How could CIA/NSA/FBI miss the 9/11 attack?

[Metullus]

Pretty sure those little handheld "Slow/Stop" signs are standard issue for security.

Plus whistles! They really grab your attention...

 

[swright777]

How would the head of security at the WTC be able to stop airliners crashing in to the building?

Maybe he was a $cientologist with power over MEST?

 

[Jango]

CIA had a Bin Laden unit called Alec Station, NSA monitored the Yemen hub and FBI ran the Cole investigation.

How was it even possible NOT to find out about the 9/11 attacks and prevent it from happening? Especially when the whole intelligence community "knew" OBL was responsible only a couple of hours after the attack.

It is also interesting that Michael F. Scheuer left Alec Station in 1999 but came back right after the attacks as a supervisor.

Scheuer talks about his resignation from the C.I.A. and how chances to kill OBL were wasted -- http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/05/opinion/oe-scheuer5

And yes, U.S. intelligence (among other intelligence agencies) was aware and had penetrated the "planes operation". The War on Terrorism had already been on-going for 15-16 or so years before 9/11 went down. OBL was being watched by the C.I.A. in 1991. The F.B.I. had a mole beside him starting by 1993. The pleas of ignorance and incompetence post-9/11 flies in the face of pre-9/11 recorded history.

 

[Spanx]

Well, it's just a shame Jango wasn't in charge, the world could have been a much better place for us all to live in.

 

[Oystein]

...The F.B.I. had a mole beside him [OBL] starting by 1993. The pleas of ignorance and incompetence post-9/11 flies in the face of pre-9/11 recorded history.

Speaking from memory: After the embassy bombings, Clinton shot a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan at AQ training camps to retaliate. Don't know if there was officially the goal to also kill OBL there and then.
If there was "a mole beside him", why not use that mole to get at him?
Was the missile attack just a show?

 

[beachnut]

Scheuer talks about his resignation from the C.I.A. and how chances to kill OBL were wasted -- http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/05/opinion/oe-scheuer5

And yes, U.S. intelligence (among other intelligence agencies) was aware and had penetrated the "planes operation". The War on Terrorism had already been on-going for 15-16 or so years before 9/11 went down. OBL was being watched by the C.I.A. in 1991. The F.B.I. had a mole beside him starting by 1993. The pleas of ignorance and incompetence post-9/11 flies in the face of pre-9/11 recorded history.

Wow, too bad you failed to warn us about 911. When did anyone know they were going to cut throats and take planes and the date?

Who is prepared for someone to come up and cut throats? What a load of BS, you state BS and never source it. You google junk, and string it together at random. You made up the big conclusion. At least you are not going to say the aircraft maneuvers could not to be made by rookie pilots.

Who was the mole, did you redact his name on purpose, and where is the source.

Why would taking out UBL stop 911? When my fathers Captain was killed in combat, they did not stop fighting. If UBL was killed before 911, then after 911 the failed minds would have blamed UBL's death as payback... Scheuer fails to explain how the death of UBL would stop 911. My brother died, it did not stop my future plans, why would UBL death stop 911. Did UBL figure out the end run to take aircraft, using the hijacking scam to fool us for the first hour...

 

[Hellbound]

Why would taking out UBL stop 911? When my fathers Captain was killed in combat, they did not stop fighting. If UBL was killed before 911, then after 911 the failed minds would have blamed UBL's death as payback... Scheuer fails to explain how the death of UBL would stop 911. My brother died, it did not stop my future plans, why would UBL death stop 911. Did UBL figure out the end run to take aircraft, using the hijacking scam to fool us for the first hour...

Just to add to this, even assuming they had a mole close to UBL, then taking him (UBL) out would have hampered anti-terrorist efforts; chances are some other leader would have taken over and formed his own inner circle, leaving the mole out on future planning.

 

[Jango]

Speaking from memory: After the embassy bombings, Clinton shot a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan at AQ training camps to retaliate. Don't know if there was officially the goal to also kill OBL there and then.
If there was "a mole beside him", why not use that mole to get at him?
Was the missile attack just a show?

'A few' is putting it lightly. By all appearances, our response to the embassy bombings seem to be legitimate counterattacks, although that doesn't mean they were 1) the best response possible or 2) had the effects we were looking for. Notwithstanding, the counterattacks came at a time when President Clinton was mired in quite the controversy, so there is the likely possibility that the response was politically motivated more than defense related.

And regarding the mole (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/fbi-never-revealed-it-had-al-qaeda-mole-who-met-n39076 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199325-fbi-placed-mole-in-al-qaeda-before-9-11) I don't know, man, that's something we'd need to see I.e. have the documentation about the mole declassified.

 

[beachnut]

'A few' is putting it lightly. By all appearances, our response to the embassy bombings seem to be legitimate counterattacks, although that doesn't mean they were 1) the best response possible or 2) had the effects we were looking for. Notwithstanding, the counterattacks came at a time when President Clinton was mired in quite the controversy, so there is the likely possibility that the response was politically motivated more than defense related.

And regarding the mole (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/fbi-never-revealed-it-had-al-qaeda-mole-who-met-n39076 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/199325-fbi-placed-mole-in-al-qaeda-before-9-11) I don't know, man, that's something we'd need to see I.e. have the documentation about the mole declassified.

The F.B.I. had a mole beside him starting by 1993.

Nope, it says the mole met with UBL once in 93, and he was in LA; do you read your sources.
Why would the mole know of 911?

 

[Jango]

Nope, it says the mole met with UBL once in 93, and he was in LA; do you read your sources.
Why would the mole know of 911?

This is where an alien concept to you comes in -- thinking. The F.B.I. said they never had a mole in al Qaeda, but, yet, they did have a mole inside al Qaeda. Okay, so if they can pony up to one when before it was, 'We've never penetrated their ranks,' who's not to say that one is less than what they had actually accomplished? This is where knowing ones F.B.I. History comes in handy. Either way, the simplest thing to do is ask for more information to close out this rather large unaddressed plot hole in the 9/11 narrative. Is that so bad?

 

[DGM]

This is where an alien concept to you comes in -- thinking. The F.B.I. said they never had a mole in al Qaeda, but, yet, they did have a mole inside al Qaeda. Okay, so if they can pony up to one when before it was, 'We've never penetrated their ranks,' who's not to say that one is less than what they had actually accomplished? This is where knowing ones F.B.I. History comes in handy. Either way, the simplest thing to do is ask for more information to close out this rather large unaddressed plot hole in the 9/11 narrative. Is that so bad?

Again. From your link:

In a statement, FBI Assistant Director Michael Kortan said the bureau had made "all relevant information available to the 9/11 Commission and the joint intelligence community inquiry. Throughout both of these reviews, the FBI shared pertinent documents and knowledgeable personnel in order to present all known information to commission and inquiry personnel."

Just because they had a mole at one time does not make that fact relevant to 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

This is where an alien concept to you comes in -- thinking. The F.B.I. said they never had a mole in al Qaeda, but, yet, they did have a mole inside al Qaeda. Okay, so if they can pony up to one when before it was, 'We've never penetrated their ranks,' who's not to say that one is less than what they had actually accomplished? This is where knowing ones F.B.I. History comes in handy. Either way, the simplest thing to do is ask for more information to close out this rather large unaddressed plot hole in the 9/11 narrative. Is that so bad?

What plot hole? Guess the mole had no information on 911. Gee, he met UBL how many times? When? Guess you did not read it; why post stuff you have no idea what it said.

 

[Jango]

Again. From your link:



Just because they had a mole at one time does not make that fact relevant to 9/11.

That sounds like something a lawyer would say, but al Qaeda/OBL = 9/11 and the Commission tasked themselves with a starting point of 1986 and the origins of OBL/al Qaeda and the way the U.S. Government interacted with the various people associated with or were members of al Qaeda.

 

[Jango]

What plot hole? Guess the mole had no information on 911. Gee, he met UBL how many times? When? Guess you did not read it; why post stuff you have no idea what it said.

Your lack of interest in this is puzzling, which is an answer to my last question -- this avenue of discussion is bad for you for some "undetermined" reason.

 

[beachnut]

That sounds like something a lawyer would say, but al Qaeda/OBL = 9/11 and the Commission tasked themselves with a starting point of 1986 and the origins of OBL/al Qaeda and the way the U.S. Government interacted with the various people associated with or were members of al Qaeda.

What does the mole have to do with 911; here it is, another failed BS statement which means nothing. A statement used to make up no point at all. Zero point, it sounds like cool news to the CT people and UFO fans, but it means what? Explain what it means.

Why would anyone tell of a mole if he was still in AQ after 911, do you want him dead. Why would they keep a mole a secret after 911? Gee, I think anyone can answer this one; can you? You don't read what you post, the sources, like Your UFO sources explain it was not ET, but you skip it. Read your sources. lol, expose the mole right after 911, good idea...


What plot hole? When would you disclose you have mole in an active terrorist group? When do you make it public? on 912, get him murdered?

Would you tell congress right after 911? Never... After the mole is done, then you can tell, maybe, it might need to remain secret. Was the mole active in AQ after 911? During 911?

What hole? And what does it change? Do you think the mole knew?

 

[JayUtah]

That sounds like something a lawyer would say...

Only in the sense that it is often a lawyer's job to challenge assertions made by others, especially assertions not sufficiently supported by evidence.

...the way the U.S. Government interacted with the various people associated with or were members of al Qaeda.

Showing that intelligence operations were undertaken, including infiltration, is not evidence of specific claims of specific moles and whether they had pertinent foreknowledge of some specific event. You're just handwaving.

 

[Jango]

Only in the sense that it is often a lawyer's job to challenge assertions made by others, especially assertions not sufficiently supported by evidence.



Showing that intelligence operations were undertaken, including infiltration, is not evidence of specific claims of specific moles and whether they had pertinent foreknowledge of some specific event. You're just handwaving.

It is the government who is making claims they want us to believe. They do not show us an untold amount of information they've used to come to their conclusions. That is undisputable. So the revelation that the U.S. IC had a mole inside al Qaeda prior to 9/11 whereas they had claimed to have never penetrated its ranks is quite the significant discovery and one that has many unanswered questions and no forthcoming documentation/investigation from the government. It is a red flag that is being ignored.

I'll put it this way -- the accepted narrative was that U.S. IC had never penetrated al Qaeda's rank before. It has been proven that being skeptical of those first claims was a valid approach. But now that skepticism has been validated, what now? We know there's a mole so what's the accepted narrative now?

 

[beachnut]

It is the government who is making claims they want us to believe. They do not show us an untold amount of information they've used to come to their conclusions. That is undisputable. So the revelation that the U.S. IC had a mole inside al Qaeda prior to 9/11 whereas they had claimed to have never penetrated its ranks is quite the significant discovery and one that has many unanswered questions and no forthcoming documentation/investigation from the government. It is a red flag that is being ignored.

I'll put it this way -- the accepted narrative was that U.S. IC had never penetrated al Qaeda's rank before. It has been proven that being skeptical of those first claims was a valid approach. But now that skepticism has been validated, what now? We know there's a mole so what's the accepted narrative now?

They can't tell everyone after 911 there is a mole in the terrorist group, are you unable to see the reason why it would be a secret. I am glad I am not undercover as you expose me the day after, and the group is not gone. 19 terrorists did 911, but the terrorists keep going, you can't expose the intel the next day or week, or year.

Good job, tell everyone we have a mole in a terrorist group. Good idea, give me a weeks notice if it is me so I can hide.

I am interested in the topic, but you come up short on giving any information as if you don't care to read your sources, and instead cherrypick claptrap and fail to support your general BS. Like this post.

 

[Jango]

They can't tell everyone after 911 there is a mole in the terrorist group, are you unable to see the reason why it would be a secret. I am glad I am not undercover as you expose me the day after, and the group is not gone. 19 terrorists did 911, but the terrorists keep going, you can't expose the intel the next day or week, or year.

Good job, tell everyone we have a mole in a terrorist group. Good idea, give me a weeks notice if it is me so I can hide.

I am interested in the topic, but you come up short on giving any information as if you don't care to read your sources, and instead cherrypick claptrap and fail to support your general BS. Like this post.

They want to dispel conspiracies not with documentation but instead the romanticized idealism installed early in a person's life that the honorable men in government can be trusted because they do not lie because they're honorable men who would never corrupt the authoritah they possess.

 

[beachnut]

They want to dispel conspiracies not with documentation but instead the romanticized idealism installed early in a person's life that the honorable men in government can be trusted because they do not lie because they're honorable men who would never corrupt the authoritah they possess.

Dispel conspiracies, not the government job; 911 truth has CT due to ignorance and BS.

They did not lie - is that a lie