For years now, local muckraker The Florida Bulldog has been, well, doggedly digging into the back story of 9/11, especially the long-running and increasingly substantiated claims of secret Saudi links to the terrorists. Now in Ex-FBI agents accuse top CIA, FBI officials of 9/11 coverup; CIA said to use Saudis, others for illegal domestic spy operations Dan Christensen has new revelations:
Weeks before 9/11, an angry New York FBI agent nearly “came over the table” at CIA officials who were blocking him from obtaining intelligence about two al Qaeda terrorists who would soon take part in hijacking an American Airlines passenger jet and crashing it into the Pentagon.
“Someone is going to die,” the counterterrorism agent wrote in a bitter email shortly after the 2001 encounter.
That astonishing account, and many others, are contained in a sworn declaration by Donald Canestraro, an investigator for the Office of Military Commissions, part of the Department of Defense’s Military Commissions Defense Organization. It is dated July 20, 2021.
The 22-page declaration, first obtained by the national security website Spytalk, is not confidential, but rather it’s marked CUI – Controlled Unclassified Information. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency defines CUI as “government created or owned information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls consistent with applicable laws, regulations and government wide policies.”
The declaration by Donald C. Canestraro, linked above, is full of stuff to warm the heart of anyone who thinks the CIA uses foreign cut-outs to do things it lacks legal authority to do, and of course lots of testimony suggesting various nefarious activities by the Saudis. It also describes some US officials’ desire to keep the 9/11 Commission in the dark about the Saudi ties. Legally, a great deal of this declaration is hearsay, since it describes what a plethora of informants told the US investigator authoring the deposition. But it is very hard to imagine why he would make any of it up much less swear to it under oath; in some cases I suppose one can imagine motives for the pseudonymized informants (“CS-1” to “CS-23”) to shade things. Overall, it seems like pretty good hearsay from the look of it, but I imagine it will be mostly unjustly ignored.