|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
 Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:09 am
|
 |
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm
>twenty-two separate and related points<
Excerpts only:
>Western intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka." It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC).
Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.
As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt all warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came from came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002), CBS revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial planes for a domestic attack in the U.S.
<
>At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for an imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration made it easier for Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a program called U.S. Visa Express, introduced four months before September 11th. Michael Springmann, former head of the Visa Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Departtment officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. His complaints to higher authorities at several agencies went unanswered. In a CBC interview, he indicated that the CIA was indeed complicit in the attacks.<
>Newsweek reported that on September 10th, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."<
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:20 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
The military was not "on it" as the lack of any fighters until after the crashes proves.
In this particular case (deciding if Bush's reaction was appropriate) it does not matter whether or not the military was "on it." What matters is what he was told. If he was told that there had been a terrorist attack and the appropriate government agencies were responding then his reaction was completely reasonable. What we're discussing here is Bush's reaction to the news, not how efficient the FAA or NORAD were at responding.
quote:
NORAD is tasked to protect America,
(and expected to defend against Soviet missiles without any transponders on them)
Yes, and that was much of the problem. NORAD basically was looking OUTWARD, including the ADIZ (Air Defense Zone that circles our borders). They weren't focused on internal threats.
The FAA is the government agency responsible for domestic flights. NORAD doesn't know where each and every blip on radar within our country is going, where it's flight plan takes it, etc. I'm a private pilot--I can get up in the sky and fly without a flight plan and run no risk of getting shot down by NORAD. Only if the FAA determines that there is a problem will they contact NORAD, and so far as I have seen the scrambling of fighters in the case of an emergecny or even a hijacking is optional, NOT required.
I have seen no failure on the part of NORAD. At worst, it seems the FAA may have been slow to notify NORAD--but even that's debateable given the fact that scrambling interceptors is not required by FAA regulation.
quote:
and until 9/11 it was standard procedure to scramble fighters when a flight lost contact with the ATC.
Can you cite FAA regulations that support that? I've looked all through FAA regulations and the closest I've found is that ATC *may* solicit the help of the military if it deems it necessary, but at no point have I found FAA regulations that require it. If you could provide me with the regulations that support what you're saying I'd appreciate it.
quote:
As the Payne Stewart incident proves.
The Payne Stewart event was different. It was like a ghost plane. The plane was going in a straight line instead of turning and was not responding to radio calls. There was no evidence anyone was in control whatsoever. On 9/11, it was clear the planes were not ghost planes--they were turned so someone was out there. It could have been a pilot that was having electrical problems and was turning towards the nearest airport they knew of--which would explain why the transponders were off and there was no radio communication.
Although it is hard for non-avition folks to understand, the Payne Stewart incident was actually more suspicious than the 9/11 incidents initially were. It is VERY strange to have a plane flying with no-one apparently in control. Electronic or communications failures are far more common and is probably what was initially thought to be happening on 9/11.
quote:
If Bush called the governor VP and military on 9/11 it had to be before he went on stage at Booker, before any cameras were trained on the WTC.
Or, perhaps, he just said that and really meant to say that his staff had been in contact with those people. Doesn't help your conspiracy theory, but it does make sense.
quote:
He is either incompetent, delusional, or it was an inside job.
Or, again, maybe just speaking on behalf of his staff. Perhaps he personally didn't talk to anyone--that doesn't mean his staff didn't. Perhaps that's part of what Card whispered to him. We just don't know so, again, you are jumping to conclusions based on conjecture.
quote:
Of course Kean will not accuse any high official. He is not suicidal.
Notice how earnestly he is backpeddling from his own statements?
Did you see Nightline last night? I'm not talking about excerpts or the transcript, did you watch the 30-minute Nightline program last night? Kean seemed to be a very responsible and forthcoming person within the limitations of his position and the constraints that some of the material he is reviewing is secret and that his report isn't due out until May, and despite the interviewer trying to coax him to say something earthshattering. He didn't.
quote:
"no evidence" is not proof of competence.
Heheheh, no, but your "evidence" isn't proof of incompetence. And if you want to remove a sitting president you have to prove incompetence. The burden is to proof incompetence, not to prove competence.
Heck, I have no evidence that YOU are competent. Does that mean you are incompetent?
quote:
The evidence is still being deliberately withheld from the 9/11 commission. Withheld by the Bush White House.
It seems that Kean is generally happy with the information his commission has received, including from the White House. Of course, I'm only basing that on what he said, not on what you said he said. 
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:13 am
|
|
|
"....... many more millions of Americans began to understand that the new peril they were in was not from some shadowy worldwide terror group but from unscrupulous demagogues in Washington who would invent any story " and kill any number of people " in order to improve the fortunes of the very military/industrial power brokers who illegally brought them to power in the first place."
I think this says it all.
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:46 am
|
|
|
quote:
Government's 911 Coverup Falling Apart
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
12-20-3
This document is so riddled with mischaracterizations and misstatements as to be humerous.
quote:
To most Americans, the first inkling that something was wrong with the official story of the 9/11 catastrophe occurred about a year after the event, when President Bush resisted setting up a panel to investigate the events of that dark day.
To most Americans, the official story of 9/11 is perfectly acecpted.
quote:
To date, there has never been anything revealed to the public about how the U.S. government KNOWS that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the actual perpetrators of 9/11.
The hijackers were on the planes. Their identities were checked and their relations and affiliations discovered, including links to Al Qaeda cells in Germany. Osama Bin Laden is the header of Al Qaeda. There's the link.
quote:
Today, millions of Americans realize - simply from watching thousands of cop shows on TV - that the one most interested in covering up a crime is the one most likely to have committed it.
So now conspiracy logic draws on television fiction? How appropriate. Of course, if we're going to draw on TV fiction we might as well draw on those episodes of Law & Order where someone with something to gain is incorrectly accused of the crime just because they have something to gain but it ends up being some crime of passion.
quote:
Many more millions also realize that the foremost beneficiaries of the attacks and mass killings of 9/11 are the same people who are now waging wars that are based on some very suspicious rationalizations, most of which since have been exposed as outright lies.
And millions more are realizing that there is very little to gain in Iraq and Afghanistan since terrorists are continually blowing up infrastructure that would be the only way for these "beneficiaries" to make money, and the total amount invested in the war and reconstruction will far outpace any "payback" in the near future.
quote:
Whether this will develop into a real investigation, or whether Kean's remarks were nothing more than what is called "a limited hangout," remains to be seen.
In other words, if Keil sticks it to the Bush administration the conspiracists will be happy and accept the report as authoritive. If the report concludes that the Bush administration didn't do anything specifically wrong then Kean will be accused of caving and covering up the conspiracy. Conveniently, the conspiracists can't lose.
[quoite]To a far smaller number of Americans, the official 9/11 story began to smell much earlier than when Bush tried to stall the official investigation.[/quote]
As if it were the first administration to not be thrilled with an investigation getting in the way of their daily work.
quote:
When top Bush administration officials immediately and in unison denied knowing that jetliners could be used to attack American landmarks right after 9/11, a number of alert reporters immediately pointed out that this very subject had been under government study for almost a decade.
Of course ignoring the fact that the military has people constantly playing "war games" to come up with lots of potential scenarios, but that doesn't mean that any one of them won't come as a surprise if/when it actually happens.
quote:
And when U.S. officials immediately released a list of the alleged hijackers, the lie was immediately visible to those with eyes to see: how could they deny knowing this possibility of a massive jetliner attack existed, yet be able to name the alleged hijackers almost instantly because these individuals had been under surveillance for months?
The hijackers weren't identified until well into the afternoon. I remember waiting around watching the TV waiting for that information. The details of their affiliations came out over the following weeks, it wasn't immediately known.
Putting together the list of alleged hijackers was pretty easy given the passenger manifests and, in some cases, information relayed by stewardesses on the planes and it's not surprising they had a list of names the same day. I would have been surprised had they NOT had a list of names the same day.
quote:
If they could name the alleged hijackers, then they couldn't deny knowing the possibility of using planes as weapons existed, could they?
Of course. One thing is looking at passenger manifests and knowing that some of them were hijackers, another is to be actively anticipating the attack beforehand.
quote:
In the mind of these many more millions of Americans, a new syllogism began to take shape: if they lied about why they went to war in Afghanistan and they lied about why they went to war in Iraq, how stupid would Americans have to be to believe what they said about 9/11?
Despite the fact that very few people believe anyone lied about our reasons for entering Afghanistan. While many people disagreed about going into Iraq, most blame it on bad intelligence or perhaps getting rid of a potential future threat.
quote:
And yet, through two years of intense flag waving, during which most Americans were too terrified to say anything critical of those who were ostensibly protecting us from this new wave of worldwide terror, the lies became cast in stone.
Who was afraid to say anything critical? I've never heard of anyone that said "Man, I have something to say but I better not say it." As many of the conspiracy websites make clear people are still very capable of criticizing the administration.
quote:
Worse, what passed for the political opposition was afraid to even whisper what was becoming obvious in the minds of so many Americans with functioning brains " that... 9/11 bore a multitude of evidential suggestions that it was an inside job, executed to give right-wing crazies a better shot at looting the treasury of their own country in a variety of ways.
Right. Luckily, now we're just talking about conspiracy theorists which does not make up any significant portion of the population.
quote:
And in the so-called American free press, our prostituted media continue a total blackout on the subject, as evidenced by the total silence that accompanied the recent filing of a lawsuit by 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani again President Bush for obstruction of justice and treason.
Frivolous lawsuits are often not reported by the press, and sitting presidents are constantly named in lawsuits. This isn't news.
quote:
Why else would WTC7 have fallen in the same manner of the others when it was not hit by a plane?
Because neither WTC7 nor the Twin Towers were destroyed by plane impacts, but by being exposed to prolonged fire. More suspicious would be if they appeared to fall in particularly distinct ways.
quote:
They have talked the Pentagon scenario to death and concluded there was no legitimate trace of jetliner rubble to be found, written that a hole of that small type was most likely made by a missile,
Despite literrally dozens of witnesses that saw the plane crash into the Pentagon from their offices or from passing cars. Somehow these witnesses are less credible than witnesses at WTC that supposedly heard explosions.
quote:
They have concluded beyond doubt that the alleged maneuvers of the Pentagon jet could never have been accomplished by someone who did not do well in a small plane at a jerkwater flight school.
Very professionally stated. And I wonder if the author has ever flown a plane? It's not hard at all.
... Anyway, I have a life and my wife is calling. But this document that was linked to is just bogus and funny in so many ways I had to quickly respond before signing off for the night.
Later.
|
| |
|
|
letxa2000
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 588
Location: U.S. citizen in Mexico |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:26 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
CBS refuses to apologize for telling the truth.
Interestingly, it appears that it's not CBS News that refused to apologize. It was Kean.
The article reads, in part:
"In a wide-ranging interview with CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston on the commission's work, Kean made no apologies for using the threat of subpoenas to force government agencies, including the White House, to produce sensitive documents."
This was not CBS refusing to apologize after Kean's initial remarks. This is not Kean backtracking. This article refers to Kean's original remarks and he simply said that he made no apologies about mentioning the threat of subpoenas.
Once again, it appears quotes have been misinterpreted or intentionally mischaracterized by conspiracists.
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 12:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
