What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul


The CIA has many layers, almost cells you could say, they don't all know what the others are doing.

So I will say yes somebody in the CIA knew, but not every person.

So my answer is no I am not disputing this.

You didn't watch the interview.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul


The CIA has many layers, almost cells you could say, they don't all know what the others are doing.

So I will say yes somebody in the CIA knew, but not every person.

So my answer is no I am not disputing this.

It will take you 13 minutes to watch.

youtu.be...

I know the very beginning is rather dramatic, the the guys doing the interview look like professional frisbee players but listen to every word Richard Clarke says. Every word.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Watched it, very interesting....another piece of the puzzle to ponder. The guy seems sincere. He was blocked, of that I have no doubt.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul

Watched it, very interesting....another piece of the puzzle to ponder. The guy seems sincere. He was blocked, of that I have no doubt.

OK, so the question is WHY was he blocked? He was the head of FBI counterterrorism. The only law enforcement/intelligence agency allowed to deal with domestic threats. Richard Clarke was our nations domestic defense against Al Qaeda.

Why would the CIA intentionally withhold such crucial information?

Then that brings us to the "Able Danger" program.

You can read the wiki page for a general idea:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Again, it looks likely that the Pentagon intentionally withheld crucial information from the FBI counterterrorism command. The Senate investigation into Able Danger, IMO, was a joke. They weren't even allowed to interview the Able Danger command. All if the info was wiped from their computers etc.

It's all very troubling. The way the 9/11 commission painted the intel failures...none of it was true. It wasnt a lack of interagency communication- the crucial information was intentionally withheld. Why?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

No, it is not true. Osama Bin Laden is listed as a co-conspirator in KSM's indictment and the US State Department had a reward listed for Osama's capture in connection to the 9/11 attacks

But that is the State Dept, not the FBI, as I had noted. However, that is still a technicality as far as agency.

None of that actually means anything though. Is there enough evidence beyond faked tapes to prove Bin Laden's guilt?

a reply to: JeanPaul

Two theories, first he thinks they were trying to recruit them as agents, second they had to deny they knew so far in advance. He says around 50 people knew about it. It would be interesting to see where these people are in 2015.
Why do I get the feeling not all these people are still with us.

But in the end, is it stupid incompetence, or skillful deception to guide things to a certain outcome ?
I lean to the later.

Your lack of logic and reason is not helping their reputation. What other loony conspiracies that fly in the face of overwheming evidence would you like to throw out there?
a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul

Two theories, first he thinks they were trying to recruit them as agents, second they had to deny they knew so far in advance. He says around 50 people knew about it. It would be interesting to see where these people are in 2015.
Why do I get the feeling not all these people are still with us.

But in the end, is it stupid incompetence, or skillful deception to guide things to a certain outcome ?
I lean to the later.

What you're ignoring is the protocol Clarke talks about. That they would have had to intentionally stop that information from being sent to him. Intentionally.

Atop of that he speaks of the meeting in the White House with DOD/FBI officials and the CIA. That they, the specific CIA members in that meeting, knew Al Qaeda had entered the country yet they did not share the information.

Did you really watch the interview?

The only "theory" he proposes is why (WHY emphasis ) they didn't share the crucial information.

It's beyond my pay grade to answer why, but I cannot come up with a viable reason they would do so. Richard Clarke came up with his own theory- but that's not the focus. The focus is on the fact that the CIA did this.

It would have prevented 9/11. In Clarke's own words it would have prevented the attacks if the CIA didn't intentionally prevent this intel from being passed on.

originally posted by: Parthin96
Your lack of logic and reason is not helping their reputation. What other loony conspiracies that fly in the face of overwheming evidence would you like to throw out there?
a reply to: chr0naut

Looney conspiracies?

Wikipedia on Ernest Rutherford.

a reply to: JeanPaul

The CIA and Mossed knew, their agents(Mossed) were shadowing the Saudi's, it seems these guys were being shielded by both agencies, in my opinion they needed to protect their props for the event.

originally posted by: samkent
I don't believe in unsupported ever changing conspiracy theories.

Right! You believe in unsupported (and contradicted by the facts) never-changing official conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JeanPaul

The CIA and Mossed knew, their agents(Mossed) were shadowing the Saudi's, it seems these guys were being shielded by both agencies, in my opinion they needed to protect their props for the event.

Ya, I think the Mossad knew as well. I agree. A few if their agents were actually arrested on 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. Driving a white van across the bridge.

Then there's this:

abcnews.go.com...

I think I was skeptical of the OS as soon as I heard it. Events like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the OKC Bombing had me pretty well trained to be skeptical of "the official story" long before 911 came along. What has kept me skeptical of the paradigm is this: where's the carnage? Where are all the foiled terrorist plots? If we have a jihad against us, where is it? This country is a huge mass of targets and not too hard to get into, really. If somebody wanted a piece of us, they sure are taking their time getting around to it...

I think the brighter question would be, "at what point did you become skeptical of Loose Change".

There's a lack of critical analysis on both sides of the popular opinion's main talking points.

I go with Chomsky's position, that there's too much going on in the present to get stuck in the past.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

While I doubt we will ever get the full truth of events that day, Chomsky kinda p*d me off with that statement.

We need to understand the past to understand why the present is as it is.

Chomsky is smart enough to know that.

a reply to: MsVen

I can understand why you would be frustrated with that statement.

I take it more in the context of the unfolding times of recent. His statement was made in the 2005-2007 range, if I'm recalling correctly. There was far too much skullduggery occurring real-time that would have been best to be called out, focused on in full.

Also of consideration is the fact that too much noise surrounds the issue, much like JFK, for any reasonable truth to be accepted by the public at this point. People merely have their opinions, and understandings of aspects of the story. It's too much to expect the public to ever agree on one overarching true story of 9/11.

All of this combined, perhaps if we would have been more focused, we could have averted some of the financial terrorism of that time.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I think the brighter question would be, "at what point did you become skeptical of Loose Change".

There's a lack of critical analysis on both sides of the popular opinion's main talking points.

I go with Chomsky's position, that there's too much going on in the present to get stuck in the past.

Yeah, getting stuck in the past by studying historical events is so, well, yesterday. Pardon the pun.

For the dissonant it is absolutely necessary to live in the future rather than the present. It's much easier that way to completely avoid unpleasant facts.

On 9/11 I recall quite vividly watching the towers come down live and thinking these buildings were getting blown up by some kind of new military grade bomb, bomb(s) or bomblets delivered by the plane. I think that was mostly due to the way the mushrooming clouds were coming so far out like a fountain and all the parts were getting progressively blown into small pieces. It looked exactly like they were exploding. There was little reason to suspect anything else until the press started saying it just was just a collapse caused by the fire.

originally posted by: samkent
I don't believe in unsupported ever changing conspiracy theories.

Whew that's good.. At first I thought you meant
the Investigate 9/11 movement,
but obviously you meant the ever changing 'Give us
50 miracles and your deep held belief systems
we'll get you doubting your Mama'
OS.


Vote 9/11 Party 2016