It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
MI5 warned the government that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack in the weeks leading up to September 11, including the morning itself, a new history of the Security Service discloses.
In a memo from July 6 2001, MI5 said the increase in the number of reports were “sufficient to conclude that UBL [Osama bin Laden] and those that share his agenda are currently well advanced in operational planning for a number of major attacks on western interests.”
Originally posted by The Killah29
I'm honestly not that surprised by this. They were told and thought "no one would dare to attack us" and brushed it off, then WHAM!
Originally posted by bagari
How do you start to pick out 18 terrorists in thousands of travelers without infringing on freedoms/rights?
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Surprisingly, a lot of people don't really see it that way. What other explanation could there be?
Originally posted by bagari
The thread title is misleading. The article doesn't say that MI5 warned that it was going to happen on an exact date - the article says that they had been warning the US in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and also reminded the US it could happen that morning. In addition, the article says that MI5 didn't really think that any such attack would be successful.
I always wonder what people think should have been done - shut down air travel for a couple of months? Even the morning of 9/11 there were probably thousands of flights scheduled around the country. How do you start to pick out 18 terrorists in thousands of travelers without infringing on freedoms/rights?
MI5 warned the government that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack in the weeks leading up to September 11, including the morning itself, a new history of the Security Service discloses.
Originally posted by trueforger
Let it happen.
Then made it happen.
Then lied lied lied
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Maybe some of the legal experts in the forum could tell us if Israel should be charged as an accessory before the fact. It's a fine legal point. If you know a mass murder is about to be committed but do nothing to prevent it, except to issue a vague warning, devoid of detail, and then depatch a film crew to the scene of the crime so that you can document the incident, are you an accessory or simply morally bankrupt?
[edit on 6-10-2009 by ipsedixit]