Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH: Part 1; The Build up to September 11th 2001

page: 1
80
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+50 more 
posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
G'Day ATS, a while ago now I made a thread called:

40 Questions which make believing the OS Grotesque

While I took pride in writing it, since I was relatively new to ATS and conspiracy in general it always felt like a job half finished. As the ninth anniversary of 9/11 came and went, I thought that a great name for a thread would be: "9/11 the case for TRUTH" (NOT the best way to work, I usually write the thread before the title!!), realising what a huge undertaking this was going to be I procrastinated for a while, before finally deciding that it was indeed both necessary and desirable to compile all the evidence, reports and sources I could find in order to post the best case possible arguing against the OS.

This is a continuing quest for truth, a fight for freedom and desire to answer my own questions. I have no political, ulterior or personal motives. I will endeavour to provide only well sourced (from the MSM or other reputable publications) information, there will be no holographic planes, nuclear bombs or outrageous claims. Just sense. Disinfo will not be provided nor tolerated. I hope to create a bench mark thread that will be starting point for anyone coming to 9/11 Truth with an open mind. To that end I'll also be open to the Truth, no matter which side it argues for. I care not about being right or wrong, I simply want the Truth to be told. If I come across any evidence that disproves Truther theory, I will post it as well, the TRUTH is paramount. I doubt there will be anything 'ground breakingly' new here, but I intend to bring all the theories and doubts into one place so that 9/11 can be judged in it's entirety, not one argument at a time.



I ought to say here that this thread will come in three parts, 9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH:

Part 1; The Build up to September 11th 2001.
Part 2; September the 11th 2001 and Aftermath.
Part 3; Of Wars and Investigations.

The reason behind this is that sometimes when a massive thread is written debating the content is difficult as there is so much information. I thought that by dividing it up, we can discuss the issues separately with more clearly defined topics. I just hope it works my friends!


Well that was the easy part, now the hard work begins!! I hope you stay around for all three instalments.


FALSE FLAG LESSONS FROM THE PAST


I understand the tendency of those who believe in the Original Story (OS from henceforth) to brush off these examples, however establishing the low depths that those in power are willing to stoop to is essential when understanding 9/11.

I want to stress at this point, just because something appears on Loose Change, or on You Tube, it doesn't mean it isn't valid. These following examples prove that in the past, false flag operations have been planned and undertaken to push through agendas that otherwise would be difficult if not impossible to accomplish due to public opinion.

ABCnews.com: U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba


In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."


It has to be said that if you view 9/11 and the War on Terror with this knowledge in mind, it is ridiculous to argue that "Our Government would never murder three thousand innocent people"; a claim often levelled by those who choose not to doubt the OS.

Another well documented example of the use of False Flag tactics is the The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. This was an integral reason for the escalation of US involvement in Vietnam leading to full blown war. On August 2nd 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox engaged North Vietnamese forces in the Gulf, however there were no US casualties. The NSA, later MADE UP a second incident on August 4th, allowing President Johnson to bring in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
This gave the U.S. authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, to use conventional military force in Southeast Asia. The rest is as they say, history. Declassified documents later released went on to prove the willingness of the intelligence community to manipulate data and capitalise on the ensuing public outrage.

Excerpt from G. Bush's Speech to Congress, Sep. 20th 2001

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.

Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"

The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.


This speech, and the events of 9/11 allowed the Patriot act to be voted in, and lucrative (for the elite) and prolonged military engagements in the Middle East to go ahead.

One has to wonder if decades from now, documents will come to light as in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident:

The National Security Archive: Tonkin Gulf Intelligence "Skewed"
According to Official History and Intercepts



Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 - The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents -- histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews -- on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, "the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.


In the build up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat posed to the West was overstated in a way which resonates with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident:

FROM THE BBC


Tony Blair also made a claim that Iraq possesed weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within "45 minutes".

BBC NEWS, "The 45 minute claim"

The Prime Minister sent the UK into war, based on scaremongering and fear generated by this claim. It later came to light that the "45 minutes" referred to conventional munitions only! Geoff Hoon (Minster of Defence) later stated that the Prime Minister "probably knew" that this intelligence was flawed at the time of his announcement in parliament.

OSers can brush these examples aside, but establishing precedence is important. It crucial to show that through history, those that are in power are willing to commit heinous acts of criminality to push through their agenda.



CONTEXT


I believe it's crucial that 9/11 isn't viewed as an isolated act of terrorism, but in the context of late twentieth century world politics and especially the foreign policy of the Bush era. In my opinion, one of the key differences between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and believers in the OS, is the ability to analyse the big picture. Whether it's being unable to see all of the various anomalies and coincidences as a whole, or failing to acknowledge 9/11 as simply one crucial day that was the catalyst in a much larger plan (that was years in the making), this is the distinction which truly separates OSers from Truthers. (I'm not a fan of labels, however using them in this thread will save around 1,000 words and a lot of time, so I'll continue to use them)

Can the fact that the tragedy of 9/11 kick started a chain of events which opened up the doors to one of the largest oil reserves in the world be ignored?

timesonline: Davos: BP claims Iraq oil could rival Saudi Arabia

Can the fact that the Bush Family's connection to Big Oil, and the ties of high ranking neo-cons to companies that have profited from 9/11 not be considered when contemplating 9/11?

THIS BBC article is from January 2001, crucially.


What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.


Haliburton and KBR (a subsidiary of Haliburton), lead the list of companies that have made the most money from the War on Terror. LIST

This is nothing new for ATS, but it's all about context.

I'm not a huge proponent of the "Peak Oil" theory, however the validity of this concept is immaterial; since it is widely believed by the masses. In my opinion, the fact that two wars were commenced in geographical areas of high oil reserves, soon after an administration hailing from (and financed by) Big Oil came to power cannot be overlooked as mere coincidence.

When discussing the context of 9/11 and world politics of the period, we wouldn't be doing a thorough job without mentioning neo-conservatism. 9/11 was a dream come true for George Bush's administration (self realised in my opinion). Major players in Bush's government such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others were all neo-conservatives. The goal of neo-conservatism is to promote their ideas for governance through crisis and military dominance. An ideal situation is one of good versus evil, right versus wrong, us versus them.



Is it sheer coincidence that a short time after these men come to power, a situation presents itself that is exactly what their doctrine calls for? I'm just beginning this thread but there is a distinct pattern emerging. One where Bush and his Government were "lucky". Another common theme will be the apparent "good fortune" of the actual attackers. I say that not to be insensitive or disrespectful, but as you will see, the "hijackers" had a lot of things go right for them in order for their attacks to succeed.

When I say "exactly what their doctrine called for", I mean it quite literally. The Project for a New American Century (a neo-con think tank) called for massive Global US military build-up and rearmament.



Feel free to explore the site and document for yourselves, and then decide if you agree that 9/11 was a neo-con dream come true or not.

Project For a New American Century

Rebuilding America's Defences



THE GREY LINE BETWEEN FRIEND AND FOE


It is well documented that the CIA and US intelligence community has had a more than familiar relationship with Muslim Fanatics and Terrorists in the past. In this section I'd like to bring you a few examples that illustrate this. Are we supposed to believe that the CIA were allied to, used and supported Islamic extremist but somehow all ties were cut prior to the rise of "Al Qaeda"? Is it really so outrageous to suggest that not only were these organisations initially set up by the US intelligence community, but continue to cooperate with and be manipulated by them today?

One only has to look at the dealings and collapse of the Pakistani bank BCCI to see the spider's web of complicity that the CIA has had in the region.



Investigative journalist Joseph Trento will later report that in 1976, the Safari Club, a newly formed secret cabal of intelligence agencies (see September 1, 1976-Early 1980s), decides it needs a network of banks to help finance its intelligence operations. Saudi Intelligence Minister Kamal Adham is given the task.


The connection with Pakistan, ISI (Pakistani intelligence) CIA and the Criminal/Terrorist world is obviously of interest to anyone doubting the events of 9/11. Proving a connection in the 1980's and 1990's must surely raise the possibility that there were continued ties up to and after 9/11.


“With the official blessing of George H. W. Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.” BCCI was founded in 1972 by a Pakistani named Agha Hasan Abedi, who was an associate of Adham’s. Bush himself has an account at BCCI established while still director of the CIA. French customs will later raid the Paris BCCI branch and discover the account in Bush’s name.
[Trento, Prelude to Terror, 2005, pp. 104]

While it is thought that initially the plan was to have a massive global intelligence gathering asset, the bank evolved into:


“a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. Operating primarily out of the bank’s offices in Karachi, Pakistan, the 1,500-employee black network has used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping and even, by some accounts, murder. The black network—so named by its own members—stops at almost nothing to further the bank’s aims the world over.”
[Time Magazine, 7/22/1991]
LINK: History Commons Complete Timeline of 9/11

The complex relationship between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden is extremely convoluted. In the world of conspiracy, it is sometimes taken as a given that Bin Laden was CIA, worked for the CIA and continues (despite probably being dead, BBC NEWS: Dale Watson FBI Head of Counter Terrorism July 2002) to do so. However this relationship is denied by TPTB. The key to the US denial of ties to Osama rests on the distinction between Arab fighters and local Afghan mujahideen. One thing is for certain, Bin Laden and the US were on the same side during the Soviet Afghan War. Twenty years before 9/11, the "perpetrator" of this disgusting crime was working for the United States. TPTB say otherwise, however it's far from black and white.

Let first look at how the MSM and history books want you to believe events unfolded in the late seventies and eighties in Afghanistan:

(BBC) Timeline: Soviet war in Afghanistan



1978

27 April: Afghanistan's communist People's Democratic Party seizes power in a coup but is split along ethnic lines and in-fighting begins.

5 December: A friendship treaty is signed with the USSR.

1979

March: The USSR begins massive military aid to the DRA.

12 December: The Politbureau's inner circle, fearing the spectre of an Iranian-style Islamist revolution decides to invade.

24 December: The Soviet defence ministry reveals orders to senior staff to send troops into Afghanistan. Commandos seize strategic installations in Kabul.

1980

Resistance intensifies with various mujahideen groups fighting Soviet forces and their allies. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supply money and arms to the mujahideen.

1985

More than five million Afghans are now estimated to be displaced by the war, with many fleeing to neighbouring Iran or Pakistan.

1986

The US begins supplying mujahideen with Stinger missiles, enabling them to shoot down Soviet helicopter gunships. Karmal is replaced by Mohammed Najibullah.

1988

The DRA, USSR, US and Pakistan sign peace accords and the Soviets begin pulling out troops.

1989

15 February: The USSR announces the departure of the last Soviet troops. More than one million Afghans and 13 thousand Soviet troops have been killed . Civil war continues as the mujahideen push to overthrow Najibullah, who is eventually toppled in 1992.



Okay, lets now see how events really happened, these two fleeting references to "money" and "stinger missiles" seem relatively minor. Before I give you a slightly different account lets just reiterate what the CIA has to say about their relationship (or lack thereof) with Bin Laden.

Taken from the CIA's own website:

Central Intelligence Agency




Q: Has the CIA ever provided funding, training, or other support to Usama Bin Laden?


A: No. Numerous comments in the media recently have reiterated a widely circulated but incorrect notion that the CIA once had a relationship with Usama Bin Laden. For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with Bin Laden.


Remember this is qualified by trying to differentiate between "Arab" fighters and "Afghan" fighters.

The truth is that while the US may have "only" funded the indigenous mujahideen, they also had an arrangement with their ally Saudi Arabia concerning funding. For every dollar the US gave to the Afghans, the Saudis would match it and give it to the foreign Arab fighters that had flocked from all over the Arab world to assist their Muslim brothers. (Sound familiar? MSNBC: Who are the foreign fighters in Iraq? 2006). Clearly Bin Laden, a member of a of a wealthy Saudi family training militia in Afghanistan was a beneficiary of these millions. Some $600 million dollars was said to have been funnelled through Bin Laden's charities to Arab fighters in the late eighties using BCCI. The source of this information? Michael Scheuer, a high ranking CIA chief who was the head of the CIA's first unit charged with hunting down Bin Laden, you'd think he'd know.

So even if it were true that the CIA had no contact with Bin Laden, he benefited indirectly from their funding of the Afghan insurgents fighting the Soviets anyway. It's ridiculous to suggest that the foreign nationals working against the Soviets would have no contact with the CIA, I mean seriously do you think the US would just leave them up to their own devices without some form of guidance, plan or support?

As promised, here is a slightly different take on the Soviet Afghan war, taken again from the History Commons Complete Timeline of 9/11:



1978

According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favoured a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]

1979

The CIA begins covert action against the Communist government in Afghanistan, which is closely tied to the Soviet Union. Some time this year, the CIA begins training militants in Pakistan and beaming radio propaganda into Afghanistan. [Blum, 1995, pp. 344]

March 30, 1979

Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wonders aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” [Gates, 1996, pp. 145 ]

May 1979

CIA Begins Working with Hekmatyar and Other Mujaheddin Leaders Chosen by ISI

As the US mobilizes for covert war in Afghanistan a CIA special envoy meets Afghan mujaheddin leaders at Peshawar, Pakistan, near the border to Afghanistan. [McCoy, 2003, pp. 475]

December 8, 1979

Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan

Later declassified high-level Russian documents will show that the Russian leadership believed that Amin, who took power in a violent coup from another pro-Soviet leader two months before, had secret contacts with the US embassy and was probably a US agent. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 8]

It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked, but the Russians will later be proven largely correct. In a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that earlier in the year Carter authorized the CIA to destabilize the government, provoking the Russians to invade. [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002]

Further, CIA covert action in the country actually began in 1978, if not earlier. The US and Saudi Arabia will give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians, and a decade-long war will ensue. [Nation, 2/15/1999]

1980

Afghan Fighters Begin Training in US

Some fighters opposing the Soviets in Afghanistan begin training in the US. According to journalist John Cooley, the training is done by Navy Seals and Green Beret officers who have taken draconian secrecy oaths. Key Pakistani officers are trained, as well as some senior Afghan mujaheddin. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 70-72]

.... in the late 1980s, US consular official Michael Springmann will notice fighters from many Middle Eastern nations are getting US visas, apparently to train in the US for the Afghan war.

1980-1989

CIA and British Train Mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Help Arm Bin Laden

Fearing a diplomatic incident, CIA and other US agents rarely venture into Afghanistan. .....mujaheddin are trained in secret camps in remote parts of Scotland. When the US decides to supply Stinger missiles to the mujaheddin in 1986, it is the SAS who provide the training in how to use them. But the SAS is taking orders from the CIA.

The CIA also indirectly gives weapons to Osama bin Laden and other mujaheddin leaders. One former US intelligence official will say in 1999, “[US agents] armed [bin Laden’s] men by letting him pay rock-bottom prices for basic weapons.” [Reeve, 1999, pp. 168]



A slightly different picture is painted now. One where the US is the antagonist, the CIA the combatant and Bin Laden a CIA asset and beneficiary of US funding and equipment.

And we are supposed to believe that there was never ANY contact between US officials and Bin Laden, AT ALL. I think my point has sufficiently been made and the notion that Bin Laden had ties to the CIA can remain as a valid point when debating 9/11.

Lets fast forward to November 2001 and this story from the UK's respected Guardian Newspaper:



Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.

The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.


Now was this possibly an attempt to discredit the CIA, halt the war that was about to
start and bring attention to the CIA's role in 9/11, or was it true? Although denied by Washington and the hospital in question, this is still an amazing story.

Now if only there were some way of tying in the "hijackers" to the US intelligence community, then it would be truly difficult for OSers to deny ignorance.

Some facts that suggest a possible connection do however exist. Firstly there is the fact that NONE of the hijackers should have been in the US to begin with, they shouldn't have passed the visa checks.



At the 4:00 minute mark he states that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers got their visas through the very same visa office that Michael Springman worked for and drew attention too.

Okay, so the CIA aided the hijackers to get their visas, is there any evidence pointing to contact between them while they were in the US?

CBS NEWS: Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant



Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI informant, highlighting the lack of cooperation by the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Newsweek magazine reports that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi lived with a "tested" undercover "asset" who had been working closely with the FBI office in San Diego.

A senior law-enforcement official told the magazine that the informant never provided the Bureau with the names of his two houseguests from Saudi Arabia — but his FBI contact never asked, either.

The CIA was keeping an eye on the men after the two had attended an al Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000.

Alhazmi and Almihdhar moved into the house in September of 2000. Almihdhar left six weeks later and Alhazmi left at the end of the year.

While there, the FBI informant prayed with them and even helped one open a bank account. Alhazmi and Almihdhar took lessons at a flight school while living in San Diego.

The two men were aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.


While this isn't exactly definitive proof of contact, it is still a remarkable coincidence (there's that theme again!).

Not only is there evidence of possible connection between US authorities and several of the hijackers, we see numerous examples of warnings from various other intelligence communities being either ignored or inaction on the part of the CIA and FBI.

BBC NEWS: CIA 'had 9/11 hijacker details'



US officials were given the first name and telephone number of an 11 September hijacker more than two years before the attacks, the New York Times has said.

Quoting German officials, the newspaper says the CIA was given the name and number of Marwan al-Shehhi by German intelligence, who wanted him tracked.

They reportedly did not hear from the Americans until after the 2001 attacks.

A US commission into the attacks will investigate whether there was a failure to pursue the lead aggressively.


CNN/Inside Politics: Report cites warnings before 9/11


U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday.

In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Another alert came just a month before the attacks, the report said, when the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner." The information was linked to a group of Pakistanis based in South America.


BBC News: CIA 'tracked' hijackers



An article published in Newsweek magazine on Monday claims that the Central Intelligence Agency knew that two men suspected of links to al-Qaeda were in the United States months before they took part in the suicide attacks of 11 September.

Under the headline, "The terrorists the CIA should have caught", the report argues that the CIA tracked one of the men, Nawaf al-Hazmi, shortly after he attended an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, but failed to alert other US law enforcement agencies.

CIA agents also discovered that another man, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had already obtained a multiple-entry visa that allowed him to enter and leave the US freely, Newsweek reports.

On the 11 September, the two men boarded one of the four hijacked airliners - American Airlines Flight 77 - and crashed it into the Pentagon.


I've tried to find the original source article but to no avail.

When the authorities fail to act on their own information due to lack of cooperation or incompetence, that is one thing. However when you are being told in no uncertain terms that a massive terrorist attack is about to occur but still fail to act, a pattern is emerging.

The Guardian UK: German trial hears how Iranian agent warned US of impending al-Qaida attack




The United States was warned of impending September 11 terrorist attacks by an Iranian spy, but ignored him, German secret service agents testified yesterday in the trial of an alleged al-Qaida terrorist.

The spy, identified as Hamid Reza Zakeri, tried to warn the CIA after leaving Iran in 2001, but was not believed, two German officers who interviewed him told the Hamburg court.


Zakeri worked in the department of the Iranian secret services responsible for "carrying out terrorist attacks globally", one of the officers said.



THE AGENCIES THAT WERE READY FOR 9/11 BEFORE 9/11




If you intended to commit a heinous crime such as blowing up three of the most iconic buildings in the world while murdering thousands of civilians it wouldn't be a great idea to highlight your foreknowledge of the event. However I'm not sure that those who did carry out 9/11 considered the power of the internet (and the rise of broadband), nor did they give enough credit to the will of the people to find out the truth.

There are numerous examples of Federal Agencies and persons having either a remarkable intuition regarding the impending tragedy about to unfold, or quite literally they just plain knew.

MSNBC: U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida
White House given plan days before Sept. 11





President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.


The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said.



Even FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue team was in New York for a Bio-Chemical attack drill on the Monday before the attacks (on Tuesday), another remarkable coincidence.



This fact is quite remarkable, the revelation explained away initially by suggesting Tom Kenney was fatigued and confused in the hectic days following 9/11. The cover story of the Terrorist Attack Drill came to light during the 9/11 Commission while Mayor Giuliani was under questioning.



"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."



Despite the assurances from various Bush Administration figures to the contrary, it seems that there were many reports and warnings that a major terrorist act was about to occur. There was even a report "on Bush's desk" regarding planes titled: " Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US".



In isolation this isn't earth shattering, but a repeating pattern appears when all examples are considered. Lets now look at another example of a strange coincidence:

The Strategic Assessments Branch

This was a branch of the CIA charged with assessing the threat posed by Al Qaeda. It was formed in July 2001, it's head John Fulton reported for his first day of work on Monday September 10th. Amazingly on the morning of 9/11, from his NSA offices he and his team were conducting a drill where a small passenger jet crashes into a tower. While on a much smaller scale than the actual attacks, this amazing string of coincidences simply boggles the mind. This theme of drills and simulations on the morning of 9/11 is prominent throughout many levels of the Federal response and Military on that day, more coincidence?

Astoundingly, John Fulton wasn't the only person (involved in US counter-intelligence specifically involving Al Qaeda) who was turning up to his first day of work in a new job on that tragic day.

John O'Neil was one of the most FBI's most senior counter intelligence agents. Throughout the nineties he warned (the warnings falling on deaf ears) of the increasing threat of global terrorism. He was an expert in Al Qaeda and according to some sources grew disillusioned with the infighting (between agencies) and the lack of support and security he was receiving from the FBI. The official version is that he was being investigated for losing a briefcase containing sensitive documents:

New York Times: F.B.I. Is Investigating a Senior Counterterrorism Agent

However this may have been an effort to merely discredit O'Neil for suggesting that Federal Agencies were ignoring the real threat posed by terrorism. The documentary
FRONTLINE: The Man Who Knew is a brilliant piece that I highly recommend watching.

O'Neil finally left the FBI in 2001, taking up his new job as head of security at the WTC complex on the morning of 9/11. He was among the nearly three thousand casualties that tragically died on September 11th.

CNN: FBI terrorist fighter's body found at WTC



The body of John P. O'Neill, a former assistant director of the FBI and an expert on terrorism, was recovered Friday from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

O'Neill had recently retired from the FBI and had just taken over security for the World Trade Center, said New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik.


Another truly amazing coincidence, one among many truly amazing coincidences. What is striking is that we haven't even BEGUN to analyse the actual events of 9/11 and I believe a case for arguing against the OS is already taking shape.

John O'Neil wasn't the only FBI agent disillusioned with the Agency's handling of counter terrorism though. Suggesting a systemic wide issue rather than the personality clashes and protocol lapses that TPTB would have you believe was the reason behind O'Neil's retirement.

LA weekly: Another FBI Agent Blows the Whistle



When FBI counsel Colleen Rowley dropped her bombshell, a now-famous letter to the director, detailing how bureau higher-ups thwarted attempts to investigate accused 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, before the September 11 attacks, she set off a firestorm. The scorching produced a mea culpa of sorts in June from FBI Director Robert Mueller and a promise of reform.

Now there‘s another whistle blower telling a similar pre-911 tale. And so far, the FBI has gone to great lengths to silence him.

The Weekly has learned that Chicago-based special agent Robert Wright has accused the agency of shutting down his 1998 criminal probe into alleged terrorist-training camps in Chicago and Kansas City. The apparent goal of the training camps, according to confidential documents obtained by the Weekly, was to recruit and train Palestinian-American youths, who would then slip into Israel. Recruits at these camps reportedly received weapons training and instruction in bomb-making techniques in the early 1990s. The bomb-making curriculum included the sort of explosives later used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. And government documents state that two trainees came from the Oklahoma City area.


More on Coleen Rowley, who was an FBI whistle-blower who highlighted the inept manner in which the FBI was dealing with terror threats while failing to follow up on lines of investigation regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, "the twentieth hijacker".



During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like [Robert Hanssen], who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.)


TIME MAGAZINE: The Bombshell Memo



Dear Director Mueller:

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.


Please follow the link above for the memo in its entirety, "bombshell" really is apt.

This accusation levelled at the FBI is similar to that made by Robert Wright:



Wright did say that FBI bureaucrats “intentionally and repeatedly thwarted his attempts to launch a more comprehensive investigation to identify and neutralize terrorists.” And that “FBI management failed to take seriously the threat of terrorism in the U.S


It's plain to see that at almost every twist and turn along the path to 9/11, the FBI, CIA and the West have been involved. From Afghanistan, to the build up to 9/11 and the days before we see signs of complicity, remarkable coincidences and unexplainable lapses by various agencies.

Baring in mind this is but the first of three instalments of 9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH; I believe that an excellent case against the OS can be made, possibly even before the other two have been posted. There are just too many red flags, too many coincidences, too many anomalies.

I'd like to leave you with one last story, disturbing though it is. Please go to the link as I don't want to over quote, however I'll post enough so you can get the general idea:

NEWSWEEK: Between The Lines Online: A Chilling Tale



This week, I went to Brooklyn in search of an "urban myth" about the World Trade Center assault. Was word of the attack on the street before Sept. 11? What I found out was chilling--this story is no myth.

On Oct. 11, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, an aggressive young reporter for The New York Journal News of Westchester County, N.Y., published an article that tracked the story to New Utrecht High School in Brooklyn, N.Y. Shapiro identified a teacher who witnessed a freshman in her class saying the week prior to the World Trade Center attacks: "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week."

There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.


I hope you'll join me for 9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH: Part 2; September the 11th 2001 and Aftermath.

All the best ATS, may the truth set you free.

kiwifoot




posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Excellent research Kiwi! I had read much of what is contained in your post years ago and frankly had almost forgotten it. I suppose my reasoning for this is because when I think about it I start to get so mad I feel like my head will explode. Like the spectators and family members in the 911 Commission hearings when Kindasleazy Rice BS'es her way around Ben Venistes' questions about prior knowledge of any attacks by Al Qaeda per the August PDB titled: "Al Qaeda determined to strike targets inside US". You can see the eyes roll and everyone's head bows in utter disbelief while she lies and avoids stating the obvious; THEY KNEW IT WAS COMING.

It makes my blood boil so I have to let it sink into the background just so I can sleep at night and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I have copied all your links (THANK YOU!) and someday will pass them all on to disbelieving family members who should be alerted to the actual facts of what preceded 9/11. Once that information is firmly ingrained, people can logically challenge the 9/11 Commission report and begin to see the light of truth.

Here is a line that sums up the "official" response and subsequent cover-up -
A US commission into the attacks will investigate whether there was a failure to pursue the lead aggressively.

Yeah, right.......


I can't wait for the next installment. Thank you for your research, very well done!

A thousand stars if I could - ATA



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This is going to be some fun stuff to look at, although it may take a while. I find that some of the best leading investigative work was done by Michael Ruppert. A lot of people think he's a dis-info agent for some reason. I have no idea why since pretty much everything he has stated is verifiable.

I really suggest people read through the NIST solicitations and the SOW in their written awarded contracts (to the contractors they awarded them to). It just boggles the mind. The question I am left asking is -was this even meant to be a thorough investigation-?
wtc.nist.gov...

And the 9/11 commission report?....there was less financing behind this -investigation- than there was for the Clinton sex scandal...Not to mention the investigation itself was severely time constrained....Given the proportion of this event it doesn't seem reasonable for that to be the case.

I was a believer of the OS just a year ago...I suppose I wanted the climate around the whole 9/11 fiasco to calm down before I really took a look into it and see what the conspiracy was all about. Now, I wouldn't put it past any islamic extremist to commit these crimes, but do I think they are capable of conducting and executing an operation of this magnitude without intervention? No...I don't think they are. And frankly there are too many questions left...
edit on 29-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
edit on 29-10-2010 by Thepreye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


I just had a skim but I'm gona s&f it on that basis, looks very well put together, thanks!



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.

This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.

Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.


+10 more 
posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.


There is no bubble my friend. As I said in the thread, just because something is in Loose Change doesn't mean it's wrong. And as I also said, there isn't anything "ground breakingly" new here. My intent isn't to provide NEW info, but to collate OLD info into one place. As far as I know, while watching a video one cannot explore links and read for oneself the reports.


This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.

Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.


What the heck are you on? Can you see any mention of implosions, steel or any mention of the events of 9/11 in detail in this thread?

I'm afraid you've showed your hand mate. When you can't argue the FACTS, argue the method by which the facts are delivered, then skip to another topic where you have a chance. As for the pic, I found in on a site discussing the FEMA presence in NY (undeniable I may add as admitted to under oath) and added it on a whim, at no point do I suggest anything sinister.

You have to do better than that Dave, c'mon



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.

This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.

Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.


The Government is the greatest purveyor of Conspiracy Theories, so by speaking of conspiracy claims in such scathing terms, you are targetting primarily the gubberment you support. Swine Flu, Muslim Terrorists, 9/11, global warming, GMO, alien denial, and many more are conspiracy theories pedalled and spewed by the government you support.

The Government uses 'conspiracy theory' labels to discredit those who challenge the government's own 'official' conspiracy claims. They even employ people, trained in disinfo techniques, to infiltrate sites such as this to purposely discredit those seeking to expose the truth.

Those government lackey agents who do that kind of work, are foolish enough to think they will stop the movement for exposure of 9/11 truth, and will persuade others to believe the government lies. The fact that they still believe that is testimony to their blinkered foolishness.

The movement in support of a proper investigation to expose the truth of 9/11 meanwhile, is growing exponentially. One day, the criminals who really carried out the mass murder on 9/11 will be exposed and will reap their just rewards - including all their henchmen who aided and abetted the obscuration of the facts.

Your attempts to discredit the OP by making false statements about the origin of his information is a typical disinfo tactic. Attack the person, or the source and by extension expect that it will discredit the argument in the minds of uninformed readers. Very, very basic NLP basic disinfo tactic used on here all the time.

There is nothing you are saying on here that you haven't said previously - it's the same old, same old disinfo techniques with no substance.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
This is going to be some fun stuff to look at, although it may take a while. I find that some of the best leading investigative work was done by Michael Ruppert. A lot of people think he's a dis-info agent for some reason. I have no idea why since pretty much everything he has stated is verifiable.

I really suggest people read through the NIST solicitations and the SOW in their written awarded contracts (to the contractors they awarded them to). It just boggles the mind. The question I am left asking is -was this even meant to be a thorough investigation-?
wtc.nist.gov...

And the 9/11 commission report?....there was less financing behind this -investigation- than there was for the Clinton sex scandal...Not to mention the investigation itself was severely time constrained....Given the proportion of this event it doesn't seem reasonable for that to be the case.

I was a believer of the OS just a year ago...I suppose I wanted the climate around the whole 9/11 fiasco to calm down before I really took a look into it and see what the conspiracy was all about. Now, I wouldn't put it past any islamic extremist to commit these crimes, but do I think they are capable of conducting and executing an operation of this magnitude without intervention? No...I don't think they are. And frankly there are too many questions left...
edit on 29-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



No, I don't believe this was ever intended to be a thorough investigation. A number of those on the Commission resigned for this very reason.

Here's a video of a couple of other informed people making a public statement that the Commission was in fact set up as a cover, a whitewash.

www.youtube.com...


You may also want to look at the timeline for the role of Zeilkow, in the 9/11 Commission alleged investigation.

to.ly...

This alone warrants a re-investigation.

edit on 29-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
A question: Why did Bush and Cheney insist on not making their statements under oath?

second line.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Great thread, so much information to read and it seems really well complied, a triumph of an OP. It's not easy for me to disagree with the main ideas and I hope others can contribute more links. ATS users know the stuff, CIA drug dealings, radiation at Guam, the stealing of Deigo Garcia, in the UK the Falkland Islands (how on earth do the Brits think an island off the coast of South America belongs to them?!?) Greg Palast on voter fraud in the US, Afghan voter fraud, terrorism carried out by allies, the over-arching pyramid of media ownership added to military and industrial muscle, well the list would go on forever. Power corrupts and its never been worse.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


It's the strangest thing, here is a little on it www.youtube.com... , They did not testify under oath and the guy in the video says the president is not a liar and this justifies not going under the oath.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
A question: Why did Bush and Cheney insist on not making their statements under oath?

second line.


As well as it not being recorded and the questions being agreed upon beforehand.

G.O.D do you ever have an independant thought, or do you just keep parroting what you read on those "Damn fool truster sites?"
edit on 29-10-2010 by OllyP because: spelling



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by wcitizen
 


It's the strangest thing, here is a little on it www.youtube.com... , They did not testify under oath and the guy in the video says the president is not a liar and this justifies not going under the oath. :



Lol, classic example of a circular (and ridiculous) argument, the truth being they don't even have a resonable 'cover story' - perhaps because there just isn't any reasonable explanation, even if they wanted to invent one.

This article which was written in March 2004, while the commission was going on, is interesting and exposes some of the significant cover up strategies which were going on:

Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?
www.antiwar.com...

edit on 29-10-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OllyP

Originally posted by wcitizen
A question: Why did Bush and Cheney insist on not making their statements under oath?

second line.


As well as it not being recorded and the questions being agreed upon beforehand.

G.O.D do you ever have an independant thought, or do you just keep parroting what you read on those "Damn fool truster sites?"
edit on 29-10-2010 by OllyP because: spelling


Lol. No, he parrots what the damn fool government says.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



As I said in the thread, just because something is in Loose Change doesn't mean it's wrong.


No, it just means that it is more than likely wrong.


And as I also said, there isn't anything "ground breakingly" new here. My intent isn't to provide NEW info, but to collate OLD info into one place.


Yes, very, very selectively. Thats generally refered to as B.S. I too can "collate" old info together to make just about any argument. As long as I am very selective about what "info" I do and do not collate.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



As I said in the thread, just because something is in Loose Change doesn't mean it's wrong.


No, it just means that it is more than likely wrong.


And as I also said, there isn't anything "ground breakingly" new here. My intent isn't to provide NEW info, but to collate OLD info into one place.


Yes, very, very selectively. Thats generally refered to as B.S. I too can "collate" old info together to make just about any argument. As long as I am very selective about what "info" I do and do not collate.


Pathetic, just pathetic.

So spending a month scouring the internet for reputable sources, posting official federal reports and using msm stories is BS?

I wasn't selective at all, show me an example arguing against what I said, don't just quibble about terminology and say what YOU could do, just do it man. You're reaching because you know it's the truth and you can't stand it.

Pathetic...



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Absolutely epic thread, kudos to you.

Of course, it will take a while to go through it thoroughly... but I am familiar with much of it already and it is great that you have put it all together coherently for people new to the subject.


BTW - this thread is not for G.O.D. and hooper and their club, but it is for the genuine open minded rational thinkers who might read it.

I recommend, in order to keep the threads integrity, a thorough and deliberate refusal to acknowledge their presence in this thread unless they actually bring up a pertinent point. Responding to them only derails the thread.

Again, champion effort here, S&F.




posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Well done Kiwi,
It's nice to see a timeline set up with a lot of the background info for 9/11. It's a good place for people new to the forum to get their feet wet.
Keep it up



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by kiwifoot
 



I recommend, in order to keep the threads integrity, a thorough and deliberate refusal to acknowledge their presence in this thread unless they actually bring up a pertinent point. Responding to them only derails the thread.

Again, champion effort here, S&F.



I couldn't agree more

Please avoid stepping in the "mind poo" while you walk.

I have one question: If people think Conspiracy theorists are all crazy then why are they always here to argue?

They won't change our minds and we won't change theirs.

So why don't they get their own site where they can make fun of us and tell each other how precise, truthful and accurate the 911 Commission was? Maybe I could sell them "Hamilton/Kerry" T -shirts?
Where can I get a copy of the Q group 9/11 manual?





new topics

top topics



 
80
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join