PNAC in 1998

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Yeah, I read Wright's book. He got a lot of things right, but he also got a lot of things wrong. It is kinda like all those NoC/SoC eyewitnesses. You have to look at the full body of evidence and accounts, not just a few. I had to bring myself to a screeching halt on buying everything written about 9/11. My bookshelf is full and my desk is buckling under the weight (not to mention my wallet).
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)


Oh by the way, not disputing the contribution of Coleman. It was the seriousness of the threat posed by OBL that I was referring to. Soufan brought to the table the Islamic nature and motivations of OBL's activities, something alien to most outsiders. Soufan became O'Neill's "right-hand man" on such issues.
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


No he didn’t, he spent the last years of his career investigating the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attacks. He was forced out after investigations into his conduct as a FBI employee which prevented his promotion into a post at the National Security Council and in addition to this he also had massive personal debts and was having several affairs all of this led to him eventually leaving the FBI. By all accounts he was very difficult to work with, he was in massive debts and required a more lucrative job to facilitate his retirement, a Job at the trade centre would have suited him just fine.

I love the way you truthers go form one speculative conspiracy hypothesis to another without any real thought.


No, the US government stopped all investigatons into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months prior to 9/11. This is an absolute fact.

John O'Neill who was looking into Bin Laden for years knew a lot more than they liked, hence he was murdered on 9/11.

If you think it is YET ANOTHER coincidence that a man who would speak out about government foreknowledge of an attack was made head of security of WTC 19 days before 9/11 by none other than Jerome Hauer, then you need to start thinking for yourself.

It is obvious that people high up in government wanted 9/11 to happen, and a few may well have been a part of the plan to carry it out- such people as Cheney and Dov Zakheim.

As I said, it is obvious what you are and I hope you are paid well.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

No, the US government stopped all investigatons into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months prior to 9/11. This is an absolute fact.


No, that is absolute fantasy.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


It is nice to finally come across a member of ATS who does not base his knowledge of terrorism on what is found in the press and on the “conspiracy theory” self in the book store.

I like you it would seem have spent a small fortune on collating a library of books on 9/11 and terrorism in general, you are not the only one who has a packed bookcase. I do not deny that Soufan was not O’Neill’s right hand man all I am saying is that it was Dan Colman who opened O’Neill’s eyes first to Al-Qa’ida.

Out of curiosity on the issue of 9/11 if I were to ask you if you believe it was a false flag conducted by the upper echelons of the American government what would you say to me?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoinOut of curiosity on the issue of 9/11 if I were to ask you if you believe it was a false flag conducted by the upper echelons of the American government what would you say to me?


Where's the beef? We can all speculate until the cows come home, but at some point there has to be some evidence presented.
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)


I guess in fairness I should expound a little further. Yes, did we (meaning the intelligence services) know it was coming? Absolutely. I don't think many people deny that these days. It took me (as a layperson) five seconds after the second WTC hit to know what had happened and who had done it. Why? Because the talking heads on TV never shut up predicting it and warning about OBL. So surely the folks in the intelligence community had a sense it was coming. The question is why was it not averted? All of the information was there, some of it withheld from those who could have made a difference if they had had it. Was it inter-agency rivalry? Was it incompetence? Was it simply complacency? Or was it something more sinister?

I don't have the answers to those questions. What I do know is that we used the Islamists to serve our purposes in Bosnia, Central Asia, Chechnya and elsewhere. There really is not much disputing that. At some point, they turned around and bit us. The CIA was fighting for its own survival and role in the grand scheme of things before 9/11. Did they run interference for the operation and its operatives so that they could regain their function in life? Darn, I don't know. What I do know is that planes as weapons was not new to them and they knew AQ was probing our commercial air weaknesses. But if some individuals decided to run "interference" for them, I doubt seriously that they left a paper trail. None of that changes the fact of who did the deed and how they did it.

So until someone comes up with something that demonstrates otherwise, I'll just have to go with "I don't know, but I certainly hope not."
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


911 Files classifies himself as a truther, but he is not in the classic sense we have all come to know as the typical "truther" (not even a close resemblance). He is the true form of what a truther should be in it's purest form, not the perverted woo based crap typically seen from idiots who typically post as a "truther" in 9/11 related forums. He has informed himself and learned skills that he didn't previously possess in order to analyze the events of 9/11 in a truly unbiased and factual basis. There is NOT a true researcher who seriously looks at the events of 9/11 in a serious manner who does not respect his work. It is top notch and respected by everyone I respect. He truly epitomizes what anyone who is seriously interested in analyzing the events in a realistic and factual manner should do and be.... You're welcome, John...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Sheesh. Now you got me blushing.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by Reheat
 


Sheesh. Now you got me blushing.


I got a bonus for posting that one. Will now be able to afford a new Mercedes with that increase in pay.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


Are you published?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by 911files
 


Are you published?


Yes and no. I was encouraged to write a book on AAL77 by a few folks and was awarded a publishing contract for the book. After getting the rough draft ready to go, I was told it was too long and comprehensive. By that time I was burnt out on 9/11 stuff so I told the publisher it was a no go. If I can't write what I want to write, then I just won't write it. I started to convert the manuscript into a series of online essays, but like I said, I was burnt out. Maybe I'll start back work on that project now that I've awakened from my slumber. Here is the Prologue if you are interested.

But as I mentioned, I've assisted with a number of book projects. I did an appendix for the 911 Mystery Plane by Mark Gaffney, along with the hunt and identification of the plane. Yes, Gaffney is a TM sort of guy. So, for balance, here is another guy I've helped out with AAL77 stuff. Since he was on the 911 Commission professional staff, I reckon he is my contribution to the OS side.
edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Otherside of the Coin is in reality a rebuttal debating crusader holding the flag of "Deny Ignorance" Except with this paticular flag there is fine print reading-
"ignorant".


The good news-
Its too late to do anything about it (the conspiracy) so discussing it is achieving absolutely nothing. It is what it is and soon will be what it was.
The bad news-
As with all rulers in the conquest for power whether in this galaxy or other galaxies that try and control the weaker... they fail eventually and utterly.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

No, the US government stopped all investigatons into Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months prior to 9/11. This is an absolute fact.


No, that is absolute fantasy.


No, it is not fantasy-

www.guardian.co.uk...




FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.




They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

"There were particular investigations that were effectively killed."



So no, stop being desperate claiming stuff is not true when it clearly is.

Why on earth would the Bush administration not want the FBI investigating potential terrorist attacks against America?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
So no, stop being desperate claiming stuff is not true when it clearly is.

Why on earth would the Bush administration not want the FBI investigating potential terrorist attacks against America?


Ah dude, two things. The "Bin Laden family", is NOT OBL and AQ. And just because it is in a media article does not make it so. I would not even know where to begin in listing how many media reports have been proven incorrect. However, even in this case, this does not say that the investigations into OBL and AQ were restricted at all. Just because Charles Manson was a bad dude does not mean his father, brothers and sisters are mass murderers. No linkage at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
So no, stop being desperate claiming stuff is not true when it clearly is.

Why on earth would the Bush administration not want the FBI investigating potential terrorist attacks against America?


Ah dude, two things. The "Bin Laden family", is NOT OBL and AQ. And just because it is in a media article does not make it so. I would not even know where to begin in listing how many media reports have been proven incorrect. However, even in this case, this does not say that the investigations into OBL and AQ were restricted at all. Just because Charles Manson was a bad dude does not mean his father, brothers and sisters are mass murderers. No linkage at all.


But if the FBI were told to back off, WHY? There must have been something that got their interest.

On the day of 9/11, Bush Snr met with Bin Laden's brother, but nothing to see there right? Not suspicious at all.


You have a wanted terrorist, and on the day of 9/11, the president's father is having a meeting with said terrorist's very rich brother. Hmm...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

But if the FBI were told to back off, WHY? There must have been something that got their interest.

On the day of 9/11, Bush Snr met with Bin Laden's brother, but nothing to see there right? Not suspicious at all.


You have a wanted terrorist, and on the day of 9/11, the president's father is having a meeting with said terrorist's very rich brother. Hmm...



Take some time, seriously, and read up on the Bin Laden family. They have a close relationship with the Royal family and leadership of a very important "ally". You and I may not like it, but the only thing really keeping the Middle East from exploding right now is our relationship with the Saudi's. Darn, Obama even bowed to the King! The Saudi's helped pay for Bill Clinton's library.

But innuendo and "hmm.." does not a case make.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Bin Laden's family disowned him in the 90s. The brother that was in DC, was at a stockholders meeting with dozens of other people, including George HW Bush. Saying he was meeting with GB, is dishonest at the least.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Bin Laden's family disowned him in the 90s. The brother that was in DC, was at a stockholders meeting with dozens of other people, including George HW Bush. Saying he was meeting with GB, is dishonest at the least.


Carlyle Group, Bush and Bin Laden families go well back.

If you don't think this is suspicious that the FBI was told to back from investigating this group's ties to funding terrorism, WTF? People like John O'Neill wanted to investigate the Bin Ladens who had business ties with the Bush family, and were told to back off.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
www.telegraph.co.uk...




Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," added the document.


John O'Neill knew this prior to 9/11 and the FBI were told to 'back off' from investigating it further.

You shills are shameless.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
www.telegraph.co.uk...




Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," added the document.


John O'Neill knew this prior to 9/11 and the FBI were told to 'back off' from investigating it further.

You shills are shameless.



Why do you keep distorting media accounts and the facts? That is what is shameless.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
www.telegraph.co.uk...




Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," added the document.


John O'Neill knew this prior to 9/11 and the FBI were told to 'back off' from investigating it further.

You shills are shameless.



Why do you keep distorting media accounts and the facts? That is what is shameless.


Yeah you win, I'm distorting everything. John O'Neill was in the words of othersideofthecoin, an 'alcoholic gambler who was in big debt, was hard to work with and was having affairs.' When he left the FBI, Jermone Hauer decided a man of such disposition and with so many problems would make an excellent candidate to run security at the WTC!



His argument is beyond ridiculous when it has been revealed that he and many other FBI agents were told to back off from investigating Saudi nationals, even though Al Qaeda is funded heavily from within Saudi Arabia. But that is nothing to be concerned about.

The fact that John O'Neill could have spoke out about this post 9/11 is meaningless because by pure coincidence, he died on his first day of the job at the WTC.






top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join