Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Secret Service Failures on 9/11: A Call for Transparency

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atento
It's obvious that the Secret Service and all other agencies "failed" on purpose.

Well, I don't know if they failed on purpose.
According to The "debunkers" secret service didn't fail at all, the elemantory school was the safest place for the President. Lol
They should of transport Cheney to the closest elementary school too.
Lol




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
His point is that the SS has no role when a plane crashes. Whether it hit the ground, a bunch of trees or even a building.
But once the second plane hits an identical building then they need to kick into gear.

Show us where the SS failed in their duties.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
His point is that the SS has no role when a plane crashes. Whether it hit the ground, a bunch of trees or even a building.
But once the second plane hits an identical building then they need to kick into gear.

Show us where the SS failed in their duties.

I don’t know anything about what secret service should or should not do. But if my child was in that school that day, I would be very worried that Mr. President is on live TV from that school while somebody is flying airplanes into buildings in multiple states.

It was announced 4 days before 9/11 that Bush is going to be at that school, if terrorists really wanted to take him out they knew where he was.

I guess, If the secret service really failed Cheney would be president since 9/11/01.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





It was announced 4 days before 9/11 that Bush is going to be at that school, if terrorists really wanted to take him out they knew where he was.

I question how much info was really released beforehand. Did they really say which school or just a school?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Knowing that the secret service would have snipers and stinger teams all over that area, I would feel better knowing my child was well protected.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


In the 9/11 Commission Report. It was addressed by other witnesses and other documents.

Not to mention, Mineta's testimony has him moving from one location to the Bunker in a timeframe that is impossible, unless Scotty was around to beam him over
edit on 30-4-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Two of the jets had already hit their targets before it was understood we were under attack. We did not have the ability to stop the third jet.....and the Air Force pilots who were awaiting Flight 93, had already realized their only shot at stopping it, was a kamikaze style ramming using their F-16s.

I'm not sure what your point is here.



You wanted to know why none of the jets were intercepted by fighters.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Knowing that the secret service would have snipers and stinger teams all over that area, I would feel better knowing my child was well protected.


Are you completely satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11?

You honestly don't see anything wrong with how 9/11 was handled by the government?

Do you think that no one should have been in any trouble for the screw ups that made 9/11 possible?

I'm really amazed.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


In the 9/11 Commission Report. It was addressed by other witnesses and other documents.

Not to mention, Mineta's testimony has him moving from one location to the Bunker in a timeframe that is impossible, unless Scotty was around to beam him over
edit on 30-4-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

9/11 Commission report?
Sure



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


Two of the jets had already hit their targets before it was understood we were under attack. We did not have the ability to stop the third jet.....and the Air Force pilots who were awaiting Flight 93, had already realized their only shot at stopping it, was a kamikaze style ramming using their F-16s.

I'm not sure what your point is here.



You wanted to know why none of the jets were intercepted by fighters.


And this is how you explain it?
Who’s fault was it that fighters were sent in the wrong direction? Bin Ladens?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 





It was announced 4 days before 9/11 that Bush is going to be at that school, if terrorists really wanted to take him out they knew where he was.

I question how much info was really released beforehand. Did they really say which school or just a school?


That’s a very good question.. I cant find anything on it.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Do you think that no one should have been in any trouble for the screw ups that made 9/11 possible?

I'm really amazed.

This was back in the days when gov agencies didn't share intel. 911 is why they merged the intel divisions.
Now do they really work together today? I'll bet the old timers are still resisting.

But consider how the media loves to get a bite on anyone in office. If they get a whiff of anything they will beat it to death on the 6:00 news. That's what they do. That's how they gain market share. Look how they twisted that one lady's statement a couple of years back. They made it sound like she was racist and she was wrongfully terminated.
Even the 911 vilian of media Rupert was listening in on phone calls back then. Do you think he was going to let a 911 fish get away?

It boils down to what we see on here.
They couldn't believe a handfull of towelheads could pull off something this big. But look back at history. Some of the biggest events were caused by the fewest number of people by the simplest of means.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 





Do you think that no one should have been in any trouble for the screw ups that made 9/11 possible?

I'm really amazed.

This was back in the days when gov agencies didn't share intel. 911 is why they merged the intel divisions.
Now do they really work together today? I'll bet the old timers are still resisting.

But consider how the media loves to get a bite on anyone in office. If they get a whiff of anything they will beat it to death on the 6:00 news. That's what they do. That's how they gain market share. Look how they twisted that one lady's statement a couple of years back. They made it sound like she was racist and she was wrongfully terminated.
Even the 911 vilian of media Rupert was listening in on phone calls back then. Do you think he was going to let a 911 fish get away?

It boils down to what we see on here.
They couldn't believe a handfull of towelheads could pull off something this big. But look back at history. Some of the biggest events were caused by the fewest number of people by the simplest of means.


So since everybody failed, no body is responsible?
Lets learn from this event and move forward, promote people who messed up, and take civil liberties?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


How many people do you want to blame? Because I could easily lay some of the blame at the feet of several thousand people. About the only President since Nixon who wouldn't get any blame is Reagan. Then there are the Congresscritters.....and that's before we get to Cabinet members....



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


They didn't have an intercept vector, so, for the safety of the hundreds of other jetliners in the air, the jets were sent to military airspace to await orders.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Lets learn from this event and move forward, promote people who messed up,

That's the Washington way.




and take civil liberties?

Name one civil liberty you have lost.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


They didn't have an intercept vector, so, for the safety of the hundreds of other jetliners in the air, the jets were sent to military airspace to await orders.


Just standard procedure, nobody to blame right?

If you get a chance and/or desire to read this article, and share if you think someone should be held accountable.

If you don't feel like it, that’s cool with me



There Will Be No Patrick Fitzgerald for the 9/11 Attacks



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 





Lets learn from this event and move forward, promote people who messed up,

That's the Washington way.




and take civil liberties?

Name one civil liberty you have lost.


Really?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1
 


How many people do you want to blame? Because I could easily lay some of the blame at the feet of several thousand people. About the only President since Nixon who wouldn't get any blame is Reagan. Then there are the Congresscritters.....and that's before we get to Cabinet members....


How about we start with those who ignored multiple warnings, like lets say Condoleezza Rice.
Maybe she should have been fired at the very least, but instead she got a promotion in the second term of Bush White House.
It's probably just in my imagination, but people usually don't get promotions for screwing up.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Are there still some questions I have? Yes. But those questions have nothing to do with the big picture.

You want to hold Condoleeza Rice responsible? Well, why not Admiral Stansfield Turner...under whose watch the CIA had its HUMINT programs emasculated? OR the bonehead lawyers in the Clinton Administration who decreed that our intelligence agencies could only talk to people overseas who were squeaky clean when it came to human rights? Maybe President George HW Bush for signing the orders that ended our 24-7-365 airborne alert forces?

WHO all do you want to blame?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join