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.

 

Why did we fail on 9/11?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Why did 9/11 happen? What series of events led to a massive terrorist attack on American soil?

How did it happen? Why did the government fail in so any ways?

Which parties were responsible?

What could have been done to prevent it? Does the PATRIOT ACT makes us any safer? Is the War on Terrorism good or bad? Do we really need torture and warrant less wiretapping?

Is a strong executive branch the proper response to crime? Is this what the framer's of the constitution had intended? Is it beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole? Is the security provided worth the price we are forced to pay?




posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Well, seeing as it was I inside job (in my opinion), its kind of easy to say what the government should have done...


But as for your other questions, I believe Americans are only going to entrap themselfs in a big cage if they try to shield themselfs from all possible terrorism. The only way to do that is to screen every individual everywhere, and you would STILL be vulnerable to certain attacks.

The rest of the world understands this, but not the US government.


[edit on 5-11-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There were lots of warnings from foreign intelligence services. Able Danger identified Mohammad Atta as living in this country illegally while he was on a terrorism watch list. They knew he was planning something, but they took no action.

On the day of the event, numerous security safeguards all failed simultaneously without any acceptable explanation. No one has been held accountable.

There was no need for this infringement on our rights because they already had everything they needed to stop 9/11. They just weren't using it properly... The fact that they are so inept gives great cause to reduce their responsibilities, not increase them.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
America grew complacent. Simple as that.

The CIA at the time was not the legendary omniscient force it seemingly was in the 1970s and 80s. The Berlin wall had been torn down and the Iron Curtain had collapsed..... what was there to defend against in this world?

You can tell people all you want to that danger exists. But we're the U.S. We beat Hitler and the Ruskies - let's see some third world nation try and harm us.

The U.S. has a history of decapitating its defensive abilities after every major war. After World War One was no exception. We continually wanted to believe that if we just sat here and minded our own business - we would not have to get involved in another war. There were numerous warning signs that the Japanese were planning attack (and, failing that - that Hitler had plans of coming over across the Atlantic and annexing the U.S.). However, we did nothing.

If you were told a few months prior to 9/11 that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings - you MIGHT have considered it a realistic threat. But, would you have been so supportive of the increased security at airports (which also comes at an inconvenience to you) because of those threats?

Let's face it - we all really wouldn't. Most people wouldn't appreciate it because they had not yet seen what happens when those security measures fail or are improperly used. It takes something drastic before we can realize exactly how important certain things are in defending our country.

It comes down to that ancient problem of everyone can point a finger but few will lift a hand - or "Someone should do something about that!" and inhibiting those who do try to do something about it.

And it's happening again. Rinse, lather, repeat - we'll be in this same shower for eons - growing complacent, getting attacked, reacting.... growing complacent, getting attacked......


six

posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
These are all very good questions spoon. I guess the answers you will get will depend on which side of the fence people are going to come from. I personally think that has building for years. There are those in the middle east who do not like the west and how we "meddle" in their affairs. They have a different mindset. A different value on life. They want us out.

As to how it happened. I peronally belive the "official"story. I will admit that there are glaring holes, and sloppy/shoddy investigative work, but on the whole, nothing out there has changed my views. Someone here had a good point. They stated that the dod was so intent on the outside threat, that our defences were not set up for a attack from the inside.

There was probably plenty that could have been done to prevent it, starting with who we intially made our bed with. It just seems to cascade from there. Missed opportunities. A "weakness", for the lack of a better term, to do what was needed, when it was needed.

I personally think that the war on terrorism is not good or bad, but necessary. As for the patriot act, there is ALOT that makes me very uncomfortable about it As for torture, in the right circumstances, sure. If it saves alot of lives, then yes.

Strong executive branch. Well that would have to hand in hand in hand with the other two branches. One would have to be strong enough to give the order knowing that people will die, sometimes innocent ones. The legislative has to be strong enough to know when actions like this need to be taken and to back the executive branch. Judicial would have to be strong enough to speak up when the actions taken were wrong and laws were broken. The benefit or detrement is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the security, it almost is how much are WE as a counrty willing to give up. If we are weak and afraid, then we give up alot. Probably alot more than the framers of the Constitution intended. As for your last question, again it is in the eye of the beholder. Good thread



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 


You do seem to be suggesting that the attack was at least *not orchestrated* by America, perhaps you believe it was allowed to happen but it does not seem that you believe that it was orchestrated, why are you of this opinion if I have indeed stated accurately what you believe?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
www.tpmcafe.com...

Above link gives a good overview of the bureaucratic/political problems
in the run-up to 9/11. Information sharing between various intelligence
agencies was forbidden - while the CIA had tracked 2 Al Qaeda members
from a terrorist "summit" in Malayasia in 2000 was prevented by the
"wall" from sharing that info with FBI. When Moussaoui was arrested
3 weeks before the local FBI office could not get the HQ to issue
search warrant for his computer. There were other problems and missed
opportunities to uncover the plot.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
As to how it happened. I peronally belive the "official"story. I will admit that there are glaring holes, and sloppy/shoddy investigative work, but on the whole, nothing out there has changed my views. Someone here had a good point. They stated that the dod was so intent on the outside threat, that our defences were not set up for a attack from the inside.


How can you believe in something that you yourself state has holes and shoody investigative work?

Its like why did the FBI only take 5 days to do the crime scene at the Pentagon after stating it would take 30 days?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Why did we fail? Well because we don't take Arabs so seriously, especially their grievances, and their solid belief in striking America so badly. 93 bombing on WTC, 96 Khobar Towers bombing, 98 Embassy bombings, 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombings, 2001 9.11 attacks. Indeed, why did we fail?

People don't think 19 hijackers could do this against a mighty superpower because they are considered primitive low tech bedouins. Well look at Iraq and Afghanistan and they show you why they do what they do, and how they do these things with such hardcore beliefs. They got brains. They didn't attack America with fighter jets, they attack America with passenger planes. Attack America where they are weak, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can't accept it, well too bad.

People ask why America's military have a hard time dealing with insurgents, well because they got brains. They ain't stupid. Same thing on 9/11. They ain't stupid.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
You seem to have all the answers already spoon. Why ask little ol' me?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Why did 9/11 happen? What series of events led to a massive terrorist attack on American soil?

How did it happen? Why did the government fail in so any ways?



bottom line- - the Saudi Arabian crucible which allowed the plot to be actuated (that's the how)

contrary to opinion, the operation was not designed to be a 'massive'/'New Pearl Harbor' terrorist attack.....
what made the operation significant was the total collapse of WTC towers 1 & 2, (against all logic & engineering)
and the audacity of a commandeered airliner performing a 'kamikazi' attack on the Pentagon...again with marginally skilled pilots.

there was never an expectation that WTC 1 & 2 would suffer total/universal collapse....
just seizing the aircraft and using them as missiles was the strategy,
to show the american empire that it could be humbled by determined, purposeful, saboteurs 'on-a-mission'...



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Saw a utube of the second tower getting 'painted' with laser before getting hit. That tragedy had inside help. No bout a doubt it.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Well, just because something has "shoddy investigation work" does not mean it did not happen. Nor does it having holes confirm something else happened - or even suggest.

Gaps in the story are natural. We're not omniscient beings. I would be suspicious if it was too perfect.

That, and it's natural for people to reject tragic events - or to have a grudge that is so complete that they cannot see any other being at fault.

Just as there are people who reject the Oklahoma City bombing. I watched an independent research team do their best to recreate the situation and gather test data. All of their data goes along with the official reports.

There are always those who believe certain events are "too convenient" for various powers or that there is some sort of plan for domination over us. And we always seem to assume that they are violent in nature.

If you want a conspiracy - take a look at New York trying to give out driving permits and licenses to illegal immigrants. But what many people have neglected to mention (media and political alike) - is that states such as New York allow anyone with a driver's license to vote.

That's the kind of stuff to watch for. Elaborate schemes for global domination that involve blowing up buildings and assassinating members of the media to keep things quiet are just too elaborate and cliche to really work in practice. Plus - with every event already being a conspiracy - a real one would certainly not escape the clutches of the truth-seekers.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Uh Yeaaahhhh OP. Go to church. Collect your psyop pay, and tell us all how ridiculous we are to not believe your ridiculous tails. You should have crossed the T's and dotted the I's. Lazy.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Are the actions taken by the administration justifiable?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Saw a utube of the second tower getting 'painted' with laser before getting hit. That tragedy had inside help. No bout a doubt it.


....
.....

Were they filming with an infra-red camera? You'd need one of those to pick up the reflection of a laser designation beam off of its target.

I mean.... could you imagine if we used visible spectrum? I could be sitting there pointing a laser pointer at my buddy while out near a weapons test range, and he suddenly explodes as a GBU-24 slams into him.

While comical - even that is unlikely - even if we used visible wavelengths.

So, I'm confused - your comments have jammed my IFF receiver. So.... your position on this is....?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I think the whole thing was a test by the govt- to see exactly how stupid and gullible the american people are, to accept the official story. Now that they know it's on to bigger and better things.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Ordinary video cameras will record infrared as a white light. The camera uses a CCD semiconductor to create a current based upon the intensity and color of the electromagnetic flux. This data is stored in a 2 dimensional array to create an image.

Test it with a camera and an ordinary tv remote pointed at the camera.

[edit on 11/5/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
That's a negative there, spoon.

First - the wavelength that military weapons use is classified. Second, Infra-red covers a wide range of fequencies that are not detectable by a standard video camera. And, no, TV remotes are not detectable by a video camera. Now, on certain remotes you can look closely at the LED and see the junction emit some light within the visible spectrum - however, it's barely visible and only about 0.5% of the total output.

You're not picking up a laser designation beam on a video camera - film or digital.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


NOPE!! You are absolutely, unequivocally totally wrong!!! What a surprise, a debunker spreading ignorance and lies?! I never could have imagined it... EVER!!!!

The video might not be live yet;


Google Video Link




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join