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.

 

CIA Panel: 9/11 Failure Warrants Action

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Looks like the heat is finally getting turned up on the government to do something about what happened on 9/11.

It seems like the Diretor of the CIA may have to disipline people who failed to react to the warnings that were provided.

cicentre.com...

CIA Director Porter Goss must decide whether to heed the recommendation of his top watchdog to hold disciplinary reviews for current and former officials who were involved in faulty intelligence efforts before the Sept. 11 attacks…..(AP, 26 Aug 05)




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Looks like the heat is finally getting turned up on the government to do something about what happened on 9/11.


Heat finally getting turned up?

Umm...your story is from Aug 26, 2005.

What is even funnier is if you click on the link to that story at the site YOU provided....it says "We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available".

Old news....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
The links are working for me, although I had to hunt around in an archive of stories for the one that the OP quotes.

In any case I agree with Disclosed that the story is an old one.

I think this has been discussed before on ATS. I seem to remember arguing at the time that this was just an attempt to make the CIA into a whipping boy for Bushelzebub insiders like Cheney.

It also serves to lead bloodhounds away from sabateurs within the FBI who worked hard to make sure that no agents in place made any important "collars" in the lead up to 9/11.

You can get a flavor of Bushelzebub's style when you look at how the CIA was handled vis a vis Iraq.The CIA was resisting attempts by Satan's vice president to get them to doctor and skew their intelligence assessments on Iraq. The PBS documentary, The Dark Side, goes into this is some detail.

www.pbs.org...

Bottom line. This is just an evil administration. (Rant truncated here.)


[edit on 29-5-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
How about instead of following the rules of disinformation such as:

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.


SORYY Disclosed not everyone has read it. If you have than shut up if you got nothing intelligent to say...no?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



Such a long winded post....but still doesnt change the fact:

- The link to the story is from Aug 2005.
- The link on the cicentre site is no longer valid.

Did you even bother to click the links, Ivan? Please, enlighten me....did you read the whole story on the site he linked?

I didnt think so...



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

CIA panel: 9/11 failure warrants action
(AP)
Updated: 2005-08-26 09:05


The CIA's independent watchdog has recommended disciplinary reviews for current and former officials who were involved in failed intelligence efforts before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, The Associated Press has learned.

CIA Director Porter Goss now must decide whether the disciplinary proceedings go forward.

The proceedings, formally called an accountability board, were recommended by the CIA inspector general, John Helgerson. It remains unclear which people are identified for the accountability boards in the highly classified report spanning hundreds of pages. The report was delivered to Congress Tuesday night.

Following a two-year review into what went wrong before the suicide hijackings, people familiar with the report say Helgerson harshly criticizes a number of the agency's most senior officials. Among them are former CIA Director George Tenet, former clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head Cofer Black. The former officials are likely candidates for proceedings before an accountability board.

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

besides... this isnt the BREAKING NEWS forum....

[edit on 29-5-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Ivan,

Thanks for the actual story, but the link at the cicentre site (10th post down on the link provided by Roger) goes to this page:
www.washingtonpost.com...

which as you can see is not valid.



Originally posted by IvanZana
besides... this isnt the BREAKING NEWS forum....


I'm curious why ULTIMA1 presented it like this:


Looks like the heat is finally getting turned up on the government to do something about what happened on 9/11.


The heat was getting turned up in 2005....unless i'm mistaken, it is 2008. So it's not "finally getting turned up"....it had been turned up. Then off, then left to cool to room temp and stored in the attic with other conspiracy theories like the Kennedy assasination and Roswell.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Apologies to Disclosed. I went to the wrong (though similar) story on the page linked to by the OP.

Kudos to Ivan. Amazing dig on the correct story link! You should be playing shortstop for the Yankees.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The heat was getting turned up in 2005....unless i'm mistaken, it is 2008.


Gee, you just have to troll all the post i make don't you, just to try to create an argument. Why are you so concerend about the date instead of the story itself? If you do not have anything intelligent to discuss about the story itself please do not bother to respond.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why are you so concerend about the date instead of the story itself?


Well, the way you presented this thread, and story, you gave the impression ths was breaking news.

You stated this:

Looks like the heat is finally getting turned up on the government to do something about what happened on 9/11.


That implies that "the heat" was now being turned on. Not almost 3 years ago.

For someone trying to "find the truth", you seem to stretch it pretty darn well. Just making sure forum readers see the post as it really is.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Well, the way you presented this thread, and story, you gave the impression ths was breaking news.


Well actually it is when you consider the actual event happened in 2001. And you figure in the years that it would take to get any action taken.

Now do you have anything to add or just trolling as usual?

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well actually it is when you consider the actual event happened in 2001. And you figure in the years that it would take to get any action taken.


3 year old news is breaking news?

by your logic then, the pyramids of Egypt have just been completed. Well, when you think of the earth as being millions of years old...the pyramid creating would just be a tiny fraction of that. Its like it just happened.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
FWIW:

Porter Goss tendered his resignation to President Bush back in May of 2006. So I'd have to say Disclosed's question as to the manner this is/was presented seems perfectly valid.


Looks like the heat is finally getting turned up on the government to do something about what happened on 9/11.


It's a bit hard to "turn up the heat" when you're no longer even in the kitchen. No?

Now if current Director of the CIA (Michael Hayden) were to "pick up that ball", then perhaps there would be reason to think things may be moving forward. Unfortunately, and until then, I don't see where this particular article is even relevant to the current day situation.

 
$.02



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
It's a bit hard to "turn up the heat" when you're no longer even in the kitchen. No?


But how many years did it even take to get to the point of even looking into some kind of action being taken? So really when you look at how long it takes the goverment to do things this is pretty new.

Also it does support the theory that we had proior warnings of the attack and nothing was done to stop it.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So really when you look at how long it takes the goverment to do things this is pretty new.


Possibly, but it's also possible that any procession forward left with Goss upon his resignation. Have you heard/noticed any similar "efforts" since?


Also it does support the theory that we had proior warnings of the attack and nothing was done to stop it.


I wouldn't consider that a theory given the numerous reports, from agents in both the FBI and CIA, with similar claims of having been stonewalled in their attempts to disseminate information they had collected, been alerted to.

Perhaps the suddeness of Goss' departure had something to do with "recommended disciplinary reviews" not having moved forward since. (?)

[edit: since]

[edit on 30-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
I wouldn't consider that a theory given the numerous reports, from agents in both the FBI and CIA, with similar claims of having been stonewalled in their attempts to disseminate information they had collected, been alerted to.


Well they had warnings from more the just the FBI and CIA. Lots of foreign and domestic agencies supplied some detailed warnings.

Even the Presidents Daly Brief just months before warned of hijackings.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Even the Presidents Daly Brief just months before warned of hijackings.



Really? If you are speaking about the declassified memo:"Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," I didn't see anything in that memo with a mention to hijackings. Can you please point it out for me? Here is a link to it:

www.cnn.com...



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Even the Presidents Daly Brief just months before warned of hijackings.

Really? If you are speaking about the declassified memo:"Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," I didn't see anything in that memo with a mention to hijackings. Can you please point it out for me?


Hi ThroatYogurt,

I'm a bit reluctant to help out Ultima1, but on this occasion he is more or less correct.

One of the Presidential Daily Briefs (commonly abbeviated to "PDBs" in the 9/11 Commission Report and elsewhere) did refer to hijackings.

There is no "declassified memo entitled 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US' " - that heading relates to a section of the PDB dated 6 August 2001, not a separate memo.

That section of the 6 August 2001 PDB does refer to hijackings:



We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.


The entire saga relating to the Commission's access to PDBs (and the declassification of sections of some of the PDBs and the debate over the implications of the PDBs) dominates quite a bit of the content of several of the mainstream books written about the 9/11 Commission (e.g. Philip Shenon's book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation" and the book by the co-chairs of the Commission, i.e. "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by Kean and Hamilton).

However, these issues rarely get discussed in detail (or with much accuracy) in conspiracy theory books about 9/11.

All the best,

Isaac

[edit on 31-5-2008 by IsaacKoi]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Issac,

Although you are right on. I should have been more specific. My question should have stated:


"Please show me the warnings that were given."

IF you read the memo, you will see:


We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.


This is a mention of hijacking, but look at the context. It comes from another intelligence service Not the US or it would be stated as such, It is believed from the UK. It’s around three years old; the context suggests it relates to hostage-taking, not using a plane as a missile; and the FBI call the claim “sensational” and say theycannot corroborate it.

Now lets look at this:


Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.


“Since that time” means they’ve observed “patterns of suspicious activity” since 1998, which suggests that there is nothing detailed or of great urgency.

The second one is most important, as youcan see the true context of “consistent with preparations for hijackings” in the original claim, and in reality it’s “consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks”. the warning is useless, as plainly it covers everything (and hijacking may only have been mentioned as a reference to the previous paragraph).

So in short... I stand corrected that hijackings WERE in fact mentioned. But if you take the entire document in it's proper context. There was not a specific warning. The hijackings also had nothing to do with using them a missiles. From what I have read it looks like the "typical" type of hijacking. (hijacking the plane, taking hostages, and demanding ransoms)

Thanks Issac for being on top of this I stand corrected



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Really? If you are speaking about the declassified memo:"Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," I didn't see anything in that memo with a mention to hijackings. Can you please point it out for me? Here is a link to it:


Well it looks like ThroatYogurt beat me to the part about the PDB.

But i also have lots of other informatoin on warnings, but their are also several detailed warnings that were classified.

cicentre.com...

Excerpts From 2001 Memo About Al Qaeda Given to Rice
Following are excerpts from a document outlining possible strategies concerning Al Qaeda given to Condoleezza Rice when she became national security adviser in January 2001….(New York Times, 12 Feb 05)

Early '01 Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat
….The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings, but its full contents had not been disclosed…..(Reuters, 12 Feb 05)

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings
U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings….(Reuters, 10 Feb 05)












[edit on 31-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join