CIA Threatens 9/11 Researchers After Discovery Of Cover Up

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


You have presented a very interesting video.

however you are making the same mistake that is made time and time again by proponents of the argument that there was some kind of government involvement with 9/11.

Richard Clarke is on record several times be it in his own book or other books and all the interviews he has done expressing his own frustration that the warnings were missed because of the sorry state of the national security apparatus. They were inept because leaders failed to make the tough calls (Tarnak farm) they could not shear information because of the bureaucracy and so on.

But lets think about this report, this memo you are talking about, the national security apparatus before 9/11 was receiving loads of threats, Al-Qa'ida increasingly popping up just 6 weeks before the attacks there was the "Bin Laden determined to strike" memo in the PDB. But the PDB is very much a sanitized version only with what the decision makers really need to know. So this report, it may have gotten all the way up to George Tent who had to make a judgement call, is this report going to be one of the few that goes into that briefing or not. In hindsight he chose wrong out of the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of reports that go through the DCI office he picked out the wrong one.

That however is not any kind of proof that he as the head of the CIA or any of his senor staff were involved in the attacks.

its quite a leap to go from hearing him talk about the sorry state of the CIA and inter-agency cooperation to saying that the ground work for the false flag was being laid.

I think you need to take what Mr Clarke has to say in the context of him being a government man, he was "thee" man after all for counter-terrorism, you dont think he might have screwed up as well?

He was almost screaming at the administration about the Al-Qa'ida threat, but one could argue that perhaps he too could have went further in pursuing Al-Qa'ida as the number one priority of the administration.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000



10 of the 15 saudi's on 9/11 had their visas pushed through in the US consulate in Jeddah...with the CIA telling the consulate who would get one..
They arrange for these people to enter the U.S., maybe so they can flip one??

Man, when you hear the clip clop of a horse, why do you look for a zebra..

The probabilty that the worlds largest spy network failed to pick up on and thwart histories biggest terrorist act even after they were warned repeatedly by numerous worldwide intelligece services is simply unbelievable.

It had to go down for one reason and one reason only -
"absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51) And we all know now that America let Pearl Harbour happen so it could enter WW2, just like Tonkin (that never happened) revved up things in Vietnam.

As Sherlock Holmes said " when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There were dozens of whistleblowers so to say it went 100% perfect would be incorrect. Plus obvious discrepancies in protocol and stories. It doesn't take 1000's of co-conspirators to pull something like this off. It would take several people in the right places plus 1000's of people to shocked and in disbelief to even consider the thought that something like this could be orchestrated with inside help.

Besides, even if it really was Al Qaeda and not the Saudi's, it would still require inside help to pull it off. There is just simply no way around this reality at this point. It is documented clearly that things were known and now we can go one step further with this video. There was a conscious effort to stop a automatic daily email if we are to believe Mr. Clarke.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

You have presented a very interesting video.

however you are making the same mistake that is made time and time again by proponents of the argument that there was some kind of government involvement with 9/11.

Pot, kettle black. You do this on every single 911 thread, blindly throwing out arguments against any new evidence presented without ever considering the new evidence. You are as transparent as I wish my government to be.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


Inside help.. Yes... Like greased rails from inception to completion on little things in a thousand different ways to make a difference short of flying a murder weapon into a crime scene or directly fingerprinting something the hijackers who did, had touched. So much risk..and something people don't consider? Had this been a wide ranging plot? Failure would have been death to who was doing it. It may STILL..or may be more so now.

Would you want a few hundred Navy SEALs suddenly realizing you, personally, are the man or woman who led their nation to tear itself up ...and get their own dear friends killed for nothing? You know..the guys who get where no one can ever get and do what is simply impossible to do? These would be things Americans actively helping events, directly, would have faced for ONE mistake ..just one time. One is all it would ever have taken, given the stakes here.

Where..conversely? If they were shepherding the hijackers along with cover from a distance? I can think of a couple failed plots in the 90's or plots that didn't go as planned which may have been earlier runs to the same thing. Hard to say there.... but again, one method suggested is 100% risk and fatal risk. The other is almost 0 risk to Americans involved because..really? All they did was make sure a state cop got a call at an opportune moment, so as to avoid a traffic stop ...or an airport rent-a-cop had his break at about the time that crew went through to board that morning. Countless little things...and it sure would have helped if not been necessary.

^^^ This is why I never belittle anyone, ridicule anyone or suggest they're ignorant for not holding the same view. Especially on this topic, by the way. We're *ALL* rank amateurs, making guesses here. Those who are not, aren't here and publicly talking yet..if they ever do.

*BTW Al Qaeda was formed by national citizens of Saudi Arabia. It's Saudi in origin and it's first BIG ultimatum and statement of presence was offering itself to fight Iraq in 1990 on behalf of the Saudi regime ...then threatening to destroy the Saudi Royals for daring to allow American boots on sacred Muslim Soil, as they put it then. (Mecca and Medina being in the same nation was close enough for Al Qaeda's thinking in the early 90's)

reply to post by Rosinitiate

Pot, kettle black. You do this on every single 911 thread, blindly throwing out arguments against any new evidence presented without ever considering the new evidence. You are as transparent as I wish my government to be.

hmmmm

so where am i going wrong?

I mean if this is a video of Richard Clarke talking about poor communication between agencies and i have read this repeated in the literature and I am arguing based on facts then where am i going wrong. There is a well documented body of literature that supports the argument that prior to 9/11 inter-agency cooperation with in the national security apparatus was failing and there were problems.

Me pointing out that this is not evidence of a false flag is a fair enough point.

If you can prove that they were deliberately covering up these reports then please do shear with the class. Because in the months running up to the attacks there were several documented instances were concerns regarding Al-Qa'ida and terrorism made it all the way to POTUS.

Your comment is not arguing against what i am saying its just a distraction.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I understand your point but failure wasn't an option here. Again, there was a lot of clean up after the storm such as the dancing Israelis, Larry Silverstein's comment of pulling building 7, no forensic investigation just haul the scrap out of the country immediately.

Even if there were people trying to expose the truth or follow their ethics at the time, they would have been quickly silenced. Those responsible for the coup clearly had/have the resources to keep it quiet not to mention most people who don't research this topic won't even consider the idea of an inside job. Since most people aren't asking the tough questions there isn't enough heat to move forward. Besides at this point, even if the truth became available it would still remain classified for national security purposes.

For instance, a coup attempt on a nation was thwarted without any public knowledge. Said government isn't going to share it with the world because the people may begin to fear that their government is losing control or the coup attempt itself galvanizes disdain for the government by the people.

Edit to note for clarity on my position.

I wouldn't neccesarily say I think it was an inside job. As stated in several threads my take is thus:

Saudi intelligence services and Mossad working in tandem with rogue elements within the US (CIA) are responsible for 911.

CIA = Coup in America......clever dogs!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


No I get it, its cool man, I understand cherry picking. do your thing bro....

Rosinitiate
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

No I get it, its cool man, I understand cherry picking.

do your thing bro....

So you dont actually have any counter argument to what i am saying so you opted just to have a dig at me for the hell of it?

really dude!

there is no need, if you cant debate a topic with me then please just dont bother to address me in the thread.

you comments towards me have been utterly pointless.

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Rosinitiate
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

No I get it, its cool man, I understand cherry picking.

do your thing bro....

So you dont actually have any counter argument to what i am saying so you opted just to have a dig at me for the hell of it?

really dude!

there is no need, if you cant debate a topic with me then please just dont bother to address me in the thread.

you comments towards me have been utterly pointless.

I'm not looking to debate you. As I said to you in threads past a debate has nothing to do with truth. A debate is all about who can make a better argument.

I don't need to spell out that you accept one thing from Clarke because it supports your position and poo poo anything that doesn't. If your not sure what I'm talking about re-read your own posts.

Sorry Guys, I know this has been posted many, many times before. If anyone thinks it was a non-American Terrorist attack is dumber than a bag of hammers!
The largest robbery in human history........ 2.5 Trillion dollars.



If video doesn't work then see:
www.youtube.com...

By the multitude of supposed inadequacies alone
that can be stacked up against our leaders and agencies
involved. And can reasonably be considered a package of evidence
that at the very least, all claims of incompetency should be suspect
of being engineered. With plausible deniability being a failsafe in
regards to the official story, not only in this arena for 911. But even
outside of it where we see the same kind of mistakes that normally
follow corruption.

It is only obvious that our government is totally screwing us. So obviously,
that anyone even defending the traitors, should also be labeled as such.
As the saying goes, " If you lay down with dogs ? You get up with fleas"

And so what if they do get inaccurrately blammed a few times. When
you cross a certain threshold how does it even matter anymore?

Huh ! That's their own goddamn fault too.

George Carlin- Massive bloodshed because they just don't
understand anything else.They don't even acknowledge the
fact that a ton of americans have five tons of questions for
them. I suppose they just don't realise this because their so
incompetent.

The official story has been laid to waste.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


actually a great theory on how things happen...to me its a less dark theory and more incompetence or a risk the cia took in hopes of better trade off...very cool

reply to post by andy1972

The probabilty that the worlds largest spy network failed to pick up on and thwart histories biggest terrorist act even after they were warned repeatedly by numerous worldwide intelligece services is simply unbelievable.

I feel precisely the same about the odds that those idiots and C)riminals I)n A)uthority actually got such a complex thing right. It's absolutely unbelievable to me, how much credit and near omniscient power some would bestow upon the people within Central Intelligence ..just this once of course (They're evil, war mongering idiots all other times) so they could pull off what would come to be the best planned, timed and executed action in human history.

No kidding...if they did this, it does rank the top in history. Bar NONE. The Persians attacking the Greeks by sea and land from two totally different directions, out of communication, doesn't come close. Nor do simple and petty things like the Horse at Troy. Childrens games compared to coordinating 4 aircraft, 19 marginally trained and capable operaters with a truely fanatic gleam, a million details of aftermath (ALL having to be seen to in turn, without fail) and then..the international agenda it was all done for.

All this done by a handful of men? When you look at it that way, the Official Story, if 100% accurate is actually the far simpler and more easily understood version for working precisely how it did. Far less to go wrong ...and I already said I don't buy the Official Version much beyond saying 4 hijacked planes of civilians crashed that morning.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Great thread, OP. Wish the Benghazi obsessors would spend even half as much time and effort raising a stink about US government malfeasance with respect to 9/11 as they do about the Benghazi attacks. Why do white Republican presidents get a pass on far worse fiascos than a black Democratic president? And make no mistake, I am not a defender of Obama and his merry band of criminal enablers.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think there are a large contingent of Americans who are damn glad that they have a "plausible" explanation that allows them to sit on their fat butts and do nothing but standby and ignore as their country is torn asunder and good men and women go off to war to die to maintain the illusion.

You ultimately see and hear what you want.

God forbid Americans were faced with an explanation that squarely laid the blame upon their own servant Govt. They might have to get off those fat butts and do something about it or at least come up with some excuse why they won't.

This is the cover story for the cover story. Period. Deny physics, I mean ignorance.

andy1972
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

10 of the 15 saudi's on 9/11 had their visas pushed through in the US consulate in Jeddah...with the CIA telling the consulate who would get one..
They arrange for these people to enter the U.S., maybe so they can flip one??

Man, when you hear the clip clop of a horse, why do you look for a zebra..

The probabilty that the worlds largest spy network failed to pick up on and thwart histories biggest terrorist act even after they were warned repeatedly by numerous worldwide intelligece services is simply unbelievable.

It had to go down for one reason and one reason only -
"absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51) And we all know now that America let Pearl Harbour happen so it could enter WW2, just like Tonkin (that never happened) revved up things in Vietnam.

As Sherlock Holmes said " when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

edit on PM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

edit on PM7Sun20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the very interesting video, which fits perfectly with my own suspicions about the CIA using the "hijackers" as a cover story. Very much like Lee Harvey Oswald was put into the wrong place at the wrong time. However, it is entirely possible that the "hijackers" knew exactly what their purpose was, were rewarded for it, and were flown out of the country after the attack. They never boarded any of the 4 flights that crashed, or can someone provide some proof that they did (besides a passport found in the streets of New York...)?

soulwaxer

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Interesting and thanks for the detailed synopsis of the video content.

I'm much more open to certain parties letting (and even helping) 9/11 happen to further their agendas, rather than the oft farfetched logic stretching suppositions involving switched planes, holograms, a vast group of govt conspirators actively faking the attack and faked last phone calls, etc..

My first impulse on that day was to think that some faction of our own govt might well be behind it because of the furthering of stated goals the attack produced. The later Patriot Act and a scarce few certain odd things about the attack almost cemented that line of thought for me. It was all so perfect.

This information might be damning if it's verifiable. I sincerely hope it's bunk, though. If it's not, then I sincerely hope all who let it happen waste away in prison. Gads.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So this report, it may have gotten all the way up to George Tent who had to make a judgement call, is this report going to be one of the few that goes into that briefing or not. In hindsight he chose wrong out of the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of reports that go through the DCI office he picked out the wrong one.

Actually, Clarke states that it's not Tenet who had probably made the call...it's his second in command. But, you are constantly missing the main point (intentionally?). There was an automatic system which would have made the report available to Clarke. Nobody didn't need to go through reports and weed out the "unimportant ones"...you would actually need to intervene and stop a certain report. By default they all go to Clarke...is what the states. He stated it twice at least...and even emphasized it. Nobody needed to do anything for me to get it...they only needed to intervene to stop it reaching him. This leaves very little room for "sorry state" you seem to cling with your dear life.

I followed your activities on 9/11 threads and you just don't want to dabble with this idea of Government involvement. I accept your stance, and don't get offended but I think you are being naive.

But...to each his own...

Hang in there....


edit:

I think you need to take what Mr Clarke has to say in the context of him being a government man, he was "thee" man after all for counter-terrorism, you dont think he might have screwed up as well?

I'll give you points for this one..because it's a possibility. He could be simply dumping the hot potato.

But, he made the claim...the ball is in CIA's court now...however...you know they wont ever respond to any charges. They don't need to...nobody can make them. Because of that reason alone...they are always a suspect. The agency works primarily for it self and for various interest inside the Govt. Since they are practically unaccountable, this makes them a perfect execution weapon for various clandestine op's.