Conspiracy theorists don't understand that this is only a coincidence.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Also on the issue of Able Danger, it was found in 2006 that at no point prior to 9/11 did Able Danger identify any of the 9/11 attackers

I'm sure you have seen these before. Just a little correction that Able Danger did identify some of the hijackers prior to 911 according to whistle blowers.

But you think that if they were telling the truth they would suffer a fatal heart attack by now right?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1

To me I think Mike Springman is a disgruntled former government employee, if you think about these type of people logically the ex-government types to start to “speak out” they are a inconsistency in themselves. If we are to believe them then we are to believe that the government was directly involved in 9/11 but couldn’t kill off a couple of government employees who are speaking out makes no sense to me. I think if these people really did have the “smoking gun” as so many of them claim then they would have died of a heart attack or shellfish allergy long before they even got to open their mouths.

Well wouldn't that be way too suspicious if the guy who gave the hijackers express visas went to speak out and randomly died of a heart attack or shellfish allergies? When people say "the government was directly involved" who's not to say it was a small group of people from within? You do know that things go on in US intelligence agencies that even the president is unaware of, right? And if he's disgruntled why wouldn't they just bring him into court for spreading false information? It is quite damaging to the US.

reply to post by maxella1


As I have already said I am not going to comment on every video posted in this thread.

To clarify this thread is not about Able danger, I see this time and time again on 9/11 threads, both sides cannot stay on topic. They all follow the same pattern, someone posts a video or some other type of source that questions the official version of events, this is usually quickly discredited much in the same way as I done in my first post on this thread. This is inevitably followed by two things, firstly everyone ignores the guy who has pointed out how flawed the OP is initially, followed by picking out just one of many points he or she has raised. Eventually you just start bombarding the real “truthers” that is to say, us who are actually interested in the truth, with pointless YouTube and inforwars links.

On the issue of Able danger, it has been found that the claims they know about Atta and other hijackers prior to 9/11 is untrue, this has been established by a number of investigation. I am personally on the fence on the issue, we know for a fact that there were other failures in identifying hijackers and that some intelligence agencies did have their names but with constrictions in the distribution of information led to these leads not being followed up. This leads me to say that some of the Able Danger claims may hold some substance; I do not discount entirely the idea however that does not mean anything significant pointing to a government cover up furthermore I fail to see any motivation in covering it up when other agencies have been criticised for not following up on leads that may or may not have prevented 9/11.

As such it is my position that Able danger did not identify the 9/11 attackers prior to 9/11 although I am open to the possibility that they may have identified them, I do not believe this would have prevented the attacks of 9/11.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

They all follow the same pattern, someone posts a video or some other type of source that questions the official version of events, this is usually quickly discredited much in the same way as I done in my first post on this thread

Excuse me but I must have missed the part where you actually post anything other than your own opinions. This is the same thing that you did in the past, just because you say something isn't true doesn't make it so. Why do you even bother typing long responses just to say that you will not comment on every issue? This annoys me very much.

On the issue of Able danger, it has been found that the claims they know about Atta and other hijackers prior to 9/11 is untrue, this has been established by a number of investigation. I am personally on the fence on the issue, we know for a fact that there were other failures in identifying hijackers and that some intelligence agencies did have their names but with constrictions in the distribution of information led to these leads not being followed up. This leads me to say that some of the Able Danger claims may hold some substance; I do not discount entirely the idea however that does not mean anything significant pointing to a government cover up furthermore I fail to see any motivation in covering it up when other agencies have been criticised for not following up on leads that may or may not have prevented 9/11.

So basically you're saying that you made a mistake when you said
"Also on the issue of Able Danger, it was found in 2006 that at no point prior to 9/11 did Able Danger identify any of the 9/11 attackers"
what you really meant was that you don't think they could have prevented 9/11 even if they did identify the hijackers..? [as usual you do not provide any sources for the "investigations" that you claim established that Able Danger did not identify the hijackers] no surprise here because that is how our previous discussions went also. I just need to trust you because you know the history of islamic terrorism.

Also I would like to make it clear that I like when my threads cover multiple topics, it just makes it more interesting in my opinion. So if you have something that you can actually back up with a source that has even a small chance of being real please feel free to post it here but if you don't than maybe you need to find another thread to debunk.

reply to post by maxella1


The first post I made on this thread is not based on my opinion but on historical fact. I have highlighted where the errors in the OP video are to demonstrate how it is fundamentally wrong, this is not my opinion. If you wish for me to point you to sources that you can check this with I will happily provide them for you,

On the issue of Able danger I was not mistaken, In 2006 it was found that Able danger did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks or identify them prior to 9/11. What I am saying is that I think that it is possible that they did know them in advance however I think it is unlikely considering that I don’t think this would not have prevented the attacks and other agencies had identified them prior to 9/11 and the commission has admitted to this. So I fail to see why they would be open on one hand to a government agency knowing members of the cell in advance yet hiding on the other hand but I am open to the idea that able danger having advanced knowledge, I just think it’s unlikely.

When it comes to multiple topics, all they do for me is distract form the topic at hand, to me it shows that the members who are prone to this annoying habit do not have a strong enough grasp of their topic to have a constructive debate. Don’t take this the personally but this is very apparent with our current “debate” (if you can call it that), you have started a thread, I have put forward a argument against the claims in this video in your OP and you have failed to produce a decent counter argument. To get around this you have shifted the topic of debate onto a different, yet related topic, Able Danger, in attempt to wind a new argument. Its not just you, it happens all the time on ATS.

I don’t need to find another thread to debunk, I have already debunked this thread now all I am trying to do is show you the error of your ways in an effort to facilitate and expand your understanding of the events of 9/11.

Now please to get back on topic, can you please tell me where you believe that the video in your OP is correct and why you believe it to be correct, like wise can you please tell me where you think it is wrong and we can actually start a discussion about the OP

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

If you wish for me to point you to sources that you can check this with I will happily provide them for you

For the last time PLEASE POINT ME TO YOUR SOURCES OR GO AWAY !

In 2006 it was found that Able danger did not have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks or identify them prior to 9/11.

Who determined this in 2006? If you don't understand what I'm asking you ~ Please point me to the source where you found this information. Thank you.

When it comes to multiple topics, all they do for me is distract form the topic at hand, to me it shows that the members who are prone to this annoying habit do not have a strong enough grasp of their topic to have a constructive debate. Don’t take this the personally but this is very apparent with our current “debate” (if you can call it that), you have started a thread, I have put forward a argument against the claims in this video in your OP and you have failed to produce a decent counter argument. To get around this you have shifted the topic of debate onto a different, yet related topic, Able Danger, in attempt to wind a new argument. Its not just you, it happens all the time on ATS.

I clearly stated in the OP that I found another coincidence in the video. The title of this thread is "Conspiracy theorists don't understand that this is only a coincidence", I also stated in one of my replies to you that I posted this thread to talk about the "COINCIDENCE".... Do you have something ELSE to say about the COINCIDENCE or no?

I don’t need to find another thread to debunk, I have already debunked this thread now all I am trying to do is show you the error of your ways in an effort to facilitate and expand your understanding of the events of 9/11.

You debunked it in your own head. Thank you for your "effort to facilitate and expand my understanding of the events of 9/11" It's time for you now to provide sources or move on.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now please to get back on topic, can you please tell me where you believe that the video in your OP is correct and why you believe it to be correct, like wise can you please tell me where you think it is wrong and we can actually start a discussion about the OP

Oh yeah back to the topic... How about that coincidence?

reply to post by maxella1


In 2006 after an investigation that lasted over a year a Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Able Danger did not identify the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. that is my source.

As for sources, regarding my first post I would advise reading Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, as I said in that post.

I would ask that you please clarify your view, are you saying that the Video is correct or incorrect in its statements. I am not asking anything about coincidence I am asking about the facts, do you accept that the video is factually incorrect.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

In 2006 after an investigation that lasted over a year a Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Able Danger did not identify the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. that is my source.

Ahhmm... I see... your word is your source. That's nice.

As for sources, regarding my first post I would advise reading Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, as I said in that post.

I will do one even better... I would advise reading The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon to understand how compromised the 9/11 Commission really were.

In a work of history that will make headlines, New York Times reporter Philip Shenon investigates the investigation of 9/11 and tells the inside story of most important federal commission since the the Warren Commission. Shenon uncovers startling new information about the inner workings of the 9/11 commission and its relationship with the Bush White House. The Commission will change our understanding of the 9/11 investigation -- and of the attacks themselves.

And Disconnecting the Dots: How 9/11 Was Allowed to Happen by Kevin Fenton to clarify a few intelligence "failures" prior to 9/11.

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.

See with links and even descriptions.

I would ask that you please clarify your view, are you saying that the Video is correct or incorrect in its statements. I am not asking anything about coincidence I am asking about the facts, do you accept that the video is factually incorrect.

You see you still don't get it... Amazing !

This thread isn't about the video. It's about one of the points made in the video ( the Visa's from the US Consulate in Jeddah )

The only fact that I checked or cared about from this video is that the hijackers received Visa's from a CIA rubber stamping visa center in Jeddah utilizing a very strange fast track program which existed only in the Saudi Arabia for a very short time. What a COINCIDENCE !!!

And it annoys you when threads get derailed huh?

I'm done with you.. please go away.

Another batch of coincidences how about that? There is an attempt to just chalk up all these revaluations that have come out over the years as "old news" or "coincidence".In the final analysis just how much about 9/11 can just be chalked up to bad luck and coincidence?

reply to post by mike dangerously

just how much about 9/11 can just be chalked up to bad luck and coincidence?

Not much, I'd say only just about everything...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by maxella1

 

In 2006 after an investigation that lasted over a year a Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Able Danger did not identify the 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11. that is my source.

So if Able Danger didn't identify the hijackers what do you think the purpose was in deleting 2.5 terabytes of data regarding Able Danger? Just to casually delete files? Do you not see some sort of cover up by the deleting of these files?

web.archive.org...://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1131137

Weldon: Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.

The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.

Weldon declined to identify the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the Library of Congress, he added.

reply to post by homervb

So if Able Danger didn't identify the hijackers what do you think the purpose was in deleting 2.5 terabytes of data regarding Able Danger? Just to casually delete files? Do you not see some sort of cover up by the deleting of these files?

I think you already know what his answer will be. Hey he understands how Islamic Terrorism works so whatever he tells you is the truth.