The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[funk de fino]

Can you answer a question without a question?

I just followed your lead sunshine

Are you denying that operations were started that summer in an attempt to disrupt AQ?

by the CIA?

You brought the FBI into it not me

 

[Swing Dangler]

Say, Swing, do you have ANYTHING except arguments from hindsight ?

Just the historical record and facts Belz.
I suppose we could argue the future but what fun is that?

Can you show me where Tenet was awarded the Medal Of Honor?

I think it was in the video game of the same name. Sorry, Medal of Freedom.

 

[Swing Dangler]

I just followed your lead sunshine

Are you denying that operations were started that summer in an attempt to disrupt AQ?

by the CIA?

You brought the FBI into it not me

No, I'm not denying that. Will you accept that the administration did nothing to bolster airline security leading up to 9/11?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

I think it was in the video game of the same name. Sorry, Medal of Freedom.

Suggestion - put a little more effort into that research thing.

 

[funk de fino]

as for post # 3239

"hey man they are turning this place into a police state, they are taking away our rights and civil liberties

there will be death camps next"

and on, and on, and on...................

You think the people who think 911 was created in order to usher in a police state would not have objected to these infringments after an address by GWB about scary arabs who might hijack planes?

"false flag warnings dudes........."

 

[funk de fino]

No, I'm not denying that. Will you accept that the administration did nothing to bolster airline security leading up to 9/11?

Will you accept at that time it was FAA responsibilty and they had warnings?

 

[funk de fino]

I wonder what orders the President could have given the CIA in order to prevent the attacks? Pure speculation of course on my part.

You could have read the 911 Commission to see what orders were given to the CIA that summer?

You know, the operations against AQ?

The ones that some members of the TM deny took place even though they are there in black and white in the report.

 

[Billdave2]

Yes. Should I not take it seriously?


Aren't you using a little hindsight to make this comment?
Here is a scenario for you:
A public address by the President in the months leading up to 9/11-
"Ladies and Gentlement it has come to my administration's attention through the excellent work of the Intelligence Community that OBL and Al-Q have been in preparation to commit a mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil using passenger airlines as instruments of destruction. My senior cabinet officials along with the FAA and the airline industry will be putting into place the following security measures to ensure the safety and security of air travel. . (insert measures here that have been recommended by the Joint Terrorism Task force prior to 9/11, security experts, FAA, and the airline industry). These measures may inconvenience you at worst but rest assured as your President I place the security and safety of the American people as my highest priority. While these measures are being instituted at airports and on airlines across the country, the FBI at home and the CIA abroad are working around the clock to bring these terrorists who mean us harm to justice. We will not falter and we will not fail nor will we be held captive by the fear that terrorists try to impose upon us."

The talking heads and pundits heap lavish praise upon the President for being a proactive President at work and not on an extended vacation. The odds are of course that 9/11 is prevented and the terrorists with box cutters are prevented from boarding the plane as they are arrested at the security checkpoints. If they do make it on the plane, air marshals are there to prevent any deaths, reinforced cockpit doors have already been installed, and
armed pilots await any terrorists that make it past the first three measures. Or perhaps the terrorists are apprehended by the FBI as Sibel Edmonds and her cohorts are not stymied or hampered by their superiors.

But instead we get a President that takes an extended vacation while him and his administration ignore numerous warnings, FBI superiors that hamper field agents in their investigation, and 9/11.




Can you answer a question without a question?

Please provide evidence that there was any inteligence reports that showed this. There were reports that they might use planes as weapons, and there were reports that they might hijack planes, but none of these reports said they would combine the two or that they would be in the US. You are using hindsight again to make mopre out the reports than was known at the time.

Did you read the links above about Hindsight bias and the historian's fallacy?

 

[Belz...]

Just the historical record and facts Belz.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Swing Dangler]

Please provide evidence that there was any inteligence reports that showed this. There were reports that they might use planes as weapons, and there were reports that they might hijack planes, but none of these reports said they would combine the two or that they would be in the US. You are using hindsight again to make mopre out the reports than was known at the time.

Proactive versus reactive has nothing to do with hindsight. The fact is the President was not proactive.

You really want me to address planes as weapons without a hijacking?

Planes as weapons source here

Here is a start...

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
Edit event

German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern militants are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
Edit event

Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah’s men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” The Christian Science Monitor will call the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/2002] In late July 2001, the king of Jordan will offer the US to send two battalions of Jordanian special forces to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda havens there (see July 24, 2001).

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
Edit event

Russian President Vladimir Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/2002] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/2001] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, will claim, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article will claim that at least two of the militants were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/2001]

Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001 (see July 16, 2001), was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of ‘Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines’
Edit event

Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they “are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11. When the Cayman government notifies the US is unknown. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no-questions-asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter will meet with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and will claim his information was a “premonition of sorts.” The three men will later be arrested. What has happened to them since their arrest is unclear. [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

 

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

"Ladies and Gentlement it has come to my administration's attention through the excellent work of the Intelligence Community that OBL and Al-Q have been in preparation to commit a mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil using passenger airlines as instruments of destruction.

Please point out where any warnings were received of a plan to use airliners as weapons. If any were, please explain how credible they were. Please also explain how announcing that the plot had been uncovered would not have been likely to have caused the plotters to have switched to a different form of attack, and how such an announcement could not possibly have compromised intelligence sources and methods.

My senior cabinet officials along with the FAA and the airline industry will be putting into place the following security measures to ensure the safety and security of air travel. . (insert measures here that have been recommended by the Joint Terrorism Task force prior to 9/11, security experts, FAA, and the airline industry). These measures may inconvenience you at worst but rest assured as your President I place the security and safety of the American people as my highest priority. While these measures are being instituted at airports and on airlines across the country, the FBI at home and the CIA abroad are working around the clock to bring these terrorists who mean us harm to justice. We will not falter and we will not fail nor will we be held captive by the fear that terrorists try to impose upon us."

A "joint terrorism task force^WP" is a criminal-investigation team composed of personnel from both the FBI and local law-enforcement agencies. Presumably you meant the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, AKA the Hart-Rudman Commission.

From a salon.com article:

Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday's tragedy. "Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don't think it would have changed what happened," Rudman says. "There wasn't enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now."

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner." [emphasis added]

Further, Rudman and Hart are referring to the question of what might have happened had their recommendations had been adopted earlier in the year--not beginning five weeks before the attacks.

The talking heads and pundits heap lavish praise upon the President for being a proactive President at work and not on an extended vacation.

And the millions of air travelers who have to stand in line at security checkpoints for hours are extremely irate. That does wonders for a President's popularity.

The odds are of course that 9/11 is prevented . . .

Of course.

. . . and the terrorists with box cutters are prevented from boarding the plane as they are arrested at the security checkpoints.

People found with prohibited items that have obvious non-weapon uses are not arrested at security checkpoints; the items are merely confiscated. Further, there are (and were) highly concealable knives available that do not set off metal detectors, and/or are disguised as inocuous items Here is a list put out by the FBI in response to the September 11 attacks.

If they do make it on the plane, air marshals are there to prevent any deaths, reinforced cockpit doors have already been installed, and armed pilots await any terrorists that make it past the first three measures. Or perhaps the terrorists are apprehended by the FBI as Sibel Edmonds and her cohorts are not stymied or hampered by their superiors.

And this would all (or even partly) have been put in place within five weeks of the August PDB??



This huge number of trained sky marshals would have just magically appeared in five weeks, right? Along with the specially reinforced cockpit doors? And no one would have objected to arming pilots? No one--not the airlines, not the FAA, not Congress, would have objected to any of this or even wanted to discuss it or provide input? Everyone just meekly went along with these hugely expensive and controversial measures, didn't they? Further, you are still ignoring the fact that on September 11, 2001, the protocof for hijackings was to cooperate with the hijackers, as experience up to that time had demonstrated that in most cases this was the best way to avoid death or injury to passengers and crew.

On a side note, the term is "sky marshal." "Air marshal" is a Royal Air Force rank equivalent to lieutenant general (three stars) in the US Air Force. This common misuse is a major pet peeve of mine, for obvious reasons.

But instead we get a President that takes an extended vacation while him and his administration ignore numerous warnings, FBI superiors that hamper field agents in their investigation, and 9/11.

The above have been addressed here by others. In sum, your scenario is nothing more than a textbook example of combining hindsight with wishful thinking.

 

[Billdave2]

Whoops double post sorry

 

[Billdave2]

Proactive versus reactive has nothing to do with hindsight. The fact is the President was not proactive.

You really want me to address planes as weapons without a hijacking?

Planes as weapons source here

Here is a start...

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
Edit event

German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad that Middle Eastern militants are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.” A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
Edit event

Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah’s men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. “When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations.” The Christian Science Monitor will call the story “confidently authenticated” even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/2002] In late July 2001, the king of Jordan will offer the US to send two battalions of Jordanian special forces to Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda havens there (see July 24, 2001).

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
Edit event

Russian President Vladimir Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/2002] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/2001] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001, will claim, “Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” Interestingly, the article will claim that at least two of the militants were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [Izvestia, 9/12/2001]

Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning on July 16, 2001 (see July 16, 2001), was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is said to reach President Bush. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of ‘Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines’
Edit event

Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they “are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11. When the Cayman government notifies the US is unknown. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no-questions-asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter will meet with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and will claim his information was a “premonition of sorts.” The three men will later be arrested. What has happened to them since their arrest is unclear. [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

Yes I see, you have a handful of warnings, only one of which has both hijackings and planes as weapons and one (the Jordanian warning) which appears to have not even actually happened. I am sure you realize that the US governement recieves hundreds of such warnings every day. So we have 4 warnings, only one that is even close to being actionable out of several thousand warnings that the Bush administration received from Jan to Sept of 2001. Thank you for proving my point that only with hindsight is it possible to see this "clear" picture.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Yes I see, you have a handful of warnings, only one of which has hijackings and planes as weapons both and one (the Jordanian warning) which appears to have not even actually happened. I am sure you realize that the US governement recieves hundreds of such warnings every day. So we have have 4 warnings, only one that is even close to being actionable out of several thousand warnings that the Bush administration received from Jan to Sept of 2001. Thank you for proving my point that only with hindsight is it possible to see this "clear" picture.

Proactive versus reactive. Enough said. I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q.
I have 4 warnings that were made public. We have no idea how many more were made public. You may want to look at the Atlantic Rules scenario and the Genoa conference as well as far as those warnings.You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q as provided to the Administration. Excellent cherry picking but there is no need to cry big picture.

You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

Remember when members of this Administration publicly stated that no one could imagine planes as weapons? Chalk it up to more lies. Yeah I know, straw man.

You can continue to be an apologist and accept the inaction on the part of the Administration and continue to cling to "no one is responsible".
That is your prerogative. I have a higher standard of accountability for our nations leaders than you do. If 9/11 happens again and again, no one will be held accountable I'm sure.

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

so is it a little late to be asking how I can connect PDB warnings about Arab Terrorists and planes to thermite and bombs in the WTC? Arguing over semantics is fine, I just really wanna know how this all ties in with preplanted explosives and faked phone calls.

 

[Civilized Worm]

It doesn't, but Swing hasn't had much luck with that approach either.

 

[Drudgewire]

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.

Oh everything about this administration reminds you of murderers.

 

[HyJinX]

Proactive versus reactive. Enough said. I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q.
I have 4 warnings that were made public. We have no idea how many more were made public. You may want to look at the Atlantic Rules scenario and the Genoa conference as well as far as those warnings.You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

I understand that you refuse to combine these select examples with the numerous other warnings surrounding OBL and AL-Q as provided to the Administration. Excellent cherry picking but there is no need to cry big picture.

You do understand that there is a vast amount of classified information as well. And the resistance by the Admin to keep certain key pieces of data i.e. the Aug. 6th memo classified and it makes you wonder why they would do that?

Remember when members of this Administration publicly stated that no one could imagine planes as weapons? Chalk it up to more lies. Yeah I know, straw man.

You can continue to be an apologist and accept the inaction on the part of the Administration and continue to cling to "no one is responsible".
That is your prerogative. I have a higher standard of accountability for our nations leaders than you do. If 9/11 happens again and again, no one will be held accountable I'm sure.

It reminds me of the murderer who blames his behavior on everyone else instead of holding himself accountable for his actions. Your apologetic stance only contributes to that general culture trait permeating American society including our nations leaders.

Why do you keep your apologetic stance towards the terrorists that murdered 3000 world citizens? I think that's a bigger issue than sifting through "what ifs" and "how comes". You're giving terrorism a pass...and that's sad, my friend.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Further, Rudman and Hart are referring to the question of what might have happened had their recommendations had been adopted earlier in the year--not beginning five weeks before the attacks.

Ok. Earlier in the year, which is even better. Thanks.

And this would all (or even partly) have been put in place within five weeks of the August PDB??

No earlier in the year...or years.

This huge number of trained sky marshals would have just magically appeared in five weeks, right? Along with the specially reinforced cockpit doors? And no one would have objected to arming pilots? No one--not the airlines, not the FAA, not Congress, would have objected to any of this or even wanted to discuss it or provide input?

Safety and security versus inconvenience. I included the FAA and the airlines in my scenario. Congress of course could have input.

Everyone just meekly went along with these hugely expensive and controversial measures, didn't they?

Sure. Source on hugely expensive? I'm sure a few corporate tax breaks here and there would help derail some of the costs.

Further, you are still ignoring the fact that on September 11, 2001, the protocof for hijackings was to cooperate with the hijackers, as experience up to that time had demonstrated that in most cases this was the best way to avoid death or injury to passengers and crew.

Of course had the pilots and airlines had these warnings, those protocols may have changed.

The protocol of a pilot is to give up control of his plane to a hijacker?

On a side note, the term is "sky marshal." "Air marshal" is a Royal Air Force rank equivalent to lieutenant general (three stars) in the US Air Force. This common misuse is a major pet peeve of mine, for obvious reasons.

Misuse of the term?You can take that up with the Federal Government.
Please see- http://ntl.bts.gov/faq/airmarshal.html

I understand now. You favor reactive instead of proactive.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Why do you keep your apologetic stance towards the terrorists that murdered 3000 world citizens? I think that's a bigger issue than sifting through "what ifs" and "how comes". You're giving terrorism a pass...and that's sad, my friend.

ROFLMAO. Proactive instead of reactive. It is very simple concept. The key is to try to prevent terrorism, not do nothing about it and then react to it.