FBI dropped the ball wrt Mossaoui

[JSanderO]

...

The above relates to the topic in the way that it evidences the true scene behind the Gulf Of Tonkin false flag and how that false flag was similar to 9-11. In the same vein JFK sought a neutralization pact in Laos that CIA was adamantly against.

9/11 was not a false flag. That is a simple assertion with not a shred of evidence of it. How easy it is to claim X was behind 9/11 and not what it appears to be on the surface?

Blow back seems more likely a good explanation. Whether you approve or not the US foreign policies have created animus around the world and apparently radical Islamists who were pissed at the US messing about in the ME and especially supporting Israel... and this would be the sort of thing to inspire blow back.

Do you think the bombing of the barracks in Beruit was a false flag?
Or the bombing of the embassy in Nairobi?
Or the murder of Klinghoffer on the Achilhe Lauro?
Or the attack of the USS Cole?
Or the bombing of Khobar towers?
Or several the bombings in discos and clubs in Europe

Is every act reported as terrorism a false flag? Or just 9/11?

 

[Jetblast]

Please do go into detail about your knowledge of SEA.

I can't wait.

Back to the topic - Tonkin at best can be described as a failure of leadership on the part of the Captains involved, and either there was an attack, or there wasn't - what false flag plotter fired on the Maddox and Turner Joy?

None on August 4th. Operation DESOTO was a provocational operation being done against North VietNamese shore installations. The August 4th attacks were fabricated in order to give Johnson an excuse for calling for war.

 

[Jetblast]

9/11 was not a false flag. That is a simple assertion with not a shred of evidence of it. How easy it is to claim X was behind 9/11 and not what it appears to be on the surface?

Blow back seems more likely a good explanation. Whether you approve or not the US foreign policies have created animus around the world and apparently radical Islamists who were pissed at the US messing about in the ME and especially supporting Israel... and this would be the sort of thing to inspire blow back.

Do you think the bombing of the barracks in Beruit was a false flag?
Or the bombing of the embassy in Nairobi?
Or the murder of Klinghoffer on the Achilhe Lauro?
Or the attack of the USS Cole?
Or the bombing of Khobar towers?
Or several the bombings in discos and clubs in Europe

Is every act reported as terrorism a false flag? Or just 9/11?

Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley say otherwise. Sorry Sandero, you're on the wrong side on this. Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11. It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

 

[beachnut]

Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley say otherwise. Sorry Sandero, you're on the wrong side on this. Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11. It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

What a load of BS. Wiki? lol, edited by anyone.

There is no reason to LIHOP, that is dumber than MIHOP. Those who can't figure out why need to check their morals.

LOL, not news most everything is a false flag in your fantasy world; don't forget 800 where you can't produce the evidence for your side, the fantasy side.

Where are the names of the 12 facilities? Where did you google that one?

You have no clue what PNAC meant, or why. You inability to understand the PNAC statement you use, fuels your paranoia which has you seeing CTs from JFK to 800, and most stuff in between. I see your using the PNAC card as most your stuff is BS based on woo.

 

[jaydeehess]

Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11.

As I have said severl times, you seem to think that tbe six year separation between bojinka and Mossaoui, and the fact that it was discovered when its planning stage was botched , and its mastermind was in jail, are insignificant to why humans in charge did not see, in 2000/2001, what you can see in hindsight in 2013.

t doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

What it really takes is a deep and abiding fear and paranoia.

 

[JSanderO]

Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley say otherwise. Sorry Sandero, you're on the wrong side on this. Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11. It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

Foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make. At best this bit might support that some one wanted to let the attack take place perhaps as the basis to launch a new aggressive policy. There is NO evidence that insiders carried out the 9/11 attacks.

PNAC did not CALL for a new Pearl Harbor (as disgusting as they are)... they pointed out that only an attack such as Pearl Harbor will provide the public support to wage war. But everyone knew this. What would be the appropriate response if the US was attacked to MOST Americans? Do noting? or kink ass?

Do you think people need to figure out what to do when someone hits them? No... they hit back... and that's what happened. And PNAC may have wanted war in the ME but they KNEW there was no reason for the US to invade... unless... the obvious.

 

[beachnut]

The PNAC statement is about change. To bring on change in the military. It is amazing how people who want to lie about 911 use their political bias to form the silly 911 truth lies, and crazy claims.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor ...

Wow, what is the "transformation" here?

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence

Wow, it is true, using PNAC only makes 911 truther arguments dumber.

Moussaoui was an idiot comparted to the 19 idiots - a big reason why the other idiots left him to play on his own. The guy never soloed. A box of rocks is closer to flying a aircraft than Moussaoui.

It is amazing all these people who "knew" never talked to the rest of the world. Amazing no body spoke up before hand to save the day and be the biggest national hero of all time. What is next? The JFK stuff is not a good thing to bring up, it makes it easy to see someone is full of CTs.

 

[BStrong]

None on August 4th. Operation DESOTO was a provocational operation being done against North VietNamese shore installations. The August 4th attacks were fabricated in order to give Johnson an excuse for calling for war.

Could you explain why the "provocation" couldn't have succeeded?

If the Navy had two ships in the area on 4th August trolling for return fire, there is no reason for the Navy and the op not to continue until they had what they wanted -if as you assert DESOTO was solely intended to dummy up a reason to go to (an undeclared) war, there was no reason not to wait until the desired provocation had occurred.

Might want to read this:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_quarterly/Skunks.pdf

Of course if a Navy Captain thought he was under attack, ordered his ship to fire on the attackers, and at some point in the festivities came to understand he had ********** up, that Navy Captain might want to engage in a little cya exercise.

I know that coming up with rational, reasonable explanations doesn't rate high on the excitement scale, but for some reason when one does investigate events (of all sorts) and takes into account actual documented (by daily examples, not Hollywood popular fiction drama) human behavior you get more reasonable explanations and -0- evil genius master-of-the-universe wet dreams.

 

[BStrong]

Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley say otherwise. Sorry Sandero, you're on the wrong side on this. Look up the Wikipedia entry for "Phoenix Memo". Both Rowley and Williams were practically pounding on FBI and CIA's door telling them suicide pilots were getting busy. There's lots of evidence for it if you have a good working knowledge of the Bojinka scenario and FBI and CIA's knowledge of Al Qaeda attempts to use airliners as weapons prior to 9-11. It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. What you are doing is like sincerely asking where is the evidence Bush deliberately lied about WMD. Sorry, but you obviously have a lot to learn about the Deep Political modus operandi of those who benefited. By the way, some of those disco bombings were false flags.

About that "Good Working Knowledge" bit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9478203&postcount=8

Like I said in my post, any officer or investigator bringing in information to the boss better have info that dovetails with an existing operation or enforcement priority or they get dismissed out of hand, or their intel goes to the end of a long line in the "maybe when we've got some time" file.

 

[catsmate]

The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident is a legitimate reference to false flag attacks. I could repel the reply I got on Laos but I fear I will be off-topic hunted by persons who use it as a device.

It seems ridiculous to have to start a whole new thread because a poster was ignorant of the flood season in the Mekong and its prolific flows and 500-1000 meter width.

It should be obvious. The rogue CIA shadow government that killed Kennedy was as in effect back then, as Truman cited, just as much as it was in effect during the false flag attack of 9-11. Only a person in contempt of the obvious would ask the question in my opinion.

Will you be supporting any of these assertions with evidence or are you going to repeat your behaviour in the TWA 800 thread and fail to do so, followed by fleeing ignominiously?

 

[abaddon]

Will you be supporting any of these assertions with evidence or are you going to repeat your behaviour in the TWA 800 thread and fail to do so, followed by fleeing ignominiously?

I'm going with ignominious fleeing.

 

[Jetblast]

Foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make. At best this bit might support that some one wanted to let the attack take place perhaps as the basis to launch a new aggressive policy. There is NO evidence that insiders carried out the 9/11 attacks.

PNAC did not CALL for a new Pearl Harbor (as disgusting as they are)... they pointed out that only an attack such as Pearl Harbor will provide the public support to wage war. But everyone knew this. What would be the appropriate response if the US was attacked to MOST Americans? Do noting? or kink ass?

Do you think people need to figure out what to do when someone hits them? No... they hit back... and that's what happened. And PNAC may have wanted war in the ME but they KNEW there was no reason for the US to invade... unless... the obvious.

I think your input's theoretical nature is rather obvious. Your arguments only work if you ignore the glaring evidence and pattern for covert involvement. You dance a very fragile tip-toe-ing angels' dance on the head of a pin when you say "foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make." It's almost like saying bad intel does not prove intentional war crimes. In my opinon you're simply not being honest about the players involved or their methods. There's a simple formula here that maximum hit equals maximum carte blanche for retaliation. Why do you think they mentioned Pear Harbor in PNAC?

 

[Jetblast]

About that "Good Working Knowledge" bit:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9478203&postcount=8

Like I said in my post, any officer or investigator bringing in information to the boss better have info that dovetails with an existing operation or enforcement priority or they get dismissed out of hand, or their intel goes to the end of a long line in the "maybe when we've got some time" file.

You're just in contempt of the fact French Intelligence told Rowley Moussaoui was positively ID'd as being a member of the Al Qaeda terrorist group that tried to use an Air France Airbus to crash into the Eifel Tower.

There's a reason why they flagrantly avoided investigating Moussaoui and it wasn't lack of proof.

 

[Jetblast]

Could you explain why the "provocation" couldn't have succeeded?

If the Navy had two ships in the area on 4th August trolling for return fire, there is no reason for the Navy and the op not to continue until they had what they wanted -if as you assert DESOTO was solely intended to dummy up a reason to go to (an undeclared) war, there was no reason not to wait until the desired provocation had occurred.

Might want to read this:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_quarterly/Skunks.pdf

Of course if a Navy Captain thought he was under attack, ordered his ship to fire on the attackers, and at some point in the festivities came to understand he had ********** up, that Navy Captain might want to engage in a little cya exercise.

I know that coming up with rational, reasonable explanations doesn't rate high on the excitement scale, but for some reason when one does investigate events (of all sorts) and takes into account actual documented (by daily examples, not Hollywood popular fiction drama) human behavior you get more reasonable explanations and -0- evil genius master-of-the-universe wet dreams.

You're just in contempt of the well documented scenario of Johnson paying back the generals and CIA for putting him into the presidency by provoking the NVA. The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident is now accepted by most serious historians as never having happened and being a false flag event that turned out to be the ruse that got us into VietNam.

The reason they needed to fabricate the attack on the 4th is because the events of the 2nd were caused by the US and were too obvious. However if the communists attacked American warships aggressively this would serve to rally the jingos to a cry of self-defense and was subsequently sold that way soon after (just like 9-11). I think you know that and are just thinking-up excuses around the obvious above.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think your input's theoretical nature is rather obvious. Your arguments only work if you ignore the glaring evidence and pattern for covert involvement. You dance a very fragile tip-toe-ing angels' dance on the head of a pin when you say "foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make." It's almost like saying bad intel does not prove intentional war crimes. In my opinon you're simply not being honest about the players involved or their methods. There's a simple formula here that maximum hit equals maximum carte blanche for retaliation. Why do you think they mentioned Pear Harbor in PNAC?

Because Pearl Harbour is an example of an attack perpetrated against the USA that caused the USA to enter into a war. That was simple.

You deride JSO for his theoretical proposal yet fail to note that your secret CIA shadow gov't more than satisfies that descriptor.
You demonstrate a belief that functions the same way as does religious belief. You assume your dogma to be fact while any opposition is mere theory.

 

[Robrob]

I think your input's theoretical nature is rather obvious. Your arguments only work if you ignore the glaring evidence and pattern for covert involvement. You dance a very fragile tip-toe-ing angels' dance on the head of a pin when you say "foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make."

Since foreknowledge of an attack does not meet the definition of "false flag attack," are you using a different set of definitions for your terms or are you just making it up as you go?

It's almost like saying bad intel does not prove intentional war crimes.

Bad intel does not prove intentional war crimes.

In my opinon you're simply not being honest about the players involved or their methods. There's a simple formula here that maximum hit equals maximum carte blanche for retaliation. Why do you think they mentioned Pear Harbor in PNAC?

Because it was the obvious metaphor for the situation they were describing? This is a single sentence in a 90 page report.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Feel free to point out where in the rest of the PNAC document it states their intent to create a new Pearl Harbor?

 

[Axxman300]

The assassination of JFK gave CIA total power domestically and internationally. That's why they had to kill RFK, because like Jack, he was going to take control and right that.

Uh huh. I need to ask: Have you ever been to Dallas?

I used to be a JFK Conspiracy loon too, but then I went to Dallas to the JFK museum there at the old Schoolbook Depository.

It was an easy shot. A real easy shot.

To rule in a conspiracy you first have to rule out Oswald - and you just can not do that.

9/11 was an easy operation for Al Qaeda to pull off. Having 19 guys willing to die for the cause made the plan simple. If they took only on plane = WIN. 2 planes = WIN. Even if both planes are shot down = WIN. There were enough institutional blindspots between the CIA, FBI, Immigration and US Customs to literally fly four jumbo jets through.

You site the Gulf of Tonkin, which has a parallel to 9/11 in that both incidents were used by the White House to commit to questionable wars. In each case the incidents stand by themselves. The Maddox was confused by radar, but the Captain filed an initial report to fleet. By the time his report was amended it was too late.

Here's the thing, by 1965 most Americans (certainly college students) knew that the Gulf of Tonkin was a white elephant. How did they know this? The crew was interviewed. Nobody could point to any damage from enemy gunfire, and LBJ was known by everyone in D.C - including the White House press corps - as a huge liar. The truth was that Johnson was looking for an excuse to escalate our involvement in Vietnam.

12 years after 9/11 none of the important facts about the attacks, or the intel failures that lead up to them have changed. Not a single allegation by any troofer has been proven.

The joke is on you...

 

[beachnut]

... It doesn't take much to link the PNAC call for a new Pearl Harbor and this overt evidence of deliberate FBI indifference. ....

Wow, total fantasy nonsense. There was no call for a new Pearl Harbor. PNAC was talking about making the military more responsive for future threats; they speculated it would take some catalyst to make the military change. We in the military were already talking about the threat change and how warfare would change after the USSR, and we dropped full blown SIOP alert for aircraft. PNAC is a like a think tank, without the wiz kids.

When you bring up PNAC, all your stuff becomes dumber. Next time read what PNAC said, not what nuts from 911 truth said PNAC said. A good follower is a leader. There are no good followers in 911 truth.

 

[LSSBB]

I think your input's theoretical nature is rather obvious. Your arguments only work if you ignore the glaring evidence and pattern for covert involvement. You dance a very fragile tip-toe-ing angels' dance on the head of a pin when you say "foreknowledge that there were terrorists planning to attack the US does not a false flag make." It's almost like saying bad intel does not prove intentional war crimes. In my opinon you're simply not being honest about the players involved or their methods. There's a simple formula here that maximum hit equals maximum carte blanche for retaliation. Why do you think they mentioned Pearl Harbor in PNAC?

As I pointed out in another thread, using the "new Pearl Harbor" quote to somehow indict PNAC is senseless. Here is my reason why:

Say your neighbor always lets his dog run loose, and you say "If he doesn't wise up, that dog is going to get hit."

Then the dog gets hit.

Does that mean you drove the car??

 

[Stamuel]

As I pointed out in another thread, using the "new Pearl Harbor" quote to somehow indict PNAC is senseless. Here is my reason why:





Say your neighbor always lets his dog run loose, and you say "If he doesn't wise up, that dog is going to get hit."





Then the dog gets hit.





Does that mean you drove the car??

You are forgetting the standards of evidence that are in play. Standards differ depending on context.



In criminal court, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.



In many civil courts, the standard is preponderance of evidence.



In conspiracy land, the standard is cui bono. If you can prove someone benefited, then they did it. Thus, the PNAC document is conclusive by the relevant standard.