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.

 

PBS: NSA could have prevented 9/11 hijackings

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If they got all this data already then why don't we go back through the archives and find out exactly who organized and funded the 911 attacks and sink em'? That stuff is locked up Top Secret I suppose, just like the Jack the Ripper case we won't know for a couple generation

A note: it sure is irritating being told how I would or will react to something. maybe we can avoid that.




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I was not arguing the point of when,
I was saying it was the dumbest asumption ever because you believe people would jump up and down about a fascist government instead of looking at the wiretaps and evidence and saying

'' damn, they were going to fly planes into the trade centre ''



think about this


would the people

a. act all stupid like and scream about fascism
or
b. be grateful the government stopped these guys from flying planes into buildings.

you chose a.

thats why it was a dumb decision!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Never Say Anything sums up the NSA quite nicely these guys allowed the supposed hijackers to roam about the country at best this is negligence on their part at worst they were ordered not to do anything and stand down like the other intelligence agencies may have been told to do.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I was not arguing the point of when,
I was saying it was the dumbest asumption ever because you believe people would jump up and down about a fascist government instead of looking at the wiretaps and evidence and saying

'' damn, they were going to fly planes into the trade centre ''



think about this


would the people

a. act all stupid like and scream about fascism
or
b. be grateful the government stopped these guys from flying planes into buildings.

you chose a.

thats why it was a dumb decision!


Sorry but you are wrong. A lot of people here on ATS would have been complaining that the government overstepped their bounds. Where have you been? You should know this already.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
You forget though, this ats world grew up in the post 911, Bush manipulated reality.

Where being pro bush meant siding against arabs, and being anti-bush meant being a terrorist.

If you put yourself back in Sept 09 2001, no one was this polarised.

The media for one wouldnt of portrayed these people one way or the other.

They would of stated that the FBI had detained 15 - 20 men on conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
They would of explained that months of phone tapps, wire transcripts, ghosting and intercepts of communications led the FBI to believe they were going to highjack commercial aircraft and slam them into buildings.

The FBI would of presented photos of the knives in their luggage, would of shown extracts from transcripts etc etc


The people, would not of turned around and said

'' Racist bastards , always picking on the arabs ''

I honestly cant understand why you think people would be against the government intervening against hijackers.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
the original 2 person teams of 8 trained pilots, who would commandeer the aircraft ...

didn't even know the 3 volunteers on each team who would aid in hijacking of the planes until days before the operation...

That 'assignment' could have come from K.S. Mohammad, on the friday before the Tuesday rendezvous as best i can theorize...


So how could NSA know, follow, spy-on, these planned 5 person teams?
which numbered 4 hijack teams at several airports on that day

[edit on 29-1-2009 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
George Tenet (Medal of Freedom recipient) and former CIA Director was said to have received multiple warnings.

From The Center for Cooperative Research:


n the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that "Al-Qaeda" was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his "hair on fire," and so many that a lot were not taken seriously "because of "warning fatigue" arising from too many terror warnings." One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." that was initially hidden by the White House. Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an "imminent threat," that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask "does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there's a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I'm really not interested in that information?" Cheney said that his "Democratic friends in Congress... need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11."


Then there is John O'Neill.


Mid-July 2001: John O’Neill Rails Against White House and Saudi Obstructionism
FBI counterterrorism expert John O’Neill privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds, “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O’Neill also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open (see July 21, 2001). [Irish Times, 11/19/2001; Brisard and Dasquie, 2002, pp. xxix; CNN, 1/8/2002; CNN, 1/9/2002]



August 19, 2001: FBI’s Best Al-Qaeda Expert Under Investigation for Trivial Issue, His Retirement Soon Follows
The New York Times reports that counterterrorism expert John O’Neill is under investigation for an incident involving a missing briefcase. [New York Times, 8/19/2001] In July 2000, he misplaced a briefcase containing important classified information, but it was found a couple of hours later still locked and untouched. Why such a trivial issue would come up over a year later and be published in the New York Times seems entirely due to politics. Says the New Yorker, “The leak seemed to be timed to destroy O’Neill’s chance of being confirmed for [a National Security Council] job,” and force him into retirement. A high-ranking colleague says the leak was “somebody being pretty vicious to John.” [New Yorker, 1/14/2002] John O’Neill suspects his enemy Tom Pickard, then interim director of the FBI, orchestrated the article. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/2002] The New Yorker later speculates that with the retirement of FBI Director Freeh in June, it appears O’Neill lost his friends in high places, and the new FBI director wanted him replaced with a Bush ally. [New Yorker, 1/14/2002] O’Neill retires a few days later.



September 10, 2001: New WTC Security Director Warns of Danger of ‘Something Big’
John O’Neill, who is later described by the New Yorker magazine as the FBI’s “most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists,” recently retired from the bureau and started a new job as director of security at the World Trade Center (see August 23, 2001). [New Yorker, 1/14/2002] On this day he meets up with his old friend Raymond Powers, the former New York Police Department chief of operations, to discuss security procedures. Their conversation turns to Osama bin Laden. According to journalist and author Murray Weiss, “just as he had reiterated since 1995 to any official in Washington who would listen, O’Neill said he was sure bin Laden would attack on American soil, and expected him to target the Twin Towers again.” He says to Powers, “It’s going to happen, and it looks like something big is brewing.” [Weiss, 2003, pp. 355 and 359-360] Later on, O’Neill goes out in the evening with his friends Robert Tucker and Jerome Hauer. Again, he starts discussing bin Laden. He tells his friends, “We’re due. And we’re due for something big.” He says, “Some things have happened in Afghanistan. I don’t like the way things are lining up in Afghanistan.” This is probably a reference to the assassination of Afghan leader Ahmed Shah Massoud the previous day (see September 9, 2001). He adds, “I sense a shift, and I think things are going to happen.” Asked when, he replies, “I don’t know, but soon.” [New Yorker, 1/14/2002; PBS, 10/3/2002] O’Neill will be in his office on the 34th floor of the South Tower the following morning when the first attack occurs, and dies when the WTC collapses. [Weiss, 2003, pp. 366; Fox News, 8/31/2004]


Ironically John O'Neill died in the WTC attacks he fought so hard to prevent.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking


My point was first you said it was negligent that they didn't act. I said not only are there hundreds of such threats processed a day, but they were also hogtied from doing so. Then you changed your tune to the NSA not having enough power, and I agreed, and here we are.


I didn't back track. Surveillance of people who are breaking the law is ok, so long as Constitutional Due Process is exercised. The NSA, as I stated, apparently had enough power prior to the Patriot act. Seeing as how they had these guys in the cross hairs. I also only said that the Patriot act had a few good provisions like consolidation of information and what not. The NSA DID infact have enough power at the time to solve this issue, my problem is the inaction.

The NSAs domestic spy program is illegal. And violates due process as it is currently structured. They target religious groups without warrants, they target journalists without warrants, and they target peaceful dissidents without warrants. I'd say I have good reason to not like that sort of thing. With exception of information consolidations and management the Patriot Act gives license to break the laws set forth in the Constitution regarding Due Process, prior to this language in the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, the Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act, and the recent FISA Amendments gave power to the NSA that they didn't need prior to 9/11 to track the moves these guys made, the CIA and FBI obviously didn't need these ridiculous provisions either if you look at the reports they dropped on the Bush's desk along with that of the NSA.

You seem to think that I don't want the NSA to work to protect Americans and that is just not true. I do, but they need to be restricted to a Constitutional model, as they are an American Spy agency. All I'm saying is that the way they worked prior to 9/11 seemed effective enough to gather the evidence.. This whole idea that they had their "Hands Tied" is ridiculous. All the warning signs were there and they had the people in their sights. The secret courts would most certainly have issued warrants, and it was the President's in action and these agencies lack of urgency that caused this.

And then Bush politicized the Justice Department. And now we have all of our internet traffic and VOIP packets being sniffed out and copied for what ever future use they decide. Combined with telecom companies all over the US playing ball for more cash and we have ourselves a huge problem. We now have a government that is both inept and too needlessly powerful.






[edit on 29-1-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by SuperViking


My point was first you said it was negligent that they didn't act. I said not only are there hundreds of such threats processed a day, but they were also hogtied from doing so. Then you changed your tune to the NSA not having enough power, and I agreed, and here we are.


I didn't back track. Surveillance of people who are breaking the law is ok, so long as Constitutional Due Process is exercised. The NSA, as I stated, apparently had enough power prior to the Patriot act. Seeing as how they had these guys in the cross hairs. I also only said that the Patriot act had a few good provisions like consolidation of information and what not. The NSA DID infact have enough power at the time to solve this issue, my problem is the inaction.

The NSAs domestic spy program is illegal. And violates due process as it is currently structured. They target religious groups without warrants, they target journalists without warrants, and they target peaceful dissidents without warrants. I'd say I have good reason to not like that sort of thing. With exception of information consolidations and management the Patriot Act gives license to break the laws set forth in the Constitution regarding Due Process, prior to this language in the Patriot Act, the Protect America Act, the Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act, and the recent FISA Amendments gave power to the NSA that they didn't need prior to 9/11 to track the moves these guys made, the CIA and FBI obviously didn't need these ridiculous provisions either if you look at the reports they dropped on the Bush's desk along with that of the NSA.

You seem to think that I don't want the NSA to work to protect Americans and that is just not true. I do, but they need to be restricted to a Constitutional model, as they are an American Spy agency. All I'm saying is that the way they worked prior to 9/11 seemed effective enough to gather the evidence.. This whole idea that they had their "Hands Tied" is ridiculous. All the warning signs were there and they had the people in their sights. The secret courts would most certainly have issued warrants, and it was the President's in action and these agencies lack of urgency that caused this.

And then Bush politicized the Justice Department. And now we have all of our internet traffic and VOIP packets being sniffed out and copied for what ever future use they decide. Combined with telecom companies all over the US playing ball for more cash and we have ourselves a huge problem. We now have a government that is both inept and too needlessly powerful.


I know what they do, I told you I work for the CSS. The NSA was indeed understaffed at the time- there were too many threats to track, thus none of them got the proper attention. As far as the Constitution goes...bah humbug. Not interested in that thing, and I'm glad I'm not alone in the government when I say so.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 



And this is why eventually those of you that wipe your butts with the Constitution will get your asses handed to you by the rest of us.

Enjoy your dark pretend world. We'll be turning on the light soon enough.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
What's the CSS ?

Doesn't surprise me the NSA was wiretapping the terrorists but did nothing to prevent it. The gist of Bamford's latest books is the NSA has far more collection capability than the people needed to analyze it as in comes in.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
[edit on 29-1-2009 by AreaMan]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
What's the CSS ?


Central Security Service.

History of the CSS



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by SuperViking
 



And this is why eventually those of you that wipe your butts with the Constitution will get your asses handed to you by the rest of us.

Enjoy your dark pretend world. We'll be turning on the light soon enough.



What? Okay Internet Tough Guy. Hand me my ass, I'll be waiting.




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join