What if some Truthers have been right all along?

[Baby Nemesis]

A couple of months ago, I caught the end of a radio programme where someone was saying 9/11 conspiracy theories had hampered America's fight against the Taliban. I wanted to find out how, so I looked for information with Google. I didn't find any. But I found this instead: From Wikipedia - 9/11 advanced knowledge debate.

I'd had no idea just how many intelligence warnings were given by various countries and people! How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? It does make things look suspicious, or at the very least, as if the American intelligence agencies were crawling with incompetents. Why weren't more efforts made to find out more?

And then there's this, from a man who says he was working to expose flaws in airport security so they could be fixed, who says all his recommendations for improvements were just ignored, and when he spoke out after 9/11, he was fired. 9/11 whistleblowers ignored, retaliated against

He blames incompetence for the fact his information was ignored:

“Contrary to their pledge to establish accountability, they refused to hold anyone accountable and lamely justified it by saying, ‘We don’t want to point a finger at anyone.’ All those responsible individuals remained in their positions or were even promoted. And as far as meaningful remedies and reforms are concerned, the commission threw in senseless, and in some cases, detrimental cosmetic and bureaucratic ’solutions’ that ended up making our government even more cumbersome and unable to respond to threats to national security. In the name of solutions and reforms, they forced down our throats exactly what led to the failure to protect our nation on 9/11: A highly bureaucratic, complicated, inefficient mammoth of a malfunctioning machine.” ...

But the Joint Inquiry report is much more forthcoming about the failure of the complicated, inefficient, mammoth, malfunctioning bureaucracy. For example:
“From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.”

And then I find this:

Glenn Beck Guest: Osama Bin Laden Should Attack Again

Beck: ... Let's bring in Michael Scheuer. He's the former CIA counterterrorist analyst ...

SCHEUER: Well, I haven't been in the White House, Glenn, but I was in the -- I was in the CIA at a senior level.

Michael Scheuer warns against the dangers of patrolling the Mexican border unarmed, saying that only an attack against America will make politicians do what's necessary and deploy troops there:

BECK: You've been -- you've been in the White House with the president. You have been in the room with the president and you have been making, you know, suggestions. Do I have that right?

SCHEUER: I have been with very senior people, yes, sir.

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Perhaps he was at a senior level in the CIA before 9/11. What if there were several people there who thought a major attack on America would be a good thing then for some reason?

 

[BigAl]

A couple of months ago, I caught the end of a radio programme where someone was saying 9/11 conspiracy theories had hampered America's fight against the Taliban. I wanted to find out how, so I looked for information with Google. I didn't find any. But I found this instead: From Wikipedia - 9/11 advanced knowledge debate.

I'd had no idea just how many intelligence warnings were given by various countries and people! How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? It does make things look suspicious, or at the very least, as if the American intelligence agencies were crawling with incompetents. Why weren't more efforts made to find out more?

Read Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

She describes about 12 lines of investigation in as many FBI offices in the summer of 2001 that, if all examined by one person, would have made the incipient attacks obvious and allowed the administration to block the attacks, if only by telling pilots to lock the cockpit doors. That might have been enough to foil the hijacker's plans.

Zegart describes how the FBI was organizationally incapable of preventing crime. They were and are very good at catching the perpetrators of a crime.

Don't confuse bureaucratic incompetence and with conspiracy. A few people like Tenet saw something coming but were unable to turn the FBI around.

 

[triforcharity]

Here is my take on this.

"How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? " How many times does someone cry wolf, and nothing happen. When you have credible threats, people are watched, people are investigated, etc.

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.

Now, does this make it ok?? **** ****** ($#*#$&%* $**($8 NO!!!!! Does it mean that the intelligence departments have some changes to be made?? Absolutely!!

But, like I said, when so many reports were coming in about upcoming attacks, most people thought it would be overseas, not in our own back yard. That was their biggest faailure. If someone, somewhere, would have figured it out, 9/11 might not have happened. Who knows. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think it's important to note that there are so many mutually incompatible theories put forward by truthers that, occasionally, a very few of them are bound to have some merit, if only by accident. The idea that US intelligence agencies may have been incompetent is one that is by no means specific to truthers, and the suggestion that there were systemic issues that prevented them from anticipating the 9/11 attacks is even more widespread; in fact, a major aim of the 9/11 Commission was to identify such systemic failures. These issues aren't really conspiracy theories anyway; they're cock-up theories, the absolute antithesis of conspiracy theories, and it seems to me that they have considerable merit. They are generally only used as a final stage of retreat by truthers, when MIHOP and LIHOP have been so comprehensively debunked that they need to back off to a rational position; Dylan Avery's comments prior to the release of LC:FC are a good example.

As for Michael Scheuer, yes, it's quite possible that some people thought that an attack on America would in the long run be a good thing. It's possible that some of these people saw signs of an attack on America and decided, individually and separately, not to act as strongly on these signs as they might have. Since this is a question of individual motivation, we'll never be sure. It's also possible that some people conspired to ignore such an attack, just as it's possible that there was a conspiracy to incite or even assist such an attack. However, what the truth movement claims is that there is positive evidence that this happened. It's that claim that has proven, so far, to be unfounded. Speculate all you want; with any luck you'll get enough material for a good thriller novel. Without evidence, that's the most it will ever be.

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

I think it's important to note that there are so many mutually incompatible theories put forward by truthers that, occasionally, a very few of them are bound to have some merit, if only by accident. The idea that US intelligence agencies may have been incompetent is one that is by no means specific to truthers, and the suggestion that there were systemic issues that prevented them from anticipating the 9/11 attacks is even more widespread; in fact, a major aim of the 9/11 Commission was to identify such systemic failures. These issues aren't really conspiracy theories anyway; they're cock-up theories, the absolute antithesis of conspiracy theories, and it seems to me that they have considerable merit. They are generally only used as a final stage of retreat by truthers, when MIHOP and LIHOP have been so comprehensively debunked that they need to back off to a rational position; Dylan Avery's comments prior to the release of LC:FC are a good example.

As for Michael Scheuer, yes, it's quite possible that some people thought that an attack on America would in the long run be a good thing. It's possible that some of these people saw signs of an attack on America and decided, individually and separately, not to act as strongly on these signs as they might have. Since this is a question of individual motivation, we'll never be sure. It's also possible that some people conspired to ignore such an attack, just as it's possible that there was a conspiracy to incite or even assist such an attack. However, what the truth movement claims is that there is positive evidence that this happened. It's that claim that has proven, so far, to be unfounded. Speculate all you want; with any luck you'll get enough material for a good thriller novel. Without evidence, that's the most it will ever be.

Dave

this pre-911 stuff is where i give LIHOP its 1%
its simple its easy and its very tough to prove

although like tri said
lumped together it might have made a coherent picture
but the way things were before the attacks it didnt work that way

thats why i give intel FUBAR a 99%

 

[firecoins]

During the 1990's the FAA ignored its own security teams recomendations and even punished them for finding security flaws. Had the FAA followed some of the recommendations, 9/11 would not have happaned the way it did.

 

[newton3376]

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.

This is 100% correct...

This problem still exists within not just the INTEL community but within the military and government as a whole...

This is an issue we still haven't fixed to this day....we currently have 17 agencies involved in various intelligence areas....IMO many of these could be consolidated but for now they aren't and the issue persists.

 

[T.A.M.]

Were there people asleep at the wheel on 9/11? Absolutely. That is what happens when a country has no more than one or two terrorist attacks on its own soil. That is what happens when the public mindset (which it was pre-9/11) is that of invincibility. That is what happens when you elect a govt. that was more interested in Korea and Russia, then the middle east. That is what happens when you have organizations that dislike each other, are jealous of each other, and organizations that treat their anti-terrorist members like lepers.

TAM

 

[sylvan8798]

Here is my take on this.

"How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? " How many times does someone cry wolf, and nothing happen. When you have credible threats, people are watched, people are investigated, etc.

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.

I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

 

[T.A.M.]

I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

Exactly. I have no doubt they (Bush et al) saw terrorism as a whole, and OBL even more so, as a fly buzzing about, not even worth swatting.

TAM

 

[Brainster]

Don't forget as well that it is easy with hindsight to see which warnings were valid; what we don't see is the blizzard of other information those warnings come in and the number of warnings that turn out to be nothing.

I also would be cautious about accepting anything Richard Clarke says.

 

[TexasJack]

There was also the insinuation that the CIA may have deliberately withheld infomation to the FBI because there was a deep hatred of the CIA toward FBI director John O'Neill (who tragically died on 9/11), this coupled with the bureacratic mess between the agencies.

 

[newton3376]

I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

This is not a Bush/Cheney or Republician/Democrat issue...

This is an issue that has always existed (to my knowledge) within the Intel Community and the military.

You have 17 agencies all doing various Intel work each with a certain sphere of influence. These spheres often intersect or overlap and everyone wants to hold onto their "piece of the pie".

It's a pissing contest that is there no matter who is in office and it often creates a lot of headaches.

 

[LightinDarkness]

People seem to ignore that government actors operate within the realm of bounded rationality just like the rest of us. The intelligence community receives hundreds of so called "warnings" that a terrorist attack is about to happen every single day from around the world, and 99.9999% of them will never happen. Many of them are "repeated warnings" about things that will never happen.

No reasonable amount of money or additional staff will make the intelligence community omnipotent. The fact that the intelligence community was not omnipotent about 9/11 does not lend credence to a conspiracy or LIHOP.

 

[David Wong]

Don't forget as well that it is easy with hindsight to see which warnings were valid; what we don't see is the blizzard of other information those warnings come in and the number of warnings that turn out to be nothing.

I also would be cautious about accepting anything Richard Clarke says.

For instance, we don't have massive security around the nation's power plants. Later this year, a coordinated attack disables five of them in a couple of days with car bombs, shutting down power to like 25% of the united states.

For the next decade people are running around screaming, "HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS COMING?!?! WHERE WERE THE CONCRETE BARRICADES? WE KNEW CAR BOMBS WERE A THREAT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ! OBAMA WAS IN ON IT!!!"

Read Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

She describes about 12 lines of investigation in as many FBI offices in the summer of 2001 that, if all examined by one person, would have made the incipient attacks obvious and allowed the administration to block the attacks, if only by telling pilots to lock the cockpit doors. That might have been enough to foil the hijacker's plans.

I have a feeling that book would just make me angry. Pretty easy for Ms. Zegart to blow the lid off a terror plot YEARS AFTER IT HAS ALREADY FREAKING HAPPENED. Not so easy beforehand. It's not like this was the only freaking thing the FBI had on its plate.

It's like she's looking at a loom, weaving a pattern in fabric. She gets to look at the finished weave and say, "The pattern is so obvious!" They, on the other hand, only got to look at thousands of individual stings of colored thread feeding into the machine on the back end, and had to try to guess what was coming out the other end. Not so easy.

 

[BigAl]

For instance, we don't have massive security around the nation's power plants. Later this year, a coordinated attack disables five of them in a couple of days with car bombs, shutting down power to like 25% of the united states.

For the next decade people are running around screaming, "HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS COMING?!?! WHERE WERE THE CONCRETE BARRICADES? WE KNEW CAR BOMBS WERE A THREAT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ! OBAMA WAS IN ON IT!!!"



I have a feeling that book would just make me angry. Pretty easy for Ms. Zegart to blow the lid off a terror plot YEARS AFTER IT HAS ALREADY FREAKING HAPPENED. Not so easy beforehand. It's not like this was the only freaking thing the FBI had on its plate.

Rad the book. It's all about what the FBI kew prior to 9/11.

 

[Brainster]

It's like she's looking at a loom, weaving a pattern in fabric. She gets to look at the finished weave and say, "The pattern is so obvious!" They, on the other hand, only got to look at thousands of individual stings of colored thread feeding into the machine on the back end, and had to try to guess what was coming out the other end. Not so easy.

Terrific analogy.

 

[alienentity]

On the other hand, here's a couple of ways the 9/11 'truth' movement, if it were successful, would harm America's security:

1) There would be massive, ongoing investigations to catch phantom 'perps' in government, wasting time and resources instead of reforming and correcting the flaws in FBI etc..

2) The 9/11 'truth' myths that Osama Bin Laden was either dead or had nothing to do with the attacks (for example) would mean that vigilance against Islamic terror groups would be de-emphasized. I mean, if your gubmint did it, no need to deal with Islamic terrorists, right? They're just the cover story... (I believe Tony Szamboti recently offered this theory regarding the 9/11 hijackers)

 

[beachnut]

Monday morning ...

Where is the kill pilots take planes? I think one pilot set tried to keep out the bad guys but caved on threats to kill! They forgot the land now even in a corn field scenario where murder is not normal on a plane.

There are future plots the truthers need to tell us what will happen.
There are future inventions, truthers need to tell us what they are now!
How can you have foreknowledge of a unique event and how do you pick out the 911 exact event when the warnings are in the thousands? Has anyone received warning about terrorists activities that could involve their death? Yes I have and they never materialized, but I was looking around.

The only way to prevent 911 even with the warnings was to change the way we react to hijackings and we do not let them happen and everyone would have to fight the hijackings. That policy would have to be in place on 911! Since it was not, since we were not trained for the murderers to kills us, we failed until Flight 93 Passengers figured out what was going in in minutes and took action.

However! Having a secure cockpit should have been the rule! An idiot in the cockpit can cause the plane to crash in less than 6 seconds; plane doomed in a few seconds. When you look back, anyone of us could have stormed the cockpit and gained access in seconds and screwed up the day before 911. We all had a chance to demand a secure cockpit; we all screwed up.

 

[JihadJane]

I mean, if your gubmint did it, no need to deal with Islamic terrorists, right?

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.