• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

911, investigation

About the warnings: There were indeed quite specific watnings about the WTC and espcially about the Pentagon. But consider this: How many threaths against in particular the Pentagon, but also other land-marks do you think intelligence gets, annually? I can tell you it is plenty. Onve 911 had happened, any idiot could, with the benefit of hindsight, single out the specific warnings that, if heeded, might have prevented 911 or reduced losses. But in the months leading up to the event, nobody could know which warnings to take seriously, and which to ignore.

Hans
 
yes i was thinking something like this. maybe there was too many warnings. but then i think it was quite alot of warning from many other secret agencies of other countries. and also from some fbi people. so i am not so sure if this is normal that always there is so many warning all the time. do you think so?
sometimes i do thinking maybe there was some al quaida people in the secret agencies of usa!! i dont mean like conspiracy, but people that was paid money by al quaida for making warning not serious, or for giving information. do you think this is possible? who knows. i think maybe it is!! when they have alot of money...
 
there was too many warnings. but then i think it was quite alot of warning from many other secret agencies of other countries. and also from some fbi people. so i am not so sure if this is normal that always there is so many warning all the time. do you think so?
I think the large number of warnings argues incompetence, not a conspiracy.

If 9/11 had been an inside job, there would not have been tons of forewarnings. If you're pulling off a hoax, you don't want your own people trying to warn you of the job you are trying to pull off! So you engineer forewarnings out of the picture. To me, a vast amount of "prior knowledge" suggests no conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
yes i agree! i dont think inside job, but do you think it is impossible that al quaida was some way in the usa secret agency , like 'double agent' maybe?
i dont mean that people in usa did know then, but i mean that maybe some people changed warnings or have give information about the usa which makes it possible for it to happen? with alot of money, alot is possible i think! and bin laden have alot of money! and often this happens with secret agencies i think. so why not with 911 in the usa? i dont know, but maybe
 
yes i was thinking something like this. maybe there was too many warnings. but then i think it was quite alot of warning from many other secret agencies of other countries. and also from some fbi people. so i am not so sure if this is normal that always there is so many warning all the time. do you think so?
sometimes i do thinking maybe there was some al quaida people in the secret agencies of usa!! i dont mean like conspiracy, but people that was paid money by al quaida for making warning not serious, or for giving information. do you think this is possible? who knows. i think maybe it is!! when they have alot of money...
Things don't work that way at all. You don't look at various bits of intelligence and say "now do we act on this or not?" Only if you get a very specific threat, like that of fluid bombs on trans-atlintic planes this year. Otherwise, what you do is build risk profiles. There is no doubt that the WTC was high on risk profiles, but you can't keep evacuating people. That is what the terrorists would want.

Hans
 
yes, i see. but i think the threat was quite specific. but maybe not enough. i need read more about this all. quite interesting i think. do you know if ever there was like possibility of alquaida infiltrating in usa agencies?
another thing why i think this maybe possible is that there was excercise on the 911 day , or excercise was planned, but then did not go. but i think maybe alquaida choose date 911 because they know of exercise that usa wanted to make then? or is this not possible?
 
cornelius, dlaczego robi nie wy oświadczacie dokładnie co wy uważacie okolo 9 /11?
I, zza ciekawości, w jaki miasto były wy ponosiliście?
 
Firestone: Wybacz, ale to, co probujesz powiedziec po polsku jest niejasne.

Please write in english , so everybody understand;)
i am curious what people here think about what i post above.
is it impossible you think? thank you for your opinion!
 
Osama Bin Laden had wanted the attack to occur much earlier. Several times the attack had to be postponed because the hijackers were not yet ready. They only purchased their airline tickets a few weeks before the attacks, after years of planning.

I think they just went as soon as they were ready. 9/11 happened to be the day (they most likely chose an early morning week flight because it would have fewer people on it).

Al Qaeda might have chosen to carry out the attacks the day Vigilant Guardian (the NORAD exercise) was running but I find that pretty unlikely. In any event the exercise improved NORAD's overall response time.

There is lots of misinformation going around regarding the information the intelligence community had. The reality is, only actionable intelligence is useful. That would be in two types:

1) Event specific - what, where, when
2) Person specific - persons x, y, and z are going to do a. There are located at b

Any thing other than this is pretty much worthless.

To illustrate... Auckland, where I live, is located on a volcanic field, and one day a volcano will again erupt here. Actionable intelligence would be something along the lines of "A volcano is going to break through in Mt Roskill suburb in the next two weeks". The sort of intelligence the CIA etc. were receiving was more like "A volcano might erupt at some time in the city". That's no use at all.

There's also many claims that are rather flimsy. For example a member of Able Danger claims to have identified a 9/11 hijacker well in advance. His image was on a chart of suspected terrorists for some time, supposedly. However no other memeber of Able Danger agrees with this assertion, and the person claims the chart "disintegrated" when he tried to take it down.

Lastly, in regards to the investigations...

Firstly, the money spent on Bill Clinton's investigation was not to investigate if he got a blow job. It was an impeachment trial because it was alleged he had lied under oath. A very different thing.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission Report was not the only investigation into 9/11, not by any means. Gravy has an extensive summary of the scale of the many investigations, which he may link to or repost here as a demonstration. Needless to say, absolutely no resources were spared in the enormous investigations that were undertaken in the wake of 9/11. The FBI's criminal investigation, for example, was the largest in American history, with 3,000 special agents assigned full time.

I'm not sure how much exactly was spent on the many investigations, but I am sure it was millions upon millions of dollars.

-Gumboot
 
is it true that only less 10 million dollar spent on 911 report and 60 million dollar spent on clinton sex affair?

Thats is misleading. The 9/11 commision did no investigating. The FBI, NSA, CIA, NYPD, FAA etc etc had already done the investigating. The 9/11 Comission was simply charged with bringing together the results of their investigations, summarize what went down to the best of their ability, and make reccomendations.

Ken Starr (the special prosecutor that went after Clinton) had to do all his own investigating.

Its a real apples and oranges situation. Its real easy to confuse, though.
 
"possible" can encompass so much.

It is possible I might get hit by a car tomorrow. It is possible the world will be hit by a meteor tomorrow.

In that line of thinking, YES it is POSSIBLE, Cornelius, but HIGHLY, EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.

TAM;)
 
Welcome, Cornelius.

I believe any investigation into the administration's handling of 9/11 would reveal all sorts of incompetence and criminality. It would also conclude, once again, that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that the Administration did not let the attacks happen.

At that point, the Truthers would all reject the study as being a whitewash, using some silly pretext, and we'd be back to square one again.

Personally I think if there is a conspiracy to be had it is, a perhaps unspoken, agreement not to expose the government failings that led up to 9/11. The current administration doesn't want to talk about what they missed/ignored and the Democrats would rather no one try too hard to find out exactly what those documents were that Sandy Berger was so anxious to get rid of.
 
If you like 9/11, thank a Republican

Personally I think if there is a conspiracy to be had it is, a perhaps unspoken, agreement not to expose the government failings that led up to 9/11. The current administration doesn't want to talk about what they missed/ignored and the Democrats would rather no one try too hard to find out exactly what those documents were that Sandy Berger was so anxious to get rid of.
"The documents removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals."

You've definitely been hanging around conspiracy guys too much. Their hypothesis is precisely that Clinton was in on it, helping to protect Osama, etc.

Unfortunately, Clinton hadn't seen any of Alex Jones' videos:

[SIZE=-2]PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE]
It's like this: the most incompetent admnistration in U.S. history let 9/11 happen through sheer ineptitude. The Republican Congress helped out by blocking Clinton's anti-terrorism proposals.

If you like 9/11, thank a Republican.
 
Last edited:
yes i also think it is big ******** that Clinton is in this big conspiracy.
but, i still think one thing is not good , that nobody fired!
nobody punished for very bad mistake. and this why i think new investigation is need.
i understand that it is because politics works that nobody fired, but still, i dont understand why people dont want push it. do you not think so?
also do you think conspiracy people will go away after years when no investigation is going?i am not so sure. of course, i already say before that never all will go away even with investigation. but i am worry about all the people who do not trust our leaders. because this can help the terrorist! so i think there many reason for look at things very close again by investigator far away from bush and co., like for not hiding big mistakes again.
thank you again for your time and opinion.
 
Perry, I think you've confused President Bill Clinton with President Jack Ryan.

And I don't suppose you can cite most of your tidbits there, or atleast link to where you originally copied that from, could you?
 
Perry, I think you've confused President Bill Clinton with President Jack Ryan.

And I don't suppose you can cite most of your tidbits there, or atleast link to where you originally copied that from, could you?
It's on the web. Here's more:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The Bush administration sat on a Clinton-era plan to attack al-Qaida in Afghanistan for eight months because of political hostility to the outgoing president and competing priorities, it was reported yesterday.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The plan, under which special forces troops would have been sent after Osama bin Laden, was drawn up in the last days of the Clinton administration but a decision was left to the incoming Bush team. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, a top-level discussion of the proposals took place only on September 4, a week before the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington. In the months in between, the plan was shuffled through the bureaucracy by an administration distrustful of anything to do with Bill Clinton and which appeared fixated on national missile defense and the war on drugs, rather than the struggle against terrorism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0805-04.htm

The Bush Administration:
[/FONT]-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger and Louis Freeh about the urgency of terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.
----Now we've got Bush knowing about the terrorists plans, and the fact that they were in flight schools in the US, and little georgie takes a four week vacation..
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plot.
--Blamed Clinton for 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Nearly 500 of our citizens died at the hands of foreign terrorists during the Reagan administration, including 241 Marines at barracks in Lebanon, to which that administration's response was promptly to withdraw. The 1980s were the most ravaging decade of terrorism against Americans before Sept. 11, 2001. Except for a single bombing run against Libya one day in April 1986, there was no significant military response. Under the Clinton administration, fighting terrorism became a national priority. Counterterrorism funding doubled. Force was used against Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Multiple terrorist plots were stopped, including plans to blow up tunnels and the United Nations headquarters and to strike U.S. targets during our millennium celebrations. Al Qaeda cells were rolled up in more than 20 countries. Dozens of important terrorist fugitives were apprehended.
Where were Republican leaders then? Some were busy opposing key efforts to strengthen laws designed to combat terrorists. Others criticized significant counterterrorism funding requests.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45352-2003Feb21?language=printer
 

Back
Top Bottom