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 |
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
Lots of us here do not agree with each other, but still we do present our views in a civilized manner. Present your views, but don't waste anybody's time for stupid daily exposures.
Is telling a lie, in your opinion, the same thing as "presenting a view"?
It's not a question of mere disagreement, but a whole series of bald-faced lies, told deliberately, for a purpose at which I can only guess (although I'm a pretty good guesser). He had his chance to explain himself and he chose intead to compound the deceit. A lie is not an "opinion" that deserves a respectful response. A liar does not deserve civility. What he deserves is exposure.
What happened at the World Trade Center was bad enough without inventing transparent fairy tales about the disaster to serve a private agenda. I won't stand for it, and yes, since I live here, I do take it personally. If I catch him lying again, I'll call him on it again, and I won't be pulling any punches. If you don't like it, too bad.
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.