Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

No, I'm not going to answer your questions because you're just trying to change the subject to avoid the fact that you've produced a document that proves that critical information was not shared. The opposite of what you claimed.

You are not going to answer this question because you have no idea just like me. But don't you think it should be answered to prove that not a single person in the government had anything to do with it?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You've also implied regularly that 9/11 was an inside job.

I always expressed my opinion that it wouldn't be possible without help on the inside.

I'm not asking you to prosecute anybody. A minute ago you seemed certain that a law had been broken. I simply asked you which one.

Cover up is illegal. Somebody decided not to share information and 3000 people died as the result. that's also a crime as far as i'm concerned. But its just my opinion based on history. Like the cover up of Watergate for example.

reply to post by Reheat

That's the very reason the Dept of Homeland Security was created. It was an attempt to help alleviate this problem with both agencies falling under one boss...

Two of the hijackers lived with an informant. The FBI agent or agents handling this informant didn't run a background check on the two hijackers. Is that policy or individual screw up?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

No, I'm not going to answer your questions because you're just trying to change the subject to avoid the fact that you've produced a document that proves that critical information was not shared. The opposite of what you claimed.

You are not going to answer this question because you have no idea just like me. But don't you think it should be answered to prove that not a single person in the government had anything to do with it?

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

No, I'm not answering it because it's irrelevant and based on a faulty premise. The document doesn't say that only critical information wasn't shared, but that some critical information wasn't shared. Whether the intel was critical or not obviously only came to light later. And I suspect serious information was less likely to be shared because it was more likely to aid the goal of the agency in question. It had value, in basic terms.

But this is, as I say, largely irrelevant. The "problem" of your title doesn't exist and you have cherry picked a document that ironically endorses the debunkers' view that you were trying to critique. Sorry, but it's weak stuff.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Reheat

 

That's the very reason the Dept of Homeland Security was created. It was an attempt to help alleviate this problem with both agencies falling under one boss...

Two of the hijackers lived with an informant. The FBI agent or agents handling this informant didn't run a background check on the two hijackers. It that policy or individual screw up?

Please show proof of this. BTW, I'm not affiliated with the FBI or any other Federal Agency, so why are you asking me?

Originally posted by maxella1


I always expressed my opinion that it wouldn't be possible without help on the inside.

Exactly. So your newfound stance that it might just be negligence is a recent revelation.

That's what I said.

Cover up is illegal. Somebody decided not to share information and 3000 people died as the result. that's also a crime as far as i'm concerned. But its just my opinion based on history. Like the cover up of Watergate for example.

So you don't know if a crime has been committed, you just think it may have been. Okay.

Who was prosecuted for Watergate?

Originally posted by maxella1
I always expressed my opinion that it wouldn't be possible without help on the inside.

Actually, I do agree with you on this point. And I don't think there is any doubt in a reasonable persons mind that they were helped by many failures in the intelligence and law enforcement community. The only debate (IMHO) is whether this "help" was intentional or just sheer bungling (you know, "the wall", inter-agency rivalry, internal politics, etc).

Sorry, I don't trust the government, the CIA, the FBI, etc so in my mind the jury is still out on this one.

reply to post by 911files


"Help" to me suggests more than just errors and inadvertent mistakes. It kind of implies a concerted effort to aid the terrorists.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen beyond a shadow of doubt, but I've not seen any compelling evidence for it. And Truthers tend to queer their own pitch by constantly bringing up tendentious or misleading sources, or selectively quoting stuff (as in this thread) so any progress in that direction is slow.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


3,000 American's died that day. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), not one person within the law enforcement/intelligence service was held accountable for their failures. Instead, I understand that many ended up with promotions.

That is not the real world. I have lived my life in the real world. In every business I've ever been associated with, heads would have rolled over similar failures. But I reckon the "real world" and government operate on different wavelengths.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Reheat

 

That's the very reason the Dept of Homeland Security was created. It was an attempt to help alleviate this problem with both agencies falling under one boss...

Two of the hijackers lived with an informant. The FBI agent or agents handling this informant didn't run a background check on the two hijackers. It that policy or individual screw up?

Please show proof of this. BTW, I'm not affiliated with the FBI or any other Federal Agency, so why are you asking me?

Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant

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.

There is no evidence the informant concealed the identity of the two men. In fact, after their names were reported in the news media following the attacks, the informant contacted his FBI case agent to say the two men had been his roommates. A bigger questions, said one counter-intelligence expert, is why the case agent, who knew that two Saudi men were staying with the informant, didn't show more curiosity about them. If nothing else, he should have considered them as possible informants themselves. The CIA sent out an alert Aug. 23, 2001, naming the two as possible terrorists — but the FBI didn't know the names of the two houseguests, who had moved out months earlier.

I was under the impression that you know a lot more than me about 9/11.. I guess i was wrong.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

3,000 American's died that day. As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), not one person within the law enforcement/intelligence service was held accountable for their failures. Instead, I understand that many ended up with promotions.

That is not the real world. I have lived my life in the real world. In every business I've ever been associated with, heads would have rolled over similar failures. But I reckon the "real world" and government operate on different wavelengths.

Of course. I don't disagree with that. What I was taking issue with was the readiness to say that somebody should be "prosecuted" without any knowledge of whether a law had even been broken. It struck me as saloon bar ranting.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


I always expressed my opinion that it wouldn't be possible without help on the inside.

Exactly. So your newfound stance that it might just be negligence is a recent revelation.

That's what I said.

Cover up is illegal. Somebody decided not to share information and 3000 people died as the result. that's also a crime as far as i'm concerned. But its just my opinion based on history. Like the cover up of Watergate for example.

So you don't know if a crime has been committed, you just think it may have been. Okay.

Who was prosecuted for Watergate?

Okay whatever makes you feel better.. But I always felt that way, and I always said that as long as this cover up continues we cannot be sure that it wasn't an inside job.

Nixon was made to resign because of Watergate. As far as I know nobody died as the result of Nixon cover up. I could be wrong tho.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Of course. I don't disagree with that. What I was taking issue with was the readiness to say that somebody should be "prosecuted" without any knowledge of whether a law had even been broken. It struck me as saloon bar ranting.

Not somebody should be prosecuted, that is what only debunkers say. I'm saying that until we know what, who and why they are covering up we cannot be sure that there were no foul play from inside. Even if it's only the negligence then why are they covering it up and these people continue working without any kind of consequences?

To me it looks suspicious.. But I'm a conspiracy theorist on a witch-hut according to debunkers.

Originally posted by maxella1


Not somebody should be prosecuted, that is what only debunkers say.

What are you on about? Not an hour ago you said that a crime had been committed and now you seem unsure whether one has been or not.

I'm saying that until we know what, who and why they are covering up we cannot be sure that there were no foul play from inside. Even if it's only the negligence then why are they covering it up and these people continue working without any kind of consequences?

Once again one of your threads starts so certain, trumpeting 'facts' and 'evidence', and then it all collapses in on itself and ends with you quietly and with much equivocation saying that something ought to be done about something but hey, you're not exactly sure what.

Slow handclap time, sorry.

Originally posted by maxella1



Okay whatever makes you feel better.. But I always felt that way, and I always said that as long as this cover up continues we cannot be sure that it wasn't an inside job.

Nixon was made to resign because of Watergate. As far as I know nobody died as the result of Nixon cover up. I could be wrong tho.

You just seem very unsure of stuff for someone so sure.

Originally posted by maxella1
I was under the impression that you know a lot more than me about 9/11.. I guess i was wrong.

Contrary to what some say here, I don't know everything. Now that you've posted this information I do recall it from the cobwebs of my memory....

This could easily be sloppy police work as easily as it could involve negligence. People involved in police work at the National level don't live in a vacuum. They have friends and associates who are dedicated and serious about their work. They tend not to condone incompetence or repeated negligence because simply to do so reflects on them as well as it does the individual who is guilty of either one.

The FBI employs some pretty shady informants and we have no idea how communicative this informant was or even how cooperative he was with the person with whom he had contact.

Whether or not the FBI looked into this or not, I don't know. I would presume they did.

You and others here seem to presume that people like me don't give a damn about this at all... I don't think I've ever said anything at all to indicate that there was not a severe failure of intelligence that lead to the success of the 9/11 attacks. Late August was too late to really do anything effective about these two except arrest them as they did Moussioeau (sic). Apparently, they had insufficient information to do so, even tho' in 20/20 hindsight they obviously should have done so...

BTW - I don't have impeccable recall of all I once knew about all of the issues as I have concentrated on the aviation and military aspects of 9/11 with specific emphasis on Air Defense and the attack on the Pentagon... That's been enough to keep me busy as opposed to dealing with all of the other areas where I have no particular expertise....

reply to post by Reheat


Welcome to the illogical paranoid world view of a truther as viewed from mommy's basement

A melange of "the gubmint should known that these Arabs were up to no good the minute set foot on
US soil. we should asked arrested them waterboarded 'em. strung 'em by their thumbs" and
the gubmint is evil, if we speak out will wind up in a FEMA re education camp" paranoia .....

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

What are you on about? Not an hour ago you said that a crime had been committed and now you seem unsure whether one has been or not.

Dude you're something else. Yes a crime was committed.. people died remember. The government is covering up something for some reason. Innocent people do not cover up their activities prior to a crime. I don't know what they are covering up so don't even ask me. I don't trust the government, history shows that false flags were used in the past by many countries. So in my opinion 9/11 could be an inside job based on the FACT that they are covering things up. This is and always been my position. When I find something that would change my mind I will post it here on ATS and then you can tell me "I told you so".

Once again one of your threads starts so certain, trumpeting 'facts' and 'evidence', and then it all collapses in on itself and ends with you quietly and with much equivocation saying that something ought to be done about something but hey, you're not exactly sure what.

What are you talking about? I'm still certain that they had enough information to prevent 9/11. My opinion did not change. I know what should be done, but I cant do it. The commission should be investigated to see what they omitted from the report. People should be made to testify under oath etc..

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1



Okay whatever makes you feel better.. But I always felt that way, and I always said that as long as this cover up continues we cannot be sure that it wasn't an inside job.

Nixon was made to resign because of Watergate. As far as I know nobody died as the result of Nixon cover up. I could be wrong tho.

You just seem very unsure of stuff for someone so sure.

I am 100 % sure that there's a cover up.

reply to post by Reheat

The FBI employs some pretty shady informants and we have no idea how communicative this informant was or even how cooperative he was with the person with whom he had contact.

As far as i know the FBI didn't allow questioning of that informant. What do you think the reason is?

You and others here seem to presume that people like me don't give a damn about this at all... I don't think I've ever said anything at all to indicate that there was not a severe failure of intelligence that lead to the success of the 9/11 attacks. Late August was too late to really do anything effective about these two except arrest them as they did Moussioeau (sic). Apparently, they had insufficient information to do so, even tho' in 20/20 hindsight they obviously should have done so...

Inside Job a possibility then right? I don't mean the whole government, but somebody on the inside could have been feeding wrong information, and helping the terrorists to carry out the attack ?