Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CIA Warned of Attack 6 Years Before 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The 9/11 commission is not bringing us any closer to the truth of 9/11---we may never know.
Here we see the CIA was aware of OBL and alQaeda as early as 1997. So, the President and his men knew.
It almost makes me think 9/11 was meant to happen.

By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA warned in a classified report that Islamic extremists likely would strike on U.S. soil at landmarks in Washington or New York, or through the airline industry, according to intelligence officials.

Though hauntingly prescient, the CIA's 1995 National Intelligence Estimate did not yet name Osama bin Laden as a terrorist threat.

But within months the intelligence agency developed enough concern about the wealthy, Saudi-born militant to create a specific unit to track him and his followers, the officials told The Associated Press.

And in 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, cautioning that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil, the officials said, divulging new details about the CIA's 1990s response to the terrorist threat.

The officials took the rare step Thursday of disclosing information in the closely held National Intelligence Estimates and other secret briefings to counter criticisms in a staff report released this week by the independent commission examining pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures.


the article continue




posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
make sure you check out this link aswell, some useful info on it that covers much of the preperation of the attack. They knew they were coming, but just ignored it.. probably for own benefits.

www.wanttoknow.info...

[Edited on 16-4-2004 by puppetmaster]



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by puppetmaster
They knew they were coming, but just ignored it.. probably for own benefits.

Well, I don't think they "ignored" it, as such. Since it seems they at least knew enough to say there was a credible threat back in the 90s, we could say they chose to let the citizens remain in the dark.
9/11 was not a freak event, but a planned event. Who and why seem the most elusive questions to be answered.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
"Own benefits?" Please elaborate on that.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
"Own benefits?" Please elaborate on that.

Everyone knows that war is big business. It gave them the perfect reason (well not really) to attack Iraq. One only needs to take a look at the corporations who are getting the contracts to see how it's beneficial to certain individuals. Also, this attack apparently enabled huge leaps in compromising our Constitutional rights. Our gov't is now more powerful than ever. They can do practically anything they want, using fear as justification. It's downright scary.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Yes they knew of Al-quada and the credible threat, thats a no brainer. But did they know when, where and exactly how? The answer is no they didn't. Let me ask you, put yourself in their position what would you have done with this credible threat?

How many alerts have gone out to the public since 911, to many to count. One of the first things I hear when the threat level goes up is ya right I'll believe it when I see it. I also hear that there has got to be some ulterior motive for the gov to push up the threat level?

What makes you think had the public been made aware (and to a certain extent we were made aware) that al-queda posed a threat we would have listened?



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiousone
The answer is no they didn't.

I'm glad you can be so confident in answering this question for everyone. Now I feel much better.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Knew about them?!?!...heck, they founded "Al Q'aeda." They bankrolled Osama right along. It's even readily public information that the head of the Pakastani I.S.I. (which was always the C.I.A.-controlled intelligence unit for that part of the world) wired $100K to "Atta" a few days before the attacks.

...and why would you need to be "warned" about something that you helped to carry out???



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Here is what Id do if i were in charge if airline safety. Get a bunch of good americans who travel frequently, teach them how to stop hijackers, i.e. the techniques used in previous hijackings, arm them with stun guns and other weapons that will not jeopardie the planes safety, and let these select few travel travel frequently for low fares and/or have them employed as under cover agents on all "risky" plane rides. 2 trained and armed people out of 100+ on a flight is enough. Flight attendents in a perfect world could do this, but unfortunatly it takes a strong minded/spirited/physically person for this and most flight attendents are .........



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Here is what Id do if i were in charge if airline safety. Get a bunch of good americans who travel frequently, teach them how to stop hijackers, i.e. the techniques used in previous hijackings, arm them with stun guns and other weapons that will not jeopardie the planes safety, and let these select few travel travel frequently for low fares and/or have them employed as under cover agents on all "risky" plane rides. 2 trained and armed people out of 100+ on a flight is enough. Flight attendents in a perfect world could do this, but unfortunatly it takes a strong minded/spirited/physically person for this and most flight attendents are .........

I doubt they'll ever try to hijack a plane again. That's probably the very least of our worries now.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I think they would like to hijack another plane. I hope they dont have the resources to pull off something bigger.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I tend to agree with mepatriot here. I think the CIA did know more than theor memos say.
We also don't know how much of what the CIA told Clinton went right in the trash. From where I sit, he seemed to have littlle respect for established methods of anything government. Little regard for anyone older than he. Little respect for the military.
He fit right in with THEIR plans.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
Knew about them?!?!...heck, they founded "Al Q'aeda." They bankrolled Osama right along. It's even readily public information that the head of the Pakastani I.S.I. (which was always the C.I.A.-controlled intelligence unit for that part of the world) wired $100K to "Atta" a few days before the attacks.

...and why would you need to be "warned" about something that you helped to carry out???



As such mepatriot, US foreign policy changes with the times. The US supported Bin Laden and a company of hosts during what time period? Cold War sound familiar? The US backed and supported Saddam when and why? US foreign policy and attitude to Iran during that war was what and again, why?

A few decades later, US foreign policy again goes through some changes. What and who or whom we once supported, changed, for whatever the reasons. Those we once worked with, we now considered or deemed hostile or unfriendly or against our current policy decisions and influences. I love the way people use historical data out of historical context(s) and then use that very information to build a 'connection' or 'conspiracy' case. Makes no sense.

As to the topic, reports were given in the testimonial admissions of the "Blind Shiek" in the 1993 WTC incident, followed by a highly detailed report in 1995, then again followed with another detailed report in 1997-98, along with Bin Laden's declaration of war or Fatwah, also in 1998, and then followed by another detailed report in 1999, which was probably the same report that made up the 2001 PDB.



seekerof



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I love the way people use historical data out of historical context(s) and then use that very information to build a 'connection' or 'conspiracy' case. Makes no sense.
seekerof


Agreed.

Twisting the facts to fit your conclusions makes no sense.


..



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Seekerof, stop making excuses for the #ed up foreign policy of this fraudulent govornment of ours.
I dont care if it was the cold war or not. Our leaders have been terribly shortsighted. There is the fault. Thier shortsightedness in backing one of two evils is the reason this country is in danger. If they had thought longterm about the kind of man Bin Laden and his merry band of hopped up religious fools was, and really cared, they would have told him to take his twisted wahabi perversions and shove them where the sun dont shine, and instead, worked with another group. But no..................once again, the cant think beyond the next moment. Afganistan would have mired the Russians in other ways, and we could have found other insurgants to suppo. We knew even then what kind of loons and freaks roamed the middle east with thier quasi Islam, and what kind of danger they could become. WE KNEW. We simply didnt care.

Just like, back in 1995, when the feds arrested that punk in the Philippines. On his hyarddrivbe, were found, plans to hijack and fly planes into american landmarks. A couple years later, thugs got caught attempting a dry run out of Tokyo. So dont give me this bull# they had underestimated the threat.

When i was in Saudi, even low level grunts like me were brifed on the threat of Al Qaeda. We were told to watch for such things, if we heard or saw anything when we were out amongst civilians. And sure as #, one year later, Khobar Towers was bombed. The the Embassy. Then the Cole. They damn well knew these fools meant business. If they were brave enough to set off a bomb on our own soil in 1993 to try and destroy the wtc, you think they ignored that? Bull#.

Theyu knew the nature of the threat. Because they do more than listen to "chatter". They had spooks and moles, as did the Mossad, buried within the ranks of said religious nutcases, they knew damn well what was up.

They knew, and they elt it happen, ebcause, for the first time, they thought long term: a terrorist attack in the long term might make americans, traditionally isolationist and adverse to fighting wars in countrys they cant spell, more willing to attack people they thought were out to get them.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

as quoted by Skadi
Seekerof, stop making excuses for the #ed up foreign policy of this fraudulent govornment of ours.


Excuses or stating simple historical fact Skadi?
"Short-sightedness" is/are for us novices that have no real clue as to the inner workings of the higher government.
And Skadi, we BOTH have served (yep, thats right, I just don't go around throwing this knowledge around) in the military, as such...does that entitle us, you or me, to take out of historical context what is currently being done? No Skadi....why? Because that amounts to what you say is bull#.

Again, what you may chose to call "bull#" is fairly straight forward historical fact, simply and easily found within a number of well established sources, books, articles, analysis, etc., not restricted to the internet.

IMHO.....you sound as if your an apologist for the previous administration? Are you saying that the warning signs and indications were NOT self-evident in 1993, 1995, 1997-98, 1999?

Just who is "they" Skadi....you talk alot of "they"....clarify, eh?

IMHO, your right, "they" knew...."they" being the previous administration, etc. long and far before this current administration came into being. And yes, "they" "understimated", screwed up, continued the complacency, etc.
Historical context, not bull#, but then again, its all relative, right?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Someone needs to snatch that reporter badge from the propagandist.


I guess thats right tho, foreign policy does change day to day, and there were no warning signs, and its all a matter of simple oversight, and so on and so forth.
What about this guy though?
If the CIA had no idea, HE surely did.
And what about the planes sent up to intercept ?
These are just a FEW of the unanswered questions reguarding the events of sept 11.
If PEOPLE would spend HALF as much time actually investigating 911(like a reporter) as THEY spend trying to protect and justify king george, then THEY would be an asset rather than a tool.
Well pass this on to your supervisors there at neo-con headquarters....the charade is falling apart. No amount of denial, spin, or propoganda is gonna keep this lie concealed.

[Edited on 18-4-2004 by aware]



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Seekerof
I love the way people use historical data out of historical context(s) and then use that very information to build a 'connection' or 'conspiracy' case. Makes no sense.
seekerof


Agreed.

Twisting the facts to fit your conclusions makes no sense.


..


That's pretty ironic, since that's exactly what the Bush junta have done in building their case for war on Iraq.



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
How so Satyr, care to specify how and with what?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
Twisting the facts to fit your conclusions makes no sense.
..


That's pretty ironic, since that's exactly what the Bush junta have done in building their case for war on Iraq.


I was just pointing out the hipocracy that goes on when anyone uses that approach to make a case about anything. No political slants on my part.

..






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join