Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by maxella1


After reading all the excuses you are willing to make up for the government, and attack those who can see that the Government was responsible in one way or another for 3000 people dying you begin to look like the enemy!

Hold on now. I am not making excuses. If the FBI, CIA, NSA, ect, were all on the same page, I believe that 9/11 could have possibly been prevented. Richard Clark who was the chair of Counterterrorism Security Group in 2001 outlines all the mistakes that were made. So, "in one way or another" they are somewhat responsible. This, as told to you earlier is why the Homeland Security Department was created.

edit on 28-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

There's no need for Homeland Security department. All they had to do was hold those that ignored all the warnings accountable. And start a real investigation!

This document proves that the agencies worked together prior to 9/11. Who decided not to share information about the hijackers? Why wasn't it addressed by the commission? The policy of "not sharing intelligence" didn't have anything to do with it. It was individuals that didn't share critical information not the policy.. This document makes it clear that efforts were made to work together with successful results. Homeland security is like putting a bandaid on a brain tumor.. Its useless and will not fix the problem.

Originally posted by maxella1

 

I don't care about lasers from space and hologram planes. There's a big difference between you and me. I don't buy the "we're too stupid to pull this off" excuse".

You just contradicted yourself. If you're acknowledging the government is chock full of people too incompetent to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from using our own resources against us to pull off a terrorist attack, then what magic makes them so supernaturally efficient in staging some inside job and getting everyone in creation to fully cooperate with the coverup with the perfection of coordination that rivals an act of God AND leave not even so much as a candy wrapper behind as evidence?

You're right, there is a big difference between you and me. When I look for an explanation I look for something that suitably explains ALL the events we've seen, not just the one or two narrow events I happen to be cherry picking.

Originally posted by maxella1


There's no need for Homeland Security department. All they had to do was hold those that ignored all the warnings accountable. And start a real investigation!

This document proves that the agencies worked together prior to 9/11. Who decided not to share information about the hijackers? Why wasn't it addressed by the commission? The policy of "not sharing intelligence" didn't have anything to do with it. It was individuals that didn't share critical information not the policy.. This document makes it clear that efforts were made to work together with successful results. Homeland security is like putting a bandaid on a brain tumor.. Its useless and will not fix the problem.

Max,

Please try to pay attention. Your paper proved what no one was questioning! We are ALL aware of the different agencies working together. That does not mean they were working WELL together. You have been shown countless times now that in this paper you posted, that there were (and still are) many issues with agencies communicating properly with other agencies.

I worked for a company with a very smart man as president. While attending a conference with him, I asked him how we can eliminate the bad communications within the different departments. His answer: "It would be easier to cure world hunger." All you can do is put procedures in place to reduce the cluster f's.

Your last sentence is quite a contradiction. You talk of the agencies having success results, yet you think the creation of Homeland Security is like putting a band aid on a tumor.

As I see it, The whole scenario reeks of either gross imcompetence or gross complicity on the part of individuals, so which is it?
It only took George Tenet a minute or so to mention OBL at his breakfast table on the morning of 9/11, embarrassingly, in front of the press, some of whom goggled at the immediacy of the revelation. Quite frankly, the CIA was/is as bent as a three pound note, their past history with drugs, mind control, (the unabomber?) their behaviour after 9/11 in putting 'curveball' under their wing, even though they were told he was BS# by the Gerrmans at least, and that he had even told them his story was rubbish before the invasion of Iraq. Does anyone honestly think that Clarke would have ever been given the truth of it all, just as the whole 9/11 commission were not told everything, or the truth. Yuk!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1

 

So if the CIA say something it means it's true?

I love how people use both sides for debunking things.


" Oh, do you really believe everything the government tells you? Just because they say so it must be true. "
Then you get the other side.

" Oh do you really believe everything the government tells you? Just because they say so it must be true. "

This very same argument seems to swing both ways for people, most often individuals dropping one liners to stir the pot, because we all know ATS is filled with people that A, believe the MSM and their governments, or B don't believe a god damn thing they didn't hear in a drum circle or see in their minds while on illicit substances. There's also C who only believe what the purple space unicorn says.

I'm so sick of the exact same one liner being used the same exact way.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

 

I don't care about lasers from space and hologram planes. There's a big difference between you and me. I don't buy the "we're too stupid to pull this off" excuse".

You just contradicted yourself. If you're acknowledging the government is chock full of people too incompetent to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from using our own resources against us to pull off a terrorist attack, then what magic makes them so supernaturally efficient in staging some inside job and getting everyone in creation to fully cooperate with the coverup with the perfection of coordination that rivals an act of God AND leave not even so much as a candy wrapper behind as evidence?

You're right, there is a big difference between you and me. When I look for an explanation I look for something that suitably explains ALL the events we've seen, not just the one or two narrow events I happen to be cherry picking.

No I did not say its full of in incompetent people that's what you say.... I'm saying that incompetence is used as an excuse.. It hasn't been proven that because of some incompetent moron the attack was carried out.. And hasn't even been investigated to prove it. I say IF it's only incompetence than it still needs to be delt with according to law.... 3000 people are dead and we don't even know who's the incompetent moron or if this incompetent moron even exist...

reply to post by Six Sigma

Your last sentence is quite a contradiction. You talk of the agencies having success results, yet you think the creation of Homeland Security is like putting a band aid on a tumor.

This paper shows that the agencies had successfully worked on cases prior to 9/11. Who ever made the decision to not share critical information is still there. The policy wasn't the problem. Homeland security wasn't necessary. If you still don't get it.. I'm done with it.

I disagree with your premise. While there may have been more "co-operation" There surely was more rules to restrict that co-operation by the Clinton administration. Even then, more co-operation doesn't necessarily mean enough co-operation.

This "timely release" by the Obama administration is obvious in it's intent, swaying the vote in Nov.

Originally posted by maxella1

No I did not say its full of in incompetent people that's what you say.... I'm saying that incompetence is used as an excuse.. It hasn't been proven that because of some incompetent moron the attack was carried out.. And hasn't even been investigated to prove it. I say IF it's only incompetence than it still needs to be delt with according to law.... 3000 people are dead and we don't even know who's the incompetent moron or if this incompetent moron even exist...

I was quoting the FBI agent who testified in the Moussaoui trial that incompetence and careerism in the FBI prohibited not only his own investigation but likewise prohibited him from forwarding his warnings of possible hijackings to the FAA. He was there and he knows first hand the mentality of the people he worked with. He did not use it as an excuse, he came out and said it point blank the FBI had the power to do more but people too preoccupied with their own career advancement got in the way. You have now been given an eyewitness account from an actual participant in the events leading up to 9/11. What evidence do you require, precisely, if this person's first hand account is unacceptable to you, and what would make that evidence more credible than this FBI agent's first hand accounting.

What I find ironic is that you were the one who first brought up the details of the FBI's involvement in the Moussaoui case and now you're ignoring the relevency of the very details of the case you brought up to begin with. You ask for an investigation, but in a larger sense, you and I are doing our own armchair investigation and we've already come up with a suspect- this agent's superiors- but you're making the conscious decision to ignore the lead. Would you mind explaining yourself?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What I find ironic is that you were the one who first brought up the details of the FBI's involvement in the Moussaoui case and now you're ignoring the relevency of the very details of the case you brought up to begin with. You ask for an investigation, but in a larger sense, you and I are doing our own armchair investigation and we've already come up with a suspect- this agent's superiors- but you're making the conscious decision to ignore the lead. Would you mind explaining yourself?

Just as I get mad as hell you go and post something like this.. Lol

I agree that this guy could be a suspect. Whatever happened to him?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I find it incredible that an individual with fore knowledge of something of this nature, FBI or whatever, would not seek to contact the like of the FAA themselves under the circumstances. It's like saying this FBI man is intellectually sane enough to testify that all others were intellectually incompetent enough, not to comprehend what he was telling them, while he himself, was not intellectually compentent to contact what would be a main participant of 9/11, outside of intelligence sources. I mean, does that sound like a suitable, satisfactory scenario?

Let's hope then, that the FAA have got their own intelligence up and running by now.

just me, but if i was wanting so bad to start a war and wanted the country on my side with my perfect puppet Bush fallowing in his dads foot steps for suddom i would have let the other side start it. and set back and watch the war games begin...every bullet has a price. war makes them money.

Originally posted by maxella1
Just as I get mad as hell you go and post something like this.. Lol

I agree that this guy could be a suspect. Whatever happened to him?

I regret to say I do not have the power to find out, since this FBI agent was being careful not to name names, but I would put good money on the answer being "nothing", as unless the FBI supervisor was a moron he had to know any investigation would lead to his office, and he would have played the "I don't know anything about anything" card, just like everyone else did when the 9/11 commission started asking how did 3000 people wind up getting killed. This person's supervisor probably didn't pursue it either since it would make his entire branch look like idiots by association.

All right, let's say for argument's sake it was Section Chief Joe Smith of the Chicago office. After an exhaustive investigation, he admits he was the one who didn't follow up on his FBI agent's request becuase he simply didn't understand how important it was. The guy has since retired and is no longer with the FBI. What do you do with him ten years after the fact?

I'm all for having more investigations, but I don't want to have the investigation become the proverbial "kitten that doesn't know what to do with the mouse after it caught it" either.

I don't buy incompetence one bit, NORAD and the government had already considered the possibility of planes as weapons into buildings such as the world trade centre & the pentagon a couple of years before, so there was no need for any incompetence, especially having a trillion dollar defense budget. If I was an American tax payer I would ask for a refund on my taxes!

Strangely, there is a thread on this and it was started by a moderator and put in the wrong section, I've seen 3 key pieces of 9/11 information like this that seem to have been put in the wrong section, and should reside in the 9/11 forum.

Odd that certain things about 9/11 are getting put into the wrong sections, and when a new thread about those subjects is made in the right forum, i.e. the 9/11 forum here, they get deleted, instead of locked, which is what normally happens with double posts. It's as if someone does not want certain info about 9/11 being in the 9/11 forum here?

One would think a mod of all people would make a 9/11 thread in the correct place?
This is the thread relating to the NORAD link I posted that is in the wrong ATS forum..

"NORAD had drills of jets as weapons"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Original source
www.usatoday.com...

Then you have this one in the 'politics' section, and again is totally in the wrong place, and a request to move it was ignored.

The title of that thread reads: "POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers"

The word 'politics' was not in the original article title, and the thread creater has deliberately put the word 'politics' in the title of the thread, so that they can justify putting it in the politics section, but anyone with half a brain can see it has nothing to do with the politics section, and everything to do with the 9/11 section of ATS.

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Original source
www.deseretnews.com...

See, the word 'politics' is not in the title of the original source, so the OP in that thread deliberately added that word to justify putting it in the wrong section. And as with the NORAD thread above in the wrong section (above) it seems that some people are making threads in the wrong sections deliberately, so that when someone posts it in the right section they can delete it.

This is happeneing with revealing 9/11 info, so to keep it hidden away from the main 9/11 forum so people do not see it. This is my opinion anyway. The NORAD one I have asked the OP mod to move it to the 9/11 forum today, let's see if it gets moved. I asked a mod to move the physics professor one some time ago, but they ignored me!

I'll let you come to your own conclusions, but either way, seems like info is being suppressed here. Both links are very good reads...

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What I find ironic is that you were the one who first brought up the details of the FBI's involvement in the Moussaoui case and now you're ignoring the relevency of the very details of the case you brought up to begin with. You ask for an investigation, but in a larger sense, you and I are doing our own armchair investigation and we've already come up with a suspect- this agent's superiors- but you're making the conscious decision to ignore the lead. Would you mind explaining yourself?

Just as I get mad as hell you go and post something like this.. Lol

I agree that this guy could be a suspect. Whatever happened to him?

edit on 28-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

The flight instructor was wrongly awarded $5 million for testifying against him. $5 million is a lot of money, I'm sure there would be a queue of people to testify against him if they were offered that much money! I bet the 2 people that should have got that money weren't happy!

Goes to show, if you have the money you can get anyone to testify anything!

reply to post by kidtwist


And, they felt that crashing a plane into the Pentagon was considered "unrealistic". And in the drills, the airplanes were all coming in from foreign countries, not taking off from US airports. Or didn't you bother to actually read your souces?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist

 

And, they felt that crashing a plane into the Pentagon was considered "unrealistic". And in the drills, the airplanes were all coming in from foreign countries, not taking off from US airports. Or didn't you bother to actually read your souces?

Of course I read it, that's why I posted it! You failed to address the main point of the subject. The main point being planes being used as weapons.

reply to post by kidtwist


An aircraft departing from within the US hadn't been hijacked since the 1970s. Everyone assumed that it wouldn't happen again, so they weren't looking for it to happen. As pointed out, those exercises had aircraft on international flights, departing from OUTSIDE the US. NORAD was designed to look OUT for threats, not within US airspace.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I regret to say I do not have the power to find out, since this FBI agent was being careful not to name names, but I would put good money on the answer being "nothing", as unless the FBI supervisor was a moron he had to know any investigation would lead to his office, and he would have played the "I don't know anything about anything" card, just like everyone else did when the 9/11 commission started asking how did 3000 people wind up getting killed. This person's supervisor probably didn't pursue it either since it would make his entire branch look like idiots by association.

I must say that I'm surprised that you do not know who that supervisory FBI agent is, but here are some sources I found interesting...


The name of that Supervisor FBI agent is Michael Maltbie

FBI Agent Transferred to Cleveland

Radical Fundamentalist Unit

I just ordered the book Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen It seems very interesting..

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kidtwist

 

An aircraft departing from within the US hadn't been hijacked since the 1970s. Everyone assumed that it wouldn't happen again, so they weren't looking for it to happen. As pointed out, those exercises had aircraft on international flights, departing from OUTSIDE the US. NORAD was designed to look OUT for threats, not within US airspace.

That is just a poor excuse, terrorist threats come from inside and outside, you know this, they know this. Enough of the weak excuses.