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.

 

Airlines can't interview FBI about 9/11: U.S. judge

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Airlines can't interview FBI about 9/11: U.S. judge


www.reuters.com

"Permitting an inquiry into what fragments of information various government agents knew, or should have known, and at what time, but did not tell the defendants, threatens thoroughly to confuse and prejudice the jury, distract from the major issues of the case, and add to the trial substantial expense and delay," the judge wrote.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
WHAT?? It will distract from the major issues of the case? Those are the major issues. What the FBI knew about this is surely much more than what the aviation companies knew. How can this be the airline's fault? I have a feeling this judge has something other than the rule of law influencing his decision.


Aviation companies may not interview six current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who worked on government probes into the September 11, 2001 hijacked plane attacks, a judge ruled on Thursday.


www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by shockme
 


Yeah. If it defies common sense, that must be the way to go. Listen up and forget what you think you know makes sense. Its an upside-down, backward, insane asylum where right is wrong. George Orwell is creepy for telling us what would happen just so when it did we wouldn't believe it.

Brilliant!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shockme...I have a feeling this judge has something other than the rule of law influencing his decision.


It's either one of two things, a promise of promotion, or they got something hanging over the judge's head. I guess it could be both.

Unfortunately, the cream sinks to the bottom nowadays.

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


George Orwell was a wise man. He understood a lot way before any of us did. It kills me to watch our country being destroyed right before my eyes.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by shockme
 




A motion to admit the 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004 and ordered by Congress, was denied except for a chronology of the report.


Maybe the judge thinks the 9/11 Commission Report is irrelevant? I don't know what to make of this other than a blatant, in your face, pre-determined outcome. Disallowing the airlines and Port Authority to use the 9/11 Commission Report boggles my mind.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut

Maybe the judge thinks the 9/11 Commission Report is irrelevant?


It is irrelevant when it come to finding out what really happened that day as we all know how truthful these government sponsored (independent) reviews are


[edit on 17-7-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by Hazelnut

Maybe the judge thinks the 9/11 Commission Report is irrelevant?


It is irrelevant when it come to finding out what really happened that day as we all know how truthful these government sponsored (independent) reviews are


[edit on 17-7-2009 by franspeakfree]



I agree with you this is moot. When these guys go down, which eventually they will, it will be by their own sword. In the meantime, we'll all just have to continue with the dog and pony show.





posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I see you folks commenting on the relevance of the Judge's decision in this case, but I haven't read the court papers on the case, have you? If not, then I'm not sure if we can comment intelligently on it.

If anyone has a link to the court papers please post it so I can read up on what the specific allegations are in this case, before I comment on this decision. Thanks!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm not sure what you mean by this. We know what the case is about, wrongful death and property damage suits against the aviation companies, which you would have known if you read the actual article. So the judge's ruling doesn't really make a lot of sense since the charges have to do with what the airlines could/should have known about the "hijackings" on that day, this information would prove that the aviation companies are not the ones at fault for the events of that day. I don't know why you would need the court papers to come to the conclusion that the judge's decision was baseless.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by shockme
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm not sure what you mean by this. We know what the case is about, wrongful death and property damage suits against the aviation companies, which you would have known if you read the actual article. So the judge's ruling doesn't really make a lot of sense since the charges have to do with what the airlines could/should have known about the "hijackings" on that day, this information would prove that the aviation companies are not the ones at fault for the events of that day. I don't know why you would need the court papers to come to the conclusion that the judge's decision was baseless.

Ah, thanks, from your response I'm delighted to see we can have intelligent discussion on this issue.

OK based on what you said, there are some specific allegations against the airlines, for some kind of negligence or other, right? (Though we don't know what those specific allegations are).

So what the judge seems to be saying to me, is that he wants to focus on those allegations. Were the airlines negligent, or weren't they?

I haven't been able to make a connection on how the facts the judge excluded will affect that decision.

It seems to me like the airlines argument that something would have happened no matter what they did, while it may even be true, does not really focus on what actions they (the airlines) did or did not take that were or were not negligent.

Now if the argument is that the airline received a specific warning from the FBI and the airline failed to properly react to that specific warning, that information would be relevant to the case and shouldn't be excluded, but that's not what the judge said, what the article in the OP link says is:

"Permitting an inquiry into what fragments of information various government agents knew, or should have known, and at what time, but did not tell the defendants, threatens thoroughly to confuse and prejudice the jury, distract from the major issues of the case, and add to the trial substantial expense and delay," the judge wrote.


Note the key words, "but did not tell the defendants". Therefore the implication is that anything the FBI did tell the defendants would be admissible, which seems to me to be exactly as it should be.

I'm not trying to take a position yet, without all the facts, I'm saying I don't know, but those are just my thoughts with the incomplete information we have.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
There are many of the 'skeptics' on this site that always come out with the argument of "Well, why hasn't there been a lawsuit then?"

Well 'skeptics', this is WHY! Because the system won't allow it. This is similar to the MANY suits that are out there. They get delayed or the judge comes up with a BS excuse of why certain people or evidence can not be brought in. It's a joke and it's OBVIOUS who is running the show.

Yup, true democracy in action yet again. Whoever has the money and the power can do whatever the *bleep* they want to do!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shockme
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


George Orwell was a wise man. He understood a lot way before any of us did. It kills me to watch our country being destroyed right before my eyes.


There are those that say Orwell WAS part of the group that was making the plans my friend. He was tasked with putting it out there for a few reasons as follows but not limited to:

a) to test the public response
b) to create a reason for the PTB to say "are you kidding me? You must have read Orwell, that is just a nutty conspiracy theory!"



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[So what the judge seems to be saying to me, is that he wants to focus on those allegations. Were the airlines negligent, or weren't they?

I haven't been able to make a connection on how the facts the judge excluded will affect that decision.

It seems to me like the airlines argument that something would have happened no matter what they did, while it may even be true, does not really focus on what actions they (the airlines) did or did not take that were or were not negligent.



Can't make the connection? I think you are overthinking this situation then. The airlines are trying to defend themselves from the people. In order for them to prove that THEY weren't negligent and that it was a particular office of government then they need to have access to the very information and people that are being denied to them.

If the government KNEW about the events and allowed them to happen then the airlines are NOT negligent. See how the dots connect?

Not trying to be rude here. Just trying to understand why you are making such an argument against what is taking place when it really is quite obvious why the information is very pertinent to the case.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ahh, I see what you're getting at now. I still think that if the airlines were able to use the information they requested, but were not able to receive it would have made their case.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I haven't been able to make a connection on how the facts the judge excluded will affect that decision.


Can't make the connection? I think you are overthinking this situation then. The airlines are trying to defend themselves from the people. In order for them to prove that THEY weren't negligent and that it was a particular office of government then they need to have access to the very information and people that are being denied to them.

If the government KNEW about the events and allowed them to happen then the airlines are NOT negligent. See how the dots connect?

Not trying to be rude here. Just trying to understand why you are making such an argument against what is taking place when it really is quite obvious why the information is very pertinent to the case.

No I don't think you're being rude at all, I wish everyone could be as polite and civil in their posts.
Well my response to your post is, I do see a connection, but it's not relevant to the case before the judge.
Based on your comment, I could presume that since you think the real guilty party may be the FBI, that the FBI knew something and didn't pass that information along to the airlines, or something along those lines, am I understanding you right? And that's probably true, however in order for that information to be relevant, then the FBI should be the defendants, not the airlines. Right?
So if your point is maybe they should be suing both the airlines, and the FBI, then I'm buying what you're selling. But if they are only suing the airlines, then I have to say no I still don't see how information the FBI withheld from the airlines is relevant, the only way I can connect it to this defendant in this case is to come up with a bizarre theory like the airlines should have had a psychic in their employment, and that psychic should have been able to read the minds of the FBI agents who had information they didn't release to the airlines, but that seems pretty far-fetched.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by shockme
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


George Orwell was a wise man. He understood a lot way before any of us did. It kills me to watch our country being destroyed right before my eyes.


There are those that say Orwell WAS part of the group that was making the plans my friend. He was tasked with putting it out there for a few reasons as follows but not limited to:

a) to test the public response
b) to create a reason for the PTB to say "are you kidding me? You must have read Orwell, that is just a nutty conspiracy theory!"


I was six years old when my maternal grandfather and his politically minded elderly friends started talking to me about 1984.

That was 1970 and they were all terrified for my and America's future.

I was glad none of them were still alive in 1984 to see that year fall.

If there is a heaven where people can look down from to see what is happening on this earth, I am sure he and all his friends are rolling in their graves.

I was taught to think out of the box from an early age, raised out of the box from an early age, lived my entire life out of the box from an early age all thanks to the book 1984 and the alarm it did cause in a few people.

My siblings weren't so inclined or paranoid and fell right into the system.

My whole life people thought I was crazy for thinking and living outside of the box, right up until the time I first met some of the Powers that Be, their reply to my thinking and attitude...welcome aboard, always nice to know a thinking man!

The reality is it's not just the folks on ATS trying to wake people up, the Powers that Be have long been trying to wake people up too.

Who ever invented Nytoll sure did one heck of a job!

Man is man's most dangerous enemy. The Powers that Be know this and we all make a choice all on our own to live our lives wisely or foolishly, to go through it with eyes and minds wide open or with blinders on and minds shut.

It's called freewill and while many governments won't allow or tolerate personal liberty and freedom including ours here in America no government or institution can prevent the exercise of freewill only the individual can.

In the old days knights of the realm lived to slay dragons, and men lived to fight sabre tooth tigers.

Today they live to watch TV and say 'Well that's just the way it is'.

These trials are just another form of phony wealth redistribution designed to perpetuate a lie for people who would much rather live with a 'comforting' lie, than act wisely, exercise freewill and fight the dragons and sabre tooth tigers of the world.

After all that's what Big Brother is for!

Nap time!



[edit on 17/7/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Apparently, justice is blind. Remember a month or 2 ago, when obama said we shuold leave 9/11 alone??? Thier DEF is connection here, along witht he judge. I wonder what strings Bush pulled with obama to try and seal a 9/11 investigation up. I cant help but wonder, when obama won the election, bush and obama sat down and talked. Thier was a pic of it all over the news, back in january. What did they talk about....the public MUST not kow about 9/11, for interests of himself and natioanl and global security???



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Things the airlines cannot say.
Who says they were our planes. Before the video was changed the hole in one of the towers was to small to be our plane.
You can't prove they were our planes.
The Gov't kept the wreackage, you can't prove they were our planes.
We don't know where ours went but those wern't ours.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

No I don't think you're being rude at all, I wish everyone could be as polite and civil in their posts.
Well my response to your post is, I do see a connection, but it's not relevant to the case before the judge.
Based on your comment, I could presume that since you think the real guilty party may be the FBI, that the FBI knew something and didn't pass that information along to the airlines, or something along those lines, am I understanding you right? And that's probably true, however in order for that information to be relevant, then the FBI should be the defendants, not the airlines. Right?
So if your point is maybe they should be suing both the airlines, and the FBI, then I'm buying what you're selling. But if they are only suing the airlines, then I have to say no I still don't see how information the FBI withheld from the airlines is relevant, the only way I can connect it to this defendant in this case is to come up with a bizarre theory like the airlines should have had a psychic in their employment, and that psychic should have been able to read the minds of the FBI agents who had information they didn't release to the airlines, but that seems pretty far-fetched.



That is a very nice use of misinformation tactic in action here.

If the FBI has information that the FBI is guilty and clears the Airlines up , of course it is relevant period. In my country the police and agencies WILL warn other entities if they do have information on a known criminal or if there is a higher risk of a incident. If the police fails to do that EVEN though they know it , they are being negligent and contributing to the events ahead
of them.

A judge coming out to withold information , especially relating to 9/11 is very fishy.

It would have no sort of bizarreness in that.They could have a psychic , but a telephone or an e-mail will also work to do the job.




top topics



 
8

log in

join