Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
CIA OIG REPORT


The CIA released a bunch of previously classified documents. One of the documents is the CIA OIG Report from August 2001. On page 47 it says that they were doing a pretty good job working together with CTC, and the FBI.

“cooperative relations with the FBI, which allowed us to work together on what were closely linked domestic and international terrorist threats”.

“The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relationship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent. The Center provided operational support FBI 1999- 2000.”



Information sharing problem can no longer be used.

I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me.
edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1




CIA OIG REPORT


The CIA released a bunch of previously classified documents. One of the documents is the CIA OIG Report from August 2001. On page 47 it says that they were doing a pretty good job working together with CTC, and the FBI.

“cooperative relations with the FBI, which allowed us to work together on what were closely linked domestic and international terrorist threats”.

“The growth in joint activities and cross assignments suggests that the relationship is now more institutionalized and less personality dependent. The Center provided operational support FBI 1999- 2000.”



Information sharing problem can no longer be used.

I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me.


So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?



So first the excuse was that CIA didn't tell the FBI that terrorists were coming the the US, and the FBI didn't tell the CIA that the hijackers were in America and lived with a paid FBI informant. Now it's the private security agency?

the hijackers should have been arrested before they even got close to the airport.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?


So first the excuse was that CIA didn't tell the FBI that terrorists were coming the the US, and the FBI didn't tell the CIA that the hijackers were in America and lived with a paid FBI informant. Now it's the private security agency?

the hijackers should have been arrested before they even got close to the airport.


Arrested for what reason? Just a few days ago you were railing and ranting about the Patriot Act. You want it both ways do you? I think you are very confused and don't know what you want or more importantly what you are talking about.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
So first the excuse was that CIA didn't tell the FBI that terrorists were coming the the US, and the FBI didn't tell the CIA that the hijackers were in America and lived with a paid FBI informant. Now it's the private security agency?

the hijackers should have been arrested before they even got close to the airport.


By who? The local police who weren't informed by the FBI/CIA any more than the airport security was? And on what grounds would they have been arrested on at that time? The only violations they had on them were immigration violations, and that's handled by the INS, not the FBI or CIA. So what proof do you have that they were sharing intelligence with the INS?

No matter how much innuendo you atempt to drop, you still can't get past the fact that critical security information wasn't being shared among the myriad agencies like it should have been.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So what evidence do you have that proves they were sharing all this intelligence with the private security companies that airports were using at the time? You know, the guys actually standing at the gate watching for those questionable people coming through?


So first the excuse was that CIA didn't tell the FBI that terrorists were coming the the US, and the FBI didn't tell the CIA that the hijackers were in America and lived with a paid FBI informant. Now it's the private security agency?

the hijackers should have been arrested before they even got close to the airport.


Arrested for what reason? Just a few days ago you were railing and ranting about the Patriot Act. You want it both ways do you? I think you are very confused and don't know what you want or more importantly what you are talking about.


Both agencies knew that they were planning an attack. The CIA knew about the meeting in Malaysia, the FBI were informed by the flight school, they lived with a snitch, multiple countries warned about an attack. NSA monitored communications. In other words they had everything they needed to stop the attack.
They didn't need Patriot Act to prevent 9/11.

But you can attack me instead of the the subject of this thread. It's okay with me.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


So if the CIA say something it means it's true?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





By who?


The FBI. That's what they do you know catch terrorists in America.



The only violations they had on them were immigration violations

They had no problems working with the INS when they arrested Moussaoui on August 16, 2001.
So what's the excuse again?



So what proof do you have that they were sharing intelligence with the INS?


Moussaoui




No matter how much innuendo you atempt to drop, you still can't get past the fact that critical security information wasn't being shared among the myriad agencies like it should have been.


Sure if that makes you feel better.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


I guess if you use a larger font and put some distracting emphasis on the letters, it works better?

All kidding aside, you really need to educate yourself on the systematic breakdown that occurred in the Pre- 9/11 era. The government conceded this fact. There was a great book from Richard A. Clark that dealt with this very issue. "Your Government Failed You." This was somewhat of a sequel to "Against all Enemies."

I highly encourage you to pick up a copy and give it a read. It is quite a read in that you will get pissed at the way they operated back 10+ years ago. It made my blood boil when I learned how close we came to 9/11 not happening.

In fact, the CIA did not tell the FBI, Immigration, the State Department, or the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism that two known al Qaeda terrorists had made it to America and were living somewhere in this country. They tuned out to be 9/11 hijackers Al-Midhar and al-Hamzi. They should have been denied admittance into the United States! More staggering, 60 ... yes sixty CIA personnel knew about their presence in the United States and did nothing to tell the FBI.

I will assume your Conspiracy Theory mind will tell you that this enforces the LIHOP theory in that this was intentional. What you need to do is learn on how the way these agencies were ran. It was, in a word: Pathetic.






edit on 27-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (reworded some areas)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


So if the CIA say something it means it's true?


Isn't that what you been saying? The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now that it turns out that you are wrong you're saying that we shouldn't believe it?

I personally always knew that The CIA and the FBI both were monitoring the hijackers independently, and now it turns out that they also shared intelligence.

What is the next excuse?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





I will assume your Conspiracy Theory mind will tell you that this enforces the LIHOP theory in that this was intentional. What you need to do is learn on how the way these agencies were ran. It was, in a word: Pathetic.


Let me get this strait... I post a official document which states that the agencies worked as a team. And you are telling me that I should read somebody's book ?

Didn't you (debunkers) always said that you want official documents as evidence?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


So if the CIA say something it means it's true?


Isn't that what you been saying?


Where have I said that? I would take almost anything the CIA said with a pinch of salt. You however appear to trust them. Why?


The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now that it turns out that you are wrong you're saying that we shouldn't believe it?


Or alternatively, now that the CIA are saying something you like you're prepared to believe them.

This quote proves nothing. As mentioned above - do some deeper reading. It is quite extraordinary how isolated the agencies were before 9/11, and a quick letter sent by someone to reassure their boss that everything's okay doesn't change that.


I personally always knew that The CIA and the FBI both were monitoring the hijackers independently, and now it turns out that they also shared intelligence.

What is the next excuse?


They may have shared some. It is staggering to see how much they didn't.

However in order to find out about this you will have to do some proper research. Cherrypicking the odd quote and insisting it's the full picture (even when it comes from a source you purport not to trust
) isn't really going to cut it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
But you can attack me instead of the the subject of this thread. It's okay with me.


Statements of FACT that you prove with your posts are not an attack on you, they are purely statements of fact.

Everyone knows "they" were not sharing information, yet you keep stating that "they" knew and could have prevented the attacks. Why do you keep arguing that if the "rabbit hadn't stopped to take a crap he would have won the race against the turtle"? Are you really that dense to realize that virtually everyone arguing with you knows this already. Repeating the same thing over and over again and again is one of the indications of insanity, you know.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
From the same page of the report

A natural tension exists between both organisations... Concerns still remain in both organisations about access to the counterpart's mission critical information



How odd that you left that part out...



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 
search Nova for Spy Factory it will tell you up front that they did not and still as of airing in 2009 that they do not i will see if i can find it here it is www.pbs.org... form the link

MICHAEL SCHEUER (Former Central Intelligence Agency Analyst): None of this information that we're speaking about this evening is in the 9/11 Commission Report. They simply ignored all of it.
thus letting 9/11 happen

edit on 27-6-2012 by bekod because: editting added working link
edit on 27-6-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
They had no problems working with the INS when they arrested Moussaoui on August 16, 2001.
So what's the excuse again?


There, you see? You just proved you had a legitimate point by using actual cases instead of relying on "sinister secret agent" hyperbole. I looked up the details of Moussauoi and it turns out he was arrested by the FBI in coordination with the INS, when i had originally thought it was the INS only. I stand corrected. You get a star for your efforts.

HOWEVER, the arresting officer's name was Harry Samit, who recognized Moussaoui was acting suspicious becuase he was a pilot himself. After he arrested Samit asked the FBI to search Moussaoui's hotel room but he was denied becuase of a lack of evidence. He then asked the FBI to pass on a warnign of potential hijackings to the FAA and they didn't. Since then, Samit testified at the Moussaoui trial that negligence and blind careerism in the FBI prevented the 9/11 attack from being stopped. In other words, the FBI was filled with a bunch of idiots who didn't see the problem coming.

So in the end, how does that differ from what I had been saying?



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





Where have I said that? I would take almost anything the CIA said with a pinch of salt. You however appear to trust them. Why?


I do not trust them and that's why you call me a conspiracy theorist. I didn't mean you personally, i meant debunkers in general.




Or alternatively, now that the CIA are saying something you like you're prepared to believe them.


Debunkers demand official documents as proof so here it is.. Now what's the problem?



They may have shared some.


Good you finally admit that you are wrong. That's a start. Congratulations !




However in order to find out about this you will have to do some proper research. Cherrypicking the odd quote and insisting it's the full picture (even when it comes from a source you purport not to trust ) isn't really going to cut it.


How do you think I found this document?

edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I do not trust them and that's why you call me a conspiracy theorist. I didn't mean you personally, i meant debunkers in general.


But you trust them when they say stuff you like?

That's got nothing to do with why I would call you a conspiracy theorist, by the way.



Debunkers demand official documents as proof so here it is.. Now what's the problem?



The problem is that you don't trust the CIA. So your document that you're triumphantly waving about is worth nothing to you. Unless of course you've decided that now you do trust them. For a bit.




Good you finally admit that you are wrong. That's a start. Congratulations !


Yes, because I have a long history of claiming that the FBI and CIA have never shared one single item of information.


Christ, get with it. Nobody claims that no information was shared. Just that critical information was not shared.

Ironically this is something that the very document you have produced here ACTUALLY SAYS.






How do you think a found this document?

edit on 27-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Fair enough. It's a good finding its way. But you have to start treating evidence in a vastly more mature manner if you're going to get anywhere. Producing a document that actually says that the FBI and CIA aren't sharing critical information as evidence that they shared all their critical information by jsut leaving out the bit you don't like isn't really much use.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
From the same page of the report

A natural tension exists between both organisations... Concerns still remain in both organisations about access to the counterpart's mission critical information



How odd that you left that part out...

"While some interviewees commented that potential intelligence opportunities were lost because of deference to law enforcement goals, most acknowledged the mutual benefits derived from cooperation."



I asked to correct me if I'm wrong, however these tensions do not change the fact that they worked together prior to 9/11.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Obviously they worked together to an extent. Do you think they actually ignored each other completely? Pretended the other agency just didn't exist?

What has been claimed by debunkers is that critical information was not shared. The document you have quoted from endorses this view, even though it claims that the situation was improving.

So I don't get your point I'm afraid.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join