2246 replies to this topic

[redhen]

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

our ships have been attacked, which included the USS Pueblo, the USS Liberty, the USS Stark, and the USS Cole, ....and still, we did not go to war.

Ah yes, the USS Liberty. I wonder what an American-Israeli war would have looked like. As if !

Now there's a conspiracy to ponder.

[Q24]

redhen, on 01 February 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

You can string together all sorts of conspiratorial delusional fantasies (as described by the court judge who dismissed this ill-planned case), but unless you have strong evidence that shows mens rea, you're not going to get far.

Forget the Gallup case.  I’m not sure how much you know of the background, but she was indeed ill-advised by a well known group of disinformation artists who call themselves a part of the truth movement.  The guy who wrote the affidavit for her case even came to this forum once and was thoroughly rebuffed (oh, and I’m not allowed to speak freely on his forum anymore so strong was my disagreement there).   To attempt a case against highest echelons of the Bush administration, on a claim of ‘no plane’ impact at the Pentagon of all topics, under thoroughly refuted study – it is hopeless and I back the judge in his ruling.

Now moving away from that sidetrack, looking at the rather more specific and lower aimed case of intelligence agency protection and assistance to the 9/11 hijackers which I initially presented to you here, there is no string of delusional fantasies but rather a consistent string of facts, which taken together spell out that an intelligence agency conspiracy did occur on some level, and it was absolutely mens rea; of pre-meditated intent – there was a decision that the FBI would not be allowed to intervene in the hijackers free movements or actions either outside or inside of the United States – that is a crime/against the law in itself – the hijackers were illegals who should never have set foot in the country.  

The only question to answer is whether that crime was committed to further the pre-existing investigation into the terrorists, or to allow the perpetration of an attack.  There is no option: ‘the CIA sat on their hands doing nothing’.  That does not fit in the slightest given the CIA’s demonstrated interest in the terrorists and consistent action, not inaction, to block the FBI.  And that is where former government defense, intelligence and Bush counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke agrees.

So how do we determine a more detailed mens rea; the true purpose of the intent?  To do this it is necessary to drill down into the questions I’m asking, one of which you have refused three times now (should this be telling me it’s the nail in the coffin of your defence?):  ‘what would you have done in the CIA position?’  You see I believe that your defence relies on the CIA being quite irrational.  To put intelligence gathering before prevention of the attack.  Is this not somewhat of a paradox?  Surely the purpose of intelligence is to prevent the attack!  And the CIA had the intelligence to do that many times over (so did the FBI, but were not allowed to act on it).  It is through putting ourselves in the CIA shoes (given that me and you are sound of mind) that we can determine what is rational or not.  It is not a position you’d want to be in, to back those decisions taken by the CIA.

Once this is established, the argument becomes ‘the CIA allowed the perpetration of an attack vs. the CIA were irrational’.  Now all of my understanding is that these guys are fairly smart, there is a greater responsibility than your every day job and many tests of suitability (and sanity) to become an agent in such a role – you know, they don’t accept people off the last banana boat or who were born yesterday.  At the least, I really think we must give benefit of the doubt that the people involved in the case are of sound mind.  Following that, it really puts the defence in a poor position to claim and prove, that agents became temporarily irrational, or perhaps insane.  Which leaves the only other conclusion.

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this.  The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

This is where it all must begin for any competent investigation – not at a pre-conclusion of pinning the blame on bin Laden or the Bush administration, as the Western witch-hunt or lunacy of the Gallup case - but at the more grass roots level; the terrorists directly involved and the CIA action surrounding them.  I’m certain that, lacking a plea of insanity, cases against both could be upheld... and from there we could really see where the trail leads.

redhen, on 01 February 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Hmm, I dunno. Maybe a fanatical Muslim terrorist group wanted to hit back for what they believed were incursions by infidel Crusaders and the Great Hated Satan, aka the U.S.A., as they've stated all along for years?

Whilst I certainly think that the will of Muslim terrorists is a necessity of the operation (it’s something I’d be quite happy to talk about – bin Laden wanted to reciprocate U.S. aggression alright, though easier said than done), it does not account for the full body of background evidence, nor certainly in any way the list of facts specifically upon which I posed, “Under the circumstances... ”.  That you bypassed those facts to arrive at the desired answer above is the result of debilitating tunnel vision.  Wasn’t it you who started the thread to discuss why those inside the system would have executed the attack?  But when tough questions are asked, it’s almost like you want to change the subject.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 01 February 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Of course there is escaping it and I don't see anything uncomfortable about these questions, this is not a complete construction of all the elements at play. Here are some further questions:

- Is it inconceivable that the CIA may have restricted the FBI because the CIA wanted to get more intelligence on the terrorists, information they probably wouldn't be able to obtain once they were busted or kicked out of the country?  What might an intelligence agency, who at the time was in an intelligence environment where information was not shared freely between different agencies and where each agency wants to take near total ownership (and credit) for their investigations, do when another agency wants to disrupt their tracking/monitoring possible terrorists as part of their own agency's investigation?  I'd say they'd do pretty much what the CIA did to the FBI, shut them down and prevent them from going after the CIA's suspects.  

You say there is nothing uncomfortable about the questions but still, like redhen, you decline to give a straight answer.

The scenario you suggest above would perhaps be ok as an explanation of why the FBI were obstructed, if not for the accompanying lack of CIA intervention in the terrorist movements and actions along with that paradox (or reliance on insane CIA agents) mentioned in my previous post: “We may be attacked but by God we’ll have intelligence!”  Your suggestion does not address the whole package of occurrence – the CIA action to block the FBI and the CIA inaction which provided a free path to the terrorists – whose side were these guys on??  Maybe they forgot, in their 'incompetence'.  My question again would be, what were the CIA waiting for?  What did they think would happen given their provision of indefinite protection to terrorists?  What would you have done in their position?

Liquid Gardens, on 01 February 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

- Your argument here is suffused with the benefit of hindsight.  Have you separated all of these 'suspicious' actions of the CIA concerning 9/11 from the noise of all the other warnings they have been receiving, suspects they've been tracking, agents just being lazy, etc?  It's easy but potentially unreasonable to look back and say, 'hey you were warned about 9/11 right here, there's no feasible reason why you shouldn't have done more to prevent it', as one feasible reason is that they have received many vague threats for years, almost all of which do not pan out nor occur, and that they do not have unlimited resources nor personnel.

There's a legitimate reason for the saying, 'hindsight is 20/20'.  You haven't shown that the CIA's actions here are anything but 'business as usual' for the time, and I don't know how without a much higher security clearance you can know differently. So how are you separating these specific 9/11 actions/inactions from the noise?  You haven't shown that there's anything unusual about the CIA's actions here, as you haven't differentiated these actions from what they usually do, and that goes directly to how 'suspicious' this actually is.

I disagree – the case against the CIA is based on solid and specific facts established prior to 9/11, broadly that: -

The men were a part of Al Qaeda.
The men were connected to a previous attack.
The men were inside and illegal entrants to the United States.
The men were taking flight lessons.

The initial case I’m making is essentially the same one that FBI agent Steve Bongardt made in August 2001: “someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’.  Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand by their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.”  They are some strong words and accusations - it hardly sounds like a ‘routine occurrence’ that Bongardt had resigned himself to.

http://www.justice.g...s0606/final.pdf

It is also apparently as FBI agent Mark Rossini would later state in 2009, when complaining of the CIA restrictions imposed on him (he was the guy who discovered the terrorists had obtained visas and wanted to report it to FBI HQ who would have placed the names on a block list) and his desire to open a case against the hijackers pre-9/11: “People who are going to watch this, they're going to say, "Oh, it's hindsight 20–20."  But, no, I'm not talking hindsight 20–20.  I'm talking basic, logical investigation.”  I guess he saw you coming LG!

http://www.pbs.org/w...py-factory.html

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

I disagree – the case against the CIA is based on solid and specific facts established prior to 9/11, broadly that: -

The men were a part of Al Qaeda.
The men were connected to a previous attack.
The men were inside and illegal entrants to the United States.
The men were taking flight lessons.

And, the terrorist sought to attack the CIA by flying an aircraft into CIA headquarters, and the CIA sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. That is not what you want to call a cozy relationship between the CIA and the terrorist when the two sides are trying to kill one another.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 February 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 February 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this.  The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever because it has already been established the CIA made serious mistakes and the CIA has admitted to those mistakes as was the case with the FBI. In other words, you are speculating based on the wrong picture puzzle.

[redhen]

Q24, on 04 February 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The set of three questions asked in my last post, which you also refused to answer, only serve to reinforce all of this.  The inescapable answer, if we are dealing with rational people, is that the CIA actions match those to be expected of an agency attempting to allow an attack.

This is what I would have done as CIA director. I would have immediately rounded up the suspects and water-boarded the hell out of them. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated the other day that it was water-boarding that provided info that led to Osama bin Laden. Good job I say.

Quote

Wasn’t it you who started the thread to discuss why those inside the system would have executed the attack?  But when tough questions are asked, it’s almost like you want to change the subject.

Indeed, I asked and keep asking "for what purpose". The answers I've seen claim that "global elites" wanted to establish a presence in the region, to secure oil and somehow make fistfuls of money.

If that's the case, why did Bush senior withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after the first Gulf war? Before that, why did the British voluntarily leave this oil rich area? I think it was Silverthong who posited that it was the Bank of England that brought about 911.

I keep an open mind. I've mentioned several genuine historical false flag operations. It is possible that 911 was an inside job, I just don't see enough evidence. You keep trying to shift the burden of evidence, but that's a fallacious approach, as you know.

Now excuse me while I head back to the religion forum and deal with more people who hold unfalsifiable beliefs.

[Q24]

redhen, on 04 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

This is what I would have done as CIA director. I would have immediately rounded up the suspects and water-boarded the hell out of them. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated the other day that it was water-boarding that provided info that led to Osama bin Laden. Good job I say.

Yes, round ‘em up – illegal immigrants linked to Al Qaeda and previous attacks - I think that’s very reasonable.  Sure let’s water-board them for information too, if we needed it.  Heck I’d back you for CIA director.  Had your policies been in position prior to 9/11 then the attack as we know it would never have occurred.  I mean, it’s an obvious and rational answer to shutting down terrorist operations and preventing future attacks, isn’t it?  It’s the route that any sane person would take to some degree.  And by extension you must agree, the indication is that the CIA, whose actions were the polar opposite of your own suggestion, were unreasonable/irrational/insane.  That is their only defence against the case I’m making.

redhen, on 04 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Indeed, I asked and keep asking "for what purpose". The answers I've seen claim that "global elites" wanted to establish a presence in the region, to secure oil and somehow make fistfuls of money.

Well... that’s not how I put it... but you’re further along than when you started... “to give the armed forces combat experience” hehe.  The best way to understand the purpose is of course to hear it from the horse’s mouth.  I think Little Fish earlier directed you to a documented example but you didn’t want to read it for some reason.  I’ll quote here, that which the Neocon transformation strategy relied upon (always worth a refresher): -

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

http://www.newameric...casDefenses.pdf

And a bonus quote, different document, same circles: -

“Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.  An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history.  It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.  Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.  More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.  Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

http://belfercenter...._terrorism.html

Didn’t 9/11 cure that “lack of imagination”, in doing so breaking free of the “serious constraint on current policy”?

See, why ask us “for what purpose” when it’s printed in black and white from the highest level of government circles?  You could argue with the authors about the importance they deemed in a “transforming” or “Pearl Harbor” event – it is the opinion of the people in power that matters more than our own.

In case you are in any doubt as to importance of a presence in the Gulf region or the oil factor...

You can read it in the document linked above: -

“… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…”
“… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…”
“… forward-based forces in the region…”
“… longstanding American interests in the region.”
“… seek to augment the forces already in the region…”
~PNAC - Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000

You can read it in the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine: -

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

http://en.wikipedia....fowitz_Doctrine

You can hear it in Dick Cheney’s 1998 comment: -

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

http://www.csmonitor.../p8s1-comv.html

You can read it set out in Congress, 1998: -

“To begin, you may ask why is the United States active in the region? The United States has energy security, strategic, and commercial interests in promoting Caspian region energy development.”
...
“One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.”
...
“As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.”

http://commdocs.hous.../hfa48119_0.HTM

Every man and his dog knows it: -

“U.S.-China relations are influenced by a wide array of issues from Taiwan to trade relations and human rights. But undoubtedly access to Middle East oil will become a key issue in the relations between the two powers. Clearly, in the short term, China recognizes that its energy security is increasingly dependent on cooperation with the U.S., rather than competition with it. China would like to maintain good relations with the U.S. and enjoy the economic benefits derived from such cooperation. But this inclination is balanced by the feeling among many Chinese leaders that the U.S. seeks to dominate the Persian Gulf in order to exercise control over its energy resources and that it tries to contain China's aspirations in the region. The U.S. is therefore considered a major threat to China's long-term energy security.”

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

If you read and consider all of this carefully then you will know “for what purpose” 9/11 served.  9/11 enabled all of the above which policy-makers came to believe the continued global pre-eminence of the United States relied upon (again, their beliefs, not mine) – there are few greater or more transparent motives to answer your question.

redhen, on 04 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

If that's the case, why did Bush senior withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after the first Gulf war? Before that, why did the British voluntarily leave this oil rich area?

I guess we cannot know for sure - there are many possible reasons.  Perhaps the United States did not want to risk getting bogged down in Iraq at that time (that was the reason given by GHW Bush and Cheney), so soon after witnessing the Soviet failure in Afghanistan.  Perhaps the strategy and/or focus on the region simply changed through the 90s – obviously war would not have been required in Afghanistan had attempted U.S. reconciliations with the Taliban succeeded.  I don’t think you can make an assumption that policies remained the same over decades.

redhen, on 04 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

It is possible that 911 was an inside job, I just don't see enough evidence.

Kudos for the acknowledgement of possibility - that alone should be enough to seek further investigation.  Regarding the evidence, it doesn’t come across that you’ve looked very extensively to date or considered the implications in much detail.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 05 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

You can read it in the document linked above: -

“… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…”
“… a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…”
“… forward-based forces in the region…”
“… longstanding American interests in the region.”
“… seek to augment the forces already in the region…”
~PNAC - Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000

About that last line regarding the rebuilding of America's Defenses.

Quote

USA Today: Defense Spending Cuts Could Kill 1 Million Jobs

Steep defense cuts in store for America may eliminate 1 million jobs directly and then have ripple effects across the nation’s cities and towns, according to USA Today.

As Washington debates sequestration — automatic budgets cuts that could slash $600 billion in military spending — the defense industry and towns that depend on defense contracts fear sequestration is only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.moneynews...02/04/id/488694

Defense Contractors Brace For Military Spending Cuts

SAN DIEGO — Looming defense cuts are casting a long shadow over the biggest defense contracting conference on the West Coast. Nearly every session, discussion and panel at West 2013 has something to do with potential defense department cutbacks.

http://www.kpbs.org/...-spending-cuts/

Quote

I guess we cannot know for sure - there are many possible reasons.  Perhaps the United States did not want to risk getting bogged down in Iraq at that time (that was the reason given by GHW Bush and Cheney), so soon after witnessing the Soviet failure in Afghanistan.

That flies in the face of those who've claimed the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil. I might add that the United States was partly responsible for the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 February 2013 - 02:13 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

Is there a back door in here ? Only thing I see and read,Is So Stupid it turns one`s stomach !
Look to the facts of that Day ! Can you not see it all you Skeptics ? OR C.T`s

[redhen]

Q24, on 05 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

I’ll quote here, that which the Neocon transformation strategy relied upon (always worth a refresher): -

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

This is a think tank doing a defense review. They are surmising that the changes they would like to see that keeps the U.S. military in it's preeminent position will be slow, unless there's a major military challenge. What's controversial about that?

Quote

See, why ask us “for what purpose” when it’s printed in black and white from the highest level of government circles?

These defense analyst talk about, well, defense analysis. That's their job (I wish I could get paid for that). They don't talk about laying down a foundation for a "New World Order", headed by secretive "global elites" in a quest for power and money. I'm just not seeing any of that there in any of these defense documents, sorry.

Quote

You can read it in the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine: -

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

That sounds like a reasonable goal to me. Except I would have told the Saudis and OPEC to go **** themselves, and buy oil elsewhere. Or better yet, wean ourselves off of oil.

Quote

You can read it set out in Congress, 1998: -

“To begin, you may ask why is the United States active in the region? The United States has energy security, strategic, and commercial interests in promoting Caspian region energy development.”
...
“One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.”
...
“As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.”

http://commdocs.hous.../hfa48119_0.HTM

Sure, the U.S. is addicted to cheap oil. They will look everywhere to find reliable supplies. But I don't think Afghanistan is what you might call "stable", regardless of what historical period you refer to.

Quote

Kudos for the acknowledgement of possibility - that alone should be enough to seek further investigation.  Regarding the evidence, it doesn’t come across that you’ve looked very extensively to date or considered the implications in much detail.

I said it's possible, not plausible. Kudos for you though for not buying into the thermite demolition,  non-existent flight 77 (it was actually a missile dont'cha know) delusions. You believe the attacks were planned and carried out by Al Qaeda, with the tacit approval and cooperation from U.S. intelligence agencies. That's much more persuasive than people pointing to a video of a collapsing building and spitting out "how does steel turn to dust?!"

[preacherman76]

Are you intentionaly ignoring major parts of Q's post red? I mean is it part of a defense think tanks job to say things like  “Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.  An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history."

Here we have them saying that they should come up with creative ways to remove constraints to policy. Then drool over the possibility of terrorist killing thousands of Americans. Speaking about all this as though it would be great. Tie that in with the CIA protecting these terrorists from the FBI.

I suspected you never really had any intention of understanding 9/11 truth. The fact that you are intentionaly ignoring most of Q's post confirms this.

[redhen]

preacherman76, on 05 February 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Are you intentionaly ignoring major parts of Q's post red? I mean is it part of a defense think tanks job to say things like  “Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.  An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history."

That's exactly what think tanks do. Same thing with defense analysts. They are paid to dream up all kinds of possible scenarios. Until very recently, the U.S. has operational plans for an invasion of Canada.

If I was in charge of defense planning, I would certainly want to hear all possible scenarios. That's called due diligence. But just because someone dreamed up a plan doesn't mean it's going to be acted upon. I bet there are astronomical numbers of government plans sitting on shelves collecting dust.

[skyeagle409]

preacherman76, on 05 February 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Tie that in with the CIA protecting these terrorists from the FBI.

That can't be done, especially when the same terrorist had plans to slam an aircraft into CIA headquarters at a time when the CIA had plans to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 04 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

You say there is nothing uncomfortable about the questions but still, like redhen, you decline to give a straight answer.

Hmm, you seem a little choosy yourself about what questions of mine you answered 'straight', but regardless, as I alluded to but will now put straight:  I declined to answer your question because it's a leading question ("have you stopped beating your wife yet?") and incomplete.  Let's try an analogy that might illustrate the issue I have with the spin you occasionally put on your points.  I'll assume you are familiar in general with the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and perhaps you are aware of the following (from wiki, I snipped a couple of the disgusting details):

Quote

In the early morning hours of May 27, 1991, 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone (the younger brother of the boy whom Dahmer had molested in 1988) was discovered on the street, wandering naked, heavily under the influence of drugs and bleeding. Two young women from the neighborhood found the dazed boy and called 911. Dahmer chased his victim down and tried to take him away, but the women stopped him. Dahmer told John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish, police officers dispatched to the scene, that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend, and that they had an argument while drinking. Against the protests of the two women who had called 911, who recognized him from the neighborhood and insisted that he was a child and could not speak English, the officers turned him over to Dahmer. They later reported smelling a strange scent while inside Dahmer's apartment, but did not investigate it. The smell was the body of Tony Hughes, Dahmer's previous victim, decomposing in the bedroom. The officers did not make any attempt to verify Sinthasomphone's age or identity, nor locate someone who could communicate with him, and failed to run a background check that would have revealed Dahmer being a convicted child molester still under probation.  Later that night, Dahmer killed Sinthasomphone.

By summer 1991, Dahmer was murdering approximately one person each week.

So, as I'm sure you see coming:

"What might cops attempting to prevent murder have done?
What might cops attempting to allow murder have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it."

Clearly the cops were 'protecting' Dahmer, right?  That's the best, least-spun word to use?

Quote

The scenario you suggest above would perhaps be ok as an explanation of why the FBI were obstructed, if not for the accompanying lack of CIA intervention in the terrorist movements and actions along with that paradox (or reliance on insane CIA agents) mentioned in my previous post: “We may be attacked but by God we’ll have intelligence!”  Your suggestion does not address the whole package of occurrence – the CIA action to block the FBI and the CIA inaction which provided a free path to the terrorists – whose side were these guys on??  Maybe they forgot, in their 'incompetence'.  My question again would be, what were the CIA waiting for?  What did they think would happen given their provision of indefinite protection to terrorists?  What would you have done in their position?

Maybe that's where we disagree the most on this, the question, 'what would you have done in their position?'.  I am not an intelligence agent, are you?  Are you privy to all or most of all of the classified information that these agents were privy to at the time, you do agree that info forms part of the basis for their decision-making, as it should.  At some level asking me what I would have done in their position is about as relevant as asking me the first 10 things I'd do to begin brain surgery.  Had our intelligence agencies stopped other potential attacks prior to 9/11 by pouncing on AQ agents as soon as they discovered them, only to find that strategy was not stopping at all the continued attempts, so they had moved on to other strategies?  Again, how many threats are being made simultaneously, how many threats had turned out to be nothing at all, how many agents were available to pursue the leads, how specific is the threat; why don't you think the answers to these questions are directly relevant when judging their actions?  

You sometimes act like people are computer programs where their actions can be classified as 'unreasonable/irrational/insane' based on your estimation of what should be done based on some input, without explaining how you know most everything they did at the time.  Which one of your adjective encompasses the basic fact that people and institutions make mistakes all the time?  The bungling Dahmer cops above are far more suspicious than the CIA's actions and inactions along the 'irrational/insane' axis, but I assume that like me a conspiracy is not being considered by you?   Yes, there isn't really any other feasible reason for this conspiracy, unlike 9/11, but that does not remove 'people make mistakes' as a complete explanation for all your suspicions, especially when the Dahmer mistakes were far more clear, direct, and blatant.  The Challenger disaster investigation likewise showed that at least one engineer was jumping up and down about the catastrophic risk of the O-rings in the cold prior to the launch.  Was the Challenger mission leader insane to ignore it?  Was he even irrational?  That depends on how you look at it, lots of systemic issues were uncovered after Challenger such as I believe pressure put on the team to reduce launch delays due to cost.  Face it, absolutely none of this totally normal and relevant nuance is captured in, 'are these the actions of someone trying to prevent or allow ....'.

Quote

I disagree – the case against the CIA is based on solid and specific facts established prior to 9/11, broadly that: -

The men were a part of Al Qaeda.
The men were connected to a previous attack.
The men were inside and illegal entrants to the United States.
The men were taking flight lessons.

At the time of their obstruction of the FBI, did the CIA know when and where the attacks were to occur?  And you skipped right over my point:  "You haven't shown that the CIA's actions here are anything but 'business as usual' for the time, and I don't know how without a much higher security clearance you can know differently. So how are you separating these specific 9/11 actions/inactions from the noise? You haven't shown that there's anything unusual about the CIA's actions here, as you haven't differentiated these actions from what they usually do, and that goes directly to how 'suspicious' this actually is."

You say you disagree, but then you don't really say specifically with what.  You disagree that showing that their actions and inactions are not 'business as usual' goes directly to how suspicious it is?

Quote

The initial case I’m making is essentially the same one that FBI agent Steve Bongardt made in August 2001: “someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’.  Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand by their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.”  They are some strong words and accusations - it hardly sounds like a ‘routine occurrence’ that Bongardt had resigned himself to.

I'm missing where anything in that quote can be taken as indicating how 'routine' it is; if anything I take the phrase 'someday someone will die - and wall or not' to be kinda suggesting that this has happened before.  And he talks about exactly what I brought up also; he's right, the public will not understand why they were not more effective at throwing every resource at certain problems (in hindsight of course).  Of course if you have any kind of management experience at all you should understand why you don't throw every resource at certain problems:  because you don't have infinite resources, that's why we have managers.

Quote

It is also apparently as FBI agent Mark Rossini would later state in 2009, when complaining of the CIA restrictions imposed on him (he was the guy who discovered the terrorists had obtained visas and wanted to report it to FBI HQ who would have placed the names on a block list) and his desire to open a case against the hijackers pre-9/11: “People who are going to watch this, they're going to say, "Oh, it's hindsight 20–20."  But, no, I'm not talking hindsight 20–20.  I'm talking basic, logical investigation.”  I guess he saw you coming LG!

Ha!  Yea, he saw me coming alright.  Based on what he thought in 2009...in hindsight!

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 06 February 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

preacherman76, on 05 February 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Tie that in with the CIA protecting these terrorists from the FBI.

That can't be done, especially when the same terrorist had plans to slam an aircraft into CIA headquarters at a time when the CIA had plans to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

What are you talking about, “can’t be done”?

It was done.