Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

911


  • Please log in to reply
990 replies to this topic

#781    Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today...
    As You don't know what tomorrow bring's.......

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:45 PM

View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:


Except it was known before 911 that the various intelligence agencies had communications issues when communicating between each other.  But that doesn't count right?

I am not stating that there is no communication issues between department's/agencie's....


View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

No stand down.  That is a myth.


If that is a myth as You state, then why did they not do anything ?



View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:


Because government computers NEVER have backups.  :rolleyes:


The computer's may have had back up's....

But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility

Posted Image


#782    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

I am not stating that there is no communication issues between department's/agencie's....
Then they're not as good as you think they are, are they?


View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

If that is a myth as You state, then why did they not do anything ?

They did.  How quickly do you think they can respond to a threat INSIDE the nation when NORAD previously only looked outward and previous intercepts took well over an hour (Payne Stewart)?



View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

The computer's may have had back up's....

But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility
So your theory is they had all their backups in the same room (laughable) and everything was destroyed for a problem that nobody knew about until they brought it up in the first place?  Do you have any idea how absurd that all sounds?

Edited by frenat, 04 October 2012 - 07:49 PM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#783    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

What transpired on 9/10 could be the very reason why the pentagon was hit.....

Assuming here that you're talking about Rumsfeld mentioning that $2.3 trillion in transactions cannot be tracked during his speech on Sept. 10, 2001:

This has been discussed several times before.

First of all, notice that I said "cannot be tracked" not "lost", "missing" or "stolen" because "we cannot track" is actually what Rumsfeld said. There were a multitude of different accounting systems used between departments, and a lot of times those different systems were incompatible. Due to this incompatibility, some transactions could not be tracked properly. While they knew the money was spent and it was accounted for, they couldn't trace the transactions properly / easily. This is what Rumsfeld was addressing during his 9/10 speech.

Here is the relevant excerpt from that speech:

Quote

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....

http://www.defense.g...px?speechid=430

Second, it was known for at least a year and a half before 9/11 that those problems existed between the various department and that there were transactions that could not be properly tracked.

Quote

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY
The Associated Press
03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
http://hv.greenspun....l?msg_id=002hxm

Quote

July 11th 2001

Testimony before the House Budget Committee on the FY 2002 Defense Budget

REP. PETER HOEKSTRA (R-MI): ... I find it interesting, and we've done a lot of work on another committee that I sit on, taking a look at the Department of Education, which, for the last three years hasn't been able to get a clean audit. Then I understand that the Department of Defense shares many of the same problems that we have with the Department of Education. I think the IG just notes that in one of the audits that you went through of the 1999 financial statements included adjustments of $7.6 trillion -- that's trillion -- in account adjustments, of which 2.3 trillion were supported by un -- by reliable documents -- were unsupported by reliable documentation.
http://www.defense.g...px?speechid=408

There are more sources available from before 9/11 that show that this problem was known and acknowledged, that the funds were not "stolen" or even "missing", but were improperly tacked.

Quote

Apparently the area of the Pentagon that was hit had computer's/record's of such information that shed light on the missing money, and could be the reason why

Quoting from the 911Myths.com "Missing Trillions" page:

Quote

We still have the supposed motive of "destroying information" and "killing personnel" with the Pentagon attack, though. As we were told above, "the impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." CooperativeResearch report on the consequences of this:

Quote

The Department of the Army will state that it won’t publish a stand-alone financial statement for 2001 because of “the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.” [Insight, 4/29/2002]
http://www.cooperati...01defensebudget
What did the lack of "a stand-alone financial statement for 2001" mean? No need to guess, the military have already told us.

Quote

The “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” Public Law 101-576, November 15, 1990, as amended by the “Federal Financial Management Act of 1994,” Public Law 103-356, October 13, 1994, requires the annual preparation and audit of financial statements. The Army did not publish stand-alone financial statements for FY 2001 due to the loss of financial management personnel sustained during the September 11 terrorist attack. Therefore, we did not audit Army financial information for FY 2001 financial statements. However, Army financial statement information was included in the DoD FY 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements.
http://www.dodig.mil...fy02/02-073.pdf

This, then, is the "benefit" of the Pentagon attack: Army financial statements for 2001 were only provided in an overall Department of Defence document, not stand-alone, and therefore they could not be audited. No reported impact on the $2.3 trillion, nothing more at all. We don't even know for sure if this information was released later, because the document only talks about a loss of personnel, not data: if so, the most effect (on the budget issue) the attacks had was to partially delay the production of one particular document from one part of the Department of Defence.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 04 October 2012 - 08:22 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#784    Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today...
    As You don't know what tomorrow bring's.......

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM

View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:


Then they're not as good as you think they are, are they?


Apparently they are NOT worth the money that they cost the American taxpayer....

Seeing as they knew of the attack and they was warned of it before it happened (apparently)


View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:


They did.  How quickly do you think they can respond to a threat INSIDE the nation when NORAD previously only looked outward and previous intercepts took well over an hour (Payne Stewart)?


Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?

As far as I am aware, NORAD did indeed respond, but could not do anything due to the Vice president telling them not to (as far as I am aware)

Prior to 9/11 in may of that year the rule's were changed about hijacking's and the military/NORAD could not respond without clearence from the President or Vice President  (as far as I am aware)


View Postfrenat, on 04 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:


So your theory is they had all their backups in the same room (laughable) and everything was destroyed for a problem that nobody knew about until they brought it up in the first place?  Do you have any idea how absurd that all sounds?

It is not my theory, I stated that it was a possibility....

"But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility "

Why is it laughable ???  did they expect an attack to happen like what happened that day ?  No ? then I do not see why such a thing is laughable

Posted Image


#785    Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today...
    As You don't know what tomorrow bring's.......

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:29 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 04 October 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Assuming here that you're talking about Rumsfeld mentioning that $2.3 trillion in transactions cannot be tracked during his speech on Sept. 10, 2001:

This has been discussed several times before.

Cz

Yes that is what I was referring to with the 9/10 comment....

I never stated that it was stolen or otherwise...

Just that it is a possibility of why the pentagon was hit during 9/11...

It doesnt really matter now what happened to the $2.3 trillion dolllar's, as it cannot be tracked anymore (as far as I am aware)

Posted Image


#786    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?

Technically,yes, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that NORAD's responsibilities changed to include aircraft within the borders of the US and Canada, not just the monitoring of aircraft coming into North American airspace:

From NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Complex webpage:

Quote

The Air Warning Center (AWC) is the focal point for providing aerospace warning and aerospacecontrol for North America. It provides command and control of the air surveillance and defense network, using air and ground-based radars inside and along the periphery of North America. The AWC closely monitors the airspace of Canada and the United States to detect any aircraft or cruise missiles that might violate our airspace or represent a threat.

Approximately 7,000 aircraft per day or 2.5 million aircraft a year enter Canada and the United States. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the AWC's mission of Aerospace Warning and Aerospace Control has expanded to include the interior airspace of North America. Today, the AWC monitors approximately 5,000 aircraft flying inside Canada and the United States in addition to monitoring aircraft entering North America.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 04 October 2012 - 08:53 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#787    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I never stated that it was stolen or otherwise...
True, but typically when this issue is brought up it is in the context of or with the intent to show that the funds were indeed actually stolen or actually missing.

Quote

Just that it is a possibility of why the pentagon was hit during 9/11...
And evidence has been presented that shows that this is unlikely and would not have had any effect on the funds even if they have been "stolen"

Quote

It doesnt really matter now what happened to the $2.3 trillion dolllar's, as it cannot be tracked anymore (as far as I am aware)

Actually, it can be, and has been, at least as far back as Feb, 2002.

Quoting again from the 911Myths.com "Missing Trillions" page:

Quote

And there's another point that you might consider relevant. While most people act like the talk of an unaccounted-for $2.3 trillion is still accurate, that's not actually true. A February 2002 story reported that more than two thirds of that expenditure had now been reconciled:

Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending

By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2002 -- As part of military transformation efforts, DoD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim and his posse of accountants are riding the Pentagon's financial paper trail, seeking to corral billions of dollars in so-called "lost" expenditures.
For years, DoD and congressional officials have sought to reconcile defense financial documents to determine where billions in expenditures have gone. That money didn't fall down a hole, but is simply waiting to be accounted for, Zakheim said in a Feb. 14 interview with the American Forces Information Service. Complicating matters, he said, is that DoD has 674 different computerized accounting, logistics and personnel systems.

Most of the 674 systems "don't talk to one another unless somebody 'translates,'" he remarked. This situation, he added, makes it hard to reconcile financial data.

Billions of dollars of DoD taxpayer-provided money haven't disappeared, Zakheim said. "Missing" expenditures are often reconciled a bit later in the same way people balance their checkbooks every month. The bank closes out a month and sends its bank statement, he said. In the meanwhile, people write more checks, and so they have to reconcile their checkbook register and the statement.

DoD financial experts, Zakheim said, are making good progress reconciling the department's "lost" expenditures, trimming them from a prior estimated total of $2.3 trillion to $700 billion. And, he added, the amount continues to drop.

"We're getting it down and we are redesigning our systems so we'll go down from 600-odd systems to maybe 50," he explained.
"That way, we will give people not so much more money, but a comfort factor, to be sure that every last taxpayer penny is accounted for," he concluded.

http://www.defense.g...e.aspx?id=43927 {correct, current link inserted - Cz}[/background]

Now p Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings. There's no clear reason given why the Bush adminstration would need to go to such efforts to conceal the problem, for instance. They didn't, either, and it was covered on several occasions before 9/11, so the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion again on 9/10 seems to have no special importance. While the Pentagon attack did have an effect on the production of some DoD financial statements, it's not clear how significant this was, and another report suggests the DoD is reducing the “missing” amounts by taking steps to improve its accounting procedures. It's hard to see how any of this constitutes foreknowledge, or a motive for the 9/11 attacks.

Again, evidence presented that shows that the funds were not missing or stolen or were a likely or feasible reason for the attacks on 9/11.

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

The three possibilitie's that I have posted are the only three thing's that I currently believe are possible due to the various numerous bit's of evidence that I have seen so far, if there is ANY evidence that contradict's my belief's then I will adjust my belief's/view's accordingly, due to evidence and nothing else

Does any of this evidence I have presented help in "adjusting your beliefs"...?






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 04 October 2012 - 09:51 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#788    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:07 PM

People would prefer to believe that agencies were incompetent (even though not a single head has rolled for their incompetence. i.e the CIA preventing the FBI from arresting the terrorists) rather than accept that people in positions of power allowed US citizens to be murdered for their own gain.

It has been shown time and time again that the US government has experimented on their own people with syphilis and other deadly illnesses, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. To say that the government would never kill its own citizens for its own benefit is directly contrary to the evidence of history.

Even in the last few weeks a government spokesmanstated that a false flag attack on US warships (or a crisis initiation) in the Persian Gulf could be used as a reason to invade Iran to stop their nuclear program.

But of course, the US govt agencies couldn't have known anything about 9/11 before that horrific day...


#789    Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today...
    As You don't know what tomorrow bring's.......

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:56 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 04 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:


Again, evidence presented that shows that the funds were not missing or stolen or were a likely or feasible reason for the attacks on 9/11.


Does any of this evidence I have presented help in "adjusting your beliefs"...?


Cz

While I do believe that it is a possibility why the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, I still believe that it is only a small part of the reason or possibility of why the whole 9/11 attack took place....

At the moment the evidence You have presented does not help in adjusting my belief's, it would be stupid of me not to investigate further, and as such I will be taking the evidence You provided into consideration

At this current time I still stand by the three possibilities of the 9/11 attack's, that I posted previously...

Posted Image


#790    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:56 PM

Had a bit of an Edit Fail just now... my fault for editing so close to the end of the one hour limit.

Anyway...

View PostCzero 101, on 04 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Now p Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings.

from my above post should read


"Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings."

and the article excerpt just prior to that should be in its own quote box (which is what I was trying to fix when the hour limit expired... )






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#791    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:53 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 04 October 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

People would prefer to believe that agencies were incompetent (even though not a single head has rolled for their incompetence. i.e the CIA preventing the FBI from arresting the terrorists) rather than accept that people in positions of power allowed US citizens to be murdered for their own gain.

There is no evidence implicating the United States and in fact, such incompetence  and turf fighting between the FBI and the CIA is nothing new to us and has been going for years before the 9/11 attacks. Seems to me that 9/11 conspiracist were unaware of that fact.

Quote

It has been shown time and time again that the US government has experimented on their own people with syphilis and other deadly illnesses, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. To say that the government would never kill its own citizens for its own benefit is directly contrary to the evidence of history.

Not in the case of the 9/11 attacks, and it seems the. 9/11 conspiracist have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Quote

Even in the last few weeks a government spokesmanstated that a false flag attack on US warships (or a crisis initiation) in the Persian Gulf could be used as a reason to invade Iran to stop their nuclear program.

I don't think so. The USS Cole was attacked and we didn't go to war.

Posted Image


The USS Stark was damaged in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi jet and we didn't go to war over that incident.

Posted Image

The USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine and we didn't go to war.

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 October 2012 - 10:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#792    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 04 October 2012 - 11:10 PM

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Apparently they are NOT worth the money that they cost the American taxpayer....

Seeing as they knew of the attack and they was warned of it before it happened (apparently)
No argument there.  They are good at some things and not so good at others, just like EVERYTHING else in the world.


View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Is it not NORAD's job to defend North America in the case of attack where ever it may come from ?
They did.  However, they traditionally looked for threats from outside the US (didn't I say that already?) and because of that were unprepared for a threat from within.  Their radars looked outward and they had to rely on civilian ATC to get info from within.  They also had to relay their communications through civilian channels.  But there was no stand down.

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

As far as I am aware, NORAD did indeed respond, but could not do anything due to the Vice president telling them not to (as far as I am aware)
You're aware wrong.

View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Prior to 9/11 in may of that year the rule's were changed about hijacking's and the military/NORAD could not respond without clearence from the President or Vice President  (as far as I am aware)
You're aware wrong.
http://www.911myths....charge_of_NORAD



View PostJackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

It is not my theory, I stated that it was a possibility....

"But what if those back up's was in the same room/vicinity of the attack ? which is a possibility "

Why is it laughable ???  did they expect an attack to happen like what happened that day ?  No ? then I do not see why such a thing is laughable

Why is it laughable that a networked computer system that undergoes regular backups across the network stored its backups in the same room as the offices?  Most likely that the network for those offices was not even near those offices.  The backups by design would be in different parts of the building.  That's why.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#793    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:05 AM

View PostQ24, on 04 October 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

No, according to facts on the ground, and this is another case where you’ve come out with a pointless off the cuff response without taking onboard the information I've provided.  Yes, elements of U.S. and foreign intelligence assisted the 9/11 hijackers, who even beforehand were known Al Qaeda linked terrorists, there's no doubt about it.  People only need research the comments and movements of FBI agent Steve Bongardt, Congressman Bob Graham, Saudi operative Omar al-Bayoumi and hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar to confirm these actions.

Yes according to you.  Or rather, according to your interpretation of the facts on the ground.  Forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conspiratorial conclusions that you have from the same facts, but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable.  Intelligence assets probably don't always do what you expect them to do and could be playing you as much as you might be trying to play them.  Just linking names isn't enough to condemn.  It is the job of people in the intelligence business to interact and intertwine with terrorist suspects in order to gather more intelligence and develop deeper ties of trust.  It's quite a game of cat and mouse and the cat can get their nose caught in the mousetrap while the mouse gets away.


#794    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,606 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 05 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:


but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable.  






:innocent:



(ps...I agree with what you say in your post...)


.

Posted Image


#795    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 October 2012 - 11:04 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 04 October 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Technically,yes, but it wasn't until after 9/11 that NORAD's responsibilities changed to include aircraft within the borders of the US and Canada, not just the monitoring of aircraft coming into North American airspace:

How strange then that NORAD appeared to accept it was their responsibility to intercept the hijacked aircraft on the morning of 9/11, and had the necessary procedures in place to react and immediately did so.  Of course it was NORAD’s responsibility to protect America from internal threats even prior to 9/11.  That is why even back in July 2001 the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise was planned to simulate multiple internal airliner hijackings.  It is all a bit of a defensive myth propagated by official story adherents that NORAD were not poised to respond on 9/11, likewise that claim that it was a unimagined attack – it was nothing of the sort when we look at the previous comments, exercises, documents and intelligence warnings on record.

I would go so far as to say NORAD’s response was admirable given the fast pace with which the hijackings unfolded and the one road block they encountered.  The first two crashes into the WTC occurred too fast, fighters were on route and at the scene shortly after, but no procedures could have prevented those attacks.  The third crash, into the Pentagon, could have been intercepted had NORAD’s clear request for coverage over Washington been followed, but there was a communications breakdown... or conceivably an order override... in the chain of command, meaning that fighters headed in the wrong direction (this was unacceptable, though no fault of NORAD).  The fourth crash, that of Flight 93... there is strong evidence to suggest that fighters under NORAD control got that one.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Yes according to you.  Or rather, according to your interpretation of the facts on the ground.  Forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the same conspiratorial conclusions that you have from the same facts, but I have the impression that intelligence operations can be messy and unpredictable.  Intelligence assets probably don't always do what you expect them to do and could be playing you as much as you might be trying to play them.  Just linking names isn't enough to condemn.  It is the job of people in the intelligence business to interact and intertwine with terrorist suspects in order to gather more intelligence and develop deeper ties of trust.  It's quite a game of cat and mouse and the cat can get their nose caught in the mousetrap while the mouse gets away.

No, it is not interpretation that the CIA had two of the future hijackers under close surveillance for their connection to Al Qaeda and involvement in the USS Cole attack, were aware of their illegal presence in the United States and took deliberate and forceful action to prevent the FBI, who were aware of the danger and complained greatly of their hands being tied with coming of the Bush administration, from ending the threat.  It is not interpretation that a Saudi government agent met the future hijackers inside the United States, assisted with opening bank accounts and putting them in contact with flight schools, before passing them on to live in the accommodation of a United States intelligence informant (even kindly paying an advance on the hijackers’ rent).

Now I’m going to say those types of demonstrated actions and assistances are highly questionable, deserve the highest level of investigation, and suggest the appearance of an intelligence guided operation, which rather than shutting down the threat, actually laid the hijackers an open pathway to 9/11... because it did...

To reiterate and bring it into focus, it is intelligence agents who to all intent said to the hijackers, “Here is access to money, here are flight schools, here is a place to live”, all in the United States, whilst holding back the FBI who were understandably livid.  Surveillance and a lack of action based on intel are one thing, but this was something else; direct interference, guidance, assistance and aid to the 9/11 hijackers.

The only real interpretation I see here, a ludicrous one at that, is your baseless hope that it was all some sort of intelligence accident; a big 'oopsie', rather than deliberate intent, which it would have taken a single order to implement, such as from head of the CIA bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, who we know held daily briefings with Bush and Cheney.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users