More evidence from the official records that the official story is doubtful, at best. And when considered in context with the rest of the public record, it seems obvious a new investigation is called for, including into whether Commission members and staff were involved in a criminal cover up, and whether Corsi Wilshire and other were intentionally facilitating the 9/11 plot by obstructing investigations that could have disrupted it.

538n81 is the reference for this sentence; "She appears to have misunderstood the complex rules that could apply to this situation." (271n81) Following this is a quote from Bongardt's "someone will die" email, including his statement, "Let's hope the [NSLU] will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most "protection." (271) Following this, is Corsi's response; "Jane" replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed that they were in the relevant manual and "ordered by the [FISA] Court and every office of the FBI is required to follow them including FBI NY." (271n82)

Without providing evidence, the Commission claims that Corsi "'appears' to have 'misunderstood'". There's nothing in the text or the endnotes to indicate they actually investigated other possibilities, such as intentional obstruction, and ruled them out. The endnote says Corsi, according to the Commission's interview w/ her, said, "'Jane' says she only asked whether there was sufficient probable cause to open the matter as a criminal case and whether the criminal agent could attend any interview if Mihdhar was found. She said the answer she received to both questions was no. She did not ask whether the underlying information could have been shared." (538n81)

As Kevin noted, Sherry Sabol, "The NSLU attorney denies advising that the agent could not participate in an interview and notes that she would not have given such inaccurate advice. The attorney told investigators that the NSA caveats would not have precluded criminal agents from joining in any search for Mihdhar or from participating in any interview. Moreover, she said that she could have gone to the NSA and obtained a waiver of any such caveat because there was no FISA information involved in this case.There are no records of the conversation between “Jane” and the attorney. “Jane” did not copy the attorney on her email to the agent, so the attorney did not have an opportunity to confirm or reject the advice “Jane” was giving to the agent." (538n81)

538n81
http://demos.vivisimo.com/search?input-form=simple&v%3Asources=911&v%3Ap...

Kevin pointed out we have no evidence Sabol actually gave the bad advice Corsi claims to have received, and no evidence Sabol has made mistakes in legal interpretation before, or has conflicts of interest (perhaps such evidence exists somewhere- Kevin, are hers and Corsi's performance reports, etc. public?) In any case, as Kevin documented above, Larry Parkinson considered the issue to be such a no-brainer that "he would be shocked if anyone in NSLU gave such advice." And it's a matter of public record, as Kevin observed, that Corsi had monkeywrenched the investigation into Almihdhar and Alhazmi on at least 7 occasions- in addition to working for Tom Wilshire, who had also withheld info from the FBI about them.

Some at 911blogger and elsewhere have been claiming there's no evidence the alleged hijackers were involved in 9/11, and have suggested that any evidence pointing to their involvement may have been faked. Of course, the US government should be required to present the evidence and make its case publicly. To be sure, there's a legal presumption of innocence until guilt is proven- but I'm not going to assume they weren't involved, either. After all, if Almihdhar and Alhazmi and others weren't participating in a plot, why is there all this documentary evidence of an investigation into them, prior to 9/11? This mounting pile of evidence seems to be most readily explained, not by shocking levels of consistent 'incompetence' and 'negligence', but by intentional obstruction- which served to protect and facilitate the alleged hijackers and the 9/11 plot- or, at least the appearance that there were hijackers involved in a plot. Really, it appears they were probably patsies being helped along. That doesn't absolve the alleged hijackers of guilt; it implicates additional parties. These parties swore an Oath to defend the Constitution, and were officially tasked with protecting the U.S. In addition to being complicit in mass murder, these people may also be guilty of treason.

A full investigation is in order. There's no reason to accept the official story about 9/11- we need to have the whole truth, which includes the whole truth about how and why 9/11 has been exploited the way it has been- to justify a 'war on terror' which "will not end in our lifetimes", with massive increases in funding for the military industrial complex, wars in geo-strategic resource-rich nations, a domestic surveillance state, rendition, torture, and other subversions of the Constitution and public interest, which have benefited a faction of the 'elite' class in the U.S. and its allies in the so-called 'war on terror'.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org