Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Talking Turkey


W Tell

Recommended Posts

Probably best to go to the YouTube site to see this.....

and search... 9/11 WTC South Tower Collapses, West Street ...

the uploader is... coolgamer1677

(don't ask.... :mellow::passifier: )

.

I'm afraid that I'm not seeing any flash. Here's

.

Perhaps if you paused the video at the point where you are seeing a flash and took a screen shot? Perhaps compare it with another screen shot immediately before and/or after?

Also, if it is that far into collapse, you are contending that the intention was to disintegrate the tilting upper block so that it causes less damage, right? Why is the upper block still quite visibly fully intact at that point in other footage from different perspectives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I'm not seeing any flash. Here's

.

:)

thankyou...now if you go to your link...when you come to the third second.... tap on the pause arrow to slow it RIGHT down.

and you will see the bright light/blob appear...in the 3rd second and stay into the 4th 5th etc...

(there are lots more copies of this in various videos but I'm sticking with this one for now)

Also, if it is that far into collapse, you are contending that the intention was to disintegrate the tilting upper block so that it causes less damage, right? Why is the upper block still quite visibly fully intact at that point in other footage from different perspectives?

I am contending the intention was to disintegrate the whole building,,,,,from top to bottom....with advanced laser technolgy.

And if there were field effects that weakened the buildings that were in close proximity, they couldn't just disintegrate the top portion.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never knew that many of the dead at WTC had been vaporized. Jetfuel & gravity don't do that.

But, you have been telling us that temperatures inside the WTC buildings were too low to weaken steel. BTW, I examined a section of steel column from one of the WTC buildings today and I didn't see any evidence that explosives were used nor of thermite cutting on that piece of structural steel, but I did observe impact damage and adding a photo of that WTC steel as an attachment.

.

post-32948-0-65580400-1349560089_thumb.j

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thankyou...now if you go to your link...when you come to the third second.... tap on the pause arrow to slow it RIGHT down.

and you will see the bright light/blob appear...in the 3rd second and stay into the 4th 5th etc...

:)

(there are lots more copies of this in various videos but I'm sticking with this one for now)

I am contending the intention was to disintegrate the whole building,,,,,from top to bottom....with advanced laser technolgy.

And if there were field effects that weakened the buildings that were in close proximity, they couldn't just disintegrate the top portion.

I didn't see evidence of laser burn-through on the exterior of the WTC buildings and I didn't see a flash either. Can you point out the flash for us?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that I'm not seeing any flash. Here's

.

:)

thankyou...now if you go to your link...when you come to the third second.... tap on the pause arrow to slow it RIGHT down.

and you will see the bright light/blob appear...in the 3rd second and stay into the 4th 5th etc...

I didn't see evidence of laser burn-through on the exterior of the WTC buildings and I didn't see a flash either. Can you point out the flash for us?

(see above)

Don't worry...... anyone who is interested enough and does the pause thing will see it even if you can't.....

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

thankyou...now if you go to your link...when you come to the third second.... tap on the pause arrow to slow it RIGHT down.

and you will see the bright light/blob appear...in the 3rd second and stay into the 4th 5th etc...

(there are lots more copies of this in various videos but I'm sticking with this one for now)

I am contending the intention was to disintegrate the whole building,,,,,from top to bottom....with advanced laser technolgy.

And if there were field effects that weakened the buildings that were in close proximity, they couldn't just disintegrate the top portion.

.

Still don't see it, sorry. Gave you a chance to substantiate it with screen shots, but you chose not to. I'm unsure of why when you have taken the time to present images in the past, but oh well.

I'm equally sorry to report that the notion of DEW being involved in the events of 9/11 is nothing short of bat $% crazy. :hmm: No offense intended. :D

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still don't see it, sorry. Gave you a chance to substantiate it with screen shots, but you chose not to. I'm unsure of why when you have taken the time to present images in the past, but oh well.

oh dear...looks like I missed the chance you kindly gave me...... :rolleyes:

it takes a bit of time you know...I can't just wave a magic wand...

these aren't that clear but it's the best I can do at the moment....

In the first one it is just starting to appear...but you can't see very well with this quality

And you can see it better on the other two...(note.within the 3rd second...)

As I am spoon feeding you, I'd better explain that it is along the bottom of the pic and approximately central.

911SOUTHT1-1.jpg

911SOUTHT2-1.jpg

911SOUTHTOWER3-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you should be....

:yes:

He should be sorry because YOU can't adequately point out a tiny insignificant bright spot that is likely glare?

I THINK I see what you're getting at but since you can't be arsed to use paint to mark it I can't be sure. He also is probably looking for something that actually looks significant since you've been going on about it.

Edited by frenat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you should be....

:yes:

Oh bee, don't be like that just because I foo-foo'd your pet conspiracy theory (DEW). :(

I hope you aren't referring to the little dot of something which appears to be being expelled from a window. :hmm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I THINK I see what you're getting at but since you can't be arsed to use paint to mark it I can't be sure.

you guys.... :hmm:

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you guys.... :hmm:

:D

Wait, if you look at it here maybe you can see what you're talking about? 09 04:00 to 09 04:15? There is an overall brightness change between those two points. Is that what you are talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, if you look at it here maybe you can see what you're talking about? 09 04:00 to 09 04:15? There is an overall brightness change between those two points. Is that what you are talking about?

it's late where I am, I'm tired.....goodnight all...

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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.

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

626_molten_metal.jpg

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!

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

htchar1.gif

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.

johngross2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

johngross2.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.