Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


Did you think before you relied or is that too much work for you?
Maybe you personally never claimed that but there's a guy claiming this very thing a few pages back.


There were certain legal barriers preventing the sharing of some types of information, yes. But these did not apply to 9/11. The person you quote above is clearly speaking in a conditional sense - the clue is in the word if, used twice - and is responding to your point about "heads rolling". I don't agree with him anyway, although I concede that there are people who do.

None of that is particularly important though. What is important is that there was inter-agency rivalry and personal ambition that indubitably led to information not being shared. Although the reasons why are not germane to this discussion. You are attempting to make them so in order to cover up your error.




I started out by saying that you cannot use "the wall" as an excuse for not not holding anybody accountable. I never said that information was shared, in fact I said that if that was the case 9/11 wouldn't happen. But the those who failed to share information can no longer hide behind the "policy" and should be held accountable for their "incompetence or neglect or stupidity" what ever you want to call it.
edit on 3-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


This is simply a lie. You are attempting to change what you said in order not to look foolish. Unfortunately for you it is there in black and white at the start of the thread.

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

"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 post a official document which states that the agencies worked as a team."

You clearly stated several times that you thought all information was being shared. It's only since you were shown that the actual document you tried to use as proof refuted your claim that you have altered your stance to suggest that you think some info was not shared.

The reasons for this are immaterial, at least for this discussion. Incidentally I agree that the failures were personal, not policy, but this doesn't change the fact that you are squirming to get out of an argument you foolishly made without checking the whole document.


I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you..

Every one of those quotes that you posted actually make you look stupid for not being able to comprehend what you read.

Let me explain it one more time..

If the CIA and the FBI shared what they knew about the hijackers we wouldn't be arguing about it today because there wouldn't be a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Forum, because they knew enough to prevent 9/11 attacks.

The debunkers always justify the failure of preventing the attack by referring to the policy of not sharing information, and therefor it was not their fault because they were following the rules of that policy. This document proves that it wasn't the policy responsible for not sharing intelligence. Because it shows us that they in fact worked together on many investigations, So either they were violating their rules or the rules didn't apply.

But in the case of 9/11 they didn't share intelligence for some reason, so please explain why nobody got in any trouble for it..

Debunkers cannot use this excuse any longer because somebody made a decision to withhold information for some other reason, NOT THE POLICY. I started this thread by making this point and my point still did not change.


EDIT to add this:

There are two possible scenarios.

Somebody willfully withheld important information and that's why 9/11 happened. or they did share information but didn't act on it for some reason. And I would love to read your explanation or another excuse.
edit on 3-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


It did. It changed after I pointed out your error. It's all there at the start of the thread and you're making yourself look foolish by denying it.

But whatever. I see you've been convinced by what I and others have said so some ignorance has been denied I guess.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


It did. It changed after I pointed out your error. It's all there at the start of the thread and you're making yourself look foolish by denying it.

But whatever. I see you've been convinced by what I and others have said so some ignorance has been denied I guess.


I just remembered that this isn't the first time you make a fool of yourself.

Here's one example of your complete failure of reading comprehension.www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





It did. It changed after I pointed out your error.


Show me



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1



I just remembered that this isn't the first time you make a fool of yourself.

Here's one example of your complete failure of reading comprehension.www.abovetopsecret.com...


Max,

Dude, back to page one. Clearly you started this thread after reading the "cliff notes". After several of us read the document in detail, it was clear that your point was not accurate.

Bottom line: There was a systematic breakdown between departments. This as your document proves, has been going on for decades! It was improving, yes, but FAR from where it should have been. The document proves this as well.

Yes, there was a strong possibility that 9/11 could have been prevented (or in the least- delayed).



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


It did. It changed after I pointed out your error. It's all there at the start of the thread and you're making yourself look foolish by denying it.

But whatever. I see you've been convinced by what I and others have said so some ignorance has been denied I guess.


I just remembered that this isn't the first time you make a fool of yourself.

Here's one example of your complete failure of reading comprehension.www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yeah. You see what you've done there is post something by me pointing out another error you made and then pretended that it's my mistake.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





It did. It changed after I pointed out your error.


Show me


In the very first post you put out two quotes from the document and said

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

Are you seriously claiming that this means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"? Because no reasonable reading of it would suggest that.

If that wasn't enough, when I asked about the source you replied

"The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it."

and suggested that you had refuted this line of thinking: "Now... it turns out that you are wrong".

In other words you were claiming that failure to share information was not the reason "they couldn't stop it". You were categorically claiming that there was no failure to share information. At no point up to this stage did you suggest that information had been shared, but that the pertinent information had been withheld by individuals.

A few posts later I supplied you with this quote from the document:

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

At that point your line becamse more equivocal. Suddenly you started talking about the "negligence" of the FBI and CIA. You didn't quite move to your current argument - it took you a few more posts to completely change your position - but you altered what you were saying.

Now you have come full circle and are left in agreement that infromation sharing was a problem. Quite some distance from your initial notion that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used."



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





Bottom line: There was a systematic breakdown between departments. This as your document proves, has been going on for decades! It was improving, yes, but FAR from where it should have been. The document proves this as well.


See now the debunkers are changing their opinions. And thats a good thing. First it was because of the policy not to share intelligence, now it's because the improvements weren't enough or too slow or whatever. Here's a question for you... Is it possible that somebody withheld information on purpose to buy time for the terrorists?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


It did. It changed after I pointed out your error. It's all there at the start of the thread and you're making yourself look foolish by denying it.

But whatever. I see you've been convinced by what I and others have said so some ignorance has been denied I guess.


I just remembered that this isn't the first time you make a fool of yourself.

Here's one example of your complete failure of reading comprehension.www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yeah. You see what you've done there is post something by me pointing out another error you made and then pretended that it's my mistake.


Lol
No you didn't point out an error you jumped to a conclusion that I mentioned the fact that Jennings was deceased to say that he was murdered. But I actually was making a point that because he is dead we cannot ask him what he was stepping over.
edit on 3-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





It did. It changed after I pointed out your error.


Show me


In the very first post you put out two quotes from the document and said

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

Are you seriously claiming that this means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"? Because no reasonable reading of it would suggest that.

If that wasn't enough, when I asked about the source you replied

"The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it."

and suggested that you had refuted this line of thinking: "Now... it turns out that you are wrong".

In other words you were claiming that failure to share information was not the reason "they couldn't stop it". You were categorically claiming that there was no failure to share information. At no point up to this stage did you suggest that information had been shared, but that the pertinent information had been withheld by individuals.

A few posts later I supplied you with this quote from the document:

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

At that point your line becamse more equivocal. Suddenly you started talking about the "negligence" of the FBI and CIA. You didn't quite move to your current argument - it took you a few more posts to completely change your position - but you altered what you were saying.

Now you have come full circle and are left in agreement that infromation sharing was a problem. Quite some distance from your initial notion that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used."





So I post a document which disproves the whole " it's nobodys fault " crap. You don't get it, so I clarify what it means, and you still don't get and pretend like I changed my mind .

Whatever, Trying to explain things to you is like talking to a wall.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Lol. You're embarrassing yourself. It's completely clear from what you wrote that you thought something that you have now had to change. I've shown you this again and you're still brazen enough to deny it.

No wonder you ascribe to 9/11 Truth. You have exactly the right kind of mind for bias and cognitive dissonance.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1
 


Lol. You're embarrassing yourself. It's completely clear from what you wrote that you thought something that you have now had to change. I've shown you this again and you're still brazen enough to deny it.

No wonder you ascribe to 9/11 Truth. You have exactly the right kind of mind for bias and cognitive dissonance.


It's obvious that you don't understand what you read, so I'm not going to explain it to you again. I just want to ask you why you think that I'm embarrassing myself? You are the one who can't get a very simpe and not complicated point I make. It appears that you think if you say the same thing many times it will some how become true.

I'm not embarrassed by your lack of reading comprehension . All my previous posts are available for you to read and see that my position didn't change since the very first post.

Well actually one thing did change.... I was under the imprecion that nobody looked for explosives in the rubble of WTC but then somebody posted a link where it said that NYPD did have dogs search the rubble for ballistics. So instead of repeating that I'm somehow embarrassing myself maybe you should try to actually change my mind.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
It's obvious that you don't understand what you read, so I'm not going to explain it to you again. I just want to ask you why you think that I'm embarrassing myself? You are the one who can't get a very simpe and not complicated point I make. It appears that you think if you say the same thing many times it will some how become true.


I'm afraid I do understand what I read. It may be that you meant something different - although I frankly doubt it - but the fact remains that you wrote this:

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

I'll repeat my criticism. Are you seriously claiming that this means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
It's obvious that you don't understand what you read, so I'm not going to explain it to you again. I just want to ask you why you think that I'm embarrassing myself? You are the one who can't get a very simpe and not complicated point I make. It appears that you think if you say the same thing many times it will some how become true.


I'm afraid I do understand what I read. It may be that you meant something different - although I frankly doubt it - but the fact remains that you wrote this:

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

I'll repeat my criticism. Are you seriously claiming that this means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"?


And I am telling you again that you can no longer use the excuse of information not being shared. I really don't know how else I can say it so you will understand ..

A drunk driver cannot use an excuse that he didn't know that driving drunk can kill people as defense. Same thing goes for the intelegance agencies, they cannot say that they didn't know that the hijackers would attempt an attack if not stopped. First it was said over and over again that they simply followed the rules, but now it's clear that the rules was not the problem. So whoever decided that it would be a good idea not to tell the other agency about what they knew can no longer use this policy as a get out of jail free card. Get it?

It's really not that difficult to understand.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


And I am telling you again that you can no longer use the excuse of information not being shared. I really don't know how else I can say it so you will understand ..


Why not? The information was not shared. You even admit it. Before you were forced to change your stance you wrote this:

"The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now... it turns out that you are wrong"

But now you're saying we're not wrong. That info was not shared. Which is why I am correctly accusing you of having changed your opinion.

I'll repeat my criticism again, since you still haven't answered it: are you seriously claiming that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used" means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"? Because if you are then the issue is definitely not with my comprehension.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


And I am telling you again that you can no longer use the excuse of information not being shared. I really don't know how else I can say it so you will understand ..


Why not? The information was not shared. You even admit it. Before you were forced to change your stance you wrote this:

"The debunkers are so sure that failure to share information was the reason they couldn't stop it. Now... it turns out that you are wrong"

But now you're saying we're not wrong. That info was not shared. Which is why I am correctly accusing you of having changed your opinion.

I'll repeat my criticism again, since you still haven't answered it: are you seriously claiming that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used" means "the information sharing problem was there but was caused by individuals"? Because if you are then the issue is definitely not with my comprehension.



Information was intentionally withheld by somebody to help the terrorists carry out what they were planning. Debunkers are always saying that it was not intentional failure to share intelligence but it was simply the policy that they were following. So now it turns out that the debunkers are wrong, it was not the policy. So now I'm saying you don't have an excuse for them anymore........... Seriously I am done with you . Have a good day!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


You seem awfully focused on trying to prove the 'debunkers are wrong' rather than anything else. Perhaps you should focus on researching the issues of 911 you seem confused about. Nobody cares who's right or wrong here, just what can be supported by the facts.

You've not supported 'someone intentionally helped the terrorists' or similar.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
We do have a problem!

The debunkers in this thread, that aggressively support the OS also support 7/7.

Maud Dib of 7/7 ripple effect acquitted on charges of subverting the course of justice
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trickoftheshade even admits in this thread that they have not read the NIST report, how can they be an expert on 9/11 without even looking at what they are defending?

I've noticed 9/11 OS supporters here also like to belittle serious UFO investigators..

Secret Space Program: Richard Dolan
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So OS'ers dont read the NIST report they fully support, but do believe 9/11 was not an inside job, they also do not believe 7/7 was an inside job, even though the video '7/7 ripple effect' pretty much confirms suspcions in the first 5 mins, and the OS'ers also like to fire ad hominem at people researching UFO's, as in the Richard Dolan threads!

Then in the thread below, more ad hominem from the OS'ers, and they also clearly ignore the video of the WTC2 collapse, shot from Hoboken by an amatuer person, that clearly shows explosion noises, and clearly shows flashes as the chopper hovers near the WTC2, just prior to it collapsing.

an inconvenient truth
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why would the OS'ers ignore such a video? Is it because it goes against the OS, and would then mean that these 'sinister secret agents' were actually involved?

Even the former chief of NIST science division is skeptical of the NIST report and calls for an independent report!
suzieqq.wordpress.com...< br />
So, it would seem that yes, secret agents did play a part, and that would make them sinister if they are complicit in people's deaths, and secret agents are still about trying to cover up the OS, albeit lower ranking agents.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1
 


You seem awfully focused on trying to prove the 'debunkers are wrong' rather than anything else. Perhaps you should focus on researching the issues of 911 you seem confused about. Nobody cares who's right or wrong here, just what can be supported by the facts.

You've not supported 'someone intentionally helped the terrorists' or similar.


If debunkers support the OS, which they do, then yes, proving them wrong with their pseudo facts, and pseudo science is imperative.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

I think if the government reacted to 9/11 like it was suposed to. You know investigate it properly instead of lying about 95% of what happened, there would be less room for conspiracy theories. And also not everybody is saying that there were no terrorists invovolved, I personally think that the hijackers had a lot of help from the inside.


You just contradicted yourself. You'e claiming they "lied about 95%" of what happened and then turn around and say terrorosts were probably involved. The other 95% is what confirms it was a terrorist attack, from the trail linking Atta from Al Qaida to taking flight instruction to boarding to the plane being hijacked. Plus,


OKlahoma City bombing also raise questions because on the first day they reported on the news that the bomb squad disarmed a few other bombs and that there were two people in that truck according to witnesses but that story changes the next day and traffic video recordings diapeared. And don't forget that McVeigh sent a letter to his sister saying that he was selected for some kind of special forces team by the military and the he was upset about what he learned there.


The problem with this is that, exactly like the 9/11 attack, there were loads of bad information being reported becuase the news agencies were chomping at the bit to throw whatever update they could find on the air. I can understand how false information can be reported in the panic because reporters are human too. It has nothing to do with any coordinated effort to put out disinformation and everythign to do with humans being capable of makign mistakes under pressure...but what I object to are the conspiracy theorists using these incorrect reports to base their accusations on even though they've been retracted...especially when they conceal from us that it's been retracted. The "flight 93 landed in Ohio" stunt that Dylan Avery pulled in Loose Change is a sterling case in point.


The anthrax came from US military lab not Iraq like they told us. So that gives a reason for conspiracy theories especially considering what happened to the accused terrorist.


I'm thinking you need to update your information. The FBI traced the anthrax strain to a mentally disturbed lab technician who committed suicide when he found out he was going to be arrested.

The Anthrax attack and Bruce Ivins



The first WTC bombing also has a reason for conspiracy theory like the Tape recording made by informant Emad Salem for example.


I'm thinking you're only hearing what you want to hear. Emad Salem specifically said he tried to warn the FBI abou the plot and hsi handlers were even goign to supply them with a fake bomb, but their own supervisors were idiot who didn't take the threat seriously. SO how does that show my point twrong when I say the attack succeeded becuase of human failure?



The only reason I know a little bit about the previous attacks in the US is because I started researching 9/11.

So can you honestly say that the American people have no reason to suspect an inside job?


Not when you say ominous things like "I started researching 9/11"? Whre do you go to for your nformation, precisely?





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join