• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Shaffer (Able Danger): "Everybody on the commission was covering up for someone."

Why do I think that this thread is about to be full of debunkers calling them liars?
 
missyvanwinkle said:
Everyone will be pleased to know that Fox has gotten the inside scoop on The Real Deal (er not) about 9/11 with this "EXCLUSIVE" report:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nse-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/
Click to expand...
So what is new? Is Fox news like 911 truth, repeating junk?

How much is new, what is old?

However, It still isn't clear how -- or whether -- the information on Atta could have been used to the disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks.
Click to expand...
If could have then the ones making a big deal talking to Fox failed, or what?

IT DID NOT stop 911; I don't care what they say, if they had something they would have done something with the intel to stop 911; they all failed, saying they had something, anyone, before 911, then they failed. But how do you figure out they were going to rush the cockpit and cutthroats, and fly into buildings? 911 truthers don't believe the 19 terrorists did what they did, how do you figure out 911 before it happens?

If Fox found some idiots who think their intel was good enough to stop 911, then they are the ones who failed. But how would they figure out what Atta was going to do?

Is CHP going to ticket me now for my next time I speed? Will they stop me at my driveway to keep me from speeding?

sounds like sour grapes, and other junk
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Why do I think that this thread is about to be full of debunkers calling them liars?
Click to expand...
Au contraire. If truthers would concentrate on the real issues of 9/11, such as this, intelligence failings, they might be looked at as something other than kooks believing in CDs, space beams and impossible vast conspiracies. Atta would only add to the list of terrorists they had on the radar such as Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The problem was that the lack of a coherent coordination between these agencies allowed them to slip through the cracks. Spying Blind goes into great detail of these bureaucratic shortcomings, but I doubt truthers would be interested, because it simply isn't exciting enough.
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Why do I think that this thread is about to be full of debunkers calling them liars?
Click to expand...

Interesting, how quickly you suddenly and easily trust a mainstream media report. I thought 911 kooks were supposed to reject everything the MSM says because they are in on 911...
 
More Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't recall anyone saying that the information wasn't there, just that nobody put enough together prior to 9/11/01 to prevent the attacks from occurring. That these people brought it up during the investigation and it never made it into the final report sounds a lot more to me like CYA on the part of CIA/DIA supervisors after 9/11/01 than covering up or assisting the plot prior to 9/11/01.
 
The gist of the allegations seems to be that there wasn't enough sharing of intelligence or effective use of it. Well, duh.
 
The secret services did not prevent 9/11 from happening. In an ideal world, they would have had Atta on their radar early on, read all the signs on the wall correctly, inflitrated his ring, busted the operation and dropped a bomb each on OBL and KSM.

Obviously, we don't live in an ideal world, and the services did not read all the signs correctly, and did not make all and only the right decisions. Hindsight is a bitch in that way.

Would the services have done a better job if they had never had any of the perps on their radar? I think not. That level of ignorance, however, might have been bliss.

As it were, the services did have some (sketchy and unconclusive) data on Atta's operation (that only made sense after the fact). If I were CIA, or a CIA guy working in a domain were some of that data passed by, I guarantee you I would downplay my involvment and tune my story as to make myself look a little less like a fool.

I 100% expect some kind of "cover up". Not of evil intent, maybe not even of blatant incompetence, but of any superficial appearance like we had a chance to stop the terrorists and didn't grab it.
 
Puppycow said:
The gist of the allegations seems to be that there wasn't enough sharing of intelligence or effective use of it. Well, duh.
Click to expand...

I have some bookmarks from the first reporting of Able Danger. A quick reading suggests that the cover-up was over the fact that pre-9/11 the data collection and data mining was illegal.
 
So. Anyone who actually looked at the article (did anyone), would have little more to say about it.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
So. Anyone who actually looked at the article (did anyone), would have little more to say about it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I only "flew" over the article, for two reasons: 1. I don't consider Fox a relevant news source 2. Any reporting on Able Danger having Atta on its radar and failing to stop him confirms the common storyline. Unless someone comes with a strong story wherein the secret services made a conscious decision not to stop Atta, such news is not news at all.
 
At best, by running the Able Danger story, Faux News is admitting that the administration did not have its act together.

The data mining was illegal only without a FISA warrant. The jerks running the government at the time just didn't want to be bothered, from all appearances. Remember the comments "We're talking about a law that was created in 1972. This is now. Things are different."

Well, things were not different. The law was created to keep a president with no regard for basic human rights from abusing intelligence gathering. It was, however, designed not to be crippling to a president who could hold a coherent thought long enough to act on a warning. That's the problem.

As far as proving that the clowns running the show could put together such a complicated plot, not so much.
 
Oystein said:
I only "flew" over the article, for two reasons: 1. I don't consider Fox a relevant news source 2. Any reporting on Able Danger having Atta on its radar and failing to stop him confirms the common storyline. Unless someone comes with a strong story wherein the secret services made a conscious decision not to stop Atta, such news is not news at all.
Click to expand...

Bingo, hence my reaction....so.

TAM:)
 
Just a shot by Faux at the democrats before the mid-term elections, released curiously enough on the day when California begins accepting mail-in ballots.

/.02
 
I guess this means Truthers will suddenly have a change of heart and decide that Fox News shouldn't be called "shills", "government plants", or "Faux News".

Suddenly, they will become a respectable and trustworthy source of independent and unbiased journalism.

Not that that makes sense--this article doesn't say anything that would suggest a government conspiracy. It looks to me to be more of a case of people, purely as individuals, trying to cover their butts and dodge responsibility. That's not government conspiracy, that's just government. Don't expect Truthers to understand the difference.
 
TexasJack said:
Au contraire. If truthers would concentrate on the real issues of 9/11, such as this, intelligence failings, they might be looked at as something other than kooks believing in CDs, space beams and impossible vast conspiracies. Atta would only add to the list of terrorists they had on the radar such as Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The problem was that the lack of a coherent coordination between these agencies allowed them to slip through the cracks. Spying Blind goes into great detail of these bureaucratic shortcomings, but I doubt truthers would be interested, because it simply isn't exciting enough.
Click to expand...

Even when truthers concentrate on things like this, debunkers still try and debunk them.

I have seen lots of supposed "debunkings" of Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds (is that the right name).

Debunkers won't concede anything ever. They ask for whistleblowers and when they emerge they call them "liars", "confused", "fame seeking", "mentally ill" etc.
 
leftysergeant said:
At best, by running the Able Danger story, Faux News is admitting that the administration did not have its act together.

The data mining was illegal only without a FISA warrant. The jerks running the government at the time just didn't want to be bothered, from all appearances. Remember the comments "We're talking about a law that was created in 1972. This is now. Things are different."

Well, things were not different. The law was created to keep a president with no regard for basic human rights from abusing intelligence gathering. It was, however, designed not to be crippling to a president who could hold a coherent thought long enough to act on a warning. That's the problem.

As far as proving that the clowns running the show could put together such a complicated plot, not so much.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Clinton? Able Danger started in 1999.
 
cooperman said:
Even when truthers concentrate on things like this, debunkers still try and debunk them.

I have seen lots of supposed "debunkings" of Able Danger and Sibel Edmonds (is that the right name).

Debunkers won't concede anything ever. They ask for whistleblowers and when they emerge they call them "liars", "confused", "fame seeking", "mentally ill" etc.
Click to expand...

Probably because that's what the evidence suggests. But the irony is that truthers still believe all manners of nonsense even though not 1 shred of evidecne exists ot support said conclusions.

ie column cutting thermite, hush boom explosives.

You people still believe Wil Rod for crying out loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom