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.

 

9/11 Whistleblowers!!!

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Who do we have left to look at??



Lots actually. If you dig into the links of the officials, plus the engineers, pilots etc. I agree though that they are not whistleblowers by definition.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Lots actually.


I'm sure there is .. I'm just getting confused as to who is left and who has been 'debunked' or who has changed their story etc. I can't keep track in my head (
NO COMMENTS!! ) . I'm going to write them down and cross off etc ...

(see what happens when you get older? ugh! frustrating!
)



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I dont think anyone here has given any importance to anything Chavez has to say
He doesnt deserve it.
Neither does his owner, Castro.

Esdad, why do you insist on this? Chavez is on the authors' post but we all know that is not a credible anything.


He's an animal dressed up to look human.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I will be more than happy to post any reponse.

Please do.


Here is the response from the editor in chief at Fire Engineering Magazine:


From:
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:28 PM
To: XXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: Towers Question

XXXX
Mr. Manning has moved on and we have no contact with him. Bill's editorial opinion was based on a civilians' perspective and not that of a trained firefighter or scene investigator and what he felt emotionally at that very sad time. Bill was under the impression that the buildings were going to need to be replicated to study the effect of the attacks. Subsequent work by NIST and Purdue University have thoroughly examined the event from and engineering perspective and I encourage you to review those works for accurate information.
Best regards
Bobby


Chief Bobby Halton ret.
Editor in Chief, Fire Engineering
Education Director, FDIC
New Jersey Office


[edit on 28-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Can I ask you to post the actual question posed to them? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Subsequent work by NIST and Purdue University have thoroughly examined the event from and engineering perspective and I encourage you to review those works for accurate information.



So, that is their answer to this?


Bill Manning - Editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure" - Fire Engineering 1/4/2002


To read the NIST report?

First, the guy is saying that the official investigation is a "half-baked farce" and you asked them to explain this and they tell you to read the "half-baked farse" for the answer? Please.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is very close to the list of people I have come up with when challenged by friends and associates that make the statement of "well, it is impossible for them to keep a lid on something like this."

Well, it may be impossible to keep a lid on it but it sure as heck isn't impossible to create smear campaigns to discredit those that make it to the public with statements as well as control WHAT is desplayed by the media.

I was going to post my list but you seem to have covered a great deal of the people I had come up with so it would be redundant.

However, my focus is more now on debating the reason's for 911 and the people behind it (as well as their overall intentions) instead of the mundane and easily debatable points that seem to bog truthseekers and debunkers down.

It really doesn't matter if there was a 757 that hit the Pentagon or not. It doesn't really matter if it was controlled demolition or not. What really matters is the 'why' behind it all and how it plays in line with the many other events of this planet's history.

Where will it lead us?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dont think anyone here has given any importance to anything Chavez has to say
He doesnt deserve it.
Neither does his owner, Castro.

Esdad, why do you insist on this? Chavez is on the authors' post but we all know that is not a credible anything.


He's an animal dressed up to look human.


Yes, but he is bieng used to promote, in my opinion, a disinfo campaign based around the events of 9/11. The poster is giving importance to what he has to say and basically is implying he should have a hand in our foriegn policy.


As far as the kids in the school, I personally think that they acted in error but followed protocol. The minute the first plane struck the WTC he should have been back in the car to the airfield toget back on AF1. Like I said, everyone was at risk that day and it is a miracle that more did not die.

Back to the whistleblowers....James Brolin? I would have thought you would paint him an insider since his wife has a Zionist bloodline(sarcasm)



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Subsequent work by NIST and Purdue University have thoroughly examined the event from and engineering perspective and I encourage you to review those works for accurate information.



So, that is their answer to this?


Bill Manning - Editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure" - Fire Engineering 1/4/2002


To read the NIST report?

First, the guy is saying that the official investigation is a "half-baked farce" and you asked them to explain this and they tell you to read the "half-baked farse" for the answer? Please.


Griff ~

You left out some of that e-mail.

The NIST report wasnt even started i believe in January of 2002. (that I know of) It sure wasn't completed. The gentlemen I E-mailed actually e-mailed me back and it pretty upset that his magazine is being used at a conspiracy theory tool. He also stated his magazine stands my the NIST report 100%.

I don't want to debate the actions of this magazine. Take it for what you think its worth.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You left out some of that e-mail.


I only quoted the relevant parts.


The NIST report wasnt even started i believe in January of 2002. (that I know of) It sure wasn't completed.


FEMA and ASTM were though and that is the basis of the NIST report.


The gentlemen I E-mailed actually e-mailed me back and it pretty upset that his magazine is being used at a conspiracy theory tool.


Of course he is. Who wants lumped in with Rosie O?


He also stated his magazine stands my the NIST report 100%.


So he's happy that the government is calling all his brothers lyers? They omitted anything dealing with explosions right?


I don't want to debate the actions of this magazine. Take it for what you think its worth.


Nor do I, but the original thread is about this magazine and what it's employee (at the time) said about the official investigation.

Also re-read what he says about the investigation. It's a farce. So, why would I want to read a report based on the farse that this man claims was happening?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

You quoted me but didn't even address my post Bezerk....


Originally posted by BeZerk
Your view of a real whistleblower is someone with video-graphic evidence of the president asking his elite followers to set up a plan devised to topple the Twin Towers.

What? No. A whistle blower is someone (who was likely part of it or had direct knowledge of it) with info coming forward and presenting this info, backing it up with credible facts.


There is plenty of evidence to such an inside job and you don't need whistle blowers to define that.

Then why didn't you say so!?! Where is this evidence and why are you withholding it!? You should present it to the Feds right away!


You only need to take a look at one aspect of 9/11 for instance WTC7 which collapsed in its own foot print

Gravity is a wonderful thing, no?
How was a building that size supposed to collapse?


which was not hit by a plane, which did not have its "core" columns taken out (as the government claims is what happened with the Twin Towers).

According to the firefighters who were actually on the scene, and not on their computers watching videos of the building from a mile away, the building was heavily damaged and unstable, the fires were uncontrollable, and they felt it was in danger of collapsing. Are these firefighters credible?
Had it not fell, they would have had to tear it down anyway. So you're telling me that the evidence you have that 9/11, the largest attack on U.S. soil spanning multiple locations, was an inside job, was the fact that a condemned building, which was in danger of collapsing, fell?
Demoing a building takes months of preperation, and it's not like there are a ton of companies out there that do demos. So which company was it? And the weeks and months of tearing up walls and placing explosives, no one thought that to be strange?




What? No. A whistle blower is someone (who was likely part of it or had direct knowledge of it) with info coming forward and presenting this info, backing it up with credible facts.


Do you think the Government officials are going to walk out with documentation that will incriminate the Government? No they will do all they can to prevent that. Ever heard of a Gag Order?


Then why didn't you say so!?! Where is this evidence and why are you withholding it!? You should present it to the Feds right away!


Here you go, you can have a look at this post if you require further information please post your questions, i will be more than happy to reply.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Gravity is a wonderful thing, no?
How was a building that size supposed to collapse?


Gravity? No, that was a perfect example of a controlled demolition, the building fell in its own footprint. Why did the Twin Towers eject tons of steel hundreds of meters away yet WTC7 neatly fell into its own footpring?

Why was the WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the Commission Report?

Why do you suggest a certain company would need to be involved in the CD process? The government could have used FBI, CIA who follow there agenda. Its not that hard really, especially with the agencies such as the Secret Services, DoD and others located in WTC7. "Secret" Services?

What about the numerous firefighters and others who witnessed explosions within the buildings? Do you not take this into account

For further information please view the topic: Source


BeZerK



[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
this has to be one of the best posts on ATS that i have read so far. those little snippets of information prompted me to click for further reading one after the other. after a 4 hour reading session i am well behind the theory that 9-11 was an inside job.

the thing that worries me is that there are so many people out there who know for a fact that 9-11 was at least known about and not stopped by the government. how come there hasnt been widespread news to this fact, another Farenheit if you will, on this subject what with all the new information thats come to light?

lastly, who out there has enough power to use this onformation and stop the US government? is there anyone that can stop the neo-con juggernaut or is the whole world along for the ride now?

thanks again for an amazing post, would never even have thought to look for this info by myself. top marks from the uk



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
WTC 7 was not mentioned in the commission report becasue that is not what the document was about or for. bout. You should read it instead of scouring the web for snippets of disinfo and maybe you could see the big picture of what is going on in world politics.

One of my favorite questions is that if Bill Clinton couldn't hide a BJ from an intern, how in the hell could ANYOne, ANYONE pull of 9/11 within our own government with the multitude of people that were involved. A coverup involves the least amount of people that you can have. Compartmentalization is key.

Look into Cheney, Mineta, the stand down sailor and the pilot of the F-16 that shot down Flight 93. Add to the list one tower operator and his superior and you have 5 people that can cover up the killing of over 80 innocent civilians in Shankville.

This is what frustrates me is that people always look at the WTC, and it is disinfo to not research the truth of what is actually happeneing in the country during an after 9/11. You are spinning your wheels.

People swallow the 'let roll' message and take it as bond because of a grieving widow and a made for TV movie.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Bez, you keep quoting my posts but aren't addressing them. I'm still waiting for you to go over the first one

Sad to say, but this happens more than I'd like

Apparently questioning the theories is taboo and we're supposed to take everything written on the internet as gospel

How exactly is that better than what the government does? It's not. It's the same exact thing.



Originally posted by BeZerk
Do you think the Government officials are going to walk out with documentation that will incriminate the Government? No they will do all they can to prevent that. Ever heard of a Gag Order?


If you had info like that, would you follow some "gag order?"
lol, besides there are TONS of ways to leak things.



Here you go, you can have a look at this post if you require further information please post your questions, i will be more than happy to reply.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, you linked another thread here on ATS as proof??
How would that work in court? When the judge acts for evidence, you're going to say, I saw it on ATS so it must be true???
I thought you had info, not stuff that's been gone over for years....

There has NEVER EVER been a CD like that in the history of CDs and no buildings have ever been purposely hit by airplanes like that so....what exactly are you comparing?
Saying blank and blank should have happened or blank and blank shouldn't have happened is based on what? The last time something like this happened? Well, there was no last time.




Gravity? No, that was a perfect example of a controlled demolition, the building fell in its own footprint. Why did the Twin Towers eject tons of steel hundreds of meters away yet WTC7 neatly fell into its own footpring?

The fell differently because they were damaged differently. WTC7 was damaged from the bottom and fell from the bottom. The towers fell from the top.


Why was the WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the Commission Report?

For the same reason the other buildings around the WTC complex that were destroyed weren't mentioned. They're irrelevant. No one was killed and the building was going to be condemned anyway, and the building wasn't a target.


Why do you suggest a certain company would need to be involved in the CD process? The government could have used FBI, CIA who follow there agenda. Its not that hard really, especially with the agencies such as the Secret Services, DoD and others located in WTC7. "Secret" Services?

lol, not just anyone can do a CD

It's takes precision and accuracy. That's why it takes so long to set one up. So again, all that time and no one in some of the most busiest buildings in the world noticed explosives being placed????
Also, again, it takes accuracy. You're telling me the explosives somehow survived the plane impacts intact??
Or are you saying in the time after the impacts explosives were magically placed?


What about the numerous firefighters and others who witnessed explosions within the buildings? Do you not take this into account

Witnessed? Or heard?
Have any of these people presented evidence that these "explosions" were not part of the plane impacts?? I certainly haven't seen this evidence yet



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Perception is the gateway to reality for an individual. THis is a whistleblower letter.





FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.



Dear Director Mueller:

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.

To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI agents.

2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.

3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources. The two possible criminal violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States") and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities). It is important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1 Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The probable cause did not otherwise improve or change. When we went to the United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph 19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.2




For the full 13 page letter, go here.

www.time.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   


4) In one of my peripheral roles on the Moussaoui matter, I answered an e-mail message on August 22, 2001, from an attorney at the National Security Law Unit (NSLU). Of course, with (ever important!) 20-20 hindsight, I now wish I had taken more time and care to compose my response. When asked by NSLU for my "assessment of (our) chances of getting a criminal warrant to search Moussaoui's computer", I answered, "Although I think there's a decent chance of being able to get a judge to sign a criminal search warrant, our USAO seems to have an even higher standard much of the time, so rather than risk it, I advised that they should try the other route." Leaked news accounts which said the Minneapolis Legal Counsel (referring to me) concurred with the FBIHQ that probable cause was lacking to search Moussaoui's computer are in error. (or possibly the leak was deliberately skewed in this fashion?) What I meant by this pithy e-mail response, was that although I thought probable cause existed ("probable cause" meaning that the proposition has to be more likely than not, or if quantified, a 51% likelihood), I thought our United States Attorney's Office, (for a lot of reasons including just to play it safe) in regularly requiring much more than probable cause before approving affidavits, (maybe, if quantified, 75%-80% probability and sometimes even higher), and depending on the actual AUSA who would be assigned, might turn us down. As a tactical choice, I therefore thought it would be better to pursue the "other route" (the FISA search warrant) first, the reason being that there is a common perception, which for lack of a better term, I'll call the "smell test" which has arisen that if the FBI can't do something through straight-up criminal methods, it will then resort to using less-demanding intelligence methods. Of course this isn't true, but I think the perception still exists. So, by this line of reasoning, I was afraid that if we first attempted to go criminal and failed to convince an AUSA, we wouldn't pass the "smell test" in subsequently seeking a FISA. I thought our best chances therefore lay in first seeking the FISA. Both of the factors that influenced my thinking are areas arguably in need of improvement: requiring an excessively high standard of probable cause in terrorism cases and getting rid of the "smell test" perception. It could even be argued that FBI agents, especially in terrorism cases where time is of the essence, should be allowed to go directly to federal judges to have their probable cause reviewed for arrests or searches without having to gain the USAO's approval.4

5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!

Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities. When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval!

6 ) Eventually on August 28, 2001, after a series of e-mails between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, which suggest that the FBIHQ SSA deliberately further undercut the FISA effort by not adding the further intelligence information which he had promised to add that supported Moussaoui's foreign power connection and making several changes in the wording of the information that had been provided by the Minneapolis Agent, the Minneapolis agents were notified that the NSLU Unit Chief did not think there was sufficient evidence of Moussaoui's connection to a foreign power. Minneapolis personnel are, to this date, unaware of the specifics of the verbal presentations by the FBIHQ SSA to NSLU or whether anyone in NSLU ever was afforded the opportunity to actually read for him/herself all of the information on Moussaoui that had been gathered by the Minneapolis Division and the French intelligence service. Obviously verbal presentations are far more susceptible to mis-characterization and error. The e-mail communications between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, however, speak for themselves and there are far better witnesses than me who can provide their first hand knowledge of these events characterized in one Minneapolis agent's e-mail as FBIHQ is "setting this up for failure." My only comment is that the process of allowing the FBI supervisors to make changes in affidavits is itself fundamentally wrong, just as, in the follow-up to FBI Laboratory Whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst's allegations, this process was revealed to be wrong in the context of writing up laboratory results. With the Whitehurst allegations, this process of allowing supervisors to re-write portions of laboratory reports, was found to provide opportunities for over-zealous supervisors to skew the results in favor of the prosecution. In the Moussaoui case, it was the opposite -- the process allowed the Headquarters Supervisor to downplay the significance of the information thus far collected in order to get out of the work of having to see the FISA application through or possibly to avoid taking what he may have perceived as an unnecessary career risk.7 I understand that the failures of the FBIHQ personnel involved in the Moussaoui matter are also being officially excused because they were too busy with other investigations, the Cole bombing and other important terrorism matters, but the Supervisor's taking of the time to read each word of the information submitted by Minneapolis and then substitute his own choice of wording belies to some extent the notion that he was too busy. As an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years (and an FBI agent for over 21 years), I can state that an affidavit is better and will tend to be more accurate when the affiant has first hand information of all the information he/she must attest to. Of necessity, agents must continually rely upon information from confidential sources, third parties and other law enforcement officers in drafting affidavits, but the repeating of information from others greatly adds to the opportunities for factual discrepancies and errors to arise. To the extent that we can minimize the opportunity for this type of error to arise by simply not allowing unnecessary re-writes by supervisory staff, it ought to be done. (I'm not talking, of course, about mere grammatical corrections, but changes of some substance as apparently occurred with the Moussaoui information which had to be, for lack of a better term, "filtered" through FBIHQ before any action, whether to seek a criminal or a FISA warrant, could be taken.) Even after September 11th, the fear was great on the part of Minneapolis Division personnel that the same FBIHQ personnel would continue their "filtering" with respect to the Moussaoui investigation, and now with the added incentive of preventing their prior mistakes from coming to light. For this reason, for weeks, Minneapolis prefaced all outgoing communications (ECs) in the PENTTBOM investigation with a summary of the information about Moussaoui. We just wanted to make sure the information got to the proper prosecutive authorities and was not further suppressed! This fear was probably irrational but was nonetheless understandable in light of the Minneapolis agents' prior experiences and frustrations involving FBIHQ. (The redundant preface information regarding Moussaoui on otherwise unrelative PENTTBOM communications has ended up adding to criminal discovery issues, but this is the reason it was done.)




More of a true whistleblower who is showing the breakdown of US intel which is why the 9/11 commission was created to make sure this nver, ever happens again and to give insight and direction, not lay blame.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Wow, you linked another thread here on ATS as proof??
How would that work in court? When the judge acts for evidence, you're going to say, I saw it on ATS so it must be true???


Isn't that what the government has done?

9/11 Commission - government - suspect

FEMA - government - suspect

NIST - government - suspect

Silverstein Properties - prime suspect

So, it's ok in a court of law to have the suspect investigate himself?

Just saying.


Saying blank and blank should have happened or blank and blank shouldn't have happened is based on what? The last time something like this happened? Well, there was no last time.


Based on known laws of physics. Yeah, there was no last time because this particular black-op hasn't been used before. So what? We still know how materials behave in the real world. But, in the government bizzaro world buildings crumble like paper and magic bullets hit a man 3 times in 3 different places.





For the same reason the other buildings around the WTC complex that were destroyed weren't mentioned. They're irrelevant. No one was killed and the building was going to be condemned anyway, and the building wasn't a target.


So, the first time a steel skyscraper has fallen from damage and fire down to the foundation and it's not worth studying? You'd rather just keep on walking into these death traps called steel skyscrapers?



lol, not just anyone can do a CD


But, fire is smarter than most people?


It's takes precision and accuracy. That's why it takes so long to set one up.


Exactly, but in the same breath you are arguing that sporadic fire and assymetrical damage can accomplish the exact same thing? I don't understand that logic and probably never will. No offense.


Also, again, it takes accuracy.


Yup, and again you think sporadic fire and assymetrical damage can accomplish the same.



Witnessed? Or heard?
Have any of these people presented evidence that these "explosions" were not part of the plane impacts?? I certainly haven't seen this evidence yet


Hypothetical. What if the explosives were in the core? Who's going to be collecting "evidence" of it if they are close enough to hear it?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok, in this massive conspiracy.... where literally thousands are involved, Where does Silverstein get involved? Because hes a jew? (sorry i just saw his Name in an above post.)

"Hey Larry, we are doing a black op with the US government to invade iraq,kill John Oneil cuz he knows too much, and make money for haliburton contracts, get more oil for the Bush's, Allow the muslim extremists to get the naughty Americans... um...so, we can plant explosives in your buildings, and kill a few thousand of your tennants....you want in?"

Larry's response... "um er...well yea.. pull it!" "Oh and dont worry guys...if this works... i wont tell anyone on national television that I had the building wired."

NIST...yes another governmnet agency that was in on it. Funny... of all the civilians that helped with the report... I have yet to hear any of them complain that they were "forced" to draw certain conclusions.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Ok, in this massive conspiracy.... where literally thousands are involved, Where does Silverstein get involved? Because hes a jew? (sorry i just saw his Name in an above post.)


Sarcastic attitude aside. Why were thousands involved? Does it take thousands to place a thermobaric bomb in the core shaft? How many Polocks....etc.


NIST...yes another governmnet agency that was in on it.


Why do they have to be in on it to cover it up? Their samples were pre selected. Their focus was pre selected. If anything, these are brilliant people that figured out how fire COULD have brought it down.

BTW, their own experiments and data contradict their conclusions.

www.nistreview.org...



Funny... of all the civilians that helped with the report... I have yet to hear any of them complain that they were "forced" to draw certain conclusions.


I have yet to hear any interviews at all. You know of some?

BTW, where they allowed to test for explosives? I don't know, but they didn't test for it as stated by them.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I believe the expression " 9/11 was in inside job" is correct. It is almost seven years after the fact. I'd say ' THEY' got away with it. But lets assume we nail all the bad guys. Whatever was to be gained, has already come to pass. The Dept of Homeland Security, TSA, National ID card via your drivers lis. The American Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act. Surveillance
cameras everywhere, Invasion of two ' oil rich 'maybe a third sovereign nation. Trashing the Bill of Rights. Hummm.......... I think ' THEY ' are sitting back laughing their collective asses off. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join