fool or a part of the conspiracy. TRNN is a gatekeeper because they haven’t become advocates of the true faith. | Outshined 2009-10-24
Kjohn810: I am not a fanatic, or a so called conspiracy theorist! As a matter of fact I'm an Engineer, civil with an extensive background in structural design. Can you explain to me and some of my Engineer associates how World Trade Center Tower 7 collapsed? World Trade Center Tower 7 was not hit by a commericial Airliner, so there was not Jet fuel. World Trade Center Tower 7 was a 47 story Steel Reinforced Structure that completely collapsed into pulverized pile of debris approx. 5:30pm that afternoon. I would like to hear your answer, infact I'm sure we all would like to hear it. | neoconbuster 2009-10-24
@kjohn810: “But people who have become fanatics about all of this, who refuse to keep an open and scientific mind about it all . . . are the ones that are making a real investigation into what really happened on 9/11 almost impossible.”
The real scientific investigation has already been done by Scientifics like: AE911TRUTH.ORG and millions more.
What we need NOW is a real OFFICIAL investigation since P.Zelicow’s 9-11 commission was a COVERUP.
I think TRN has done a decent job on the topic bringing some news about it like the: NYC CAN Ballot initiative.
TRN Why Don’t you bring some more high profiles and credible people who are willing to speak freely.
| kjohn810 2009-10-24
Jim Jones to a “better place”. There are many, many unanswered questions about 9/11. No rational person doubts the Bush/Cheney team capable of just about anything. But people who have become fanatics about all of this, who refuse to keep an open and scientific mind about it all . . . are the ones that are making a real investigation into what really happened on 9/11 almost impossible. Colleen Rowley is an ordinary person who did an extra-ordinary thing. She publically stood up to the leadership of the FBI. She put her career and perhaps more on the line. She continues to denounce what happened then and what’s happening now. What exactly have the writers of these comments done, where have you stuck your necks out, other than writing comments under alias | kjohn810 2009-10-24
Wow, all you 9/11 “truthers” are far more interested in vitriolic rhetoric than facts. First of all, clearly the views presented in the interview are those of the subject, not TRNN. Second, it’s part one; you people have no idea where the interview might be going. One of you has already declared he won’t even watch the next part of the interview. Now there’s a truth seeker if there ever was one. Three, instead of dealing with what the FBI office found in Minnesota, you prefer to put every single fact that contradicts your elaborate theories in a box called disinformation. According to you, thousands of people are in on the grand conspiracy, all quite capable of keeping it secret, all part of some grand insiders cabal. Anyone that challenges you is in on the game. I’m sure by now you think I am too. It’s a crazy psychosis. It’s something akin to paranoid schizophrenia. It’s the kind of cultish ideology that led hundreds of people to kill themselves, following Jim Jones to a “better plac | AJ Smith 2009-10-24
Well, Paul Jay, this was a nice, "safe" interview wasn't it? No worry about being labeled a conspiracy "theorist" here! When you stop acting like the male version of Amy Goodman, doing softball "reporting" and Establishment disinfo (this same interview could have come from Time or Newsweek), and start digging into the REAL news no matter where it may lead, perhaps some of us will take you seriously. I will not be viewing '9/11 Redux Pt2', thank you very much. | DJ2008 2009-10-24
Real News Network: What EXACTLY are you afraid of when it comes to this subject?!? | Johan 2009-10-24
This politically correct "interview" stinks to high heaven. "Like so many who have tried to pass intelligence failures off as incompetence, the Real News shovels the same crap", very much so indeed. RN ought not expect my donnation. | msfreeh 2009-10-23
to view a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
http://www.forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=59139
to view a partial list of FBI agents arrested for pedophilia see
http://www.dallasnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3574 | Rische 2009-10-23
While I had great hope that the "Real News" would delve deeper into the lie that is 9-11, this first round doesn't impress. Like so many who have tried to pass intelligence failures off as incompetence, the Real News shovels the same crap. | neoconbuster 2009-10-23
Video Press for truth: these are real Wistleblowers ladies: ( ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481# )
Whay she is afraid of just saying : This was more than incompetence and "They let them do it" versions. | Outshined 2009-10-23
Well, the like minded individuals are every where brothers, mothers, sisters heck my surgeon of all people struck up this conversation. People all over the globe are talking, heck in Europe there having open forum investigations of 9/11. Believe me when I tell you there concerned no there scared, Cats out of the bag. I may have a few years on you, and a few more dollars spent investigating this material but in the end doing just your part means a lot. And you descide what your part is, I will agree on the layers upon layers of desception and lies. Hell that's CIA protocol 101, tell a differtent lie on every level. As for when the original lie began, well which one you talking about? A close friend had warned me many years ago that this is a "Deep Rabbit Hole Alice". But truthfully it's a Deep Rabid Hole!!!! The truth will first piss you off and then give you sleepless nights, but once you know there's nothing else that will suprize you. These people are EVIL!!!! | whatthehell 2009-10-23
Outshined- thanks for the encouraging words. My problem is where are the like-minded individuals who can commit time and effort? Everyone i know is willing to accept the possibilities of what you have mentioned (we're being ruled by the "bankers"), but between the gym and work and shuttling the kids and American Idol who has time? I know they are out there, but where do I look even here in Los Angeles? I checked out wsws.org (world socialist web site), but there are 2 different factions of the same movement that almost oppose each other. Capitalism seems to have run it's course but how do you get real change done through grassroots organizations when the people that are calling the shots can outspend and out influence a thousand grassroots organizations combined? Have you listened to Glen Beck?? The layers of smoke screens and diversions that are being put forth are so deep, at this point that it's hard to find the original lie. | Outshined 2009-10-23
WhatTheHell,
Don't be paranoid, fear is there biggest tool of choice. Sorry, but what the hell are you araid of? Many of us including myself felt the same way as you, and they meaning the "Bankers, Illuminati, NWO guys whatever you want to call them" Love it! Don't ever kneel to these bastards! Just do the research and start your own grassroots project. That's really the only chance we have, inform the people who care loved ones, friends, associates etc. There watching all the time infact I'm sure this blog will be examined, who cares. Do your part.
J.... | geoff29 2009-10-23
In this culture we live under such scrutinized control, so many think tanks have worked out how to keep us all in line, so many intelligent people have all the angles covered, and we're all such victims of economic oppression we do what we're told without even knowing we're being told what to do, that until the dam breaks, in my opinion, we're all just stuck where we are with no place to go. On the bright side, history is on our side. Until then, I feel for the truly oppressed, not those who claim they are the victims when they have all the wealth and all the weapons. That's just thuggery. |
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network, coming to you today from our studio in Washington, DC. We're joined today by Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent. She used to work in the embassy in Paris, she worked at the consulate in Montreal, she became a special advisor to the FBI on legal issues in Minneapolis, and she blew her whistle on 9/11 issues. And that's what we're going to talk about. Thanks for joining us. COLEEN ROWLEY, FORMER FBI AGENT AND WHISTLEBLOWER: Thank you.JAY: And behind you is you on the cover of Time Magazine, where you were picked Time person of the year for what you did in terms of exposing the lack of investigation of what the Minneapolis FBI office found.ROWLEY: Yeah, the 2002 was a year of whistleblower, because there was the Enron and the WorldCom collapse. So we had three females that were all on the cover of Time.JAY: So let's go back a little bit, just for people that don't know this story. I think most people do, but we do live in an era of amnesia when it comes to political events and news. So lay out the basic events again of what happened.ROWLEY: Well, in August 2001, a flight school in Minnesota called the FBI, and two of our agents responded very quickly. One of them was an INS agent [Immigration and Naturalization Services]. And they found that this was extremely suspicious for a person just to plop down cash and ask to learn how to train to fly a jet, had no good explanation. The flight instructors were very instrumental, because they gave all these indicia factors of why they were suspicious. It was the most unusual customer who had come in to learn flight training that they had ever had. So the agents then pursued that very quickly, and they sent leads out to France and to Great Britain and to headquarters and got good information back pretty quickly. They put it all together.JAY: This is information about who this guy was.ROWLEY: About [Zacarias] Moussaoui and the potential for terrorism. They put this all down in a multipage draft declaration asking for further authorization to search his personal effects and laptop.JAY: And give us the date.ROWLEY: Well, he was detained on August 16. The call had come in the day before, I think, August 15. And, again, the fact that they reacted so quickly just shows you the importance. Normally if the FBI gets a normal, garden-variety crime tip, they don't necessarily run out and do these things around the clock. And I even got called at nine o'clock on the night of Moussaoui's detention. So that was unusual. I got called at—I was in bed, you know, and they said, "Oh, my goodness, let us run down what we just saw here," and they tell me.JAY: So we're seeing, like, an episode of 24 Hours [sic]. Jack Bauer's just been called: "We may have a guy who's learning how to fly a plane for terrorist purposes." And Bauer picks up the phone and calls headquarters, and—.ROWLEY: Well, you know, of course, 24, I don't even know if it was running back in August 2001, but it actually was a bit of a scene out of something like that. The agents' astuteness about this, one reason is the case agent was himself a former pilot and he was former military intelligence, and he spotted all of these suspicious factors very quickly. But that unfortunately contrasted with a disinclination to want to do anything about this at headquarters and to really see that significance.JAY: So, quickly, what happens? Your office contacts headquarters. You want, essentially, authority to get warrants.ROWLEY: Right. The agents—JAY: And you don't get it.ROWLEY: —the agents—and this is actually pretty well spelled out in the 9/11 Commission report, but they send in a multipaged draft declaration chock-full of facts, as you would in any affidavit, of why they needed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to give authorization to conduct a further search. And when it goes into headquarters, it gets stalled and it gets—this is of course what I wrote the memo about, but it gets stalled for "Oh, he might be in the Zacharias Moussaoui." You know, "We need to check the phone books to make sure it's the only one." I mean, there's all these ridiculous excuses given. Finally, they say that the legal unit in the FBI read it and said there's not enough probable cause. Okay? It turns out the legal unit had not actually read it. So you don't know these things, though, when it's happening. And the agents, of course, are very frustrated, and they call and they call. When the agent testifies in Moussaoui's trial, there were 70 emails to and from headquarters in this short two-week span. And one of the telephone calls in August—I'm not sure of the exact date, 23rd, 24th, 28th maybe—one of the telephone calls, the acting supervisor says on the phone with the headquarters supervisor, in order to try to alert him, he says, "Don't you know this is a guy who could fly into the World Trade Center?" quote-unquote, and he wrote it down in his notes as he was talking to the headquarters supervisor. So things happen. The affidavit actually gets watered down a little bit. Some words get changed. You know, all these things happen. And a backup plan later is produced in early September, because headquarters says, "No, we will not even take this over to the Department of Justice." And so at that point, then, the plan was for Moussaoui to be deported to France, and then they were going to do the full search there. And that's where it stood right on 9/11 when, you know, we see planes flying into buildings. And as soon as planes fly, you know, you see this on the television, it's like, "Oh, no, this is the case here." It was immediate; it's that quickly that it's recognized.JAY: Now, just in the same period, I think it's just a few weeks before if memory serves me right, Condoleezza Rice gets a memo which says bin Laden plans to attack America. And even though she tried to suggest it was some sort of historical reference, if you read the memo the last point of the memo is quite clear, that there's strong suspicion there are actually plans afoot to attack America, not just some historical document. She says to the 9/11 Commission, more or less, that when asked, "What did you do about it once you get this memo?" that she sent it to FBI offices. But that turned out not to be the case.ROWLEY: Well, of course, I knew nothing about Condoleezza Rice's memo that she would have seen. I did not know either that our FBI had gotten a memo from the Phoenix office at about the same date as Condoleezza Rice had this memo, saying look at flight schools, because there are potential terrorists training to fly in flight schools. And I think this was July 10 or 11. And, of course, when you're compartmentalized in the intelligence community, you're not privy to everything flying around. We do know—and I think our office was on some alert for terrorism—later on, our acting director, [Thomas] Picard, tells the 9/11 Commission that he was actually trying to brief Ashcroft, the attorney general, about terrorism being a priority. And so throughout that summer things were happening. It's just that when you're, you know, kind of in a small cog, you may not [be] privy. And, of course, that's one of the things that we needed to address after 9/11 was why weren't the dots connected and why was not this intelligence shared.JAY: Now, in the same summer, Richard Clarke testified at the 9/11 Commission—Richard Clarke being the antiterrorism czar, except he'd been reduced from being czar to, I don't know, general or something, because he was a cabinet-level position under Clinton and gets demoted under Bush to, I guess, something akin to an undersecretary, I suppose. Would that be a correct—?ROWLEY: Well, he was put off. I mean, he had this plan that was well written already, and trying to get more emphasis and resources.JAY: So again a deliberate decision. You look at your cabinet, you have someone who the Clinton administration and all your security, intelligence people have said need to be there at a cabinet level, and you don't. What is the logic of this pattern of being not interested in a potential terrorist attack?ROWLEY: Well, I can only speak for my own experience, and I know that crime and—. Certainly in the FBI there's something called "flavor of the day". You know, in the '80s it was mafia cases, and those were the things that got the attention, and maybe it was because of the crime problem at the time. And other times there is an arbitrary—it can be selected, saying, "This is what you need to look at." There's a prioritization of crime programs. And in the summer of 2001—I think this was actually August—Ashcroft prioritizes terrorism as his lowest priority. So, again, Picard says, "I was trying to brief Attorney General Ashcroft—."JAY: And just again let's remind us who Picard is.ROWLEY: He was the acting director of the FBI. In June, Louis Freeh had retired, and Picard became the acting director. And he claims that he tried to brief Attorney General Ashcroft that summer on the importance of terrorism.JAY: But why can't the FBI—and Ashcroft wasn't interested in terrorism, but why can't the FBI on its own make it a priority? Because if you look at the FBI ten most wanted list, who's number one? Osama bin Laden. And this is before 9/11. He was, like, number one for, I think, two or three years before that.ROWLEY: Well, an investigative agency can't totally act on their own, because if they are investigating things, they can do wonderful work, but it's got to be prosecuted. So they always have to make those decisions about what is the priority crime in connection with the Department of Justice, because they have got to have those prosecutive resources. If they decide, you know, "Mafia is the thing that we're going to look at," and the Department of Justice says, "No, it's failure of S&Ls," they're not going to get very far if they put all their resources. So those decisions about what's the priority now, usually they're precipitated by actual events. You know, if you have an S&L collapse, the priority then is shifted to, you know, that type of thing. If you have corruption, it's shifted to corruption. After 9/11, resources were, you know, hugely diverted to intelligence and to the study of terrorism.JAY: You have this—Osama bin Laden, as I said, is number one on the FBI most wanted list pre-9/11. You have Richard Clarke saying to the 9/11 Commission, "Our hair's on fire, there's so much traffic and chatter about an impending event." We've heard that at least a couple of foreign governments tell the American government something's coming. We all know now, and many knew before, that the Pakistani ISI were up to their eyeballs in the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Very difficult to believe there's something being planned by an al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan that the Pakistani ISI wouldn't know about, thus the Sauds know about. We know there's 27 pages of redacted pages, the 9/11 Commission, which, according to The LA Times, detail names of the Saudi members of the royal family and the government that directly connected to 9/11 conspirators. I mean, all of this going on. We know Prince Bandar's visiting the White House once a week. He's practically got his own key to the washroom. There's just too much going on here that you wouldn't think that the FBI wouldn't have been put on alert. It doesn't make any sense.ROWLEY: Well, again, I think that the directions to investigate terrorism—again, there was a disconnect between the Department of Justice and the FBI, and with the new administration, agencies are all kind of checking out what is this administration going to want from us, you know, what's our priority. So I can't explain, except that these dots, of course, that come in and these pieces of information and tips and things that came in were not taken seriously in the summer of 2001.JAY: Well, in the next segment of our interview, let's talk about what these events and this last seven, eight years have done for Coleen Rowley, 'cause it must have done a lot to change the way you look at the world. So please join us for the next segment of our interview with Coleen Rowley.DISCLAIMER:Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. |
Multipart or Related Episode
|
