MID Posted September 18, 2011 #176 Share Posted September 18, 2011 What are you jibber jabbering about now? Sorry if it's a little confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 18, 2011 #177 Share Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) I agree with Lilly. "Someday someone will die"...now there's something to go on. Really, Q, it is simple incompetence. This link will sum up, in better words than i could come up with, everything you need to realize about your nonsense. I found it funny. http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html It is not as deep as you think it is. Edited September 18, 2011 by Is it for real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted September 18, 2011 #178 Share Posted September 18, 2011 i don't think the enemy is us.. or THE government.. ( i think congress is as ignorant as the rest of us) but i agree with Q24 that there are rouge elements at work. ... I think, .. above, around , and a very few within government. I have thought about the possibility of the 9-11 jets being taken control of ... by remote control. As silly as that may sound, the ability to do that has been around for years. http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html DATE:01/12/06 (December 1, 2006) SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners By John Croft Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location. The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck. (more) ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ http://cio.gsfc.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88012main_H-1282.pdf ^ .. Here is a PDF of NASA Technical Memorandum 85925 Entitled: Remote Control of an Impact Demonstration Vehicle Explaining how they operated a pilotless Boeing 720 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 18, 2011 #179 Share Posted September 18, 2011 I agree with Lilly. "Someday someone will die"...now there's something to go on. Really, Q, it is simple incompetence. This link will sum up, in better words than i could come up with, everything you need to realize about your nonsense. I found it funny. http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html It is not as deep as you think it is. Lilly said America didn’t realise how vulnerable it was. I pointed out two FBI agents and the CIA who were all aware of the future hijackers in the United States and knew they were a major threat before 9/11. How does the suggestion they “didn’t realize” fit with the fact they “knew the threat”? Thank you for the link… which addresses nothing I have said on this thread. When is anyone going to actually address the information? Yes, FBI agent Steve Bongardt gave the clear warning, “someday someone will die” along with the other comments HERE. He requested to go after Al Mihdhar who was responsible for hijacking Flight 77. His supervisors and the CIA bin Laden unit agents said no. They said no? You must not go after this Al Qaeda linked terrorist living illegally in the United States who we all know is a major threat? What the hell is that about? If you were a patriot then you would want to know who just screwed your country and condemned 3,000 Americans to death, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 19, 2011 #180 Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Lilly said America didnt realise how vulnerable it was. I pointed out two FBI agents and the CIA who were all aware of the future hijackers in the United States and knew they were a major threat before 9/11. How does the suggestion they didnt realize fit with the fact they knew the threat? Thank you for the link… which addresses nothing I have said on this thread. When is anyone going to actually address the information? Yes, FBI agent Steve Bongardt gave the clear warning, someday someone will die along with the other comments HERE. He requested to go after Al Mihdhar who was responsible for hijacking Flight 77. His supervisors and the CIA bin Laden unit agents said no. They said no? You must not go after this Al Qaeda linked terrorist living illegally in the United States who we all know is a major threat? What the hell is that about? If you were a patriot then you would want to know who just screwed your country and condemned 3,000 Americans to death, and why. What the hell it's about is incompetence. His superiors said 'no' against the agents better judgement. It happens everyday in every type of workplace. They[superiors] probably wanted to continue using Al Mihdar as a lead to keep following. Nowhere in these statements did anyone say that "on 9-11-2001 planes will be hijacked and flown into the world trade center and pentagon.".... "Someday someone will die" is hardly indicitive of the specific events. It was simply a matter of an FBI agent with a good hunch and typical know-it-all superiors with a different idea. I'm not condoning the incompetence. The agent should have went rogue a-la Jack Bauer and took matters into his own hands. If the agent knew the exact specifics like you'd like to think then maybe he would have. I don't trust the government as much as the next guy but what is on your mind is not what happened. All I'm trying to tell you is that there is no mastermind conspiracy by our government whose lid has yet to blown off despite all the facts that Q24 finds so easily available on the internet. You are drawing conclusions by skewing the words 'someday someone will die' into 'George Bush and his cronies knew exactly what, where and when this event was going to happen and on top of that they helped it happen.' It was Osama Bin Laden and his cronies who screwed the country and condemmed 3000 Americans to death. Give the terrorist credit for one thing...They managed to keep a secret. Were there warning signs? Sure. Did our government know this type of attack using planes as bombs could take place? Probably. Did our government know the exact details of what was going to happen that day? I highly doubt it. Would a conspiracy of this size have taken years of planning long before GW came to power, and unimaginable hush money? Certainly. Will you ever accept incompetence over mastermind conspiracy? I highly doubt it. How about the Underwear bomber? How about the Times Square fireworks and gasoline bomber? Obama's fault? Or should I say his plan, huh? How about the Fort Hood jerk who succeeded his mission? What would you say if I told you that liberal political correctness policies that Obama supports are the reason the Fort Hood shooter wasn't taken down way before he acted. Therefore I could easily say Obama's to blame for those three with the same inefficient evidence you present to blame Bush. Ya they all knew something could happen, but where, when and how were not specifically known. Edited September 19, 2011 by Is it for real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeWatcher Posted September 20, 2011 #181 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Q24, If I had wanted to set up drinks I would have PM'd him, however in the interest of adding some humor, I seem to have offended you. Now, you offend me by calling me and those I work with, by default, mindless flag-wavers (i paraphrase cuz i am at work) works against you here. But I digress... As far this thread goes, there are many, many threads in the Conspiracy side that could use your insights. As to who failed this country, I will lay partial blame on the C.I.A., D.I.A., and F.B.I. senior staff, however the Presidential advisers should also take the blame for not passing on what was credible information, but remember they never get the exact dates for when things are going to happen that requires clairvoyance of some kind to get exacting information that can be acted upon. Also the intel they did get said at some point flying vehicles may be used to cause death and destruction(paraphrasing here, again). In reality, everyone and no one is to blame for it not being prevented, however blame rests solely on the fanatics who pulled it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 20, 2011 #182 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Where'd you go Q? Did I finally make too much sense for you handle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeWatcher Posted September 20, 2011 #183 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Where'd you go Q? Did I finally make too much sense for you handle? I think we all did, either that or he got off his duff and did something productive rather than divisive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 21, 2011 #184 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Q24, If I had wanted to set up drinks I would have PM'd him, however in the interest of adding some humor, I seem to have offended you. Now, you offend me by calling me and those I work with, by default, mindless flag-wavers (i paraphrase cuz i am at work) works against you here. But I digress... As far this thread goes, there are many, many threads in the Conspiracy side that could use your insights. As to who failed this country, I will lay partial blame on the C.I.A., D.I.A., and F.B.I. senior staff, however the Presidential advisers should also take the blame for not passing on what was credible information, but remember they never get the exact dates for when things are going to happen that requires clairvoyance of some kind to get exacting information that can be acted upon. Also the intel they did get said at some point flying vehicles may be used to cause death and destruction(paraphrasing here, again). In reality, everyone and no one is to blame for it not being prevented, however blame rests solely on the fanatics who pulled it off. As I said, Gnome... "The enemy ain't us." I think you encapsulate the opinion of the majority of critical thinkers with what you say on this matter. Well thouight out and well said. Q's that way, and every once in a while lays into people in his zeal without considering what he's actually saying (By the way, I'm a mindless flag waver too, and I have also recently been called a "radical republican" by another poster for expressing my opinion (even though I am neither radical nor republican!). You get used to dumb stuff after a while. you're where you are because you elected to be there, understanding the truth of the situation. You join many, many young Americans...I know a few of them personally (I have a young niece and nephew who served their combat time in Afghanistan and Iraq and have paid for it). If you show some dedication and patriotism, Q tends to berate at times. He's also been dressed down for it, but hey--you're on a public forum, and some folks never really learn! You can't worry about them. You've got enough imporant stuff on your mind! Be safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeWatcher Posted September 21, 2011 #185 Share Posted September 21, 2011 As I said, Gnome... "The enemy ain't us." I think you encapsulate the opinion of the majority of critical thinkers with what you say on this matter. Well thouight out and well said. Q's that way, and every once in a while lays into people in his zeal without considering what he's actually saying (By the way, I'm a mindless flag waver too, and I have also recently been called a "radical republican" by another poster for expressing my opinion (even though I am neither radical nor republican!). You get used to dumb stuff after a while. you're where you are because you elected to be there, understanding the truth of the situation. You join many, many young Americans...I know a few of them personally (I have a young niece and nephew who served their combat time in Afghanistan and Iraq and have paid for it). If you show some dedication and patriotism, Q tends to berate at times. He's also been dressed down for it, but hey--you're on a public forum, and some folks never really learn! You can't worry about them. You've got enough imporant stuff on your mind! Be safe! Pardon my french, but H E double hockey sticks YEAH... ahaha. Most people tend not to understand that true patriotism is not just "blind flag wavin'" or even "questioning authority" but it involves a balance of trust with distrust of our elected officials and love of country with dislike of your countrymen, the dislike for your countrymen theme seems to be running its course along side distrust within our said officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted September 21, 2011 #186 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Can anyone else explain why the FBI were prevented from going after one of the hijackers in the United States and why the CIA declined to act despite knowing this terrorist was in the country months prior to 9/11? See post here: - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213731&view=findpost&p=4056825 The silence so far is deafening. June 12-September 11, 2001: Cole Investigator Repeatedly Asks FBI Headquarters for Information Leading to 9/11 Hijackers, but Gets Nothing Following a meeting at which FBI agents investigating the attack on the USS Cole were shown pictures of operatives who attended al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit, including 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, but were not given all the relevant information (see June 11, 2001), deputy head of the investigation Steve Bongardt continues to ask for the material, but FBI headquarters fails to provide it. Bongardt apparently has “heated telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges” with FBI headquarters agent Dina Corsi over the passage of the information. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 291, 294 ] Bongardt will tell the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, “I’ve had several conversations with the analyst [Corsi] after that, because we would talk on other matters, and almost every time I would ask her, ‘What’s the story with the Almihdhar information, when is it going to get passed, do we have anything yet, when is it going to get passed,’ and each time I was told that the information had not been passed yet. And the sense I got from here, based on our conversations, was that she was trying as hard as she could to get the information passed or at least the ability to tell us about the information.” [uS Congress, 9/20/2002] But in fact Corsi does not appear to take any steps towards having the information passed to the Cole investigators for two and a half months after the meeting. Part of the relevant information is from a wiretap on Almihdhar’s phone (see Shortly Before December 29, 1999) and, due to measures related to the “wall,” the NSA general counsel has to approve its passage to criminal agents. Corsi finally asks the NSA to approve passage of the information on August 27; the NSA immediately agrees, but Corsi continues to withhold the information from Bongardt (see August 27-28, 2001). The other part of the information consists of photos of the two hijackers in Malaysia with other extremists (see January 5-8, 2000). Corsi will later say she “probably” has follow up conversations about passing the photographs with the two CIA officers, Tom Wilshire and Clark Shannon, who gave them to her (see Late May, 2001), but these alleged conversations do not result in the photos being passed to Bongardt, even though Wilshire will later say that, as far as he was concerned at this point, they could be distributed through the FBI. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 294 ] After Corsi is told that Almihdhar is in the US (see August 21-22, 2001), this information is made available to intelligence investigators at the FBI (see August 28, 2001), but not to the team investigating the Cole bombing (see August 28, 2001). Source It appears that the CIA did not fail to act. It was the NSA that agent FBI Agent Corsi was waiting on, from the above quote. And subsequently, Agent Corsi failed to pass on the info to the field agents of her own bureau. IOW, it appears that neither the CIA nor the NSA was the actual cause of the lack of info getting to the Agent you quoted. Of course, you're simply ignoring the very real possibility that the FBI agents involved in the Cole investigation (like the guy you quoted - the same quote appears above) did not have the security clearance level that would allow them to see all of the pertinent information they were asking for. This is a problem, obviously. That's why they created the Department of Homeland Security umbrella organization to better coordinate the flow of information between the various intelligence/law enforcement agencies. In the above, this is mentioned as being "part of the 'wall"..." Harte Edited September 21, 2011 by Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 21, 2011 #187 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) I'm glad common sense seems to have prevailed on this thread. The truthers haven't replied in days. Their silence is deafening relieving. Edited September 21, 2011 by Is it for real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted September 21, 2011 #188 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) 9/11 Anniversary: Remember who FAILED US & America The corporate media when they started throwing bin Laden's name into every broadcast without one shred of evidence? Edited September 21, 2011 by expandmymind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted September 21, 2011 #189 Share Posted September 21, 2011 9/11 Anniversary: Remember who FAILED US & America The corporate media when they started throwing bin Laden's name into every broadcast without one shred of evidence? Lol really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 21, 2011 #190 Share Posted September 21, 2011 They[superiors] probably wanted to continue using Al Mihdar as a lead to keep following. Ah, now you’re talking. This is what former White House counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, concluded also: - “While the CIA was aware that one of the two Al Qaeda members had obtained a US visa, it made no attempt to alert the FBI or the US State Department in order to have their names placed on a “terrorist watch list” so that they could be apprehended or put under surveillance upon entry into the US. In the 13-minute videotaped interview posted by the makers of the upcoming documentary on their web site, secrecykills.com, 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. He noted that, had the FBI learned of the presence of the two Saudis inside the US, they would have come under its jurisdiction, interfering with the supposed CIA plans to recruit and run them as its own “assets.” Clarke further speculated that the agency worked through Saudi intelligence as a means of circumventing the legal restrictions on CIA operations inside the US. Clarke dismissed Tenet’s claims that he was unaware of the intelligence on the two Al Qaeda operatives. “George Tenet followed all the information about Al Qaeda in microscopic detail,” he said in the interview. “He read raw intelligence reports before analysts in counterterrorism did, and he would pick up the phone and call me at 7:30 in the morning to talk about them.” Clarke said that while he had originally thought that the failure to alert other agencies about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar had been a case of “one lonely CIA analyst” failing to recognize the importance of the information, he now knows that “No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director.” He further charged that his not being made aware of this intelligence could only be the result of a direct order to stop the information from reaching the White House. “Unless someone intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution [of intelligence files], I would automatically get it,” he said. “For me to this day,” he added, “it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months … We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information.” As damning as his conclusions are, Clarke’s theory may be, in fact, one of the more charitable explanations of the CIA’s silence on the presence of the two Al Qaeda members in California.” https://wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/clar-a13.shtml The conclusion above is that there was a deliberate high-level effort by the CIA to keep the FBI in the dark about the 9/11 terrorists inside the United States. This explains… …FBI agent Steve Bongardt’s assessment, “especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection” regarding prevention of his investigation into Al Mihdhar. … FBI agent Coleen Rowley’s concern her supervisor, “seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts” in investigating Moussaoui pre-9/11. … why Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer said the ‘Able Danger’ millitary exercise which had identified lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, pre-9/11 was opposed by the CIA and they were were, “prevented from passing this information on to the FBI.” … explains why the FBI complained in November of 2001 that, “restrictions [of bin Laden and Saudi related cases] became worse after the Bush administration took over this year.” It all fits that the CIA were deliberately blocking the FBI from going after the 9/11 terrorists. There are two options from there: - The CIA were attempting to use these terrorists as a lead and/or recruit them as informants. A high-level individual put an order in place to protect the terrorists and ensure 9/11 went ahead. I would like to go with the first option; that it was an innocent misjudgement on behalf of the CIA. This does however open up a can of worms. If the CIA aimed to use these terrorists in some way, then they had them under close surveillance (we already know CIA agents broke into the apartment of Al Mihdhar at the Al Qaeda Kuala Lumpur summit and obtained a copy of his passport). If the CIA had the terrorists under surveillance then they knew Al Mihdhar was meeting other Saudis in the country, had met with Mohammed Atta and was taking flying lessons. The CIA had known for months Al Mihdhar was in the country whilst they provided him protection, so the question would be: just what were they waiting for? Then it comes down to either: - The CIA failure to act was outright stupid beyond words. There was an order which tied the hands of all involved and allowed 9/11 to happen. It appears that the CIA did not fail to act. It was the NSA that agent FBI Agent Corsi was waiting on, from the above quote. And subsequently, Agent Corsi failed to pass on the info to the field agents of her own bureau. As your link states, it was Corsi at FBI HQ holding up passing the information. Who told Corsi she could not pass the information? Corsi had held meetings regarding the information with agents of the CIA bin Laden unit. It comes back to the CIA, you see. Even without the FBI being passed the information, as above, why were the CIA not acting against Al Mihdhar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted September 21, 2011 #191 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caspian Hare Posted September 22, 2011 #192 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There's an old saying that you should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Or in this case incompetence. Some people, especially those who like conspiracy theories, tend to think that governments are far more adept and aware than they really are, and that little happens without their knowledge and consent. In fact governments are riddled with inefficiency, filled with conflicting agendas and clashing personalities. The idea that the CIA (if you grant for a moment the fiction that this is a monolithic organization with one fixed agenda) would allow 9/11 to further its own goals is ludicrous. 9/11 was seen as such a colossal failure of intelligence that after the attack there were serious fears that high-level officials would be sacked or possibly the agency itself would even be disbanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 22, 2011 #193 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The idea that the CIA (if you grant for a moment the fiction that this is a monolithic organization with one fixed agenda) would allow 9/11 to further its own goals is ludicrous. 9/11 was seen as such a colossal failure of intelligence that after the attack there were serious fears that high-level officials would be sacked or possibly the agency itself would even be disbanded. It is a mistake to attribute ‘failure’ to the whole government or the whole CIA - this is a gross misunderstanding of the requirement. It would take a single high-ranking official to pass an order that the CIA were to monitor Al Mihdhar for intelligence purposes and not allow intervention. That’s it for this part of the operation - one person in the right position is all it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. MIke Posted September 22, 2011 #194 Share Posted September 22, 2011 That is the most obviously fabricated story I have ever heard out of the White House. Why the press hasn't nailed Obama to the wall over that is beyond me. Osama and Obama have nothing to do with it. Planet earth is shifting in conscienceness to align itself with the universe. No need to fear any longer. The old is out, the new is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted September 23, 2011 #195 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Osama and Obama have nothing to do with it. Planet earth is shifting in conscienceness to align itself with the universe. No need to fear any longer. The old is out, the new is in. Well, Osama certainly has nothing to do with anything anymore, and I don't know that anyone said anything about Obama having anything to do with it. But this is an unique way of looking at things. I would like to point out, however, that the Earth itself can't change consciousness unless the inhabitants of the planet..those possessed of actual consciousness, change their own collectively. I have seen little evidence of the collective consciousness changing. As to "The old is out, the new is in," I must say, that's deep. It coesn't mean much actually, but it makes you sound like a philosopher. But it's not a long step to realize that your statement rings true-- --every time one opens one's eyes in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grendille Posted September 25, 2011 #196 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Just because the government is aware of a plot does not mean that they can act without implicit evidence. If i was in a bar and overheard 3 men talking about burning down a house that just happened to have my address, so , i get the gun from my truck and do my own pre-emptive strike in order to protect my family i would still go to jail. They may have been aware but what you all need to realize is that just knowing something may happen is not enough to stage a strike against the possible threat. If the more avid posters in this forum feel other wise I pose this rhetorical question " If knowledge of a possible catastrophe and subsequent inaction against said catastrophe put the blame on the people with the knowledge, What are the people who refused to leave Louisiana after Katrina entitled to as far as recovery aid?" It seems to me that by the popular way of thinking since they were aware that Louisiana is prone to hurricanes/floods and did not take action to protect themselves that they are to blame for the consequences. Just idle pondering but I think it deserves to be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 26, 2011 #197 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Just because the government is aware of a plot does not mean that they can act without implicit evidence. If i was in a bar and overheard 3 men talking about burning down a house that just happened to have my address, so , i get the gun from my truck and do my own pre-emptive strike in order to protect my family i would still go to jail. They may have been aware but what you all need to realize is that just knowing something may happen is not enough to stage a strike against the possible threat. The CIA already knew: - These men were connected to the USS Cole attack and U.S. embassy bombings. These men had further active terrorist connections. These men were in the United States illegally. There was already more than sufficient evidence for the FBI to proceed with an investigation. Even the 9/11 Commission admitted as much. To your analogy… If you overheard three men in a bar discussing burning your house down… and you knew they had burnt a house down before… and you knew they hung out with other people who liked to burn houses down… and you knew they shouldn’t be anywhere near your house in the first place… You forget about the vigilante action but make a report to the police (turns out they knew anyway)… The police say, “We aren’t going to do anything and furthermore we are not permitting you to defend your home either”… And this situation repeats for months… Now who do you hold responsible in large part when your house one day gets burnt down by these specific men? You should be at the police station quite furious demanding to know what they were playing at! If the more avid posters in this forum feel other wise I pose this rhetorical question " If knowledge of a possible catastrophe and subsequent inaction against said catastrophe put the blame on the people with the knowledge, What are the people who refused to leave Louisiana after Katrina entitled to as far as recovery aid?" It seems to me that by the popular way of thinking since they were aware that Louisiana is prone to hurricanes/floods and did not take action to protect themselves that they are to blame for the consequences. Just idle pondering but I think it deserves to be discussed. What if the people with knowledge said, “We can stop Katrina” and the residents of Louisiana, also knowing of the threat, said, “No, we won’t permit that”? That is what occurred between the FBI and CIA prior 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 26, 2011 #198 Share Posted September 26, 2011 To your analogy… If you overheard three men in a bar discussing burning your house down… and you knew they had burnt a house down before… and you knew they hung out with other people who liked to burn houses down… and you knew they shouldn’t be anywhere near your house in the first place… You forget about the vigilante action but make a report to the police (turns out they knew anyway)… The police say, “We aren’t going to do anything and furthermore we are not permitting you to defend your home either”… And this situation repeats for months… Now who do you hold responsible in large part when your house one day gets burnt down by these specific men? You should be at the police station quite furious demanding to know what they were playing at! To add to the analogy… You then find out the three men were housed by a branch of the police… And actually assisted by foreign counterparts of the police… You should be yelling, “WHAT THE ****!?” But instead you slump down in front of the TV and resign yourself to, “Ah, the police must have made a boo-boo”. Weak. Well here’s a thought - perhaps some element of the police just screwed you to their own ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grendille Posted September 26, 2011 #199 Share Posted September 26, 2011 To add to the analogy… You then find out the three men were housed by a branch of the police… And actually assisted by foreign counterparts of the police… You should be yelling, “WHAT THE ****!?” But instead you slump down in front of the TV and resign yourself to, “Ah, the police must have made a boo-boo”. Weak. Well here’s a thought - perhaps some element of the police just screwed you to their own ends. If the government would have taken any type of military action to stop those event the same folks who cry conspiracy at every turn would claim injustice and crimes against humanity. As far as my analogies the police would not be able to do anything other than look into the claim and without any actual crime being committed it would just be a wild goose chase. The point i was trying to make about Katrina is that folks who live there have the power to move to avoid tragedy, so if the know its coming and don't do anything by your way of thinking they are the guilty party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted September 26, 2011 #200 Share Posted September 26, 2011 If the government would have taken any type of military action to stop those event the same folks who cry conspiracy at every turn would claim injustice and crimes against humanity. Military action? Whoa there... An FBI investigation was warranted and would have sufficed. As far as my analogies the police would not be able to do anything other than look into the claim and without any actual crime being committed it would just be a wild goose chase. The crimes had already been committed... 9/11 was just next on the list. The point i was trying to make about Katrina is that folks who live there have the power to move to avoid tragedy, so if the know its coming and don't do anything by your way of thinking they are the guilty party. Kartina could not be stopped and no one could blame residents of Louisiana for wanting to ride-out the inevitable storm. Your analogies are thought-provoking but not congruent to the 9/11 facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now