Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by maxella1

 

search Nova for Spy Factory it will tell you up front that they did not and still as of airing in 2009 that they do not i will see if i can find it here it is www.pbs.org... form the link

MICHAEL SCHEUER (Former Central Intelligence Agency Analyst): None of this information that we're speaking about this evening is in the 9/11 Commission Report. They simply ignored all of it.

thus letting 9/11 happen

edit on 27-6-2012 by bekod because: editting added working link

edit on 27-6-2012 by bekod because: editting

Well that's the whole point.. The Commission was created to cover up the truth.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by maxella1
But you can attack me instead of the the subject of this thread. It's okay with me.

Statements of FACT that you prove with your posts are not an attack on you, they are purely statements of fact.

Everyone knows "they" were not sharing information, yet you keep stating that "they" knew and could have prevented the attacks. Why do you keep arguing that if the "rabbit hadn't stopped to take a crap he would have won the race against the turtle"? Are you really that dense to realize that virtually everyone arguing with you knows this already. Repeating the same thing over and over again and again is one of the indications of insanity, you know.

Every one knows, really? So you're telling me that this document is false and i should instead believe you ?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Let me get this strait... I post a official document which states that the agencies worked as a team. And you are telling me that I should read somebody's book ?

Didn't you (debunkers) always said that you want official documents as evidence?

See, this is where you prove your ignorance and confirmation bias. Do you know who Richard Clark is? Do you know that the information is his book was confirmed by the government?

In regards to the OP document, please start reading on page 28. "Exploitation of Data". In the middle of the several paragraphs of redaction's, you can see some interesting sentences.

___REDACTED____ Demands placed on the CTC do not allow it to exploit all the information it collects. As a consequence, the risk exists that a potential warning will go unidentified. ____REDACTED____

Improvements are noted in this document, but the table they refer (Figure 8 page 35) to as a comparison was redacted. They claim is 50% better.... 50% better than what?

Please go to page 36 (FBI) now and read what is mentioned:

Interviewees noted that some problems persist and probably will never overcome fully. A natural tension exists between the two organizations deriving from their different missions which can be negotiated but never eliminated. .................................

...............Concerns still remain in both organizations about access to the counterparts mission critical information.

It does go on to state that there was improvement. If you go on, however, you will see several more areas that are redacted. It states improvement but we are unable to see what it states.

In addition, when you go to the pages of their findings and recommendations, they too were redacted. The survey to the associates (8 pages) were also redacted.

Sorry, but to suggest that all things were hunky-Dorie within the agencies is totally inappropriate.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


It's quiet obvious that Maxella1 along with most "truthers" don't have a clue about the difference in missions of the CIA versus the FBI and why there was concern and restrictions placed on how and what they could share in the first place. Part of the reason for the wall between them was the concern that it could easily turn into spying on American Citizens for invalid reasons. It was considered proper when it was implemented and was generally supported. No one foresaw that it would cause problems later... It's the age old dilemma between the proper amount of security versus infringement on Constitutional Rights and Freedom to do as one pleases (within constraints) that is so near and dear to most Americans. "Truthers" don't understand this at all and it's obvious daily in their posts as they rant and rave about these issues.

That's the very reason the Dept of Homeland Security was created. It was an attempt to help alleviate this problem with both agencies falling under one boss...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Since then, Samit testified at the Moussaoui trial that negligence and blind careerism in the FBI prevented the 9/11 attack from being stopped. In other words, the FBI was filled with a bunch of idiots who didn't see the problem coming.

And that is what I been saying since the beginning.. It wasn't the policy that allowed the attack it was negligence. People are dead as the result of that negligence therefor it is a crime anyway you look at it.

Originally posted by maxella1

I asked to correct me if I'm wrong, however these tensions do not change the fact that they worked together prior to 9/11.

Max,

They HAD to have worked together. I don't think many people believe that they never spoke a syllable to each other. Or shared a single e-mail.

It is incredibly obvious that they didn't work WELL together. Or, more specifically, well enough! This is stated in the document you provided.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Since then, Samit testified at the Moussaoui trial that negligence and blind careerism in the FBI prevented the 9/11 attack from being stopped. In other words, the FBI was filled with a bunch of idiots who didn't see the problem coming.

And that is what I been saying since the beginning.. It wasn't the policy that allowed the attack it was negligence.

No you haven't. You've regularly implied that there was a policy behind the attack. The only people on his board who, to my knowledge, have been saying that there was dreadful negligence that led to 9/11 are debunkers.

People are dead as the result of that negligence therefor it is a crime anyway you look at it.

Well, not necessarily. What law would you prosecute under?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

But you trust them when they say stuff you like?

I posted this link multiple times and nobody ever addressed it as far as I know. I didn't need this document, i knew it for a long time. This is just confirmation for you 'Debunkers" since you don't believe anything other than official documents.

The problem is that you don't trust the CIA. So your document that you're triumphantly waving about is worth nothing to you. Unless of course you've decided that now you do trust them. For a bit.

Christ, get with it. Nobody claims that no information was shared. Just that critical information was not shared.

Why would they not share only the critical information ?

Fair enough. It's a good finding its way. But you have to start treating evidence in a vastly more mature manner if you're going to get anywhere. Producing a document that actually says that the FBI and CIA aren't sharing critical information as evidence that they shared all their critical information by jsut leaving out the bit you don't like isn't really much use.

Define critical information and who was responsible for that..

reply to post by maxella1


This interview has long given me some concern :-

www.youtube.com...

If true, and I am inclined to believe it is, there was clearly a disconnect between CIA and FBI. But was there more than that ? Was the CIA trying to cultivate Al Qaeda contacts and it blew up in their face ?

Seems to me that there was an opportunity to frustrate 9/11 which, for whatever reason, was missed.

Originally posted by maxella1


Define critical information and who was responsible for that..

You found the document that stated it.... why can't you figure it out.

...............Concerns still remain in both organizations about access to the counterparts mission critical information.

s3.amazonaws.com...

reply to post by maxella1

how can it be "negligence", when it was carefully planned....complete with the "official story", by 10 minutes after the first plane hit the towers..(or 25 minutes prior to the collapse of WTC &, yet is was reported as having already happened by BBC)..Oh, and, I was in Pennsylvania, watching local, Pittsburgh news, all morning......the first stories were about an explosion in the sky, and miles of debris strewn about....after the explosion...by local farmers and residents near Shanksville..then it was scrubbed forever....but I saw it....forgive my rambling, but, after all this time, and all this information, there cannot be an intelligent person in this country who believes the OS....and now, we have 10 years of "the Patriot Act"...and "Homeland Security", which was already in place BEFORE 911...and, who makes the money from the new machines etc????????Haliburton, and Chartoff.....keep digging....keep digging.....

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Christ, get with it. Nobody claims that no information was shared. Just that critical information was not shared.

Why would they not share only the critical information ?

The CIA isn't going to give up any information that could possibly compromise sources that they have, or how they gather information If they can't sterilize the document, they aren't going to share it.

reply to post by Six Sigma

See, this is where you prove your ignorance and confirmation bias. Do you know who Richard Clark is? Do you know that the information is his book was confirmed by the government?

I do know who he is and he said that he personally warned Condoleezza Rice. She ignored it, 3000 people died, she got a promotion.

Improvements are noted in this document, but the table they refer (Figure 8 page 35) to as a comparison was redacted. They claim is 50% better.... 50% better than what?

Okay they didn't share some critical information for some reason. Can we ask who made the decision not to share it and why. It wasn't the policy it was some individual who made that decision. Or am I on a witch- hunt again?

Sorry, but to suggest that all things were hunky-Dorie within the agencies is totally inappropriate.

In my opinion if things were hunky Dorie 9/11 wouldn't happen. Who is responsible and why nobody except the innocent people paid the price for it?

If they worked together on cases why not this one?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

But you trust them when they say stuff you like?

I posted this link multiple times and nobody ever addressed it as far as I know. I didn't need this document, i knew it for a long time. This is just confirmation for you 'Debunkers" since you don't believe anything other than official documents.

The problem is that you don't trust the CIA. So your document that you're triumphantly waving about is worth nothing to you. Unless of course you've decided that now you do trust them. For a bit.

Christ, get with it. Nobody claims that no information was shared. Just that critical information was not shared.

Why would they not share only the critical information ?

Fair enough. It's a good finding its way. But you have to start treating evidence in a vastly more mature manner if you're going to get anywhere. Producing a document that actually says that the FBI and CIA aren't sharing critical information as evidence that they shared all their critical information by jsut leaving out the bit you don't like isn't really much use.

Define critical information and who was responsible for that..

No, I'm not going to answer your questions because you're just trying to change the subject to avoid the fact that you've produced a document that proves that critical information was not shared. The opposite of what you claimed.

You really ought to accept the implications of this gracefully.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

No you haven't. You've regularly implied that there was a policy behind the attack. The only people on his board who, to my knowledge, have been saying that there was dreadful negligence that led to 9/11 are debunkers.

You need to pay more attention because i always said that it might be negligence and i always asked why are they not held accountable for it.

Well, not necessarily. What law would you prosecute under?

It's not my job to prosecute anybody. The Commission had to get to the bottom of it. But they blamed "failure of imagination". I do not accept that conclusion.

Originally posted by maxella1


You need to pay more attention because i always said that it might be negligence and i always asked why are they not held accountable for it.

You've also implied regularly that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's not my job to prosecute anybody. The Commission had to get to the bottom of it. But they blamed "failure of imagination". I do not accept that conclusion.

I'm not asking you to prosecute anybody. A minute ago you seemed certain that a law had been broken. I simply asked you which one.

reply to post by Alfie1

Seems to me that there was an opportunity to frustrate 9/11 which, for whatever reason, was missed.

For what reason is what i always wanted to know.