2157 replies to this topic

[Q24]

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

So if you don't think it's a conspiracy or the usual government ineptitude, what do you think it's all about?

I’ll let your speculation lead the way.

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Granted


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.


Granted


Agreed


Agreed

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?

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Ok, now that that's done, feel free to speculate.

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.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

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”.

Reality paints a different picture because according to Richard Clarke during an interview.

Quote

"in 1998, President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to kill him (Osama bin Laden).

Furthermore, Richard Clarke said this:

Quote

Clarke: The problem we had was that we wanted to kill him but we never knew where he was until after he had left that place, so we would always know where he had been yesterday.

http://www.spiegel.d...s-a-761458.html

Nothing there about the CIA protecting Osama bin Laden. In fact, Richard Clarke made it clear they wanted to kill Osama bin Laden.

[redhen]

Q24, on 24 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

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.

I'm not disputing whether they made those statements or not. I'm just saying that they are making speculations.

Quote

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”.

It would seem so.

Quote

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.  

I remember this guy now. There was a tv documentary about this escapade years ago.

Quote

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?

Sounds plausible.

Quote

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?

That's also plausible.

Quote

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).

Right, he was the Director of the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center. Sounds like a logical choice to me.

Quote

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.

Just want to interject; do you think it's a coincidence that the neocon group seemed over represented with Jews, or is that also part of the conspiracy?

Quote

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.”

Well that's a non-controversial police tactic. Instead of going after every street corner dealer, wait, gather evidence, then take down the whole lot.

Quote

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?

And it worked to perfection! A near-east conflict, costing thousands of lives, ostensibly to root out WMDs which were not found, which lead to an angry opposition on the home front, which led to the first Black U.S. president of the U.S.A.
Mission accomplished.

Quote

The Neocons do not meet their goals without 9/11, 9/11 would have been shutdown without Neocon intervention.

Ok, I'll bite. What were the neocons goals?

Quote

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’?

Obvious? Anyways, there is a long record of government ineptitude in democracies, it's the price we pay. Personally I would be happy with a benevolent dictator who can get the job done more efficiently.

Quote

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.

So now you claim that this is not speculation but true knowledge. That's a big difference. Also, I would think you would be hard pressed to find people in a position to know, government workers, government clients, etc., who believe that government incompetence, petty jealously, and power struggles are far fetched.

Why is it that when I listen to truthers it seems that Occam's razor is as dull as a wet fish?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

I’ll let your speculation lead the way.

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?

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.

Let's look at the real facts.

Quote

Declassified documents shed light on scramble to 'hit' bin Laden before 9/11

On December 20, 1998, an internal CIA memo was sent by a field agent about a missed opportunity to "hit" Osama bin Laden while he was reportedly visiting a mosque near Kandahar, Afghanistan. "I said hit him tonight; we may not get another chance," CIA agent Gary Schoen wrote. "We may well come to regret the decision not to go ahead."

The memo was sent to to Michael Scheuer, then head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden "station," and is one of more than 100 documents declassified and published by the National Security Archive this week. Although some have been previously cited or quoted in the Report of the 9/11 Commission, the raw documents themselves illustrate the frustrations and missteps in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and alarm among some at the CIA about al Qaeda's growing sophistication and its plans for attacking U.S. interests.

The documents have been heavily redacted before publication. But they give a sense of the aggravation, the guesswork and a never-ending sense of crisis in the intelligence community's pursuit of the al Qaeda leader before his eventual discovery and killing in May 2011. They also show that co-operation between different agencies was improving before 9/11 but that gaps and different priorities hampered counter-terrorism efforts.

Though they could not know it, time was running out. In December 2000, the CIA submitted a new plan in its targeting of al Qaeda "that would have significantly expanded our activities. ... It was too late for the departing Clinton administration to take action on this strategic proposal."

The same report speaks of excellent collaboration between the CIA and FBI on numerous terror cases, but then adds: "A major, ongoing concern is FBI's own internal dissemination system. CIA officers still often find it necessary to hand-deliver messages to the intended recipient within the FBI." And it laments "the loss of potential intelligence opportunities because of deference to law enforcement goals." In other words: at what point do you make an arrest or close down a terror conspiracy?

http://security.blog...den-before-911/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 381

Similar to the 9/11 Commission Report, the document collection details repeated CIA warnings of the bin Laden terrorist threat prior to September 11. According to a January 2000 Top Secret briefing to the Director of Central Intelligence, disruption operations against the Millennium plot "bought time… weeks… months… but no more than one year" before al-Qaeda would strike. [2000-01-07] "A UBL attack against U.S. interests could occur at any time or any place. It is unlikely that the CIA will have prior warning about the time or place." [1999-08-03]

By September 2001, CIA counterterrorism officials knew a plot was developing but couldn't provide policymakers with details. "As of Late August 2001, there were indications that an individual associated with al-Qa'ida was considering mounting terrorist operations in the United States, [Excised]. No further information is currently available in the timing of possible attacks or on the alleged targets in the United States." [2001-08-24]

Despite mounting warnings about al-Qaeda, the documents released today illustrate how prior to September 11, CIA counterterrorism units were lacking the funds to aggressively pursue bin Laden. "Budget concerns… CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level. Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections. Due to budgetary constraints… CTC/UBL [Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit] will move from offensive to defensive posture." [2000-04-05]

Although the collection is part of a laudable effort by the CIA to provide documents on events related to September 11, many of these materials are heavily redacted, and still only represent one-quarter of the CIA materials cited in the 9/11 Commission Report. Hundreds of cited reports and cables remain classified, including all interrogation materials such as the 47 reports from CIA interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from March 24, 2003 – June 15, 2004, which are referenced in detail in the 9/11 Report.

Highlights of the CIA September 11 Document Collection Include:

• The 1998 Raw Intelligence Report on UBL's Plans to Hijack an Airplane that Became an Item in the December 4, 1998 President's Daily Brief [1998-12-03].
  
  • The report details how bin Laden was planning "new operations against the United States (U.S.) targets in the near future. Plans to hijack a U.S. aircraft were proceeding well. Two individuals from the relevant operational team in the U.S. had successfully evaded security checks during a trial run at "New York airport [excised]."
    
• http://www.gwu.edu/~...AEBB/NSAEBB381/

Nothing there implicating the CIA nor the US government in the 911 attacks nor indications that the CIA was protecting and befriending Osama bin Laden.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 January 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[Q24]

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

I'm not disputing whether they made those statements or not. I'm just saying that they are making speculations.


It would seem so.

And I’m saying they are not speculating on the point that the terrorists received “protection” and were “shielded” by the CIA – it is simply a description of facts on the ground which occurred due to the premeditated CIA actions we have seen and which you accepted.  The only speculation, is where Clarke theorises that the CIA were attempting to flip/recruit the terrorists.

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Just want to interject; do you think it's a coincidence that the neocon group seemed over represented with Jews, or is that also part of the conspiracy?

This is a different topic, but it is inevitable/inherent that the disproportionate Jewish representation in the Bush administration had a bearing on U.S. policy.  You can understand my views on this by reading my posts #100 & #105 linked below and consideration of the questions I ask: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry3430033

The political paper linked in my post #6 below also explains: -

http://www.unexplain...4

Is it necessarily a part of the conspiracy?

Of all the nationalities and religions in the world, is it a coincidence that the largest body of intelligence agents detained in New York on the morning of 9/11 and after were Israeli?  Is it a coincidence that after 10 weeks of failed lie detector tests and Jewish lobbying the subsequent investigation was shutdown for political, not law enforcement reasons?  Of all the nationalities and religions in the world, is it a coincidence that one of our hijackers was related to an Israeli informant?  Of all the nationalities and religions in the world, is it a coincidence that the man who privatized the WTC was Jewish, and the man who oversaw the lease transfer was Jewish, and the man who purchased the lease was Jewish?  How many coincidences before it becomes a fingerprint or pattern?

Cui bono?

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister - 2008

I don’t mean to single out Zionists, whose best interests go hand in hand with Neocon ideologies (which were perhaps even more influential when it comes to 9/11), I’m just answering your specific question.  And there were almost certainly others involved – it appears as a multi-national operation which involved limited U.S., Saudi, Israeli, British and Pakistani elements... there is no doubt in my mind that even bin Laden and his Jihadists played their part.

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Ok, I'll bite. What were the neocons goals?

Why not read their paper(s)?

The one overriding goal was to maintain American global pre-eminence into the 21^st century - a noble enough goal in of itself.  You see, it’s not that Neocon aims are “crazy” or “evil” or “dumb” as I’ve heard people say.  They actually achieved a lot and their arguments are logically quite sound.  Anyhow, to achieve that overriding goal, the Neocons believed this depended heavily on three interlinked sub-goals: -

• To increase influence in the Gulf region.
  
• To increase military spending back to Cold War levels.
  
• To control access to the region’s oil.

All three have been achieved due to 9/11; the “transforming event” which the Neocons knew was required.  Is it a coincidence that the catalyst; the most significant attack on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor, came within the year those very same policy-makers came to power?

Here is perhaps the clearest example of benefit, focussed on the second bullet point above: -

http://www.unexplain...30#entry3629017

To reiterate, we must understand how important the authors believed these aims were in maintaining American global pre-eminence – there could be no greater prize, and it certainly outweighed the sacrifice of 3,000 lives from a population of over 300 million.

redhen, on 24 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Obvious? Anyways, there is a long record of government ineptitude in democracies, it's the price we pay. Personally I would be happy with a benevolent dictator who can get the job done more efficiently.


So now you claim that this is not speculation but true knowledge. That's a big difference. Also, I would think you would be hard pressed to find people in a position to know, government workers, government clients, etc., who believe that government incompetence, petty jealously, and power struggles are far fetched.

Why is it that when I listen to truthers it seems that Occam's razor is as dull as a wet fish?

To look at the evidence we have discussed and glaze over it, “ah, a result of ineptitude and incompetence” does not do justice to explaining the situation or fit Occam’s razor.  It’s fine as a general statement, but not applied in detail to the situation set out.  I’m not sure that you appreciate the extent and selective level of incompetence that you are relying on.  FBI agents like Bongardt (“someday someone will die”) and Rossini (“These guys clearly are bad. One of them, at least, has a multiple-entry visa to the U.S. We've got to tell the FBI.”) were certainly not incompetent.  Yet CIA agents in contrast must have been hugely incompetent?

Think about it – the CIA clearly had an operation surrounding the hijackers, the only reason for their consistent reluctance to allow the FBI to intervene.  The CIA therefore knew who these terrorists were, knew their connection to Al Qaeda and previous attack, knew of their presence in the U.S., there must have been surveillance (which I have no doubt was carried out through Bayoumi – funny thing, that he guided the terrorists to a U.S. informant and kept letting them borrow his phone) and so knew the assistance they received and of their flight training.  As FBI agent Kenneth Maxwell said: “Two al-Qaeda guys living in California—are you kidding me? We would have been on them like white on snow: physical surveillance, electronic surveillance, a special unit devoted entirely to them.”  Yes there was surveillance alright, the intelligence contained in the President’s daily brief – “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US... Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft... FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings" - did not come from nowhere.

So what exactly were the CIA waiting for?... protecting the terrorists for months on end to the detriment of U.S. citizens... what did they think would happen?  “Oh, it’ll be ok”?  You really think the CIA, in complete contrast to the FBI, were that stupid to not realise thedanger?  Well do you?  That is not Occam’s razor – it’s desperation.  What would you, or any reasonable person, concerned with preventing an attack, not allowing an attack, have done in the CIA position?

It would have taken one individual to issue the deliberate order that would create the situation and suit the Neocon agenda we have seen – Bush, Cheney, Cofer Black – “this operation is to be surveillance only, do not intervene, wait for their move, we will take down the whole lot”.  And indeed they did, conveniently providing the opportunity to achieve a whole lot more on the way.  The order could have appeared semi-legitimate to agents on the surface, though they sure as heck would not admit to protecting the terrorists afterwards.  That is Occam’s razor – not to hopefully believe that the CIA bin Laden unit comprised some of the biggest imbeciles in the history of mankind, but to accept the obvious answer which incorporates all facts.

In the end, 9/11 does not occur as we know it without CIA assistance, even at the time the CIA knew their actions protected the terrorists, and their Neocon leadership knew that an attack benefited their goals.  These are facts, not speculation.  Even a child could put this 1 + 1 together, at a minimum would not flat out oppose the obvious answer.  Yet you would have me accept that these facts, on no basis other than a desire, are a result of coincidence, ineptitude, luck, irrelevance?  It’s hard to imagine why any informed person from a neutral perspective would do that.

[Babe Ruth]

joc, on 24 January 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Never heard of it.


Never heard that story either...but I'm pretty sure that the Media is not in the back pocket of George W. Bush, or was Bush is Hitler ranting day in and day out part of the 'conspiracy' as well?


...and let me guess...now he's dead?

Copy, you never heard of Ptech.  You should check it out.

The story about the destroyed audio tapes was over at Pilots For Truth probably 6 years ago or more.  You think "the media" was down on Dubya?  Keep in mind sir, the "great liberal rag" NYT kept secret for an entire year the story about the dirty work done by various telecommunications companies, including AT&Treason, on behalf of Bush's NSA.  NYT kept it quiet until AFTER the election.  Some theorize keeping it quiet for a year helped Bush win.

I don't know if the controller died or not, who told the story about the destroyed audio tapes.  My guess is that his story is somewhere in the archives at PFT. In an of itself, all the story proves is that the coverup began on Day One.

[Little Fish]

brzezinski essentially wrote in his book "the grand chessboard" written in 1997 that a pearl harbor event was required for the us to maintain pre-eminence by conquering central asia. I don't see 911 just as a neocon plot, brzezinski is the top strategist of the cfr, trilateral commission and bilderberg, and right hand man to the rockefeller family, these are the world government power structures that have evolved from the rhodes/milner group that formulate western policy behind the scenes. there was clearly a consensus within this establishment that a 911 was necessary. The neocons were just the radical fanatics that the reins of power were handed to by the elites to get their agenda through. don't forget Bush was elected on libertarian issues, what the people got was an administration full of Trotskyite neocons.

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (The Grand Chessboard pp 24-5)

"The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being." (The Grand Chessboard p. 35)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (The Grand Chessboard p. 211)

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 25 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

And I’m saying they are not speculating on the point that the terrorists received “protection” and were “shielded” by the CIA – it is simply a description of facts on the ground which occurred due to the premeditated CIA actions we have seen and which you accepted.  The only speculation, is where Clarke theorises that the CIA were attempting to flip/recruit the terrorists.

Considering evidence already revealed, the CIA was not shielding terrorist of al-Qaeda. Why would the CIA shield those who are bent on its destruction?

Quote

Phase III, CIA plane crash plot

bdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

http://en.wikipedia....urad_(terrorist)

Nothing there about a cozy relationship between the CIA and the terrorist. In fact, it highlights the fact the terrorist were determined to attack the CIA, the same agency you say was protecting those terrorist.

Why would the CIA protect terrorist who seek to destroy the agency?

Quote

This is a different topic, but it is inevitable/inherent that the disproportionate Jewish representation in the Bush administration had a bearing on U.S. policy.  You can understand my views on this by reading my posts #100 & #105 linked below and consideration of the questions I ask: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry3430033

The political paper linked in my post #6 below also explains: -

http://www.unexplain...4

Is it necessarily a part of the conspiracy?

Nope! The link you think supports your claim says this:

Quote

“Israel controls the United States Senate”

James Fulbright, U.S. Senator – 1973

But, reality is on another page.

Quote

Israel Avoids Public Disagreement with Obama Over Appointment of Chuck Hagel

Even before he was nominated to become the next U.S. secretary of defense, the bad-mouthing of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel had already begun. Warnings flew like salvos across the U.S. media and beyond: Hagel is soft on Iran and no friend of Israel.

Hagel's willingness to engage with Iran and its client, Hamas, upsets most Israelis, Schiffer noted. But he went on to say that "U.S. policy towards Israel is set in the White House, and there you can find today a president who has a very warm approach to Israel but at the same time a very angry and cold policy towards Netanyahu and his government."

http://www.blackchri...urck-hagel.html

That doesn't sound like Israel controls the United States by any means. You also linked the following:

Quote

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?  I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel.”
~Philip Zelikow, American diplomat - 2002

“The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there.  Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.”
~Charles Freeman, former U.S. Director of National Intelligence - 2003

Check history of the region and you will notice that Saddam Hussein was not only a threat to Israel, but a threat to the entire Gulf region; a fact that President  Bush realized.

Remember, President Bush warned Iraq to get out of Kuwait, not Israel, and Iraq bombed the oil rigs of the U.A.E., not Israel. Iraq invaded Iran, not Israel, and Iraq threatened Gulf States to dismiss Iraq's financial obligations or else. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia before its troops were ejected and used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Quote

Of all the nationalities and religions in the world, is it a coincidence that the largest body of intelligence agents detained in New York on the morning of 9/11 and after were Israeli?

Isn't it a coincidence that no evidence was found that implicated the Israelis? Was is a coincidence that Israel was one of a number of countries warning the United States that Muslim terrorist were planning to attack American?

Quote

Israel Warns the United States of an Attack

August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.

So, here is where Israel warned the United States of an impending attack and yet you try to implicate Israel in the 911 attack. Basically speaking, you have a habit of concocting baseless conspiracies without evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 January 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[Q24]

Little Fish, on 25 January 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

brzezinski essentially wrote in his book "the grand chessboard" written in 1997 that a pearl harbor event was required for the us to maintain pre-eminence by conquering central asia. I don't see 911 just as a neocon plot, brzezinski is the top strategist of the cfr, trilateral commission and bilderberg, and right hand man to the rockefeller family, these are the world government power structures that have evolved from the rhodes/milner group that formulate western policy behind the scenes. there was clearly a consensus within this establishment that a 911 was necessary. The neocons were just the radical fanatics that the reins of power were handed to by the elites to get their agenda through. don't forget Bush was elected on libertarian issues, what the people got was an administration full of Trotskyite neocons.

That’s moving into NWO territory – though I’m sure you are right, Brzezinski’s statements certainly further enforce the motive for 9/11, and that the power structure goes much higher and wider (I mentioned the appearance of a “multi-national operation” in my last post) – I just focus on the Neocon group as the most direct candidate to keep it simple, though it’s certainly an interesting web the elites weave at a higher level.

Isn’t it interesting that Brzezinski’s own ‘pawn’ turned out to be the bogeyman behind the ‘new Pearl Harbor’.  There’s a photograph or two of his meeting with bin Laden on the Afghanistan border in 1980 shortly after the onset of Operation Cyclone: -

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4107567

This all helps to explain why bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ were the chosen - it was an easy setup to make.

[redhen]

Q24, on 25 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

In the end, 9/11 does not occur as we know it without CIA assistance, even at the time the CIA knew their actions protected the terrorists, and their Neocon leadership knew that an attack benefited their goals.  These are facts, not speculation.  Even a child could put this 1 + 1 together, at a minimum would not flat out oppose the obvious answer.

If you are so sure of your case, I think we should take up a collection on the UM forums so you can bring it to a civil court, you clearly have more than enough evidence to win. What do you think?

Quote

Yet you would have me accept that these facts, on no basis other than a desire, are a result of coincidence, ineptitude, luck, irrelevance?  It’s hard to imagine why any informed person from a neutral perspective would do that.

This sounds like an argument for Intelligent Design, and it fails for the same reason; other alternative explanations are simply not a live option. By that I mean, a agnostic can entertain the possibility that God may or may not exist, but the existence of the ancient Greek pantheon of gods is simply not imaginable.

Edited by redhen, 25 January 2013 - 10:31 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 25 January 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

That’s moving into NWO territory – though I’m sure you are right, Brzezinski’s statements certainly further enforce the motive for 9/11, and that the power structure goes much higher and wider (I mentioned the appearance of a “multi-national operation” in my last post) – I just focus on the Neocon group as the most direct candidate to keep it simple, though it’s certainly an interesting web the elites weave at a higher level.

Isn’t it interesting that Brzezinski’s own ‘pawn’ turned out to be the bogeyman behind the ‘new Pearl Harbor’.  There’s a photograph or two of his meeting with bin Laden on the Afghanistan border in 1980 shortly after the onset of Operation Cyclone: -

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4107567

This all helps to explain why bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ were the chosen - it was an easy setup to make.

Let's take another look at the real facts.  911 conspiracist confused CIA support for the Afghan mujahideen with the Arab mujahideen, which were two different groups.

Quote

Osama bin Laden's Interview with Robert Fisk

"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help."

http://web.archive.o...n_sudan1996.htm


Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist"
Robert Fisk.

In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...l#ixzz2J1rNiQU0


"The Power of Nightmares"

It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up.

A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency.

The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world.

A clear example of 911 conspiracist confusing two groups, one of which was supported by the CIA, which was the Afghan mujahideen.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 January 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Babe Ruth, on 22 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Your lack of curiosity is fascinating Sky.

Your lack of understanding the Real world is what should be our fascination ! Babe Go back to school please.

[Q24]

redhen, on 25 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

If you are so sure of your case, I think we should take up a collection on the UM forums so you can bring it to a civil court, you clearly have more than enough evidence to win. What do you think?

I think the legal loopholes to be navigated, willingness to invoke ‘national security’ to withhold key testimony and evidence, stonewalling of legitimate investigation by authorities that conceals vital witnesses, gravity of the complaint and of course, that the justice system is headed by the defendants, makes a successful court case entirely impossible at this moment in time.

There have been a number of lawsuits since 9/11 that have gone precisely nowhere.  I’m not just talking about a few from ‘conspiracy theorists’ but those raised by the victims’ family members against the Saudis and another raised by the airlines against the CIA and FBI – they get shutdown before they start.

Yes on a level playing field, and in front of a neutral and informed jury, I clearly have more than enough evidence to win the case.  In reality of the current climate it is a waste of time and money.  Was it 75 years that it took the German courts to pardon Marinus van der Lubbe of responsibility for the Reichstag fire?  And so it will be with 9/11.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 26 January 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

There have been a number of lawsuits since 9/11 that have gone precisely nowhere.  I’m not just talking about a few from ‘conspiracy theorists’ but those raised by the victims’ family members against the Saudis and another raised by the airlines against the CIA and FBI – they get shutdown before they start.

Speaking of lawsuits!

Quote

Judge orders al-Qaeda, Taliban, Iran to pay $6 billion for 9/11

A federal magistrate judge says al Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran should pay $6 billion to relatives of Sept. 11 victims for aiding in the 2001 terror attacks.

Last October, Maas recommended that al Qaeda be assessed $9.3 billion for the damage done to properties and businesses in the attacks. In a ruling, Maas sent the recommendation to a district judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by several insurance companies.

The companies in 2003 sued various defendants, seeking damages for the 2001 terror attacks, which demolished the World Trade Center's twin towers. Al Qaeda never responded to the lawsuit and was found in default in 2006. Maas determined the actual damages and then tripled them as allowed by law.

At the time, the companies were only seeking an assessment of damages against al Qaeda.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ay-6b-for-9-11/


Judge orders al-Qaeda, Taliban, Iran to pay $6 billion for 9/11

A Manhattan judge has awarded 110 survivors and the estates of 47 victims in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks $6 billion in a lawsuit filed against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranian government.

In a historic case that would hold the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in New York accountable for the first time, the New York Daily News has learned that Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas has ruled in favor of the 110 survivors and 47 victims’ estates that are parties to the lawsuit.

http://digitaljourna.../article/329746


Judge nails Iran, Al Qaeda for 9/11 with $6 billion penalty in lawsuit

Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas orders payments to 110 survivors and estates of 47 victims, including the pilot of United Airlines Flight 175, which hit south tower of World Trade Center

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...7#ixzz2J4FWBXha

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 January 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

redhen, on 25 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

If you are so sure of your case, I think we should take up a collection on the UM forums so you can bring it to a civil court, you clearly have more than enough evidence to win. What do you think?



This sounds like an argument for Intelligent Design, and it fails for the same reason; other alternative explanations are simply not a live option. By that I mean, a agnostic can entertain the possibility that God may or may not exist, but the existence of the ancient Greek pantheon of gods is simply not imaginable.

It appears that you are utterly UNaware that the judiciary is in on the coverup sir, or madam.  There are others, but Judge Hellerstein in Manhattan is the best example of judicial complicity in the coverup.  ALL cases regarding 11 September were settled out of court, as manipulated by Hellerstein and others, including congressional legislation.

Become informed RedHen.  Yes, it's depressing, but after the depression passes, one feels much better when informed.