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

Wikileaks damage to alternative 9/11 theories

Obvious bias against 9/11 truth claims? Are you KIDDING me? Is that how you rationalize it? More like he has an obvious bias against idiocy, jammonius.

Wait a minute, Twinstead, you've turned the concept of "rationalization" on its ear in your quoted post.

There is no reasonable basis for your having done that. The record on this is both clear and of recent vintage and forms the basis of the OP of this thread.

Julian Assange has stated as follows, as quoted by me, in post # 44:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Julian Assange may be the founder of wikileaks, but his opinion about what he calls "false conspiracies such as 9/11" is not an authoritative declaration about anything at all, much less a statement concerning what did or did not happen on 9/11.

What it does authoritatively establish is that the wikileaks founder has a bias against alternative theories concerning what happened on 9/11. If you disagree with this, would you kindly elaborate why you disagree and how, in coming to that state of disagreement, you can explain away Assange's stated and acknowledged 9/11 bias.

In addition, my post # 44 pointed out that wikileaks has an editorial policy where it can pick and choose what to publish and what not to publish. Given the announced bias of its founder, those who might like to post up leaks about 9/11 would be well advised to think twice before providing their information to wikileaks.

Unfortunately, that site, potentially useful though it may be, appears to have rendered itself totally useless in connection with 9/11 leaks.

That is too bad; but, at least we know what we're up against.

all the best
 
I personally think the reactions to your "evidence" is of an emotional nature because it is simultaneously breathtakingly stupid and stunningly caustic, but you can interpret it whatever way you want.

Thank you for acknowledging that the reactions to my "evidence" is emotional. I appreciate that.

all the best :D
 
Thank you for acknowledging that the stuff you say can must be put in irony quotes.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for acknowledging that the reactions to my "evidence" is emotional. I appreciate that.

LOL My pleasure. I think that disgust and bemusement are not the emotions you would prefer to get though.
 
Wait a minute, Twinstead, you've turned the concept of "rationalization" on its ear in your quoted post.

There is no reasonable basis for your having done that. The record on this is both clear and of recent vintage and forms the basis of the OP of this thread.

Julian Assange has stated as follows, as quoted by me, in post # 44:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."

Julian Assange may be the founder of wikileaks, but his opinion about what he calls "false conspiracies such as 9/11" is not an authoritative declaration about anything at all, much less a statement concerning what did or did not happen on 9/11.

What it does authoritatively establish is that the wikileaks founder has a bias against alternative theories concerning what happened on 9/11. If you disagree with this, would you kindly elaborate why you disagree and how, in coming to that state of disagreement, you can explain away Assange's stated and acknowledged 9/11 bias.

In addition, my post # 44 pointed out that wikileaks has an editorial policy where it can pick and choose what to publish and what not to publish. Given the announced bias of its founder, those who might like to post up leaks about 9/11 would be well advised to think twice before providing their information to wikileaks.

Unfortunately, that site, potentially useful though it may be, appears to have rendered itself totally useless in connection with 9/11 leaks.

That is too bad; but, at least we know what we're up against.

Like I said. You're a poster boy for rationalization. You just say it with 10 times the number of words than most people do. Wikileaks ignoring you would make a rational person say "hmmmmmmm". That's far fewer words, but contains 1000 times the meaning of your typical word salad.
 
Last edited:
For one thing, 9/11 was a massive psyop

Psyop? No.
SNAFU? Yes.

That you imply 9/11 is this colossal covert operation is just plain silly. The sheer amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding. And the fact that exactly ZERO of these “insiders” have yet to come forward with any tangible (ie: believable/legitimate/non-crazy) EVIDENCE after nearly 9 full years makes your argument nil. If you truly believe any of the BS you’re spouting, then I have some Applebee’s coupons that I’d like to email you.

For instance, Condoleeza Rice's claim that 'no one could have imagined hijacking of planes' was directly contradicted by the subsequent revelation that simulated hijackings were taking place on 9/11 at the time of the alleged hijackings.

The military practices for situations all the time that they don't always see as feasible, so Condy's throwaway comment is useless in your little campaign.

The military regularly runs simulations where the US is defended against attacks from Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Would you legitimately expect any of those situations to happen? If they did, I’d be the first to say that I didn’t expect it, despite the fact that we practiced for it.
 
Psyop? No.
SNAFU? Yes.

Wait a minute, Sabretooth. I have just noticed that you are a relative newcomer; so, first things first: Welcome to the forum. Your participation is much appreciated for the value that it adds.

I have indicated that 9/11 is best understood and explained as a psyop. This thread, dealing with wikileaks, is only tangentially related to psyops per se, so for a more in depth discussion of psyops, you may wish to review the SAIC-ARA thread. I notice that you have been posting in the ALL43 video thread.

As to your claim 9/11 is a SNAFU, as you put it, would you care to elaborate on how you come to that conclusion? Mind you, you are not obliged to do that if you don't want to.

That you imply 9/11 is this colossal covert operation is just plain silly. The sheer amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding. And the fact that exactly ZERO of these “insiders” have yet to come forward with any tangible (ie: believable/legitimate/non-crazy) EVIDENCE after nearly 9 full years makes your argument nil. If you truly believe any of the BS you’re spouting, then I have some Applebee’s coupons that I’d like to email you.

Once again, I would refer you to the SAIC-ARA thread. There, mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.

9/11 is easily explained on that basis. People pushed buttons, made scripted calls, did this or that, as a part of an exercise simulating hijackings, no less, at the precise time that the events of 9/11 were unfolding, such that the question "is this exercise or is this real world" had to be asked; and such that people "did not know the origin" of calls they were receiving. I have elsewhere documented and sourced the claims made in this paragraph and I am not going to repost them. You can find them using the search function, if interested.

For our purposes here, each of the factors mentioned above, associated with the military exercises taking place on 9/11, combine to confirm that 9/11 was not only a psyop, but was also one that could unfold with few people actually knowing what was going on.

On that statement, I stand.

It is a huge fallacy, mistake of fact, and failure to apprehend the way military operations unfold to assert, as you have, that the "amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding." That claim of yours is wrong, to put it no more harshly than that.

The military practices for situations all the time that they don't always see as feasible, so Condy's throwaway comment is useless in your little campaign.

I don't think it very helpful to your point of view for you to have posted the above attempt at rationalization, justification and/or excuse making. In the first place, your excuse making is just that: An excuse. It is also speculative in nature; and, standing alone, it does not advance your claim very much, if at all.

The military regularly runs simulations where the US is defended against attacks from Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Would you legitimately expect any of those situations to happen? If they did, I’d be the first to say that I didn’t expect it, despite the fact that we practiced for it.

The same may accurately be said about your final excuse of the military exercises taking place on 9/11.

Here's the point worth considering, imho:

Wikileask might well be a perfectly appropriate source for more information about the exact nature and the precise extent, as well as the actual content of the MILITARY EXERCISES taking place on 9/11 to come out.

Come on people with knowledge about the 9/11 MILITARY EXERCISES:

Post what you know. However, think carefully about posting at Wikileaks, as that organization appears to be prejudiced against 9/11 truth claims.


Be aware
 
Last edited:
snip

The same may accurately be said about your final excuse of the military exercises taking place on 9/11.

What about the military exercise that S. Korea & the U.S. planned & carried out? It was a routine exercise & N. Korea didn't like it & said that they were prepared for war.

Are you a communist sympathizer Jammy? If you are, you're in a world of hurt!
 
As to your claim 9/11 is a SNAFU, as you put it, would you care to elaborate on how you come to that conclusion? Mind you, you are not obliged to do that if you don't want to.

But of course. Is it safe to assume you know the meaning of the acronym "SNAFU"? Very well…

What I mean by “SNAFU” is drawn from the facts that I have read from creditable sources, for example the 911CR and creditable news agencies (ie: none of your acceptable sources). The facts are that upper CIA and FBI officials were well aware of the dangers of Al Qaeda in the years before 9/11 and even before the Cole bombing and 1993 WTC attack. Yet, they couldn’t get the proverbial head out of their a$$ to make any effective use of that information. Because this information never made it to the proper officials to filter to the proper channels, all of this data fell through the cracks in the system. In hindsight, the Gov’t could have feasibly put a stop to the 9/11 attacks had they not been (and, for arguments sake, continue to be) a bureaucratic black hole.

… mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.

Sure, but we aren’t talking about a “large” operation. According to your implications, the word “large” is an abysmally gross understatement. We aren’t talking Manhattan Project here…we are talking possibly hundreds of thousands of people that would have inside knowledge of a conspiracy.


9/11 is easily explained on that basis. People pushed buttons, made scripted calls, did this or that, as a part of an exercise simulating hijackings, no less, at the precise time that the events of 9/11 were unfolding …

Whoa. Where did that come from? Where is the documentation and/or witnesses to this? Yes, the US practiced the possibility of hijackings, but not DURING the events of 9/11. I’ve been looking online for a while and the only site that mentions that speculative piece of garbage is the Loose Change forums. I think that speaks for itself. Also, I would like to point out that those exercises of hijackings were also performed with the assumption that:

1) We would know that the planes were hijacked and why, and
2) know their destination with some level of advanced notice.

The report I read (which, ironically, is also posted at the LC forums) mentioned very clearly that the exercises were carried out with the notion that the hijackers gave their intentions of a destination and what they were to do when they got there.

It is a huge fallacy, mistake of fact, and failure to apprehend the way military operations unfold to assert, as you have, that the "amount of people that have to be in on this is astounding." That claim of yours is wrong, to put it no more harshly than that.

Why is my claim wrong? You just can’t blindly disagree just “because” (well, you could, if you were 4 years old). Give me a tangible explanation…I can’t imagine that is asking too much.

My claim is that, for this to be a military operation, all of the contractors, witnesses, personnel, employees, etc. that would have some knowledge that derails the typical understanding of events on 9/11 would range into the tens of thousands, if not more...and that's BEFORE we get into the public forum. The level of sophistication you are proposing that happened on 9/11 could NOT be carried out by a “couple of folks in a closet pushing buttons”.

I don't think it very helpful to your point of view for you to have posted the above attempt at rationalization, justification and/or excuse making. In the first place, your excuse making is just that: An excuse. It is also speculative in nature; and, standing alone, it does not advance your claim very much, if at all.

I have two things to say here:

1.The comment I made was justified in the paragraph that followed. It isn’t my fault that you couldn’t connect the dots. Condy’s comments do not advance your “theories” (I’m using that term VERY loosely) and I pointed out why. The US did not expect terrorists to fly planes into buildings in the same way as you don’t expect to get t-boned by a drunk driver while you’re out picking up your copy of Cosmo at the 7-11.

2.You have a lot of gall for blasting me about “speculation”. Every one of your opinions I have read are formed out of speculation, half-truths, comments out of context, misinformation, dubious sources, misinterpretations, and big old fat lies. And because you had the audacity to make such a comment, you can add hypocrisy to that list.


Post what you know. However, think carefully about posting at Wikileaks, as that organization appears to be prejudiced against 9/11 truth claims nutjobs.

Oh, and I fixed that for you...free of charge :D
 
I must be missing something. Freed supposedly with held info on the planning on the Cole bombing and had he not done so Soufan could have stopped the 9/11 hijackings?

Where is the actual connect between an investigation that leads to solving the Cole bombing , and the stopping of the multiple suicide hijackings in Sept 2001?

Furthermore, is the premise then a strict LIHOP scenario in which the 9/11 plot was known by some (presumably Freed at least) but simply allowed to go through?

Mihdhar and Hazmi were on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon. Had Freeh let Soufan know about the meeting at Kuala Lumpur, and that Mihdhar and Hazmi were known to be going to the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Soufan and his team would have been able to monitor these terrorists in California, and find out that they were connected to many if not most of the other terrorists who later took part in the attacks on 9/11. Both the Cole bombing attack and the attacks on 9/11 were planned at the same Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting. Had Soufan been able to run their names through the FAA, he would have found that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had started flight training in San Diego, and even had told their instructors that they only wanted to learn how to fly large Boeing airliners. That alone would have revealed the plot for 9/11.

Freeh did not know at the time of Soufan’s requests that these terrorists were connected to the future 9/11. But he knew they were al Qaeda terrorists who were not only connected to the east African bombings that had killed over 200 people but were also connected to the planning of Cole bombing that had killed 17 US sailors.

While warnings of the attacks on 9/11 had been given to both the FBI HQ and the CIA since April 2001, both agencies knew on August 22, 2001 when both Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack these agencies had been warned would kill thousands of Americans. This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!
 
This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!

Where did you find this info? Links and/or search string please?
 
This is all rubbish by a truther twisting the facts. The main reason information wasn't shared was because of "The Wall" that prevented the two agencies from cooperating with each other. The Wall has since 9/11 been broken down quite a bit. This is all explained in The Looming Tower, recommended reading for all interested in the subject.
 
This was clearly not the case of crucial information being missed because the FBI and the CIA are gigantic bureaucracies. This was out and out a criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors by the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh and by the CIA. Withholding material information from any ongoing FBI criminal investigation is a serious crime that can net the perpetrator or perpetrators years in prison. Both FBI Director Louis Freeh and the CIA knew this.

The act of withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators of the USS Cole bombing that had resulted in the murder of 17 US sailors was just the tip of a gigantic ice berg of continued criminal obstruction of the investigation of the USS Cole, by both the CIA and FBI HQ.

In addition the actions of both the DOJ IG Glenn Fine and the 9/11 Commission show that this was a serious crime, and that that official Washington knew that was a crime and that official Washington was trying to keep this information secret from the American public. Concealment is considered prima fascia evidence and proof in a court of law of intent to hide a serious crime. Both the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG kept secret and concealed the fact that FBI Agent Ali Soufan had made an official request to have the Director of the FBI, request from the CIA any information the CIA had on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur and any information that the CIA had on Walid Bin Attash.

This information never became public until the article in the July 10, 2006 edition of the New Yorker by Lawrence Wright. Does anyone believe that the DOJ IG Glenn Fine did not know who FBI Agent Ali Soufan was or that he did not know that Soufan had contacted the Director of the FBI Louis Freeh asking for this information in November 2000 and was told that the CIA had none of this information when in fact the CIA not had this information but even had photographs at that time of Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur meeting actually planning the Cole bombing with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The DOJ IG had had access to all of this information including the official request from Soufan to Freeh and from Freeh to the CIA, in addition to having access to the information that was given to Freeh by the NSA and by the CIA in December 1999 and January 2000, and even had access to Freeh’s daily briefing papers where this information was also available. Since the 9/11 Commission had access to the information the DOJ IG investigators had there is also no way this criminal obstruction should not have appeared in the 9/11 Commission report. There was no possible way that the DOJ IG could have not have known that Freeh and the CIA had committed criminal obstruction of the FBI criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

dr;ts
 
mention has been made of the recent WashPost article on TOP SECRET AMERICA that goes into some detail on the system of classification, of secrecy, of compartmented information, etc. that makes large operations possible on the basis of very few people actually knowing what is happening.
So newspapers are acceptable evidence now.
 
While warnings of the attacks on 9/11 had been given to both the FBI HQ and the CIA since April 2001, both agencies knew on August 22, 2001 when both Mihdhar and Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, that these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack these agencies had been warned would kill thousands of Americans. This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!

This is incorrect. Not only that but it has been explained. You're just being willfully ignorant.
 
RE: Where did you find this info? Links and/or search string please?

Originally Posted by paloalto
This knowledge and the fact that the FBI HQ working with the CIA shut down the only investigation of these terrorists that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, even when these agencies knew shutting down this investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his Cole bombing investigators, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans, has never been explained!
Where did you find this info? Links and/or search string please?

See DE #939, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, which has email from former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit , Tom Wilshire, back to his CIA CTC managers, Richard Blee, Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC unit and likely George Tenet, on July 23, 2001. This email said that Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the point of the next big al Qaeda attack. Wilshire in the DOJ IG report had also already stated in his July 5, 2001 email back to his CIA CTC managers that the he thought the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings the CIA and FBI had been receiving since April 2001 of a huge al Qaeda attack aimed at the United States. These people would have been Mihdhar and Hazmi. Wilshire, as did the CIA already knew Hazmi had a US visa and was inside of the US, and knew Mihdhar had a US multi-entry visa.

According DE 939, Wilshire was not given permission to his two requests on July 13, 2001, and July 23, 2001 to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur meeting over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though his CIA managers, Richard Blee and Cofer Black along with George Tenet were holding an urgent meeting, on July 10, 2001, with Rice and Clark in the White house warning Rice and Clark that the al Qaeda terrorists were planning an attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. see State of Denial by Bob Woodward. On July 17, Blee, Black and Tenet gave the same warning to Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Whatever the warning, Ashcroft quite flying commercial aircraft on AJ business on July 26, 2001 due to some still unexplained threat from the FBI?

Less than one month after his July 23, 2001 email back to Blee and Black indicating that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack, on August 22, 2001 FBI Agent Margret Gillespie, aka Mary, working at the CIA Bin Laden unit tells FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and CIA officer Tom Wilshire, working at that time as the FBI ITOS Deputy Chief, that the INS had discovered both Mihdhar and Hazmi inside of the US. It is clear that Wilshire and most likely Corsi know that that point that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US to take part in the al Qaeda attack they are aware of that will kill thousands of Americans. It is clear that neither Corsi nor Wilshire raised any alarms with anyone at the FBI that was in a position to stop this attack. Instead they work together to shut down the only investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented this attack. See description of DE 061/062 below.

On August 23, 2001 Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit send out an alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, and indicated that these al Qaeda terrorists are inside of the US. At that point anyone at the CIA who had received Wilshire’s July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2001 email, or who were aware of the massive warnings of an al Qaeda attack inside of the US would also know that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to carry out the al Qaeda attacks the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

See the following webs sites; http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/ and www.eventson911.com.

In addition to DE 939, the most chilling of these is DE-0681 and DE 0682. In DE 681/682, FBI HQ IOS Agent Dina Corsi tells Bongardt on August 28, 2001, that he and his team must shut down any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the information came from intelligence through the NSA. But on August 27, 2001 the day before, the NSA had already given Corsi written permission to give all of this NSA information to the criminal investigators on the Cole bombing investigation, see DE-0448 for this actual release from the NSA.
Corsi also tells Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that a NSLU attorney had ruled that Bongardt and his team could have no part in the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi but per Sherry Sabol’s testimony to DOJ IG investigators, on November 7, 2002, in the DOJ IG report, it is clear that Sabol, the NSLU attorney Corsi had contacted, had ruled in fact just the opposite and had ruled that Bongardt and his team could be part of any investigation and search for of Mihdhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant.

This was the exact argument that FBI Agent Steve Bongardt had raised when he asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a legal ruling from the NSLU, the FBI legal unit, to see if he could investigate and search for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Bongardt even tells Corsi on August 29, 2001 as she is shutting down his investigation, that these terrorists are inside of the US to carry out yet another horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack, and people will die because of this ruling. See testimony of Sherry Sabol, aka Sherry S. 9/11 Commission report page 538, footnote 81.

Corsi also never tells Bongardt as she is shutting down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that she is aware that the CIA had been deliberately hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, taken at Kuala Lumpur, from him and his Cole bombing investigating team, a photograph that directly connects both Mihdhar and Hazmi, who were at the same meeting, to the planning of the Cole bombing, see page 302 DOJ IG report.
 
Do you think the information available to only small cabal on a need-to-know basis, would be as widely available as that contained in the recent document release?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Too funny. Small cabal. Ye ye!
 

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