The mastermind of 9/11 - Page 4

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-30-07, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

I agree. That would explain why Bush failed to act on dozens of warnings in the months before 9/11:

Wow even a cursory examination of your website proves the utter bull**** truthers rely on.

Quote:

What did George Bush himself know, prior to the attacks?

“President Bush was told in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack U.S. passenger planes - information which prompted the administration to issue an alert to federal agencies - but not the American public.”

He got a memo with non-actionable intelligence in it.

Quote:

Why were certain people warned not to fly on or about September 11 (or even earlier), and not the rest of us?

“For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.”

Total load of bull****:

Willie Brown

Quote:

Did the U.S. know that the attacks were going to happen?

“intelligence had been streaming in concerning a likely Al Qaeda attack. ‘It all came together in the third week in June [2001],’ Clarke said. ‘The C.I.A.'s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks.’ On July 5th, Clarke summoned all the domestic security agencies—the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the F.B.I.—and told them to increase their security in light of an impending attack.”

Richard Clarke is FOS, let's see what he was saying before he was fired and started trying to push his book:

Quote:

The first point, I think the overall point is, there was no
plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a
strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there
were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they
remained on the table when that administration went out of
office--issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in
Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy, changing our
policy towards Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming
Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.

They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not
been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided
then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One,
vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the
lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to
some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there
were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in
effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is
to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been
on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the
first week in February, decided in principle, in the spring
to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA
resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go
after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies--and you had
to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late
March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development
of the implementation details of these new decisions that
they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer--last point--they developed
implementation details, the principals met at the end of the
summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the
strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold,
changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on
Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance
assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al
Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to
a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al
Qaeda. This is in fact the time line.

Sen. Frist on "Outrageous Charges by Richard Clarke"

Quote:

Why didn't the Air Force scramble fighters before the third attack plane (if it was a plane) hit the Pentagon?

More total bull****:

Andrews AFB

Quote:

Who else knew something was going to happen in the United States?
Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack ,

Just as I suspected the JOOS DID IT!

Quote:

“Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.”

Oh really? Let's see the corrobarating evidence to back these claims, let's see the IM'S and the evidence proving when they were sent backed up by an indepenent source.

Quote:

Why did George Bush behave so strangely on September 11, 2001?

How dare he not scare the hell out of a room full of children, that tears it, that is indisputable proof of foreknowledge.

Quote:

What specific warnings were given to the CIA and the FBI regarding imminent terrorist activity?

“ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.”

Why don't you do yourself a favor truther and actually read your sources:

Quote:

"They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,"

Thanks truther I needed a good laugh.

Quote:

What else did our government know about possible terrorist attacks?

“The FBI was warned six years ago of a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings, Philippine investigators told CNN."

This one is true and is the largest intelligence failure that occurded, what happened was that the Phillipinos captured Ramzi Yousef's laptop, Ramzi Yousef is KSM's nephew, Ramzi Yousef is responsible for the '93 WTC attack and formulated the beginings of what would become the planes operation, and when he was captured the plan went into the hands of his uncle KSM. Now the failure came when our intelligence networks tried to pass the information off to the FBI the FBI rejected it because of the Clinton/Gorelick wall; furthermore, we captured Yousef before 9-11, and what is most regretful is that he was captured at the home of his uncle KSM who just walked off into the ether that is the AQ underground of Pakistan, and we had no way of knowing that Yousef had passed the plan off to KSM who then took it to OBL where from it actually began to develop; furthermore, at the point that Yousef's laptop had been captured the hijackers had not even been tapped for the mission, the targets had not been selected, no timetable had been set, and OBL hadn't even gotten involved yet.

Quote:

What have been the Bush administration’s prior dealings with The Taliban and with Bin Laden?

[i]“‘At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs”,’ [Jean-Charles] Brisard [co-author of the just-published book, Bin Laden, the forbidden truth] said in an interview in Paris.” [This threat was made in July of 2001.]

Unocal pipeline motive debunked here:

9/11 and the Afghan pipeline

There is absolutely 0 evidence to corrobarate that quote outside of the claim made in that book which is a pack of lies.

Quote:

Why did the FBI usher members of the bin Laden family out of the U.S. after 9/11?

Somebodies been whacking off to fahrenheit 9-11 again, Moore lies debunked here:

Family Flights

I can go on busting up your truther bull**** all day son.

ashurbanipal · 08-30-07, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

No, you would be the one "to start bringing out the rhetorical barbs" and you did so fairly quickly.

Really? Post 22 in the other thread appears to be the first post in which you addressed me in that thread. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

You have a patheically desparate need to believe these conspiracy theories, even just the mere suggestion, the asking of a question, convinces you of the facts you have already embraced.

You also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Youve lost your connection with reality dude.

Seems like a couple rhetorical barbs to me. I didn't respond to either.

Then, in post 34, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Anyone with their faculties in tact can watch the video of the collapse and watch material falling at free fall speed outside the perimeter of the building falling faster than the core.

To which I did reply in post 99--the first time I addressed you in that thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash

Anyone with their faculties intact enough to read and do simple math should have known that.

What's particularly funny is that in my post 99, I clearly quoted what you said and then simply used your exact wording in reply to you. Anyone can go back to post 99 and see that--it's a short post. Yet, you seem to think that your saying it is OK, while my saying it isn't.

Hmmmm....well, I digress. We continue:

After ignoring all my other points, you continue in post 104:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

And "free fall speed" is a measure of SPEED einstein, not time. And since they fell in the time that they "should collapse", whats your point?.... or just a need to respond?

And perhaps here I was a bit overharsh--perhaps you called me "einstein" as if to laud my superior intellect, but I really didn't take it that way.

I replied in post 113, wherein is to be found the comment about passing the 8th grade. Tit for tat? Some would think so, but apparently not you. Then in post 115, you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Oh geez, im surrounded by idiots.

Leaving little doubt who you mean, since this was a reply to me. Though I'm curious how I'm supposed to have surrounded you at this point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Actually, precisely the opposite. Both he and cheney wondered if we had shot down flight 93. You should probably avoid exercises in logic.

My post 116 follows, in which I detect absolutely no rhetorical barbs. I did say that it appears to me you made the dumb remark, for explanation already posted. I ask you to explain your side.

You came back in post 118 with your quiz about the speed of sound and you asked what I didn't understand. In 119, you make a fairly tame remark about me knowing nothing about physics. But I didn't take it seriously.

However, in 120, you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Good god man! dig deep for some sembalance of charachter if any is to be had.

Which are fighting words where I come from. But I did not respond to this or any of your other insults in post 124. Perhaps the only thing that could be construed as a rhetorical barb in this post is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ash

How you think you still have a case to argue.

Which was posted in response to your asking me what there was not to understand. Again--tit for tat? Apparently you don't think so.

You wrote in post 125:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Meant to use 10 times and 1/10. Regardless einstein. Its distance over time, not time over distance. 1 1/2 times free fall speed would be FASTER than free fall. You couldnt possibly understand but according to your previous logic I was traveling 10 times the speed of sound at 76mph, just as you view a tower collapse taking 1 1/2 as much time as free fall, as being 1 1/2 times the speed of free fall.

Again with the einstein (not even capitalized)...not that this is so bad.

In post 136 I explained what I meant once I understood your point. I detect no insults.

You respond in post 140:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

Riiiight, youve defended your moronic comment since you made it on july 25th, called me ignorant for disputing the claim, and I am the one trying to avoid something. Soon as I realized my error I admitted it and made the correction. You on the other hand are dishonest and disingenuous and defended the statement for a month KNOWING it was incorrect.

Which more or less stands on its own.

I replied in post 141 in a very tame manner, restating what I meant and asking to get back to the point of discussion.

Your post 142 was a reply, and rather tame for you.

My post 143 was an attempt to point out that I knew what I meant all along, and had merely stated something badly (just as had you, no less).

Your post 144:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

I recognized what you meant, pointed out the error, and then you argued for a month that there was no error. SUCH a bull shiiter you are.

My reply is post 145--find any kind of insult in it if you can.

Then your 147 starts off with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

What moronic logic.

I ignored that in post 149 and made no insults.

Your post 150:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon

That would be my first response-
"And "free fall speed" is a measure of SPEED einstein, not time."
to which you responded with a lecture on what anyone with an 8th grade education would know. I even pointed out that its not time over distance, which would make your statement correct, its distance over time.
You are such a dishonest, disingenuous bullshiiter

I didn't say anything about this, either. My response was post 17 in this thread--again, quite insult-free.

Your response was post 19, which anyone can go back and read. I did not respond before you also posted #23--to which this post is my reply.

So the issue seems to come down to 2 things:

First, it appears you start out in that other thread with insults, in posts 22 and 34. None of my posts prior to post 99 was even addressed to you, and as far as I can tell, they contained no insults. The only insult to you or anyone in post 99 was using your own words.

Second, it appears you post 8 or 10 blatant insults for every one of my fairly tame ones.

Argue with that if you can...

ashurbanipal · 08-30-07, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

LMFAO yes OBL was offered a chance to perpetrate a massive terrorist attack but that offer came from KSM,

No doubt KSM presented the project to him after meeting with Atta and Bin Al'Sheeb. Doesn't change anything I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

OBL didn't plan 9-11 he just financed it.

Yes, you are correct. Again, doesn't change anything I said. Bin Laden probably has any number of projects in the works at any one time. I believe he was approached by the conspirators and asked if he had anything really big cooking. He replied that he might have something in the early stages. At that point, it became a joint venture; Bin Laden and AQ working on the attack, the conspirators working on how to facilitate it. My guess would be that any thought of demolitions didn't occur until much later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

First the idea was formed by Ramzi Yousef ('93 WTC bombing) and after he was captured KSM took it over and brought the idea to OBL.

It's my understanding that it was the brainchild of Ramzi Bin Al Sheeb and Mohammed Atta after the '93 bombing failed to collapse the buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

Now just where in the hell does the U.S. come into that sequence of events?

"The U.S." doesn't ever come into it. A few people from the U.S. do. They come in after the plan is being toyed with, but before it gets significant financing from OBL--i.e., roughly 1995.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but the entire government was not in on the conspiracy. The vast, vast, vast majority of everyone who works in government would have been absolutely against perpetrating 911. Rather, a small cabal of individuals manged to open a window just wide enough that three of the (possibly five) hijacked planes hit their targets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

You people can't even come close to challenging the facts behind the planes operation and you don't even try you just choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves conclusively that 9-11 was not an inside job but rather another in a long line of AQ attacks against the U.S. and her interests.

Actually, I think that's a point still under discussion. Your propensity to rattle something off and then declare victory is, well, kind of odd. Your propensity to keep repeating points I have already argued against, rather than answer me, is just as odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOT

What's really funny is that we have the masterminds behind the attacks in custody IE KSM and Ramzi Yousef and for your conspiracy theories to be valid you would have to believe that we are keeping the only two men who could blow the lid off the inside job alive just for the hell of it.

1) How do you know they're alive?

2) Why do you think they could blow the lid off of anything? Only OBL could do that per my theory. Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin yousef, Ramzi Bin Al'Sheeb, and all the hijackers believe that it was totally AQ from start to finish. Well...I bet KSM probably has his doubts (which, it's worth pointing out, he hinted at in his testimony, if any of the testimony is really his). Whatever else might be said about him, he's a smart guy and he had his own organization within Al Qaeda.

It's probably also worth pointing something else out here: there are two ways to think about this official version of events leading up to 911. Most of it is supposed to be pieced together from information gathered in private from individuals being held at undisclosed locations, without the benefit of civil counsel and not subject to a writ of habeus corpus. I read over the text of KSM's testimony--but I wasn't there to see it and neither were you. It's possible it could be a complete forgery, from start to finish, or it could have been coerced. And so with all the other "detainees" who are being held in Guantanamo or undisclosed locations. We've strung together a story based on these sources that could be total B.S.

However, I don't think this is probably so. The beauty of the plan as I have outlined it is that everyone in AQ except OBL is under the impression that they did it all. They probably read the 911 commission report, look at all the supposed failures, and think to themselves "Stupid Great Satan! He deserves to burn!" It probably seldom crosses their minds that there might have been inside help. They have a reason to not want to believe it either. For Al Qaeda, knowing that without inside help 911 wouldn't have worked means that they're not nearly as good operationally as they like to think.

Moreover, OBL couldn't say anything because he would be crucified by AQ and not believed by Americans. And all this being so, why not tell part of the truth? Let them hang themselves thinking they did it alone, let the American people believe the story as stated, and let the conspirators get away scott-free. The best lie contains elements of the truth.

Anyway, your reaction is surprising for another reason: AmericanWoman asked my opinion, and I said very clearly that I was speculating about what happened. You respond to it as if I'm stating it as gospel truth. I'm not; I merely find it the most reasonable version of events given all our observations. But it could be wrong.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-30-07, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

No doubt KSM presented the project to him after meeting with Atta and Bin Al'Sheeb. Doesn't change anything I said.

Atta and Bin Al'Sheeb weren't tapped until after KSM went to OBL with his Nephew Yousef's plan after he was captured in Pakistan.

Quote:

Yes, you are correct. Again, doesn't change anything I said. Bin Laden probably has any number of projects in the works at any one time. I believe he was approached by the conspirators and asked if he had anything really big cooking. He replied that he might have something in the early stages. At that point, it became a joint venture; Bin Laden and AQ working on the attack, the conspirators working on how to facilitate it. My guess would be that any thought of demolitions didn't occur until much later.

Umm first of all where do you get this idea that OBL was contacted by some unknown conspirators? Second of all why would OBL need these outside conspirators in the first place? He has his own damn assets and finances.

Quote:

It's my understanding that it was the brainchild of Ramzi Bin Al Sheeb and Mohammed Atta after the '93 bombing failed to collapse the buildings.

No your understanding is completely off, it was the brainchild of Ramzi Yousef and KSM, Atta and the others were AQ Martyr volunteers selected by OBL they were not the idea men.

Quote:

"The U.S." doesn't ever come into it. A few people from the U.S. do. They come in after the plan is being toyed with, but before it gets significant financing from OBL--i.e., roughly 1995.

Why would OBL need outsiders to finance it? AQ is primarily a fundraising machine.

Quote:

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but the entire government was not in on the conspiracy. The vast, vast, vast majority of everyone who works in government would have been absolutely against perpetrating 911. Rather, a small cabal of individuals manged to open a window just wide enough that three of the (possibly five) hijacked planes hit their targets.

Yes a small cabal of former Mujahadeen in the Afghan-Soviet war who decided to turn their guns on the U.S. after they had defeated the Soviets.

Quote:

Actually, I think that's a point still under discussion. Your propensity to rattle something off and then declare victory is, well, kind of odd. Your propensity to keep repeating points I have already argued against, rather than answer me, is just as odd.

Quote:

1) How do you know they're alive?

They conceal that type of information in books and newspapers. KSM is now in Guantanomo awaiting trial by military commission and Ramzi Yousef has been tried and convicted to a life sentence in a supermax facility in Florence Colorado.

Quote:

2) Why do you think they could blow the lid off of anything? Only OBL could do that per my theory. Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin yousef, Ramzi Bin Al'Sheeb, and all the hijackers believe that it was totally AQ from start to finish.

Because it was AQ from start to finish, Yousef and KSM planned the attacks and OBL financed the attacks through his AQ financing operations.

Quote:

Well...I bet KSM probably has his doubts (which, it's worth pointing out, he hinted at in his testimony, if any of the testimony is really his). Whatever else might be said about him, he's a smart guy and he had his own organization within Al Qaeda.

It's probably also worth pointing something else out here: there are two ways to think about this official version of events leading up to 911. Most of it is supposed to be pieced together from information gathered in private from individuals being held at undisclosed locations, without the benefit of civil counsel and not subject to a writ of habeus corpus. I read over the text of KSM's testimony--but I wasn't there to see it and neither were you. It's possible it could be a complete forgery, from start to finish, or it could have been coerced. And so with all the other "detainees" who are being held in Guantanamo or undisclosed locations. We've strung together a story based on these sources that could be total B.S.

The only total b.s. is your conspiracy theory, it is not just the confessions of KSM that we are going on it is the physical evidence tying AQ to the attacks from start to finish, starting with Yousef's captured laptop in the Phillipines, the travel records of the trips taken by the hijack leaders to Afghan terrorist training camps, the mounds of physical evidence the hijackers left behind, and the numerous confessions. Show me one scrap of physical evidence that anyone outside of AQ were responsible for the attacks just one.

Quote:

However, I don't think this is probably so. The beauty of the plan as I have outlined it is that everyone in AQ except OBL is under the impression that they did it all.

lmfao, yes OBL who declared war on the U.S. in 1996 was really working for us the whole time, please can you provide any evidence to prove that is the case? Infact can you provide any evidence what so ever that OBL was ever an asset of the U.S.???

Quote:

Anyway, your reaction is surprising for another reason: AmericanWoman asked my opinion, and I said very clearly that I was speculating about what happened.

Well I'm not speculating, mine is not a theory it is a fact and a matter for the historical record, to back my conclusions I don't need to speculate because my conclusions are based on the facts, yours as you freely admit are based on nothing more than your own imagination.

Quote:

You respond to it as if I'm stating it as gospel truth. I'm not; I merely find it the most reasonable version of events given all our observations. But it could be wrong.

How in the hell can you say that given the observations that yours is a reasonable conclusion? The observations lead any sane human being to the inevitable conclusion that this was not an inside job but rather an AQ operation from start to finish, KSM and Yousef planned it, and OBL funded it and provided the Martyr volunteers from his Afghani terror training camps, there is mounds of evidence that would stand up in any court of law to back these conclusions, but there is not one scrap of evidence to back yours.

Chanda · 08-30-07, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I can go on busting up your truther bull**** all day son.

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Are you claiming there were no advance warnings?

Two months before 9/11:

"Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.
He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."
Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice...They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.

"Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies."

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice - washingtonpost.com

"There were many advance warnings from other countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia.

"An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

Many warnings specifically mentioned an attack from the air."

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

But following 9/11, Rice and Bush claimed there had been no advance warnings.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-30-07, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Then you must be illiterate or don't know how to click on a link.

Quote:

Are you claiming there were no advance warnings?

Of what? Of AQ wanting to attack us? Ya they came in the form of AQ telling us that they wanted to attack us, but I have yet to see one scrap of actionable intelligence that could have prevented 9-11.

Quote:

Two months before 9/11:

"Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.
He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."
Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice...They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.

"Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies."

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice - washingtonpost.com

LMFAO, it's no wonder that Tenet is trying to rewrite history, have you heard of the CIA internal investigation into the intelligence failures? Ya you may want to look into that skippy if you want to know who really screwed the pooch prior to 9-11:

Quote:

CIA Releases Harsh Internal Report on 9/11 Failures

August 21, 2007 01:40 PM ET | Permanent Link

Under a direct order from Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency today released the executive summary of a top-secret report by its inspector general detailing the agency's shortcomings leading up to the September 11 attacks.

CIA Releases Harsh Internal Report on 9/11 Failures - News Desk (usnews.com)

It's very damning for Tenet, but it does conclude that there was nothing any single person could have done to prevent 9-11:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...G%20Report.pdf
Furthermore; let's see the actionable intelligence that Tenet and Black brought to Rice.

Quote:

"There were many advance warnings from other countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia.

"An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

Many warnings specifically mentioned an attack from the air."

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

Really? Let's see proof for everyone of the assertions made in your article there buddy. I want names, I want dates, and I want what these warnings entailed IE the actionable intelligence that was overlooked.

Quote:

But following 9/11, Rice and Bush claimed there had been no advance warnings.

If by advanced warnings you mean actionable intelligence that could have prevented the attacks, then no there was not, if by advanced warning you mean that AQ was warning us since the 1996 Fatwa that they intended to attack the U.S. then ya in that broad interpretation of advanced warning sure there was.

Chanda · 08-30-07, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Then you must be illiterate or don't know how to click on a link.

Most of your links are from 911myths.com. The "debunking" of the Willie Horton story starts with "our take." Who does "our" refer to? Who owns and/or operates this site?

Quote:

If by advanced warnings you mean actionable intelligence that could have prevented the attacks, then no there was not,

When Bush received the memo about "spectacular" attacks involving hijacked airplanes, do you think his response, "You've covered your @ss now," was an appropriate one? There are a number of actions he should have taken, such as alerting NORAD.

dixon76710 · 08-30-07, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Really? Post 22 in the other thread appears to be the first post in which you addressed me in that thread. You said:

Dude, Im not even aware of your existance in some other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

What's particularly funny is that in my post 99, I clearly quoted what you said and then simply used your exact wording in reply to you.

Actually, I presumed you had simply never taken the time to even watch the video carefully enough to even notice. Its not my fault you you jumped in the line of those who had, but didnt have their faculties intact.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 08-31-07, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

Most of your links are from 911myths.com. The "debunking" of the Willie Horton story starts with "our take." Who does "our" refer to? Who owns and/or operates this site?

"Our" refers to the reality based community as opposed to the truther "delusion" based community, read what they say, they disprove your assertions conclusively:

Quote:

Brown's warning: In the five years since 9/11, the question of how then-San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown got a warning about flying that day continues to live on in the blogosphere -- and conspiracy theories abound.

"The latest version is that Condoleezza Rice alerted me personally,'' Brown said this week. "It's all part of the ongoing myth."

The "myth" has its origins in the night before the attacks, when Brown called "my security people at the airport'' to check on his flight to New York the next morning.

What the mayor got from his source was a warning that Americans should be concerned about traveling.

Willie being Willie, he paid no attention -- and was actually waiting for his ride to the airport when he turned on the TV and, like millions of other Americans, watched as the World Trade Center crumbled.

Exactly how the warning popped up remains a mystery to this day.

It might have had something to do with a little-noticed State Department memo issued a week before that went out in a routine press briefing -- and that former Secretary of State George Shultz himself received -- warning that Americans may be the target of an attack from extremist groups "with links to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization."

The warning, however, dealt primarily with U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea -- clearly the wrong targets.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/BAGG9L4KI81.DTL

Get educated truther.

Quote:

When Bush received the memo about "spectacular" attacks involving hijacked airplanes, do you think his response, "You've covered your @ss now," was an appropriate one? There are a number of actions he should have taken, such as alerting NORAD.

His response was to heighten the alert for Federal Agencies. What should he have done in response to a memo which has had almost verbatin duplicates passed by the desk of the President since as far back as 1998?

dixon76710 · 08-31-07, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Anyway, your reaction is surprising for another reason: AmericanWoman asked my opinion, and I said very clearly that I was speculating about what happened. You respond to it as if I'm stating it as gospel truth. I'm not; I merely find it the most reasonable version of events given all our observations. But it could be wrong.

Actually, its surprising to see you making statements of fact, and then moments later admit its speculation. And even more surprising that you endlessly discuss the product of this process of freeform speculation of yours.