Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?
 
Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

This is clearly an attempt by the government to trick us into thinking they can't keep secrets and distract us from the Truth!
 
The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.

You are partially right, this information was not kept secret. But you are wrong as to "Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories".

Using the governments own documentation, which has this information that has not been presented to the American public by MSM, you can see exactly who took part in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and even why, at least at the lower levels of the US large intelligence bureaucracies, people inside of the US government deliberately allowed these attacks to take place.

While you can then connect these people to people at very top of the US government, there is no documentation, that I have been able to find, as to why the people at the very top of the US government allowed these attacks to take place.

If you are seeing this information for the very first time, you are clearly not at all well informed as to what had occurred in the large US intelligence agencies prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to succeed. While the large MSM have not printed or provided this information, it is available with the most minimal effort for anyone that wants to know what had occurred that ultimately had allowed the attacks on 9/11.
 
The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to ...
Prove it. Get a Pulitzer Prize. Your post qualifies you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist with zero evidence.

Made any progress on collecting the evidence since January 2010? With a good paper and some class work you could have earned a Masters Degree with a thesis to be used as a submission to earn the Pulitzer Prize. What did you do since you broke this "Story" in Jan 2010?

SIX Months, tic tock...



Your hearsay does not qualify as,
If you are seeing this information for the very first time,
"information" in the form of evidence. You get your information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo.

Good luck; did you apply for the Pulitzer? lol
 
Last edited:
The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.

You are partially right, this information was not kept secret. But you are wrong as to "Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories".

Using the governments own documentation, which has this information that has not been presented to the American public by MSM, you can see exactly who took part in allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11, and even why, at least at the lower levels of the US large intelligence bureaucracies, people inside of the US government deliberately allowed these attacks to take place.

While you can then connect these people to people at very top of the US government, there is no documentation, that I have been able to find, as to why the people at the very top of the US government allowed these attacks to take place.

If you are seeing this information for the very first time, you are clearly not at all well informed as to what had occurred in the large US intelligence agencies prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to succeed. While the large MSM have not printed or provided this information, it is available with the most minimal effort for anyone that wants to know what had occurred that ultimately had allowed the attacks on 9/11.

Great!

Any names?

Any documents?

Sure you can spit out some starting points. Just don't be so vague.
 
RE: Great!, Any Names, Any Documents, and web sites of woo

Your post qualifies you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist with zero evidence.

You get your information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo.

OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.
 
OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

I'll alert the media.
 
Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?

ah...they only WANT you to think that!!

the 90,000 Afghan documents were purposefully leaked, by the NWO.

the goal? to make Obama the loser of this war, so that a stronger-bolder-more right wing Conservative will win the Presidency in 2012, and the Zionist plans can be finished!!

muhahahaha!!!

:p
 
I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.

The Communists and Nazis also loved to make lists of their enemies. Its one of the first things authoritarian governments do, before they ship their enemies to death camps.

you are on your way..
 
Last edited:
ah...they only WANT you to think that!!

the 90,000 Afghan documents were purposefully leaked, by the NWO.

the goal? to make Obama the loser of this war, so that a stronger-bolder-more right wing Conservative will win the Presidency in 2012, and the Zionist plans can be finished!!

muhahahaha!!!

:p

Sarah Palin : Rand Paul 2012!!!!!

TAM:)
 
OOPS!

The information from idiotic nut case web sites of woo are owned by the US government, in particular one of the most important web sites is for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the web site for the 9/11 Commisson report and the web site for DOJ IG report.

Why don't you tell the US government that their web sites are "idiotic nut case web sites of woo".

I am putting together the list of these web sites and the people involved now, and will shortly provide you all of the web site links and even almost all of the names of the people who took part in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place and even provide you with the reasons they did this.
OOPS, You are right. You make up the woo, by taking information, messing it up so bad and twisting it; the web sites you think you get the "information" from are not "idiotic nut case web sites of woo", it was your web site that is an "idiotic nut case web site of woo". I made two errors.

You better apply for the Pulitzer Prize first; someone might take your vast pile of incriminating evidence (are you related to MM) and get the Pulitzer Prize first.

What did CBS do when you told them? How many news agencies have issued restraining orders to you?
 
RE: Great!, Any Names, Any Documents, and web sites of woo

From the prior post:

OOPS, You are right. You make up the woo, by taking information, messing it up so bad and twisting it; the web sites you think you get the "information" from are not "idiotic nut case web sites of woo", it was your web site that is an "idiotic nut case web site of woo".

To look deeper into whether my web site is a "idiotic nut case web site of woo", I am listing one of the more important facts from this site that shows the information on this web site, where it came from and what interpretation I made from this information. The material is transcribed directly from US government web sites and sources, without edit or modification other than being shortened to fit this post:

The following is found in the Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan: page 66-67 THE NEW YORKER, JULY 10, 2006. This information was given to Lawrence Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, FBI Agent Ali Soufan's assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and was vetted by John Miller, information officer at the FBI.

"In November, 2000, a month after the Cole bombing, Soufan sent the agency (the CIA) the first of several official queries. On Soufan's behalf, the director of the F.B.I. sent a letter to the director of the C.I.A., formally ask*ing for information about Khallad, and whether there might have been an Al Qaeda meeting somewhere in Southeast Asia before the bombing. The agency said that it had nothing. Soufan trusted this response; he thought that he had a good working relationship with the agency."

From the DOJ IG report: Pages 238-239:

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. In early 2000, the NSA analyzed what appeared to be related communications concerning a "Khalid." The NSA's reporting about these communications was sent, among other places, to FBI Headquarters, the FBI's Washington and New York Field Offices, and the CIA's CTC. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

From the 9/11 Commission report, page 181:

“The Counterterrorist Center,(CTC CIA was headed by Cofer Black) had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on to Berger, the NSC staff and to Director Freeh and others at the FBI.”

It is clear that Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, knew about the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur that took place in January 2000, and even the first names of the several of the people who were to attend this meeting because the CIA had given him this very information in January 2000, before FBI Agent Ali Soufan’s request. In fact the CIA had photographs of Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and even Walid Bin Attash (the mastermind of the Cole bombing) that had been taken at that meeting, and even knew at this time that they had been actually planning this al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole at this meeting. This was because Soufan had already given the passport photo of Bin Attash to the CIA Yemen station earlier in November and had identified Bin Attash as the master mind of the Cole bombing. When the CIA compared this photograph to the one they had taken at Kuala Lumpur, they immediately knew that Bin Attash had been at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi and that if this came out the CIA would look culpable in this attack.

Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information. Freeh not only withheld this same information from FBI Agent Soufan, but even knew that the CIA had actually given him the very information Soufan was asking for. When Freeh withheld this information from Soufan, his own lead Cole bombing investigator, in November 2000, this was clear evidence that FBI Director Louis Freeh, and the CIA, had criminally obstructed the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing by withholding the critical information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Had this information been passed to the Cole investigators, they could have had the enough time to have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators already knew that Walid Bin Attash had flown to Bangkok, on January 8, 2000 from Kuala Lumpur. By checking the flight manifest for this flight, Soufan would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi sitting right next to Bin Attash, using one of his aliases, on this flight, since they already had had Mihdhar and Hazmi's first names.

Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators also already knew that Fahad al-Quso had been blocked from continuing his travels in Bangkok while trying to deliver money to Bin Attash in Kuala Lumpur, and that he had stayed at the Washington Hotel in Bangkok. Had Soufan and the Cole bombing investigators checked the Washington Hotel they would have found Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had both stayed at this hotel, the week after January 8, 2000 just before they flew to the US.

It is highly likely that Soufan could have saved the lives of the almost 3000 people killed on 9/11 had Freeh given him the very information he was asking for and which he was in possession of. Unfortunately this was not to be and this criminal obstruction by Freeh and the CIA of the Cole bombing investigation and the murder of 17 US sailors has never been explained.
 
Had Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had given him this information in January 2000, that Khalid, Nawaf, and Salem , thought to be Nawaf’s younger brother, and all long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, were all traveling to an al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, Soufan might have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.
 
The reasons that people inside of the US government intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place was not kept secret, this information is now in the public domain from the US governmnet's own documents, and is available for all to see.

This is just your bias showing.

If I remember correctly the CIA wasn't sharing information with the FBI and they lost track of 2? high level suspects when they entered the US.

Why is it the conspiracy theorists always seem to be racist or communist? They either expect the government to keep track of "all them there terrorist types" or they expect the government to rewrite the laws and take away civil liberties and freedom on a whim.

The shortest way to an Orwellian policed state is to listen to conspiracy paranoids. Thankfully they're few in number and don't actually vote.
 
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.

Interesting theory.
 
You've obviously never been part of a gigantic bureaucracy. Even in a small organization, crucial information is missed all the time if the signal-to-noise ratio isn't favorable.



Indeed. Even in small bureaucracies, stuff gets missed. Just today, one of my trainees at work had to track down why one of his requests (for someone to do something) from May had gotten lost. One stage had been done, and the next stage was just sort of sitting there. And this is in an organization with maybe 1000-1500 people, that does a very focused job, in which we all use the exact same computer system to monitor our workflow.

The CIA/FBI organization is guaranteed to be orders of magnitude more complicated than we are.
 
Surely the recent leak of over 91,000 documents relating to the Afghan war damages the theory that the 9/11 attacks could be kept secret in the age of extended media?


According to Assange these documents were available to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

If 9/11 were facilitated by a small cabal then their information would not be available to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.
 
I think the really important questions are being ignored here. The issue is not that there was a coverup and who covered it up. What I presume most here are questioning is who did these things that were covered up? For example, I want to know,

1. Where was the large amount of thermite and other explosives made? I am told this thermite has special properties and could not be made in someone's basement. The making of it would involved highly trained experts. There would be a limited number of people with the knowledge to make this. Who are they?

2. Who transported it to the WTC buildings? I would like the name of a firm and drivers.

3. How was the thermite and other explosives put into place. It is often claimed that the controlled demolition of a building is a difficult task taking weeks of preparation. Answers to this question have not included methods that demolition experts believe would destroy a building. We need a believable explanation.

4. Who were the people that put the thermite and other explosives in place? It's not just that they did or even that they could have done it (which I doubt). I want to know who THEY are. Give them names. I know who the Watergate burglars are. Who are the WTC thermiters? Once again, this use of thermite to demolish buildings seems to be a unique skill not fully understood in conventional demolition circles. There would only a limited number of people who have this skill and they should be easy to identify.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

I'll even make you a bet. If you can give me credable answers to these questions, I will become a Truther. I will give up my life and join the Truth Crusade. I will seel my house, leave my wife, quit my job and join AE911 as a full-time volunteer. I will donate the proceeds from the sale of my house to AE911.

I swear this is a real promise.
 

Back
Top Bottom