New Member

[Augustine]

No.

MI has one meaning and one meaning only: It is that specialty within the US Army dealing with the analysis (and partly the collection) of data about the enemy, potential enemies, and the environment in which friendly forces might operate. It has nothing to do with James Bond type issues, and only deals with national level issues insofar as they impinge upon national level military/army operations and contingencies. It is purely military, though on infrequent occasions it will deal with civilian agencies.

If you want a realistic idea of what MI does (as opposed to the Hollywood portrayal of it) think about a civilian "Business Intelligence Analyst." Very nearly the same thing but applied in a different milieu.

The NSC is the President's forum whose principle duties involve advising the President on national level security matters. It is almost completely civilian, though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a seat on it.

I would also add that the NSC is not even considered part of the "intelligence community", although the NSA and NIC are (civilian agencies).

 

[Augustine]

Thanks for the welcome, Vespa!

As i have stated in a previous post. My *beliefs* parrallel that of a creationist or one who believes in Intelligent Design, and it bothers me! Haha However, from everything i have read on September 11th i do feel that some kind of coverup is in play.

What would convince me that 9/11 was not LIHOP or MIHOP? Probably, an independant investigation of the attack by those who have nothing to gain or lose which followed all the leads including funding, ISI... everything and came to the conclusion that there was no foul play. An investigation that the family members could all agree was throrough with no questions skipped. Coupled with a solid analysis of WTC 7 collapse (which NIST are currently working on as we speak)

How does ISI funding investigation affect a conclusion of LIHOP or MIHOP?

 

[Garrette]

I would also add that the NSC is not even considered part of the "intelligence community", although the NSA and NIC are (civilian agencies).

Good point. After 9/11, one could--by stretching the point to a very great distance--claim that MI has some reporting requirements to the DNI, and thus to NSC on which the DNI sits, but it really is a long stretch.

 

[mortimer]

Sorry Donal - i missed this post earlier. Well, ive already said my points *for* the controlled demoltion theory, earlier. What i am teetering with is the firefighters expectation that it was goin to come down and thus built a collapse zone (as pointed out in Gravys WTC 7 paper). Also the fact that engineers state that the collapse could have happened as it did. I must respect their expertise and assume that then, yes it can happen as it did. As unusual as it may look to these eyes.

Let it be said : If the engineers had concluded it was explosives/bombs/shaped charges that took down WTC 7 i probably be sold on that conclusion. Purely because that conclusion would match my expectatation of how a CD looks and echo that analysis put forth by Jowenko.

I hope i have answered your question!

I know this has been said before in this thread, but WTC7 didn't look like a controlled demolition at all.

In an explosive controlled demolition, there are basically two steps.

First, a structure has it's load bearing members removed or weakened systematically via explosive charges (these members are often pre-weakened by cutting into them prior to demolition). This is the controlled demolition part of the operation, and is characterized by loud and visible explosions around the base of the building, precisely synchronized.

Second, gravity takes over and the entire structure is brought to the ground by gravity.

In WTC7, you never see or hear step 1, the controlled demolition with explosives step. All you see is step 2. While step 2 almost always occurs as a result of step 1, it doesn't necessarily need step 1 to occur.

I suppose you could posit that there is some newfangled explosive that is both silent and invisible that was used for step 1, but you'd have to show that such explosive existed.

 

[T.A.M.]

I know this has been said before in this thread, but WTC7 didn't look like a controlled demolition at all.

In an explosive controlled demolition, there are basically two steps.

First, a structure has it's load bearing members removed or weakened systematically via explosive charges (these members are often pre-weakened by cutting into them prior to demolition). This is the controlled demolition part of the operation, and is characterized by loud and visible explosions around the base of the building, precisely synchronized.

Second, gravity takes over and the entire structure is brought to the ground by gravity.

In WTC7, you never see or hear step 1, the controlled demolition with explosives step. All you see is step 2. While step 2 almost always occurs as a result of step 1, it doesn't necessarily need step 1 to occur.

I suppose you could posit that there is some newfangled explosive that is both silent and invisible that was used for step 1, but you'd have to show that such explosive existed.

I am going to disagree here...in this way. I think to the average person who does not know the technical details of what goes on with a CD, that WTC7 did look incredibly similar to a CD. The point to add to this, though, is that a large skyscraper, to me anyhow, could not come down in any other way, but straight down. The difference in collapses of WTC1/2 and WTC7 is only in where the initiation of the collapse occured.

TAM

 

[Hyperviolet]

How does ISI funding investigation affect a conclusion of LIHOP or MIHOP?

Well it is said that during the 80's funding of Afghanistan fight against the Soviets the CIA were funding the Mujahedeen through the ISI. Therefore, if the ISI were funding extremists involved in the 9/11 attack is it also possible to consider other agencies were involved?
Furthermore, i find it hard to believe that ISI had knowledge of the attack without the CIA knowing anything about it.

 

[Augustine]

Well it is said that during the 80's funding of Afghanistan fight against the Soviets the CIA were funding the Mujahedeen through the ISI. Therefore, if the ISI were funding extremists involved in the 9/11 attack is it also possible to consider other agencies were involved?
Furthermore, i find it hard to believe that ISI had knowledge of the attack without the CIA knowing anything about it.

I am going to ask a seemingly silly question, but I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing -
When you refer to ISI, exactly what nation's agency are you referring to?

 

[Garrette]

For it to make any sense, the ISI must refer to Pakistan's ISI.

But if that is the case, I do not understand why engagement between the CIA and ISI must mean that the CIA knows everything the ISI knows.

 

[T.A.M.]

Let us not assume that the involvement of one or more ISI agents denotes full ISI involvement...by that I mean, that corruption in the ISI is well known, and this does not mean that these corrupt individuals, if they did partake in 9/11 financing, would have meant CIA knowledge.

TAM

 

[mortimer]

I am going to disagree here...in this way. I think to the average person who does not know the technical details of what goes on with a CD, that WTC7 did look incredibly similar to a CD. The point to add to this, though, is that a large skyscraper, to me anyhow, could not come down in any other way, but straight down. The difference in collapses of WTC1/2 and WTC7 is only in where the initiation of the collapse occured.

TAM

TAM, that's exactly my point. Most people have seen a controlled demolition, and think that the buildings falling straight down in nearly freefall is a sure sign of a controlled demolition. My point is, by the time you see the building falling, it's a gravity-driven collapse, no matter how it was initiated. The telltale signs of a controlled demolition are the systematic explosions that remove the structure's support, prior to the gravity-driven collapse, not the gravity-driven collapse itself. Those systematic explosions are not seen nor heard in any of the WTC collapses, including WTC7.

 

[Augustine]

For it to make any sense, the ISI must refer to Pakistan's ISI.

But if that is the case, I do not understand why engagement between the CIA and ISI must mean that the CIA knows everything the ISI knows.

Precisely why I asked. I am not sure how the ISI (or individuals within ISI) being involved in funding leads to CIA must have known therefore LIHOP or MIHOP.

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM, that's exactly my point. Most people have seen a controlled demolition, and think that the buildings falling straight down in nearly freefall is a sure sign of a controlled demolition. My point is, by the time you see the building falling, it's a gravity-driven collapse, no matter how it was initiated. The telltale signs of a controlled demolition are the systematic explosions that remove the structure's support, prior to the gravity-driven collapse, not the gravity-driven collapse itself. Those systematic explosions are not seen nor heard in any of the WTC collapses, including WTC7.

Thanks for clarification...I totally agree.

TAM

 

[Garrette]

Precisely why I asked. I am not sure how the ISI being involved in funding leads to CIA must have known therefore LIHOP or MIHOP.

I figured it's what you meant, and I should have restrained from speculating what Hyperviolet meant, but I will plead the defense that these threads don't cultivate the best manners.

---

On the point, though, assuming this is Hyper's thinking, it might help to think how difficult it is even for close friends or relatives to know what the others are doing.

How many were surprised by Ted Bundy's killings, despite working side by side with him?

I have three children. I talk to them a lot. I ask them about what they are doing a lot. I emphasize the importance of doing homework on time. I physically go through my youngest's school backpack and planner. And yet I am frequently surprised by an assignment due tomorrow that was given a month ago.

Ain't no such thing as perfect knowledge.

 

[Arus808]

i dont understand how something done in the 80's during the cold war has any bearing on what happened 7 years ago; you know, when the cold war had long ended.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Precisely why I asked. I am not sure how the ISI (or individuals within ISI) being involved in funding leads to CIA must have known therefore LIHOP or MIHOP.

I was refering to the Pakistani ISI, as Garrette clarified. Well of course, if the ISI was involved then that does not directly implicate any US agencies. However, wasnt the head of ISI meeting with whitehouse officials on september 11th? Now, this isnt anything conclusive but i'd be wary about such a meetin if in fact the ISI did have a hand in the attacks. Furthermore, if an independant investigation did uncover a clear cut pakistani link then we would have to ask why the official narrative as established by the 9/11 commission did not address such an important detail.

 

[Garrette]

However, wasnt the head of ISI meeting with whitehouse officials on september 11th?

No. He was having a breakfast meeting with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. He had already been in D.C. for four days conducting other meetings.

Now, this isnt anything conclusive but i'd be wary about such a meetin if in fact the ISI did have a hand in the attacks.

What do you mean "wary?"

Assume for the moment that the ISI was heavily involved in at least the planning of the attacks. Why could this trip not have been part of the ISI's plan to provide themselves cover while keeping the US in the dark?

Furthermore, if an independant investigation did uncover a clear cut pakistani link

But it hasn't.

then we would have to ask why the official narrative as established by the 9/11 commission did not address such an important detail.

If X happened, Y should have reported it.

But X didn't happen, so Y should not be expected to report it.

 

[Augustine]

I was refering to the Pakistani ISI, as Garrette clarified. Well of course, if the ISI was involved then that does not directly implicate any US agencies. However, wasnt the head of ISI meeting with whitehouse officials on september 11th? Now, this isnt anything conclusive but i'd be wary about such a meetin if in fact the ISI did have a hand in the attacks. Furthermore, if an independant investigation did uncover a clear cut pakistani link then we would have to ask why the official narrative as established by the 9/11 commission did not address such an important detail.

Let me ask - hypothetically, IF (big IF) ISI (or individuals within it acting independently) were found to have provided funding to OBL and the 9/11 terrorists, HOW does that lead to LIHOP or MIHOP? You claim that you would want an investigation into the ISI funding issue as one of the elements to convince you it wasn't LIHOP or MIHOP, and I don't see how a yes or no on ISI involvement leads to any conclusion on LIHOP or MIHOP.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I was refering to the Pakistani ISI, as Garrette clarified. Well of course, if the ISI was involved then that does not directly implicate any US agencies. However, wasnt the head of ISI meeting with whitehouse officials on september 11th? Now, this isnt anything conclusive but i'd be wary about such a meetin if in fact the ISI did have a hand in the attacks. Furthermore, if an independant investigation did uncover a clear cut pakistani link then we would have to ask why the official narrative as established by the 9/11 commission did not address such an important detail.

I am interested in who you have in mind for this independent investigation. I suspect that the criteria for independence varies wildly among those calling for a new independent investigation. Almost anyone with the requisite background and expertise can be construed to have a conflict of interest. The official 9/11 investigation is actually the sum of many separate investigations conducted by different bodies representing a fairly broad cross-section of expertise in the public and private sectors. Many of these organizations have rivalries with others, as well as internal rivalries. It would be extremely difficult to conduct a better investigation than the one that was (and is being) conducted, and frankly I don't see what more it could possibly clear up.

 

[Augustine]

Ain't no such thing as perfect knowledge.

Especially given that we don't even share all our secrets with our allies. Pakistan has only been a strategic "situational" ally at times, and is probably an ally in the "Saudi" mode - one that we dump a lot of money on, never get any loyalty from, and they do their own thing and we can't ever fully trust them.

 

[T.A.M.]

I was refering to the Pakistani ISI, as Garrette clarified. Well of course, if the ISI was involved then that does not directly implicate any US agencies. However, wasnt the head of ISI meeting with whitehouse officials on september 11th? Now, this isnt anything conclusive but i'd be wary about such a meetin if in fact the ISI did have a hand in the attacks. Furthermore, if an independant investigation did uncover a clear cut pakistani link then we would have to ask why the official narrative as established by the 9/11 commission did not address such an important detail.

I believe the 9/11 Commission report lists elements in Saudi Arabia as funding sources, and they are considered an Allie. So I do not think that anyone is keeping sources hidden due to their relationship with the USA, if that is what you are implying. The fact is that most people who follow world politics, know that Pakistan is an allie of convenience to the US, and vice versa.

TAM