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.

 

MI5 warned that bin Laden was planning attacks on morning of 9/11

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Telegrap h




MI5 warned the government that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack in the weeks leading up to September 11, including the morning itself, a new history of the Security Service discloses.






In a memo from July 6 2001, MI5 said the increase in the number of reports were “sufficient to conclude that UBL [Osama bin Laden] and those that share his agenda are currently well advanced in operational planning for a number of major attacks on western interests.”


Okay, so who was fired for all of this? How come the 9/11 commision was never told this? The morning of 9/11 was a marked day now, this is a revelation and a half!

Goodness, how can there not be a call for a new and thorough investigation?


[edit on 5-10-2009 by talisman]




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Let it happen.
Then made it happen.
Then lied lied lied



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I'm honestly not that surprised by this. They were told and thought "no one would dare to attack us" and brushed it off, then WHAM!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Killah29
I'm honestly not that surprised by this. They were told and thought "no one would dare to attack us" and brushed it off, then WHAM!



I tend to believe more along the lines of a Pearl Harbor scenario. They knew it was coming, they let it happen, but they didn’t expect it to be this bad.

Also I believe that Osama is dead or in a black Prison somewhere in the world. Yes the government could just jail him for what he did, but then the war would end.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Reply to post by ghostryder21
 


Given his past I'm of the opinion they never really tried to catch him. Besides he did them a favor. What with the patriot act and the wars. Then there is the fact that it gave the US a new great enemy to replace Communist Russia. Then there is the excuse provided for increased "defensive" measures *increased control/more power in the guise of national security* because it's now been shown that it can be done, so others will feel more inclined to try. Nice thread but prepare for flamage.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I wonder if Israel has filed a protest over this. They sent the five "dancing Israelis" to record the event and all the while MI5 is sending warnings that could have prevented the event from happening! That means that five return fares to New York could have been wasted! What's with those British anyway?

I used to wonder why the five "dancing Israelis" didn't flood the Twin Towers with bomb threats that morning to force the evacuation of the building prior to the event, but my problem is that I am an old fuddy duddy. In today's era of specialization videographers don't save lives. They record people dying. I admit it. I'm a dummy. I would have tried to save lives, but here's why I'm not a professional, I would not have gotten the footage.

That kind of thing doesn't fly in Mossad.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
The thread title is misleading. The article doesn't say that MI5 warned that it was going to happen on an exact date - the article says that they had been warning the US in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and also reminded the US it could happen that morning. In addition, the article says that MI5 didn't really think that any such attack would be successful.

I always wonder what people think should have been done - shut down air travel for a couple of months? Even the morning of 9/11 there were probably thousands of flights scheduled around the country. How do you start to pick out 18 terrorists in thousands of travelers without infringing on freedoms/rights?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bagari
How do you start to pick out 18 terrorists in thousands of travelers without infringing on freedoms/rights?


I've got a better question. Why do you pick them out if your intention is to stage a false flag terror attack on your own people to initiate a radical change in foreign policy?

America's best friend, Israel, knew that the attack was going to take place that morning and sent a film crew to record it.

If the Israelis really thought that the American government didn't want the attack to happen, they would have done something to stop it, or at least to reduce the loss of life.

They didn't do that. They knew it was going to happen. They had the film crew on hand to record it. They did nothing to reduce the loss of life.

Why? Because 9/11 was an inside job. They were among the parties with an interest in making sure this attack happened and wouldn't want to interfere with their best friend's plans.

Surprisingly, a lot of people don't really see it that way. What other explanation could there be?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Surprisingly, a lot of people don't really see it that way. What other explanation could there be?


I would have thought it'd be obvious- people with anti-establishment mentalities are naturally going to insist it's a secret conspiracy FIRST, and then try to force the facts to conform with their agenda to get others to believe it's a secret conspiracy, regardless of what the facts actually are. Case in point- the very Telegraph article that this thread is referring to says...

"In a memo from July 6 2001, MI5 said the increase in the number of reports were “sufficient to conclude that UBL [Osama bin Laden] and those that share his agenda are currently well advanced in operational planning for a number of major attacks on western interests.”

Professor Christopher Andrew, the Cambridge University historian who wrote the book, added: “Similar Security Service warnings to Whitehall of imminent attack continued at intervals over the next two months, up to and including the morning of 11 September. The intelligence received during the simmer of 2001, however, did not point either to a major attack in the United States or to an operation based on hijacked aircraft.”


Thus, mentioning a report that give a vague wanning of "planning major attacks on western interests (but not necessarily in the US) within the span of two months" and mislead people into thinking it says, "hijacking aircraft and flying them into the WTC on the morning of 9/11" is a deliberate manipulation of the truther movement, not the Telegraph, not the CIA, and certainly not Col. Sanders. If the truther movement is incapable of presenting the facts objectively then I necessarily have to be concerned over what the true motives of the truther movement really are.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bagari
The thread title is misleading. The article doesn't say that MI5 warned that it was going to happen on an exact date - the article says that they had been warning the US in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and also reminded the US it could happen that morning. In addition, the article says that MI5 didn't really think that any such attack would be successful.

I always wonder what people think should have been done - shut down air travel for a couple of months? Even the morning of 9/11 there were probably thousands of flights scheduled around the country. How do you start to pick out 18 terrorists in thousands of travelers without infringing on freedoms/rights?


that is incorrect.

The article states:



MI5 warned the government that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack in the weeks leading up to September 11, including the morning itself, a new history of the Security Service discloses.


"including the morning itself."

Not only was the warning "up and until the morning" but it included the morning itself.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by talisman]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by trueforger
Let it happen.
Then made it happen.
Then lied lied lied


Yeap they sure did!...........The World has certainly changed, so has the concept of the way we believe the TRUTH!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I am not surprised, given that MI6, MOSSAD and CIA are the perpetrators...



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
There has been a lot of controversy over warnings received by the American government prior to 9/11. Paul Thompson referred to dozens of warnings, even a warning from the Taliban, referring to a serious attack in development. The security services were probably awash in warnings. Without concrete information any warning diminishes in importance.

I think the Israeli government was the only government to issue warnings and a film crew to document the event. Their warnings were vague but their film crew was right on the spot.

Maybe some of the legal experts in the forum could tell us if Israel should be charged as an accessory before the fact. It's a fine legal point. If you know a mass murder is about to be committed but do nothing to prevent it, except to issue a vague warning, devoid of detail, and then depatch a film crew to the scene of the crime so that you can document the incident, are you an accessory or simply morally bankrupt?

Maybe Andy Rooney will address that issue in one of his homilies. I can just hear him begin, "I've never like a fair weather friend."

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Maybe some of the legal experts in the forum could tell us if Israel should be charged as an accessory before the fact. It's a fine legal point. If you know a mass murder is about to be committed but do nothing to prevent it, except to issue a vague warning, devoid of detail, and then depatch a film crew to the scene of the crime so that you can document the incident, are you an accessory or simply morally bankrupt?

[edit on 6-10-2009 by ipsedixit]


Perhaps the warnings were vague because the US Gov't showed little interest in following up on the data they were receiving with increasing frequency according to reports.

I don't know if I believe that the Bush Administration was so blindly focused on their Iraq Agenda that they saw no reason to take action on the intel or if they decided that an attack was in their best interests after all.

Either way, the reality of this is beyond sobering.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
All I know is that if K-Fed had dispatched a film crew to shoot Britney as she slipped on a banana peel going ass over teakettle, giving the world stunning shots of her palace of pleasure, the tabloid press would be all over the story accusing K-Fed of planting the banana peel in a diabolical plot to gain advantage in their custody battle. A tabloid typhoon would follow.

Israel does the same at the scene of a mass murder and, ho hum, no story here, no further questions need be asked.

Something's wrong folks.

Incidentally, for fans of Israel. This is not MOSSAD as you know it in operation, the old MOSSAD, the tough, intelligent, shrewd MOSSAD, the MOSSAD that was maybe only second to the KGB in excellence as an intelligence agency.

This is klezmer MOSSAD, with a bit of Matisyahu's reggae thrown in for the sake of hubris running around in trucks full of explosives dressed up like arabs creating even more chaos and making movies(!!!!) on 9/11.

I can't remember who said it first, but listen up Israel, "whom the gods want to destroy, they first make crazy."

Sober up.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join