Snowden says U.S Gov Had All Info Needed To Detect 9/11 Plot - NBC censors it

a reply to: ChiefD

I feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor, and should be brought back to the United States and put on trial.

You and many other Americans, sadly, that is why our country and our freedom are in such disarray and jeopardy.

None of the things he says are credible. That's why he bolted and went to Russia.

How did you come to the conclusion that nothing he says is credible? He does have proof, massive amounts of documents and proof, an incredible amount of which has been confirmed by our government, that would seem to trump your "opinion" on his credibility.

I find it really sad that the media laps up all his lies, and gives him a forum to spout utter crap.

Can you provide some links or a sound opinion on exactly what he has or is lying about, then can you explain to me an every other American on why the NSA and other government agencies illegally spying on it's own citizens and lying to Congress and the entire nation about it is "spouting utter crap" and not newsworthy?

If you can, I'd love to hear it, if not, well...... You know.

a reply to: DeadSeraph


Yet in your previous post you indicated you believed certain people knew it was coming and purposely let it happen (which I agree with, btw). So which is it? Did anyone in the U.S government know of the plot and consciously fail to act in your opinion? You seem to be saying 2 different things.



I believe in this as far as in the know.
Just TWO LETTERS
VP

originally posted by: [post=17987092]lme7898354
I'm willing to give up some privacy issue in order to keep future attacks from happening.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Gee...seems Ben Franklin does not agree. Given the 2 of you, I would side with the more intelligent Ben.

Too many like you in this country.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Indeed... the invasion of our Airports by the Nazis, excuse me, the TSA really pisses me off. Major expense, major pain in the butt and major victory on the part of the terrorists.

a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

Yes, they've been doing this for a long time. The difference is that the NDAA changed the scale and focus.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Confirmation bias much?

I think the history of the event speaks for itself and I really don't see how that is "confirmation bias."

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Benswann.com is reporting that Edward Snowden claimed during his NBC interview that the U.S government had all the information needed to detect the 9-11 plot, and even that the perpetrators were known to the CIA and on their radar. He claims the U.S had all the dots they needed to be able to connect them. This is information that most conspiracy theorists already know, but it adds a certain level of intrigue to the narrative when one considers that NBC chose not to air this portion of the interview. Why is that?

That's exactly the official US stance. DHS was formed on that very premise. After 9/11 our politicians, on BOTH sides, said 9/11 could have been averted had the FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement offices been on the same page. We had all the data but failed to connect the dots and needed a new government agency to act as a central clearinghouse to connect those dots.

The DHS was supposed to be an agency that collected data from the FBI, CIA, and local police departments and notify all three when they had cross references between those agencies.

The argument that was made for the creation of the DHS is largely forgotten, or more likely was never actually listened to by the people, and it's argument for origination must remain unknown and non-salient.

We can not remind the people about the role of the DHS as it was sold to them because they might ask a rather pesky question: Why does an organization that was meant to collect data need more armored battle cars than they have desks?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That is an interesting take on the situation. I'm not sure I would agree, however. I don't necessarily see Snowden as reinforcing the official story. I actually view his comments as subtly hinting that the government knew it was coming, and deliberately chose not to act. He didn't come right out and say it in so many words, but he definitely indicated it was his opinion the U.S was aware of the plot. The other thing I find interesting about his comments is that he seemed to think additional surveillance measures implemented as a result of 9/11 have actually done more to damage the abilities of counter-terrorist agencies than they have to help them. At least that is how I interpreted his comments about the haystacks, and heaping more hay on them instead of understanding the stacks in the first place.

I wouldn't be so quick to pin Snowden as being supportive of the OS, simply because he didn't come out and say the towers were brought down with controlled demolition. Even by implying the government failed to act to stop the attacks, he is still standing on the side of truth (imo). No matter what a person thinks about the events of that day, one thing is certain and is undeniable by ALL sides of the argument: The U.S government failed to prevent 9/11. Whether or not that failure was intentional is open to debate (I believe it was), and even if it wasn't, why wasn't anyone held accountable for those failures?

Who's truth I would ask? My reality and therefore truth, was a lot different when I was heavily immersed and working for the military, than it is now. Maybe I am paranoid, working for the military/CI/MI I guess will do that to you. But perfect paranoia really is perfect awareness, it forces you to question everything. Personally, I still think snowden is controlled opposition and putin would use obama and obama would use putin (and/or their handlers would use both) to further an agenda or achieve an end goal, they are all in the same club and hence they cooperate, IMHO, real conflict at "leadership" levels is illusory.

To me, from what I have seen and experienced in the past, it appears to be the choice of the lesser of two evils. For the US to admit to being complicit in a false flag operation that would further both the military-industrial complex, rape the constitution and get rid of a pair of extremely expensive and rarely-at-even-50%-capacity buildings, would most probably start a revolution. People died and the ill effects from that almost "weaponized" asbestos, coating the WTC framing members, will last for decades. However, saying, "geez weren't we stupid" and then having some third party that has been made to look as if they are opposition say, "yeah, weren't they stupid, they knew and didn't believe it" has anyone who believes the tripe saying, "geez, stupid government, better change parties" and then you just get more of the same. Lies and BS.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bear in mind also that the State department pulled Snowden's passport soon after his arriving in Russia, thereby preventing him from leaving.

Ergo: any perception of Snowden's presence in Russia is simply due to the actions of our own govt.

a reply to: GenerationGap

To continue that last post I want to add:

As it turns out, the NSA is more of a data clearing house that connects dots and the DHS is just a domestic pseudo military force.

If DHS would have been sold as an agency that would stock massive amounts of warfare equipment to be deployed in every city and county while also having access to the details and history of every American citizen it would have been a pill that may have not been swallowed. So they called it a data gathering department to connect dots to terrorism to prevent "the mext 9/11" and we couldn't get it down our esophagus fast enough. I hope history remembers that as future generations will need to know how the DHS happened when they ask "How on Earth could those living in America at the turn of the century, and millennium, not recognize the machine they were creating?".

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bear in mind also that the State department pulled Snowden's passport soon after his arriving in Russia, thereby preventing him from leaving.

Ergo: any perception of Snowden's presence in Russia is simply due to the actions of our own govt.

The State Department also authorized the sale of a billion in weapons to Saddam in 1988 so he could invade Kuwait, the invasion of Kuwait was the brainchild of the State Department and CIA and it wasn't hard to get corporations, government ministers, banks and ambassadors on-side ;-) These characters have their hands up everybody's skirt, they are just like sharks when there is blood in the water.

As far as snowden in russia, I sometimes wonder if he is a well paid crisis actor, a construct LOL. It's so easy it seems these days to make something out of nothing with a few well placed words.

Cheers - Dave

That information was well known by many, prior to any one ever hearing of an Edward Snowden.
Any body can do a search, and find that much out. Especially, here on ATS of all places.

Nearly everything Snowden has allegedly to have reveiled, was available via open sources.

With that noted, if the government honored the whistle blower protection act, none of this so called problem would be such a big deal.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Nearly everything Snowden has allegedly to have reveiled, was available via open sources.

That's not quite accurate at all. Snowdens revelations have not only shocked all of America but many in Congress, even those on oversight committees that oversee the NSA.

Some of it yes, the most shocking, absolutely not.

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: ADVISOR

Nearly everything Snowden has allegedly to have reveiled, was available via open sources.

That's not quite accurate at all. Snowdens revelations have not only shocked all of America but many in Congress, even those on oversight committees that oversee the NSA.

Some of it yes, the most shocking, absolutely not.

I think he/she more so meant Snowdens comments on 9/11. I would agree that most people who have done any research on the subject would have already known everything Snowden mentioned, and that there weren't any real "new" revelations in that regard. But would the average american know these things? I'm not so sure.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You don't have to guess. The answer is no. Most Americans don't know these things. Much like everything else Snowden has outed. Do they need to hear it? Yeah, they do.

Snowden simply used 9/11 as an example of USAgencies being incapable of putting 2 and 2 together. He offered no opinion, one way or another, about complacency...in fact he implied there was none.

As far as credibility, at least one expert in body language said he was being deceitful...

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
You can watch the part of the interview that was cut, at the link above. So what do you think? Why did NBC not air this part of the interview? Is there any "new" information we can gleen from Snowdens remarks? Personally, I believe it's nothing we didn't already know, but I think it speaks volumes about the possibility that elements within the U.S government knew the attacks were coming, and did nothing to stop them so they could further a specific geo-political agenda (one which we are still seeing play out today).

What say you ATS?

I think it's the same information as before; the FBI field agents thought there was something funny about somebody wanting to learn how to fly a plane manually but not land or take off. But they were warned off not to go there from the Whitehouse. That leads to the Bush family and the Saudis. They want an excuse to pummel their rivals like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran.

Every time such as lead has been followed, it always goes back to a

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Nobody should doubt the facts here. The US govt. has been spying on the American Public, who individually is presumed innocent of any crime. 9/11 according the official story has around 20 hijackers from Saudi Arabia attacking this country that fateful day in Sept. 2001 and the patriot act then authorizes revocation of nearly all the privacy rights of every citizen in the country that was ATTACKED! WTH. Is this govt completely on drugs?

Since 9/11 torture, civilian surveillance, profiling has become the norm. Am I the only one who thinks the response from the US Govt. towards it's citizenry has been entirely and completely inappropriate? There is no legitimate defense to such heavy handed authoritarianism against an innocent citizenry. I'm fed the hell up with the police state. The police act like a gang and get away with brutal acts of violence against the people they are sworn, supposedly, to protect. Has everybody gone mad! There is no more excuses. I guess everybody has forgotten the testimony of police from precincts across this country for the last 30-40yrs. In nearly 99% of all cases police are found innocent of any and every crime, and any reasonable person can't believe the sheer statistical improbability of this. This country is so completely upside down. Every citizen should have nothing but shame for allowing this country to become what it has become. A country of bigots, racists, prejudiced, shallow, egocentric pyschopaths. The USA is a dream because nobody wants to wake the hell up and face reality.

It bothers me that this piece alludes to it being an outside attack, which would highly convince the public of that especially IF that is NOT the case. (still undecided on this myself)
It bothers me that it is "censored" and yet on YouTube - a site that will crush any video related to any related copyright issue no matter how minor and numerous other videos at the whim of corporate, not to mention government desire, quickly and thoroughly. If NBC wanted that to be censored; if the Government wanted that to be censored, it would be and we wouldn't be seeing this on YouTube.

Please note that I'm tired and probably shouldn't even be responding to posts right now, but, it's just my initial impression of this ?revelation? .

a reply to: gottaknow

Unless it was not "censored" but just cut for time constraints. The information is not new, not timely and not earth shaking. It's a "meh" comment ... ho hum, yawn.