Jango
Graduate Poster
How could CIA/NSA/FBI miss the 9/11 attack?
- Thread starter Baah
- Start date
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Can not <> have not
ETA: Not to mention, wasn't the mole you reference a terror operative they turned into an informant? Which, as the first line of the article you linked states, is the FBi's focus, as they can't infiltrate their own agents?
Might want to get that foot looked at. Gunshots can be nasty.
Last edited:
You made up this
You made this up due to what reason? The article you used did not say this, and you have no quote from the FBI saying this. Basic reading comprehension.
You made up the statement of what the FBI said. (it becomes worse when we add time to the mix, at the time, and then when the mole was killed... )
Wow, that was really dishonest. Don't you know that people can click your links and read for themselves?
Jango
Graduate Poster
Opening words of said article:
3rd paragraph:
5th paragraph:
I was not being dishonest. I had remembered reading this article a year or two ago.
Wow, but you said this.
Have you changed what you said? The report is also not official FBI stuff, and there are no quotes from the FBI - all sources for the article are from who? Got a name?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-10-fbi_x.htm
The article looks more like BS which will help al-Qaeda feel better that the FBI thinks they can't infiltrate what they already infiltrated 10 years earlier.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Got a reason to question USA Today?
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,766
Seems they had not infiltrated al Qaeda at the time of the attacks, but that is not the same as had "never" infiltrated them. Either way this argument seems petty...
Jango
Graduate Poster
1. We don't know -- there being a mole during 9/11. Quite possible and plausible, but no conclusive concrete proof.
2. Tell me about it.
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,766
I don't believe they did. I believed they tried, and thought they had up until the final weeks before the attack, hence the connection with Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Omar al-Bayoumi, and the CIA.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Jango
Graduate Poster
Sure. But how do we know this is one of those times? A gut feeling?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, the fact that they cite no FBI sources for their claims. USA Today is not a bastion of journalistic prowess. That's why it's the free doormat in front of practically every hotel room in America.
Last edited:
USA Today does not support your made up statement. No big deal, you don't seem to understand why. You keep wanting it to support your BS.
And they had done it in the past, stuff which you posted. Then you made up the BS that they lied. Now you present an article with no names, third hand information from a news source.
No big deal, it will never support the statement you made up; guess you dropped the statement and now quibble about USA Today. You are not discussing your made up statement, and thread, you have become typing practice for me, not so much for you and short statements.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
A 911 kook lying?
Oh dear, say it aint so
Oh dear, say it aint so
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
As that USA Today Op Ed Yesterday justifying the Paris Terrorist attack shows.
Even if the FBI and the CIA had a hundred moles in AQ, if they never overheard, "We are using commercial airplanes to hit the WTC and other American landmarks" how would the FBI and CIA find out?
This was a very compartmentalized operation with relatively few people that needed to know all the details. AQ isn't stupid.
This was a very compartmentalized operation with relatively few people that needed to know all the details. AQ isn't stupid.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You asked whether there was reason to question USA Today, and you got your answer. As it's a newspaper, and we know that newspapers tend to trivialise, over-simplify and sensationalise, and that they will often reduce nuanced statements to black-and-white absolutes, then it's always one of those times. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that the fact it makes a statement isn't conclusive evidence that what it states is true. Basic scepticism; how credible is your source? These are the tools you could benefit from acquiring.
Dave
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And the hilarious thing is that Jango says he wants to have his mind changed. Yet he clings to these fairly frantic and flimsy arguments.
Allen773
Graduate Poster
Hindsight is always 20/20...but Troofers, predictably, confuse that with having foresight.
CONNECT THE DOTS, SHEEPLE!
CONNECT THE DOTS, SHEEPLE!