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

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#541    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,895 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

If I didn't know better I'd say the actions of a certain poster in this thread lately scream troll.  One liner responses that don't address the topic, not bothering to provide evidence for your own theory or adequately point out a tiny insignifcant little mark when asked politely several times.  Are we on GLP?

Edited by frenat, 06 October 2012 - 11:27 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

#542    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:42 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 03 October 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

W Tell, no need to apologize to me, man.  I haven't been here that long, but this is the most productive and educational thread I've been involved in here, and kudos to you and all the participants.  I think it has the highest proportion of actual content and debate and engagement of ideas to, well let's just call it 'commenters poking at each other' to be nice, than any other 9/11 thread I've seen since I've been here.  (Not that there's anything that wrong with poking of course, I'm not above indulging in it or receiving it.  All in good fun and mild annoyance.)



I agree. There's more substance in this thread than many I've read over the years.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 03 October 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

I've just spent some time reading another thread with knowledgable people discussing Newton's third law with respect to the collapses which was very interesting, but involved discussions of the differences between dynamic loads vs static loads, calculations involving calculus I know longer remember, etc, which is convincing me that despite thinking that the physics is something objective and there are right and wrong answers on these topics, I think I have little hope of actually nailing it down and being very convincing at this point, that proof lies ultimately in the realm of mathematics.  I do really think I've made an accomplishment with Q with agreement of our floors only behavior of the towers and I'm going to return to it, there may be some hope there yet, but this thread's consuming the majority of my UM time recently and I'm getting a little sick of thinking about the mechanics of the building collapses right now.  I think we can talk about multiple things here simultaneously, so yes, your timing here is perfect, I'm definitely ready to take a brief breather and talk some turkey.

Your quotes above from our presidents are all excellent, but the general idea there has a lot of different applications.  Interesting way of putting it that you suggested, the 'separation' of the government from the people; I guess (if for no other reason than to keep this discussion in the correct forum) you might be able to suggest that the US government has some of the attributes of a secret society in a way.  But I guess it depends on how we are defining 'large government'.  Is that military strength and the exercise of it, degree and amount of secrecy, revenue, dependence of the populace on it/welfare type programs, invasiveness of its laws, sheer number of people employed?  Probably all put together.  I guess, to me, the most concerning are the exercise of our military and the invasiveness of our laws, the former because of the raw damage and cost and latter because of its insidiousness.

Which leads into your first point, who's to blame for what the government does, terrible things that are obviously unjustified to me like the Iraq War.  I don't think, if we were to just ridiculously glom 'the American people' together into one averaged stereotyped mass, that I'd say then that the people are not 'in control' inasmuch as I'd say that the American people still have the power ultimately.  Unfortunately we don't want to be bothered to use it unless its absolutely essential, which usually just unfortunately means, it affects most of us directly.  We don't want to be bothered with even knowing where these countries we're at war with are located, what their history and culture is, don't particularly care to be reminded of the actual cost of these wars with such nuisances as being exposed to relatively benign photos of flag-draped caskets, don't want to keep up with really what's going on, our wars get boring after a few years ya know.  We aren't interested in these details, we don't keep that close an eye on what the government does which was a pretty key part of the founders idea of an effective government.  Oh but give us something remotely titillating, then we can't get enough of it of course; off the top of my head I can't rattle off the name of 4 cities in Afghanistan but I could probably rattle off 4 names of the lawyers involved in the O.J. trial.  (obviously this is a caricature, there are loads of very good unselfish Americans and varying degrees of all of it).

And our government secret society knows how we behave and our apathy, and plays it to a tee.  But we could change it if we wanted, everyone making the decisions is very beholden to being reelected, or being recalled in the extreme case.  And this simplified discussion assumes that there's something that the people can mostly agree on; it gets even stickier and more complicated when there are a good amount of people that think going to Iraq for example was a good idea.   But I don't think it changes where the power is, I blame the people not the government, we've been given all the tools to make change, significant changes to the structure of the government itself, and only a fraction of us use them, are really knowledgable enough to have educated input to provide, or really care enough to.  We could punish those who are not talking to us straight and keeping secrets unnecessarily, who are giving us a sales pitch, but many of us don't even bother to fact check; instead it's, 'here's the power and the nuisance, take it.'

I'm not gonna answer this myself. I'll let people of more import weigh in on the subject. I hope you don't mind, but they have more credibility than I.



"If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it." - Woodrow Wilson




"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." - Woodrow Wilson



"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country." - John F. Hylan, New York City Mayor 1922




"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson



"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." - Franklin D. Roosevelt



"You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. … You may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything." - Bill Clinton




"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and secret conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversions instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no democracy would ever hope to wish to match." - John F. Kennedy


















View PostLiquid Gardens, on 03 October 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

But I do have the hope somehow through something like the internet that people can both get themselves interested and educated on what our government is doing at least until it is more 'fixed', and express their will more easily and conveniently.  Nowhere near that yet, but I think I see the potential, although I admit that I'm concerned about how a more true will of the people would actually express itself and what it would result in.
My hope too. But I have no hope of change if the "informed citizen" is still worried about who wins "American Idol".


#543    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:57 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 05 October 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Please quote specifically where Swanny posted that "there is no trickery in the world" in the post you have quoted, or if you prefer, please specify exactly where Goethe said that, since that's who Swanny is quoting.

Either that, or explain why you find it necessary to resort to strawman arguments...

You have misunderstood my post and the sarcasm (I know - always dangerous to use on an internet forum) of my interpretation.  I assumed that, in response to my question, Swanny was making a definite claim that the intelligence agencies assisting two of the 9/11 hijackers was a result of “misunderstandings and neglect” rather than “trickery and malice”. Thus my response: Yeah, there is no “trickery” in the world, especially when it comes to war, politics and global affairs.  Better in such cases that we auto-appeal to “misunderstandings”, of course.”  If however Swanny meant the quote from Goethe literally... then what sort of empty non-argument is that?  What, it might be a “misunderstanding” and not “trickery” so we should be reassured and screw the investigation?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 October 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

You can't, you never can, and likewise the idea of there being evidence to support the idea that it was a deliberate attempt is very unlikely also.

I’ll interrupt right there... sorry, but it seems that you are talking from a position of ignorance.

Is the fact that intelligence agents allowed the hijackers into the country, and knowingly to remain there for months, assisted them to open bank accounts and contact flight schools, provided them accommodation and actively prevented FBI intervention, despite the threat and their terrorist connections being apparent, not clear “evidence to support the idea” that there was a deliberate attempt to facilitate the 9/11 attack?  All this under jurisdiction of the same intelligence head having daily meetings with the top-tier Neocons who had stated benefit of “a new Pearl Harbor”, within a new administration which had more tightly tied the hands of the FBI in bin Laden related cases.

If the above is not “evidence to support the idea” then what on Earth is?  Are you still waiting for that confession?

Of course we could know – we only need ask the right questions of the right people; the investigation we have never had.  There is no defence for the lack of questions asked or answers received by the official ‘investigation’.  This particular issue has been a whitewash, and even U.S. Senators, one a member of the 9/11 Commission, agree.

How naive one must be to defend this situation.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 October 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

How can we rule out that it's not just another example of the issues and territorialism that existed in the intelligence communities prior to 9/11?  This isn't the first time something like that had happened, you agree?  If we can't rule that out either then it does raise the question, why does this merit a mention?

No, “territorialism” does not explain it by far – see above - the intelligence services to all ends aided and abetted the hijackers – this is direct evidence of their culpability and involvement.  Oh it’s happened before alright.  Gleiwitz, 1939 – Polish saboteurs setup by the Nazi SS.  The Lavon Affair, 1954 – Mossad agents carried out attacks in the name of Arabs.  Northwoods, 1962 – a planned CIA terror campaign in the name of Cuban terrorists.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 05 October 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Of course it could in many ways, and for the obvious reason that it would be 'better' if we didn't even know anything about it.

No, I’m saying that the path to 9/11 could not possibly have been made any easier for the hijackers due to actions of the intelligence services.

“Here, come into the country Mr. Hijacker and stay for months on end.  Here’s a place to live, we’ll pay the advance on your rent, and have a bank account too.  Ah and here’s the contact details of some flight schools... should you be needing them.  Oh don’t worry about the FBI, we’ll keep them off your back.”

Now of course I don’t know if those were the actual words used (I made them up), but they are the on record actions that took place.  How could it have been better?  Free tickets to Disneyland for the hijackers perhaps?  It didn't seem they could open bank accounts, contact flight schools or find accommodation alone, so what chance they could fly aircraft unassisted... why not just go the whole hog... give them remote-guided Boeings to ensure they hit their targets and rig the WTC to enhance their attack a little?... oh... wait... they did.

Edited by Q24, 08 October 2012 - 02:44 AM.

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.

#544    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 October 2012 - 02:20 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 October 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

... give them remote-guided Boeings to ensure they hit their targets and rig the WTC to enhance their attack a little?... oh... wait... they did.

Question is:

*   How are you going to integrate a remote controlled system into the systems of the B-767 and B-757? Remember, we are not talking about systems of the old B-707s and B-720s.

*   How are you going to ask the airlines to ground their aircraft for up to a year in order to conduct illegal modifications under the watchful eyes of the FAA, and mechanics and inspectors of the airlines in addition to their contractors and the Boeing Aircraft Co. and not get caught?

*   How are you going to install such a system that escapes detection of the pilots as they conduct their systems checks?

*   How are you going to switch such aircraft without accounting for the original aircraft and passengers?


Personally, I think the 9/11 conspiracist have been watching too many Hollywood action movies.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#545    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:11 PM

View PostQ24, on 16 August 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:


The description is of the beams dripping and melted, which the photographic evidence you selectively ignore, further confirms: -

Posted Image

Hate to put it to you, but that is not molten steel. :no:  Look at the photo very carefully and tell us why that is not molten steel!

Quote



We know the first picture of a metal in a semi-solid state is not aluminium or lead as this would fully liquefy well below the temperature seen (the colour indicating it is approaching 1,000oC).

                               Aluminum Color chart



Posted Image


Quote

Just please no more of this silliness, claiming that no steel was melted.

To magnify the siliiness of 9/11 conspiracist claims of molten steel, let's take a look here and please point out where this material is molten steel.


Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#546    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:37 PM

You already responded to that post two months ago skyeagle - please stop spamming the thread.

Anyhow, in addition to the body of my last post: -
  • 15 of the hijackers first travelled to Afghanistan or became affiliated with Al Qaeda only at the onset of a 1999 CIA operation to infiltrate close to bin Laden.
  • 11 of the hijackers obtained VISAs allowing them to travel to America through the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah.
  • As written by Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker, specifically in regard to the two hijackers known to have been aided and abetted by intelligence services, "The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it."
  • The above supported by former U.S. counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke: “Clarke suggests that the CIA shielded the Al Qaeda members from the scrutiny of other agencies because its aim was to “flip” them, recruiting them as informants inside the terrorist group.  He describes this theory as “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” as to why the CIA would fail to inform the FBI or even the White House about their presence inside the US.”
  • And exactly the same confirmed by FBI agent, Steve Bongardt: “the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection.’”

There is no doubt that an intelligence operation surrounding the hijackers was taking place and that the CIA went some length to protect this.  It is not good enough to say this was innocent when it is that very operation which facilitated the hijackers and allowed the 9/11 attack to take place.

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.

#547    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:13 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 October 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Anyhow, in addition to the body of my last post: -
  • 15 of the hijackers first travelled to Afghanistan or became affiliated with Al Qaeda only at the onset of a 1999 CIA operation to infiltrate close to bin Laden.
  • 11 of the hijackers obtained VISAs allowing them to travel to America through the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah.
  • As written by Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker, specifically in regard to the two hijackers known to have been aided and abetted by intelligence services, "The CIA may also have been protecting an overseas operation and was afraid that the F.B.I. would expose it."
  • The above supported by former U.S. counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke: “Clarke suggests that the CIA shielded the Al Qaeda members from the scrutiny of other agencies because its aim was to “flip” them, recruiting them as informants inside the terrorist group.  He describes this theory as “the only conceivable reason that I’ve been able to come up with” as to why the CIA would fail to inform the FBI or even the White House about their presence inside the US.”
  • And exactly the same confirmed by FBI agent, Steve Bongardt: “the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection.’”
There is no doubt that an intelligence operation surrounding the hijackers was taking place and that the CIA went some length to protect this.  It is not good enough to say this was innocent when it is that very operation which facilitated the hijackers and allowed the 9/11 attack to take place.


You still did not get the hint that such blunders by the CIA and the FBI have been going on for years  before the 9/11 attacks and the blunders and mistakes continued years after the 9/11 attacks. Now, what did it mean when the CIA admitted to committing such blunders just prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Quote

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all


Edited by skyeagle409, 10 October 2012 - 11:14 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#548    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:56 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:





To magnify the siliiness of 9/11 conspiracist claims of molten steel, let's take a look here and please point out where this material is molten steel.


Posted Image
Do you know what a photo op is? This guys wearing clean Levi's , a clean shirt, a brand new P.O.S. tape measure, a pristine white hard hat and brand new gloves.  Hell, he's not even lifting it, he just has hold of it.

The interesting part is what you leave out... that the steel has holes in it.

Photo op.


#549    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:04 AM

View PostW Tell, on 11 October 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Do you know what a photo op is? This guys wearing clean Levi's , a clean shirt, a brand new P.O.S. tape measure, a pristine white hard hat and brand new gloves.  Hell, he's not even lifting it, he just has hold of it.

The interesting part is what you leave out... that the steel has holes in it.

Photo op.

The holes are not evidence the piece was ever in a molten state after its initial fabrication. Look at the thickness of the material. The material reminds me when we annealed 4130 steel sheets in the oven to soften the material in order to form the sheets into complex shapes for use in high temperature sections of our aircraft and engines.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 October 2012 - 05:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#550    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:23 PM

Additional information for anyone reading (I don’t actually hope to get any coherent discussion out of skyeagle)...

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 October 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

You still did not get the hint that such blunders by the CIA and the FBI have been going on for years  before the 9/11 attacks and the blunders and mistakes continued years after the 9/11 attacks. Now, what did it mean when the CIA admitted to committing such blunders just prior to the 9/11 attacks?

The CIA are certainly not revealing the full extent of their involvement with the hijackers and prevention of the FBI to do their duty in that report.  The report mentions only that the CIA failed to pass information to the FBI.  This is somewhat different to the omitted fact that the FBI had enough information on the terrorists to act upon, and desperately wanted to do so, but the CIA consistently and aggressively forbid it at every step.  Did you really expect the CIA to come clean on such issues?  More fool you.

Even more than 18 months before 9/11, an FBI agent, Mark Rossini, based overseas, aware of Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi’s terrorist background and attendance at the January 2000 Al Qaeda summit, said to the CIA, “What's going on?  You know, we've got to tell the Bureau about this.  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.”  The CIA forbid his request and Rossini feared for his job if he ignored the order.

This situation continued over the next 18 months, at times the FBI and CIA agents having stand up rows about it, until shortly before 9/11 FBI agent Steve Bongardt became aware of Al Mihdhar inside the United States.  He requested to open an investigation that would have had the terrorists detained and either charged or deported.  When denied by the CIA again, he took the case up to the NSLU but was overruled – it seems the CIA had greater sway than the FBI in the judgement.  This prompted Bongardt’s strong but justified outburst:  “Whatever has happened to this – 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 behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.”

A brief mention on the information 'wall' that Bongardt refers to above, and which the CIA used to block the FBI... upon investigation, it was concluded in the 9/11 Commission report (yes, they did at least scrape the surface in their investigation) that ‘the wall’ was improperly used as a barrier in this case as the FBI already had existing justification to go after the hijackers - the ‘wall’ was never intended to be used as it was; to outright block the FBI from carrying out their duty.

Anyhow, that specifically discussed above could be put down to an intelligence agency territorial war.  What gets me in that case, is what were the CIA waiting for?  The FBI were clearly aware of the severe threat, made numerous complaints and were irate at the situation, as we have seen, going so far to state pre-9/11 that people would die as a result.  FBI agent Rossini later said, “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.”  Yet another FBI agent, Kenneth Maxwell, would later say when learning of the situation, “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.”  So I repeat, what were the CIA waiting for all those months whilst the terrorists, Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi, were known to be living in the United States?  What were they doing surrounding the terrorists during that time?  Is it conceivable they went such length to block the FBI whilst not themselves having an operation attached to those terrorists?  No, of course the CIA had some use or purpose and ongoing operation for those terrorists and must have had them under surveillance, otherwise they would not be so vigorously holding off the FBI.  And we know this due to the actions and intelligence reports...

Soon upon arriving in the United States the terrorists had what the 9/11 Commission report describes as a ‘chance meeting’ with a Saudi intelligence agent, Omar Bayoumi (who would later be arrested but then quickly released by U.S. authorities, to the shock of British police who had detained him and said, “giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offense and there is no way [the FBI] would have let him go scot-free”).  Along with putting the hijackers in contact with flight schools, Bayoumi sends them on to rented accommodation, two miles from NSA HQ, where the landlord happens to be a U.S. intelligence informant (just chance again, I’m sure).  Rubbish... this is not chance... the CIA are clearly interested in these terrorists, and this is their operation using a Saudi intelligence asset and the U.S. informant to get close to the hijackers.  

They had them, they were watching them... fair enough, perhaps... but what are they waiting for and why in the hell are they assisting them to open bank accounts and contact flight schools.  That intelligence landed right on Bush's desk in the President’s daily brief, August 2001, when it said, “information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”.  For god’s sake what were the CIA waiting for?  And how long were they going to wait?  They are deliberately providing terrorists free rein in the United States.  The same CIA unit whose head held daily meetings with top tier of the Neocon Bush administration (where Bush had bizarrely informed his intelligence heads he, “did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time”, whatever that means) were paving the way for terrorists in the United States.

I can’t say where precisely the decision was made and the order given – whether it was Bush, Cheney, Cofer Black (head of the CIA bin Laden unit) or another CIA agent in the chain – but what is clear is that no action was ever going to be taken against these terrorists, only guidance, assistance and surveillance.  Why?  What intelligence could have outweighed that they already had of an imminent attack, and was worth risking American lives for?  With this approach, the eventual attack was inevitable.  What were they waiting for?

The logical answer, is that they were waiting for 9/11.

It’s a horrible and sad situation, for the FBI in particular...

FBI agent Mark Rossini would later reflect:  “I can't come up with a rational reason why I didn't break the rules, pick up the phone, and tell that the hijackers, or really bad guys, are in the U.S. And I don't know if I'll ever be able to come to terms with that. I don't know. I really don't know.”

FBI agent Steve Bongardt, upon learning of the hijacker identities:  “This is the same Almihdhar we’ve been talking about for three months!” In an attempt to console him, his boss replies, “We did everything by the book.” Now that Bongardt is allowed to conduct a basic Internet search for Almihdhar that he had been denied permission to conduct before 9/11, he finds the hijacker’s address “within hours.”

Another FBI agent, Ali Soufan, aware of the case and danger posed before 9/11, when told of the attackers identities, “ran to the bathroom, fell to the floor next to a toilet and threw up, unable to comprehend why the CIA had withheld such key intelligence for more than a year.”  Though it was more than simply ‘withholding’ intelligence, we know.

You should all be furious, American patriots in particular, demanding answers of the Bush administration and CIA agents who put the FBI, who attempted to protect the American people, in that position and allowed this to happen to the United States, dragging us all into a long war where thousands more have died.  There’s something twisted with the world when otherwise good people would instead make any excuse to defend this.  But then it's all probably just a big accident, assistance to the hijackers and all... that got them exactly the pretext the new administration wanted... right?  Are you sure?

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.

#551    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:28 PM

View PostQ24, on 11 October 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Additional information for anyone reading (I don’t actually hope to get any coherent discussion out of skyeagle)...

The CIA are certainly not revealing the full extent of their involvement with the hijackers and prevention of the FBI to do their duty in that report.  The report mentions only that the CIA failed to pass information to the FBI.  This is somewhat different to the omitted fact that the FBI had enough information on the terrorists to act upon, and desperately wanted to do so, but the CIA consistently and aggressively forbid it at every step.  Did you really expect the CIA to come clean on such issues?  More fool you.

That has nothing to do with a government conspiracy. Apparently, you did not comprehend what has been presented to you in the past. You should have received the hint when intelligence missteps and blunders were not only admitted by the CIA and the FBI, but before a congressional hearing as well.

Quote

Even more than 18 months before 9/11, an FBI agent, Mark Rossini, based overseas, aware of Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi’s terrorist background and attendance at the January 2000 Al Qaeda summit, said to the CIA, “What's going on?  You know, we've got to tell the Bureau about this.  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.”  The CIA forbid his request and Rossini feared for his job if he ignored the order.

This situation continued over the next 18 months, at times the FBI and CIA agents having stand up rows about it, until shortly before 9/11 FBI agent Steve Bongardt became aware of Al Mihdhar inside the United States.  He requested to open an investigation that would have had the terrorists detained and either charged or deported.  When denied by the CIA again, he took the case up to the NSLU but was overruled – it seems the CIA had greater sway than the FBI in the judgement.  This prompted Bongardt’s strong but justified outburst:  “Whatever has happened to this – 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 behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most ‘protection’.”

A brief mention on the information 'wall' that Bongardt refers to above, and which the CIA used to block the FBI... upon investigation, it was concluded in the 9/11 Commission report (yes, they did at least scrape the surface in their investigation) that ‘the wall’ was improperly used as a barrier in this case as the FBI already had existing justification to go after the hijackers - the ‘wall’ was never intended to be used as it was; to outright block the FBI from carrying out their duty.

Anyhow, that specifically discussed above could be put down to an intelligence agency territorial war.  What gets me in that case, is what were the CIA waiting for?  The FBI were clearly aware of the severe threat, made numerous complaints and were irate at the situation, as we have seen, going so far to state pre-9/11 that people would die as a result.  FBI agent Rossini later said, “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.”  Yet another FBI agent, Kenneth Maxwell, would later say when learning of the situation, “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.”  So I repeat, what were the CIA waiting for all those months whilst the terrorists, Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi, were known to be living in the United States?  What were they doing surrounding the terrorists during that time?  Is it conceivable they went such length to block the FBI whilst not themselves having an operation attached to those terrorists?  No, of course the CIA had some use or purpose and ongoing operation for those terrorists and must have had them under surveillance, otherwise they would not be so vigorously holding off the FBI.  And we know this due to the actions and intelligence reports...

Soon upon arriving in the United States the terrorists had what the 9/11 Commission report describes as a ‘chance meeting’ with a Saudi intelligence agent, Omar Bayoumi (who would later be arrested but then quickly released by U.S. authorities, to the shock of British police who had detained him and said, “giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offense and there is no way [the FBI] would have let him go scot-free”).  Along with putting the hijackers in contact with flight schools, Bayoumi sends them on to rented accommodation, two miles from NSA HQ, where the landlord happens to be a U.S. intelligence informant (just chance again, I’m sure).  Rubbish... this is not chance... the CIA are clearly interested in these terrorists, and this is their operation using a Saudi intelligence asset and the U.S. informant to get close to the hijackers.  

They had them, they were watching them... fair enough, perhaps... but what are they waiting for and why in the hell are they assisting them to open bank accounts and contact flight schools.  That intelligence landed right on Bush's desk in the President’s daily brief, August 2001, when it said, “information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”.  For god’s sake what were the CIA waiting for?  And how long were they going to wait?  They are deliberately providing terrorists free rein in the United States.  The same CIA unit whose head held daily meetings with top tier of the Neocon Bush administration (where Bush had bizarrely informed his intelligence heads he, “did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time”, whatever that means) were paving the way for terrorists in the United States.

I can’t say where precisely the decision was made and the order given – whether it was Bush, Cheney, Cofer Black (head of the CIA bin Laden unit) or another CIA agent in the chain – but what is clear is that no action was ever going to be taken against these terrorists, only guidance, assistance and surveillance.  Why?  What intelligence could have outweighed that they already had of an imminent attack, and was worth risking American lives for?  With this approach, the eventual attack was inevitable.  What were they waiting for?

The logical answer, is that they were waiting for 9/11.

It’s a horrible and sad situation, for the FBI in particular...

FBI agent Mark Rossini would later reflect:  “I can't come up with a rational reason why I didn't break the rules, pick up the phone, and tell that the hijackers, or really bad guys, are in the U.S. And I don't know if I'll ever be able to come to terms with that. I don't know. I really don't know.”

FBI agent Steve Bongardt, upon learning of the hijacker identities:  “This is the same Almihdhar we’ve been talking about for three months!” In an attempt to console him, his boss replies, “We did everything by the book.” Now that Bongardt is allowed to conduct a basic Internet search for Almihdhar that he had been denied permission to conduct before 9/11, he finds the hijacker’s address “within hours.”

Another FBI agent, Ali Soufan, aware of the case and danger posed before 9/11, when told of the attackers identities, “ran to the bathroom, fell to the floor next to a toilet and threw up, unable to comprehend why the CIA had withheld such key intelligence for more than a year.”  Though it was more than simply ‘withholding’ intelligence, we know.

You should all be furious, American patriots in particular, demanding answers of the Bush administration and CIA agents who put the FBI, who attempted to protect the American people, in that position and allowed this to happen to the United States, dragging us all into a long war where thousands more have died.  There’s something twisted with the world when otherwise good people would instead make any excuse to defend this.  But then it's all probably just a big accident, assistance to the hijackers and all... that got them exactly the pretext the new administration wanted... right?  Are you sure?

There were the intelligence failures, which is nothing new, and nothing to do with a government conspiracy. Those intelligence failures were also revealed before a congressional hearing and in other reports. The CIA inspector general revealed the intelligence failure of the CIA and the FBI inspector general revealed problems with FBI field offices, which failed their inspections, and the 9/11 commission report revealed intelligence failures prior to the 9/11 attacks as well.

To show that warnings have been ignored in the past and nothing to do with government conspiracies, warnings were ignored by President Jimmy Carter who was warned that allowing the Shah of Iran into the United States would have serious consequences, and it did when the Shah was allowed into the United States for medical reasons. Iranian militants became angry and took over our embassy in Iran and the rest is now history. Warnings were ignored concerning the USS Cole incident and the rest became history after militants set off explosives next to the vessel. A warning was ignored when a Predator had Mullah Omar in its sights and military lawyers overruled the use of force to take him out and now, the rest is history as the hunt for Mullah Omar continues.

What you have posted was typical, and has been going on for many years between the CIA and the FBI, so you presented nothing new. In fact, intelligence blunders and failures continued even after the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington.
"We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission.
"No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The failures, outlined in a statement issued by the commission and admitted to by Mr Tenet, were not failures of effort or of intention. Rather a picture emerged of an intelligence community still grounded in the challenges of the Cold War and ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the threat presented by stateless terrorists using unconventional means of attack.

http://www.independe...cks-176015.html

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


FBI admits 9/11 could have been prevented many times over

The FBI has admitted it had many chances to prevent 9/11 but did not do so. Meanwhile, the so-called "war on terror" that followed 9/11 has has made the world a more dangerous place. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US regime has killed hundreds of times more people than 9/11, and millions more innocent people in South America and Indochina, but in the Western propaganda model it is only a great disaster when wealthy white people are affected. ***

Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed

Report Tells of Missed Chances To Find Hijackers

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.

The FBI said in a statement that it agreed with many of Fine's conclusions but "has taken substantial steps to address the issues presented in the report."

http://www.theinside...cle.asp?id=1264

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

9/11 commission faults U.S. intelligence

U.S. intelligence gathering was fragmented and poorly coordinated before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 9/11 commission reported Wednesday, adding that it remains unclear how such crucial information is managed.

"A question remains: Who is in charge of intelligence?" reads the final line of a critical report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, as the bipartisan 9/11 panel is formally known.
The report, examining the performance of the intelligence community, described a "loose collection" of intelligence agencies that often operated independently of one another with little communication or cooperation. And it faulted CIA Director George Tenet for not having a management strategy to battle terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

http://articles.cnn....=PM:ALLPOLITICS

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

The Intelligence Community and 9/11: Congressional Hearings and the Status of the Investigation


Ms. Hill traced the history of the Intelligence Community’s concern with the international terrorist threat back into the 1980s and its focus on Al Qaeda from the early 1990s. A Counterterrorist Center (CTC) had been established at the CIA in 1986 consisting of personnel from various intelligence agencies and the FBI.

By mid-2001 it consisted of some 400 personnel; a special unit within the CTC to monitor Osama bin Laden had been created in 1996. Ms. Hill traced the response of agencies to the series of terrorist attacks, including the one on the New York World Trade Center in February 1993, an unsuccessful plot to bomb New York City tunnels, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, a plot to kill the Pope in Manila and blow up 12 U.S.-owned airliners over the Pacific Ocean, a plan to attack the Los Angeles Airport in December 1999, the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. Despite extensive casualties and property damage that have been inflicted by Al Qaeda, she noted that effective intelligence and law enforcement work by U.S. agencies, in cooperation with foreign countries, disrupted other planned attacks that would have been very costly.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31650.pdf

Please point out where the above reports and hearings pointed toward a 9/11 government conspiracy as opposed to 9/11 intelligence failures of the CIA and the FBI. Read, and understand what is being said in the following link. You will notice that intelligence failure prior to the 9/11 attacks is clearly evident and nothing to do with a government conspiracy.

http://www.pbs.org/w...11-attacks.html

Basically, you are spreading misinformation because you are unaware of the series of blunders, missteps, and conflicts within the intelligence community that has been going on for years prior to the 9/11 attack, and instead, you hatched that misinformation into a government conspiracy that never was because you were unaware of the rest of the story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 October 2012 - 06:45 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#552    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:04 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 October 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

The holes are not evidence the piece was ever in a molten state after its initial fabrication. Look at the thickness of the material. The material reminds me when we annealed 4130 steel sheets in the oven to soften the material in order to form the sheets into complex shapes for use in high temperature sections of our aircraft and engines.

They never took a pic of the whole piece. It's setting on top of a bunch of heavy duty steel. It has holes in it, and the end of it shows something diferant than a clean break.

It's an excellant piece of evidence for for fires hot enough to melt steel. Thanks Sky! Appreciate it Amigo!


#553    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:18 AM

View PostW Tell, on 12 October 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

They never took a pic of the whole piece. It's setting on top of a bunch of heavy duty steel. It has holes in it, and the end of it shows something diferant than a clean break.

It's an excellant piece of evidence for for fires hot enough to melt steel. Thanks Sky! Appreciate it Amigo!

You're welcome!

However, check out the characteristics of those holes in that photo and then, read from the following link.

WTC Molten Steel

http://911myths.com/...lten_steel.html

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#554    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:57 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 October 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

That has nothing to do with a government conspiracy. Apparently, you did not comprehend what has been presented to you in the past. You should have received the hint when intelligence missteps and blunders were not only admitted by the CIA and the FBI, but before a congressional hearing as well.

There were the intelligence failures, which is nothing new, and nothing to do with a government conspiracy. Those intelligence failures were also revealed before a congressional hearing and in other reports. The CIA inspector general revealed the intelligence failure of the CIA and the FBI inspector general revealed problems with FBI field offices, which failed their inspections, and the 9/11 commission report revealed intelligence failures prior to the 9/11 attacks as well.

I’m not discussing the FBI in general, but the agents I have mentioned.  It is disgusting that you would lump the FBI agents I have mentioned in as part of a failure.  Read the quotes of FBI agents Rossini and Bongardt again.  Would you stand in front of them and tell them to their face that they made “missteps and blunders”?  Either 1) you would – in which case, given their sustained efforts to take action against the terrorists for months before 9/11, you are a disgrace, or 2) you wouldn’t – in which case you are disingenuous in your argument.  So which is it?  Perhaps there is a third option; 3) you are ignorant of the implication of your argument.

I however would be quite satisfied to call the actions of the top tier Bush administration, Cofer Black, other CIA agents and Omar Bayoumi – all those who blocked the FBI and assisted the terrorists - into question.  I’d be quite content to point a finger and ask questions to their face.  Because that is where, at a minimum, the horrible ‘failure’ occurred.  Who knows, if we asked questions to pinpoint cause of the actions and held those responsible accountable, perhaps we’d even uncover direct evidence of wrongdoing.

Really, all the reports that you link attempt, is to claim that some inherent high level failure occurred in the intelligence system, whilst ignoring the detailed, on record actions of individual units and agents that took place – as though it’s not the type of detail the official reports ever cared to look at, or were not permitted to.  Well, we know that is the case; as 9/11 Commissioner, Bob Kerrey, later said, “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”  Which highlights that the 9/11 Commission conclusion, that the meeting between the Saudi government agent and the hijackers and the assistance they received took place by chance, even more ridiculous.  The Saudi government agent that Kerrey is primarily referring to is Omar Bayoumi who appears to be a part of the ongoing CIA operation surrounding the hijackers Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi – think about it – how else did that agent, Bayoumi, who aided and abetted the terrorists, happen to meet those longterm CIA terrorist targets, forward them to live with a U.S. intelligence informant and avoid charge or further investigation from U.S. authorities – he was a part of the CIA operation.  Another Senator, Bob Graham, would add, “There’s no question in my mind that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11 ... But there’s still so much we don’t know. Unfortunately, many Americans seem to have lost interest ... The three primary questions that remain for me are: what was the extent of involvement by Saudi officials in 9/11, what was their motivation, and why has the U.S. government gone to such lengths to cover it up?”

In all skyeagle, the reports you have linked are a whitewash – acceptable only to people who care for faith and speculation over knowledge and facts, i.e. the wilfully ignorant.  The fact is that you would rather remain in your safety bubble, than face the truth of 9/11.

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.

#555    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostQ24, on 12 October 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

I’m not discussing the FBI in general, but the agents I have mentioned.

The problems have been highlighted in the links as to why the agents were having problems.

Quote

It is disgusting that you would lump the FBI agents I have mentioned in as part of a failure.

It is surprising that despite the highlighted problems of the CIA and the FBI,  you are still trying to paint a 9/11 government conspiracy on a non-existent canvas.

Quote

Read the quotes of FBI agents Rossini and Bongardt again.  Would you stand in front of them and tell them to their face that they made “missteps and blunders”?

Either 1) you would – in which case, given their sustained efforts to take action against the terrorists for months before 9/11, you are a disgrace, or 2) you wouldn’t – in which case you are disingenuous in your argument.  So which is it?  Perhaps there is a third option; 3) you are ignorant of the implication of your argument.

I would simply tell them their problems were the result of missteps and blunders of the CIA and the FBI, which were clearly evident in the links I've posted.

Quote

I however would be quite satisfied to call the actions of the top tier Bush administration, Cofer Black, other CIA agents and Omar Bayoumi – all those who blocked the FBI and assisted the terrorists - into question.  I’d be quite content to point a finger and ask questions to their face.  Because that is where, at a minimum, the horrible ‘failure’ occurred.  Who knows, if we asked questions to pinpoint cause of the actions and held those responsible accountable, perhaps we’d even uncover direct evidence of wrongdoing.

Really, all the reports that you link attempt, is to claim that some inherent high level failure occurred in the intelligence system, whilst ignoring the detailed, on record actions of individual units and agents that took place – as though it’s not the type of detail the official reports ever cared to look at, or were not permitted to.

On the contrary, the two agents can only do so much considering the intelligence blunders and missteps of the CIA and the FBI leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

Well, we know that is the case; as 9/11 Commissioner, Bob Kerrey, later said, “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”

Are you trying to implicate the Saudi government directly in the 9/11 attacks? Remember, you were also the person who tried to implicate Israelis in the 9/11 attacks who were later found innocent, and remember, Israel also sent out warnings of an impending attack against the United States by Muslim terrorist just prior to the 9/11 attacks, so implicating Israel didn't make any sense by that very fact.

  

Quote

Which highlights that the 9/11 Commission conclusion, that the meeting between the Saudi government agent and the hijackers and the assistance they received took place by chance, even more ridiculous.  The Saudi government agent that Kerrey is primarily referring to is Omar Bayoumi who appears to be a part of the ongoing CIA operation surrounding the hijackers Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi – think about it – how else did that agent, Bayoumi, who aided and abetted the terrorists, happen to meet those longterm CIA terrorist targets, forward them to live with a U.S. intelligence informant and avoid charge or further investigation from U.S. authorities – he was a part of the CIA operation.

First of all, he was not a Saudi agent.

Quote

Bayoumi Not a Government Agent: Bandar

WASHINGTON, 25 July 2003 — A Saudi citizen named in a US congressional report, who is said to have been in contact with two of the Saudi terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 bombings, was not a Saudi government agent, according to Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

“Reports that Omar Al-Bayoumi is an agent of the Saudi government are baseless and not true. It is unfortunate that reports keep circulating in the media describing him as an agent of the Saudi government with attribution only to anonymous officials. This is blatantly false,” said Prince Bandar in a statement released yesterday.

http://www.m.arabnews.com/node/234797

Quote

Another Senator, Bob Graham, would add, “There’s no question in my mind that the Saudi government was involved in 9/11 ... But there’s still so much we don’t know. Unfortunately, many Americans seem to have lost interest ... The three primary questions that remain for me are: what was the extent of involvement by Saudi officials in 9/11, what was their motivation, and why has the U.S. government gone to such lengths to cover it up?”

Nothing there implicating the United States in the 9/11 attacks. It is no secret that when our intelligence agencies make mistakes, they try to coverup those mistakes, some of which have been revealed.

Quote

In all skyeagle, the reports you have linked are a whitewash – acceptable only to people who care for faith and speculation over knowledge and facts, i.e. the wilfully ignorant.  The fact is that you would rather remain in your safety bubble, than face the truth of 9/11.

On the contrary, I am right on the money and the links show there were serious intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 attacks and nothing there implicating the United States of America in the 9/11 attacks. In other words, you have presented no evidence implicating the United States in the 9/11 attacks. After all, the news media has taken a look and found no evidence implicating the United States the 9/11 attacks either.

Quote

Assigning responsibility

For several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks.

On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.[22] This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.

Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.

The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, also by accessing material in their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."  

The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] al-Suqami and [Ahmed] al-Ghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."

Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia....mber_11_attacks


2004 Osama bin Laden video

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, al Jazeera broadcast excerpts from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States (in which he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks) condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982

He also admits for the first time a direct link to the attacks, saying that they were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation". Bin Laden threatens further retaliation against the U.S., noting that the conditions which provoked the 2001 attacks still exist and compares America to "corrupt" Arab governments.
He speaks of his desire to bankrupt the U.S., saying:


"[It is] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there and cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses ... This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."



http://en.wikipedia....bin_Laden_video

As you can see, there is nothing there implicating the United States government in the 9/11 attacks and you have not presented evidence implicating the United States in the 9/11 attacks, which is why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced.

What you are doing is turning a blind eye from the real evidence and promoting disinformation and misinformation that 9/11 conspiracy websites are well-known for.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 October 2012 - 06:15 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users