I’ll let your speculation lead the way.
Belief is not knowledge.
I don't know, but it sounds highly plausible to me. (side note; how come no truthers have jumped all over the facts about Saudi nobility being whisked safely out of the U.S. immediately after the attacks? If I was a truther, I'd be all over it.
That didn’t go too badly.
I’ll just say, it is not belief that FBI agent Bongardt stated, “the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection’.” As it is not belief that Richard Clarke stated the CIA appeared to have “shielded” the terrorists. And essentially the rest of your acceptance agrees with their statements – the CIA restricted, deterred and prevented the FBI from taking action against the terrorists prior to 9/11 – that fits the definition of “protection” and “shielded”.
About the Saudi government agent, Omar al Bayoumi, who assisted the terrorists, everyone from the FBI to the terrorists suspected that he was an agent/spy. It is certainly fact that Bayoumi was on the Saudi government payroll and yet did no apparent work for them, except having ‘chance’ meetings with terrorists, assisting them to open bank accounts, contact flight schools and find accommodation... the landlord so happening to be a U.S. intelligence informant no less. A point of interest is that when Bayoumi was detained by British authorities after the attack for this role in assisting the terrorists, U.S. authorities and the 9/11 Commission were very quick to pardon him. Hmm, wonder why.
Remember, there was a CIA operation surrounding the terrorists at that time – they’d already gone so far to monitor Al Mihdhar at the 2000 Al Qaeda meeting, break into his hotel room and consistently restrict, deter and prevent the FBI from taking action. Given the above ‘chance’ meeting, close contact with the hijackers, assistance and quick absolvement of wrongdoing by this Saudi government agent, Bayoumi, is it speculation to say that he was a part of the CIA operation – the Middle Eastern go-between of the CIA and hijackers? It appears obvious. Why else befriend the hijackers and in particular pass them on to a U.S. informant, of all people? It certainly matches the profile of Muslim men who could blend into Al Qaeda as head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, had been aiming.
The alternative to the above is that the CIA, whilst having an operation surrounding the terrorists, did nothing (except hold leash of the FBI) whilst all of this Bayoumi assistance occurred under their noses and the terrorist residence with a U.S. informant fell into place by accident? Is that reasonable?
I still think it's government ineptitude; bureaucrats not willing to share info with other departments, directors treating their branches as their own little fiefdoms, and the usual CYA attitude (cover your ass).
I’m trying to keep speculation to a minimum. Much of your own observation above is fact – there were certainly, “bureaucrats not willing to share info with other departments, directors treating their branches as their own little fiefdoms, and the usual CYA attitude”. The only speculation I see is that leap of faith where you would like it all to be a result of “ineptitude”.
Anyhow, I’m content with the agreements set out in your last post. The next question would be, who did the CIA work for? In particular, allegiance of the CIA bin Laden unit who I’m referring to. Here’s a clue. Head of the CIA bin Laden unit was Cofer Black (a career U.S. clandestine officer and arms dealer, future board member of the Blackwater mercenary force who took part in the Bush administration Iraq war – a rather unscrupulous character at any rate). Cofer Black was also special advisor on foreign policy and head counter-terrorism advisor to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, supported by our Neocon friends of the Bush administration.
Further to the above, it is known that the Bush administration began daily meetings with CIA section heads, where Bush bizarrely told them that he, “did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time”and after which FBI officials reported that restrictions on bin Laden and Saudi related cases, “became worse after the Bush administration took over this year.”
The fact is then, that head of the CIA bin Laden unit, the unit which consistently prevented the FBI (or army intelligence) taking action against the terrorists in the lead up to 9/11, without which the attack as we know it could not have happened, is from the same political sphere (military policies)/answerable to Neocons of the Bush administration; the very guys whose ideologies benefited significantly from the 9/11 attack – can we agree that also?
As last time, I don’t see that any of this as set out can be disputed, and those facts speak for themselves without me needing to say anything, don't you think? Why is it that you know where I'm going, without me needing to say? Because the facts are self-apparent. Here it is: the Neocons do not meet their goals without 9/11, 9/11 would have been shutdown without Neocon intervention.
Why ever would I turn away from the obvious answer to believe your speculation that it all worked out so conveniently for those Neocons due to astounding, sustained and unconnected levels of ‘incompetence’? Derr... terrorists in the U.S. taking flight lessons... warnings of hijackings and an attack on New York... FBI say people will die... derr... let’s block everyone from doing anything about it for months on end and wait and see what happens... oh um, well darnit, we got attacked... whoops? You’d have to be crackers, or biased to a fault, to accept it. Being of sound mind, this is how I know that 9/11 was an inside job – the facts set out in their basic form speak for themselves if people would be less prepared to formulate some farfetched speculation in defence.