New Member

[Garrette]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Donal]

Even England and Israel keep secrets from us and us from them. Hell, we have caught and detained Israeli spies working inside our borders.

Intelligence agencies have to be paranoid by nature, so they are going to keep secrets from each other. Especially one with corruption and infilitration problems like the the ISI.

And, Hyperviolet, I think you are making the same mistake many people make.

The 9/11 Comission was not an investigative body. They were charged with bringing together the investigations of other agencies, interview key people, and publish their summary of the events as well as reccomendations.

And there is no way to get every family member of the victims to agree on anything. there are thousands of them all withtheir own minds an opinions. Keep in mind, many family members are satisified with the investigations and findings done.

 

[Horatius]

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.

I'll channel Perry Logan here for a minute, and point out that having the head of the ISI be in DC at the time of the attacks actually points away from a LIHOP scenario.

The whole point of LIHOP would be to do things behind the scenes, so as to not get caught, right? So why go to all the effort of funnelling cash from the CIA to Al Queda throught the Pakistanis' ISI, and then turn around and invite the head of the ISI to be in town right when it all comes down? "Hey, want to come see what we bought? It'll be kewl!!!", isn't how they'd do it, I think....

 

[Hyperviolet]

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.

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?


But it hasn't.

If X happened, Y should have reported it.

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

By wary i mean i would not be too keen to believe everything just because they say so.
An exaggerated example of what i mean :
Imagine a murder takes place. You then find out that the murderer was meeting with a close associate or business partner of the victim. Would it be irrational to want to investigate and find out if the link was involved somewhere along the line, even unwittingly, or would you just take the person on face value just sayin "i had nothing to do with it."? I personally would be cautious or "wary" in accepting the persons word as true fact.

Also our opinion of Independant investigation differ. Lets say, hypothetically, there was a coverup and the government (or a government agency) was involved somewhere along the line. Can you trust them to investigate themselves. They were appointed by President Bush, if im not mistaken? I mean, they tried to get Kissinger to head the commission. That to me is not tryin for a truly independant commission with no vested interests.
If even family members are granted subpoena powers to investigate the issue thoroughly i would be absolutely happy with their findings. Should it disrupt or support the official story.

 

[ref]

There's no proof of the actual ISI link. There's no proof CIA would be involved. There is no proof anyone ordered anyone to tranfer money.

So it's all speculation and wildly out of hand claims.

And why would they openly meet a man so clearly involved on this the very moment the attack takes place. Could they make things more obvious? This is not a case of making things seem to be too stupid to be true. If there was a plot, they would not take obvious risks of this magnitude. The stakes would be too high.

My view on this. And yes, welcome on board new member

 

[Donal]

Why on earth would you grant subpoena powers to people who have no training or experience in investigating crimes? That is why we have professional law enforcement agencies.

This is not to say I don't have sympathy for the victims and their families, but that simply wouldn't be productive.

 

[Garrette]

By wary i mean i would not be too keen to believe everything just because they say so.

Not a bad policy in every situation. But the assertions of NIST are not simple assertions, and the 9/11 Commission did not simply lay out a story. The reports of both are founded upon cited evidence.

If there is something specifically objectionable, then you should raise that specific point with your specific objections. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of saying "I don't believe you because I don't want to believe you."

An exaggerated example of what i mean :
Imagine a murder takes place. You then find out that the murderer was meeting with a close associate or business partner of the victim. Would it be irrational to want to investigate and find out if the link was involved somewhere along the line, even unwittingly, or would you just take the person on face value just sayin "i had nothing to do with it."? I personally would be cautious or "wary" in accepting the persons word as true fact.

When the Person of Interest presents an alibi which holds up under investigation, they cease to be a Person of Interest. The NIST report and the 9/11 Commission report hold up. If you believe otherwise, be specific about your objections.

Also our opinion of Independant investigation differ.

I think you are referring to Augustine's post, but since I agree with what he said I will act as if you are responding to me.

There was no opinion given. You were asked for your definition of what would constitute an indpendent investigation given the inescapable reality that there can be no truly, completely, independent investigator. What is the minimum degree of separation you consider acceptable and how do the NIST and 9/11 Commission fail to meet that? Simply saying they are part of the Under-Suspicion-Government is insufficient.

Lets say, hypothetically, there was a coverup and the government (or a government agency) was involved somewhere along the line. Can you trust them to investigate themselves. They were appointed by President Bush, if im not mistaken? I mean, they tried to get Kissinger to head the commission. That to me is not tryin for a truly independant commission with no vested interests.

Again: What would suffice for you?

If even family members are granted subpoena powers to investigate the issue thoroughly i would be absolutely happy with their findings. Should it disrupt or support the official story.

Why family members? Why not Loose Change members? Why not me? You? Why not the local newspaper reporter? The New York City Councilman? The interested but poorly educated garbage collector? The high school history teachers?

What makes family members more likely to arrive at the truth? If anything, I would say they are far far far too attached to be anything approaching impartial.

Then you have to start thinking about resources.

 

[Horatius]

Why on earth would you grant subpoena powers to people who have no training or experience in investigating crimes? That is why we have professional law enforcement agencies.

This is not to say I don't have sympathy for the victims and their families, but that simply wouldn't be productive.

It also raises the question of who you would be questioning to try and establish a link to the ISI. Would the Pakistanis turn over their guys to a US tribunal that wasn't government-run? Or would you start with random CIA guys, in hopes you get lucky?

 

[Augustine]

Why on earth would you grant subpoena powers to people who have no training or experience in investigating crimes? That is why we have professional law enforcement agencies.

This is not to say I don't have sympathy for the victims and their families, but that simply wouldn't be productive.

Given that the group of families that has the additional questions wants them answered in "sworn testimony" "before an audience of the American people", and the questions are of questionable relevance, antagonistically phrased or designed simply to embarrass, I think their request is unreasonable.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Not a bad policy in every situation. But the assertions of NIST are not simple assertions, and the 9/11 Commission did not simply lay out a story. The reports of both are founded upon cited evidence.

If there is something specifically objectionable, then you should raise that specific point with your specific objections. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of saying "I don't believe you because I don't want to believe you."


When the Person of Interest presents an alibi which holds up under investigation, they cease to be a Person of Interest. The NIST report and the 9/11 Commission report hold up. If you believe otherwise, be specific about your objections.


I think you are referring to Augustine's post, but since I agree with what he said I will act as if you are responding to me.

There was no opinion given. You were asked for your definition of what would constitute an indpendent investigation given the inescapable reality that there can be no truly, completely, independent investigator. What is the minimum degree of separation you consider acceptable and how do the NIST and 9/11 Commission fail to meet that? Simply saying they are part of the Under-Suspicion-Government is insufficient.


Again: What would suffice for you?


Why family members? Why not Loose Change members? Why not me? You? Why not the local newspaper reporter? The New York City Councilman? The interested but poorly educated garbage collector? The high school history teachers?

What makes family members more likely to arrive at the truth? If anything, I would say they are far far far too attached to be anything approaching impartial.

Then you have to start thinking about resources.

What would suffice for me? A larger commission with no ties to the government. I would also like family members on the board to ensure that the hard question be asked, wherever they may lead. I stress again, even if there was no coverup and lets just say incompetence about the threat assessment - i still do not think you can trust a government appointed commission to investigate the government and expect it to be non-biased and conclusive on the matter.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Why on earth would you grant subpoena powers to people who have no training or experience in investigating crimes? That is why we have professional law enforcement agencies.

This is not to say I don't have sympathy for the victims and their families, but that simply wouldn't be productive.

Sorry Donal i should have clarified

I would like the families to be involved and have the power to find out everything but not un aided. I would want a larger commission with independant lawyers, investigators so on so forth. People who could do the job correctly, without any government ties and with the oversight of the family members.

 

[Garrette]

What would suffice for me? A larger commission with no ties to the government. I would also like family members on the board to ensure that the hard question be asked, wherever they may lead. I stress again, even if there was no coverup and lets just say incompetence about the threat assessment - i still do not think you can trust a government appointed commission to investigate the government and expect it to be non-biased and conclusive on the matter.

But this has no practical merit as a suggestion.

What do you mean "no ties?" What level of government?

The widows have ties to the government. Their husbands were employed by the FDNY which, according to many troothers, was in on it. The widows receive benefits. They received a settlement, too.

What if someone else disagrees with you about whether someone is impartial? By what standard will we judge who is correct and which person is more impartial?

What, please, are the "hard questions?"

Have you ever conducted a serious investigation? I have.

Very, very few people know what questions to ask, how to ask them, when to ask them, or to whom to ask them.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

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.

Rogue networks that were in place then are in place now. The Shadow Government, maaaaaan!!!!! It got (sort of) exposed there, for a minute. We got to see a little bit of it. It continued in Mena, Arkansas. And Venice, Florida. Lots of people got rich, and dead, and President.

But I have no scientific proof, so never mind.

 

[Garrette]

Rogue networks that were in place then are in place now.

Networks in Afghanistan?

The Taliban certainly gained prominence then; are you suggesting the US intentionally built them up as part of the early plot that led to 9/11?

Al Qaeda was hardened there, too.

The Shadow Government, maaaaaan!!!!! It got (sort of) exposed there, for a minute. We got to see a little bit of it. It continued in Mena, Arkansas. And Venice, Florida. Lots of people got rich, and dead, and President.

But I have no scientific proof, so never mind.

Thanks. I will certainly pay it no mind.

 

[scooby]

False dilemma

Right Angle

 

[Hyperviolet]

But this has no practical merit as a suggestion.

What do you mean "no ties?" What level of government?

The widows have ties to the government. Their husbands were employed by the FDNY which, according to many troothers, was in on it. The widows receive benefits. They received a settlement, too.

What if someone else disagrees with you about whether someone is impartial? By what standard will we judge who is correct and which person is more impartial?

What, please, are the "hard questions?"

Now come on, clearly we can agree that 9/11 widows ties to the government are entirely different to that of people like Henry Kissinger.

The "hard questions" are not mine to ask but those of the family members who clearly feel that there questions havent been answered. Bill Doyle, in particular, has been pretty vocal about this.

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Networks in Afghanistan?

The Taliban certainly gained prominence then; are you suggesting the US intentionally built them up as part of the early plot that led to 9/11?

Al Qaeda was hardened there, too.

Thanks. I will certainly pay it no mind.

Ouch! My goof; I thought you were referring to Ollie North's gang. Must have been a different post I meant to reply too.

But, while I'm here, I wouldn't say they intentionally built Al Qaida up to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/01, per se. But a useful subcontractor to carry out dirty deeds; sure.

In my humble opinion.

 

[Garrette]

Now come on, clearly we can agree that 9/11 widows ties to the government are entirely different to that of people like Henry Kissinger.

That's my point. Now you are changing the requirement from "no ties" to "different ties."

What is your standard?

I would suggest that being financially beholden to and dependent upon the government is a very strong tie. In all seriousness, I suggest it is stronger than Henry Kissinger's ties who is independently wealthy and need not rely upon the good graces of the government for his financial stability.

The "hard questions" are not mine to ask but those of the family members who clearly feel that there questions havent been answered. Bill Doyle, in particular, has been pretty vocal about this.

If you can't list the hard questions, then it does no good to say that the family members have them.

Are you suggesting that only those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are capable of coming up with the hard (read "pertinent") questions?

How about me? I lost acquaintenances in the Pentagon on 9/11.

 

[Without Rights]

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.

And Porter Goss and Bob Graham was said to have met with then ISI head General Mahmoud Ahmad. General Ahmad is purported to have wired $100,000 to Mahmoud Atta, the supposed ring leader of the hijackings.

 

[Garrette]

Ouch! My goof; I thought you were referring to Ollie North's gang. Must have been a different post I meant to reply too.

No problem.

But, while I'm here, I wouldn't say they intentionally built Al Qaida up to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/01, per se. But a useful subcontractor to carry out dirty deeds; sure.

As a casual hypothetical, I'll grant it is interesting, but I disagree and respectfully decline to embark on this aspect of the discussion.