It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

you can't deny, bush knew of 911 prior

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
“FBI headquarters refused the plea from a San Diego FBI agent to investigate the two alleged San Diego hijackers”
www.newswithviews.com...


-San Diego hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaq Al-Hazmi
-Mohamed Atta visits fellow hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Omar al-Bayoumi

So, the FBI Stopped local investigators from looking into these two KNOWN terrorists, when it would of blown the plot WIDE OPEN?

Strange?

Not if you want there plans to go ahead.




“Thomas Frields, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism at the FBI Washington Field Office, took no action after his employees filed FBI 302 forms to document information received about the pending 9/11 attacks from an intelligence officer in Iran”

“An FBI intelligence analyst assigned to the Cole investigation cited a National Security Law Unit opinion in her refusal to provide information to a Cole case agent who wanted to open an investigation on alleged hijacker Khalid Al Mihdhar in August of 2001”

So, looking at the above two items..
Logical, justified and reasonable..

Yet.. Someone at the top.. Blocked the terrorists being investigated..

What does this tell you?


“Immediately after 9/11 while the FBI searched for lead and suspects, Mike Feghali, told Sibel Edmonds and other FBI translators to slow down or even stop translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of an "extensive backlog of untranslated documents" and justify its request for budget and staff increases”


Holy cow… directly manipulating the proof, to make it appear your innocent.
How is this not ILLEGIAL?


I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'


Must have pretty good reason to FORBID someone from investigating things RELEVANT to known terrorists…

Hows this.

The FBI / CIA Officials who actively assisted in stonewalling investigations into the terrorists PRIOR to 911 received promotions or cash incentives.

Michael Maltbie – promoted to field supervisor – Cleveland
Marion “Spike” Bowman – Received a presidential RANK aware, and a 20% Pay increase
Gamal Abdel - Hafiz who refused to secretly record another suspected Arab terrorist, was promoted to an anti-terrorism investigation post at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia;

Is this proof?

Not if you’re a bush supporter..

So again tell me why you bush supporters cant smell a pile of crap when it’s being handed to you?

Explain to me, how your government accidentally took all the WRONG courses of action in the above cases?

Isn’t it obvious that they KNEW IT WAS COMING BUT ALLOWED IT?
REALLY?

How can you be so BRAIN DEAD to not see what went on here..

And yet you’re saying EVERYTHING after this is legitimate.. when there’s absolutely NOTHING LEGITIMATE ABOUT IT?


Where are your brains? Where’s your LOGIC for Christ sake!

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link


[edit on 25-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit: title - to remove double negative]

[edit on 10/26/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Where are your brains and logic?? (to quote yourself)

The only mention in your source article implicates the FBI , with no mention of anyone higher.

Please exercise your Critical Thinking skills and save the "Undeniable Proof" headlines for exactly that, not a post full of rampant speculation




[edit on 10/25/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Good going Agit,

This definitely is CONSPIRACY!!

Would hold in any fair court.

The problem is "fair".

As for the answer to

Where are your brains? Where’s your LOGIC for Christ sake!

Burried deep in a sacred book called "Patriotism"!

you know the saying ...the last resort to which a scoundrel clings (Bob Dylan's phrasing).



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
This is what concerns me about this thread..


Garland Favorito is an independent computer consultant who became concerned about government corruption after viewing and verifying the accuracy of videos about the murders of Vince Foster, Kevin Ives and Don Henry. When he realized that a cover-up of these and other serious crimes were linked to Clinton administrations, he planned and helped organize America's first National Impeachment Town Hall.

After the Republican leadership protected Bill Clinton from facing the more serious charges that initiated the impeachment movement, Garland decided to find out why. His remarkable findings are published in his book, Our Nation Betrayed, available from Epic Books at 888 808-5440.
www.newswithviews.com...


He is a computer consultant, not even an investigative reporter..

So this is really all is own opinion. If not I would like to see his sources...

Semper



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
So explain to me, how the FBI would profit from this attack then?


Isnt it obvious the heirachy from bush down instrcuted people to leave these men alone, do not investigate or intercept.

Again i put it to you,
YES it is FBI factors here..

but does that mean this government WASNT AWARE?

What do you think happened?
All these reports kept going higher n higher until someoen 'forgot' to advise there superiors?
NO

IT was put forward to John Aschroft... who flat out stated he didnt want to hear ANYMORE ABOUT IT.

Or again.. being this isnt GW Directly saying it, your saying its false?

How about u prove to me, the govenrment DIDNT KNOW.
because i could post pages, and pages and pages of testimoney, quotes, articles which all state that the government KNEW These men were in the country, planing and plotting.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
because i could post pages, and pages and pages of testimoney, quotes, articles which all state that the government KNEW These men were in the country, planing and plotting.


Please do. This would be a step toward the "proof" that you claim.

As it stands, "Isn't it obvious" isn't undeniable proof of anything, as you claim it is.

So yes, please post your "pages and pages" and maybe they will be closer to proof.

And no, I don't have to prove that President Bush did not know about the attacks. I'm not posting "Undeniable Proof" that he didn't. You, on the other hand, claim absolute proof of the opposite. If you provide government documents and the like that are reliable proof of his involvement then I will gladly announce the correctness of your assertion.

I await with bated breath


[edit on 10/25/2006 by eaglewingz]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
EW, just said it all..

WE did not assert ANYTHING... You did..
WE did not start the thread... You did...

YOU quoted a Computer Consultant as your absolute proof???

WE are under no obligation to prove a negative. You on the other hand have made a very broad statement with little or no "Proof" other than your opinion...

I await as well..

Semper



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Fine!

Gives me something to do in my time off today

but i like the level of debate.

You focus on 1 suorce of information, ignoring the INFORMATION.
You ignore the other sources in my post who also CLAIM various times ove and over and over that they alerted there surperiors.

Firstly,what r you stating before I take the time to create my proof

are you stating you find it wrong, simply because the source ?
OR are you saying its wrong that they knew..

are you saying these people that claimed to make reports and advise superiors are lying?

Or are you saying the superiors are lying when they presented it to there leaders?

Out of interest though for you all about to jump on the computer consultant bandwagon

"Michael Maltbie, FBI supervisory special agent who was implicated in removing FISA application information that may have helped obtain the warrant against Moussaoui, was promoted to field supervisor in Cleveland"

does this then become a LIE, or FALSE?

simply because a computer consultant wrote this report?

What about this
"Thomas Frields, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism at the FBI Washington Field Office, took no action after his employees filed FBI 302 forms to document information received about the pending 9/11 attacks from an intelligence officer in Iran; "

is that information now... wrong, or false ?
Is he lying in his post?


please explain why your willing to ignore everything, simply because u believe a computer consultant couldnt possibly have this information at hand?

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz

The only mention in your source article implicates the FBI , with no mention of anyone higher.


[edit on 10/25/2006 by eaglewingz]


again im waiting for you to explain this.

your right, it implicates the FBI
but how are they going to benefit from attacks?
and ultimately who does the FBI Answer to ?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I just don't get it. First its argued that no airplane ever did fly into the Pentagon as proof that Bush did it. Now a plane did fly into the Pentagon and thats somehow proof Bush did it? Which one is it? It can't be both unless this is a big game to see how many people are brain dead enough not to notice?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
The underlying proof here,
is no matter what FBI agent stated,
no matter what reports were filed


THESE TERRORISTS WERE ON THE WATCH LIST

THE GOVERNMENT HAD MANY INTEL REPORTS FROM INTERNAL AND FOREIGN SOURCES ABOUT THE IMPENDING ATTACK

THEY HAD ALL THESE FBI AGENTS IN THE FIELD SCREAMING FOR INVESTIGATIONS< FOR INFORMATION


so how do you contemplate, the idea that the government wasnt aware of what was coming?

If you hear 1 report,

you might dismiss it, if its outrageous enough
2 reports... you'd think about it

but after you';ve been told over and over and over, from different agencies, from different countries... surely... youd assign a group to investigate those known arab terrorists training in flight schools?

and if not..


what sort of amateur government have we got here?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I just don't get it. First its argued that no airplane ever did fly into the Pentagon as proof that Bush did it. Now a plane did fly into the Pentagon and thats somehow proof Bush did it? Which one is it? It can't be both unless this is a big game to see how many people are brain dead enough not to notice?


please dont sidetrack my thread.

Thsi has nothing to do with the outrageous theories of there being no planes.

This is the simply fact that they knew.
stick to the topic or stop wasting time.
IT doesnt matter what happened, it happened and we are involved in an illegial war because of it.

The thing that will bring down this government is proving they had foresight of it, and moved out of its way to ensure it happened.

everything after that becomes VOID!

But for those of you willing to ignore the proof, because you dont want to get this information from a consultant..

thats pittiful.

why do you bother debating, when your willing to dismiss such cold hard facts, because you choose not to believe the source?

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

You focus on 1 suorce of information, ignoring the INFORMATION.
You ignore the other sources in my post who also CLAIM various times ove and over and over that they alerted there surperiors.


What other sources?


You have one link to some comments made by a computer consultant and that is all.

Then you have a lot of information that YOU have typed in with absolutely 0 (zero) evidentiary information in support of your "Words."

YOU are saying that "A" said this about "B". Fine, show us the News Article, Government Document, Investigative Report or ANYTHING that supports what YOU are saying.

You have made the blanket statement that this is "Undeniable" and yet all we get is the one link and your discourse.

Sorry but that is not proof.

You can say something a hundred times but unless you have some authoritative information from an exclusionary source to support it, it is in NO WAY undeniable, or proof in any way.

Unless you meant to post on Skunk Works and simply have this in the wrong forum.

Semper



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

please dont sidetrack my thread.

Thsi has nothing to do with the outrageous theories of there being no planes.

This is the simply fact that they knew.
stick to the topic or stop wasting time.


My god! How much coffee have you had today! This kind of anger is unhealthy.
The plane is part of the article you linked too. My observation was valid and directed at the general topic. I did not even dispute what you are ranting about. Keep this up and you will be all alone arguing with yourself. If you only want people who agree with every word you say to post start your own site and make your own rules.

[Mod Edit: Insult removed - Jak]

[edit on 26/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
again please
tell me if your saying all this is false simply because u choose to ignore the source.

Tell me, is this a lie then being u dont trust the source

“Immediately after 9/11 while the FBI searched for lead and suspects, Mike Feghali, told Sibel Edmonds and other FBI translators to slow down or even stop translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of an "extensive backlog of untranslated documents" and justify its request for budget and staff increases”


Either willing to accept some of his statements are 'possibly' correct

or your labening him a fake, and his statements lies.


which is it ?

sorry blaine, i dont want to have a go at you,

but i believe this is a serious aspect of this event.

I dont want someone coming in here, relating it to the 'outrageous' theories that people investigate.

clearly the topic is about the proof the government had PRIOR!
debate that point!

Semper I like the way you completely avoid every question I put to you.

You can riddicule my post as much as you please, but i wehn i ask you questions to back up your side of the debate... you immediately avoid answering them trynig further to riddicule my position.

fair be it.

Give me some time i will come back with a decent amount of quotes, articles, rah rah rah...

and if u still refuse to debate your side, your just as pathetic as the other sheep, whom even tho the evidence is in front of htem of wrong doings... you still chose to ignore it because it speaks ill of your country....



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
You can be suspicous of the 'writer' but that doesnt mean all his quotes, sources and so forth are wrong.

You cant deny, that this government had the abiltiy to stop them, based on basic intellegence there agencies had.


There fore.....


Why is it so hard to believe they deliberatley didnt investigate
compared to a total incompitence in not seeing this threat before it materialised?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
OH NO!!!

You did not...


I have answered your question about your "PROOF" in as much as it is definitely not proof of any kind.

It is simply your own version of events that until you "PROVE" otherwise remains a personal rant on your part.

YOU... Started this thread....
YOU... are the one responsible for "PROVING" the title of "Undeniable" which you have made a complete mess of.
YOU... Are responsible for posting a bunch of nonsense with nothing more than one link from some obviously disgruntled computer junky with time on his hands, to back it up.

So after YOU post this drivel, you attack other members for wanting proof of this meandering through a disturbed vision of reality?

OK Folks, nothing to see here... lets move along...

Semper



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
not a post full of rampant speculation


[edit on 10/25/2006 by eaglewingz]


"I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'"

This is not speculation.

This is a statement from a government official.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
You can be suspicous of the 'writer' but that doesnt mean all his quotes, sources and so forth are wrong.

You cant deny, that this government had the abiltiy to stop them, based on basic intellegence there agencies had.


There fore.....


Why is it so hard to believe they deliberatley didnt investigate
compared to a total incompitence in not seeing this threat before it materialised?


No one is saying your wrong.....

Don't you get that???

We are saying that you have made some tremendous leaps apparently based on one article from a source with little or no reputation for support.

All we are asking for is where is the material to lead us down the path of thinking that you are eluding to?

Semper



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
YOU quoted a Computer Consultant as your absolute proof???
I await as well..
OK Folks, nothing to see here... lets move along...

Semper


WEll, you accuse my source of being bollucks.
you then tell me your waiting for further proof
I ask you if you believe alll the aspects of his writings are false...
and you decide your not interested any more, and your moving on.

Real decent of ya there.
cant even back up your statements...

Im going to post everything I can find,

and I will love for you to rejoin, and provide everything you can about every quote, article and document i post.

because your eveantually going to realise... its not just suspicous that so many people knew..... yet did nothing!

Your debating is like a 3yr old child..

you walk away when you become stuck backing up yourside.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join