9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
So tell us something we don't know. At least there is some official backing on this now.



Now all we need is for the Bush admin to stop blocking every attempt to get info.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 55
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    So tell us something we don't know. At least there is some official backing on this now.



    Now all we need is for the Bush admin to stop blocking every attempt to get info.



    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml




    What is at stake here to cause the Bush admin's persistent blocking, obfuscation, stonewalling, inconveniencing and flat out refusals re. the attempts to find out the truth behind 9-11? Why the censoring of those 25 pages on alleged links to Saudi Arabia?



    It is so easy to lead an unquestioning public by the nose citing the "national security" explanation, specially since most big media dons their kneepads rather than their objectivism in its treatment of BushCorp. The security of the Bush administration is the more plausible reason for the 9-11 (lack of) investigation.
  • Reply 2 of 55
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    It is just our wonderful belief in rationalism and information. We believe if we have enough laws and enough information, no bad things can happen. I wish it were true but it isn't.



    Nick
  • Reply 3 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    It is just our wonderful belief in rationalism and information. We believe if we have enough laws and enough information, no bad things can happen. I wish it were true but it isn't.





    What?



    You know what trumptman, this is the most pristine example of the formation of an opinion before having any knowledge of the factual circumstances. It is also offensive to those who had family members killed in 9/11 and have since been fighting to make all of this information public.



    But, the MOUNTAIN of information shows that it clearly was preventable, so your uninformed false belief is of zero consequence.



    You are aware that so many people knew of the impending attacks that *multiple* grammer school kids were telling their teachers about it in the days and weeks before 9.11? You realize that we know defintively that Bush recieved a specific warning in his Aug 6th daily intel brief? This is just the very *tip* of the iceberg. You realize that in august the US recieved intelligence warning from every major western country? This even happened on order from the highest officials in those countries.



    The whole thing was hardly a secret. Every intel organization knew it was going to happen. THIS IS NOT IN QUESTION.
  • Reply 4 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    I should add that on the day bush recieved this memo, which according to a congressional report talked about the al-qaeda support structure and intention to use airplanes, guess what he spend the day doing.



    Fishing.
  • Reply 5 of 55
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    What?



    You know what trumptman, this is the most pristine example of the formation of an opinion before having any knowledge of the factual circumstances. It is also offensive to those who had family members killed in 9/11 and have since been fighting to make all of this information public.



    But, the MOUNTAIN of information shows that it clearly was preventable, so your uninformed false belief is of zero consequence.



    You are aware that so many people knew of the impending attacks that *multiple* grammer school kids were telling their teachers about it in the days and weeks before 9.11? You realize that we know defintively that Bush recieved a specific warning in his Aug 6th daily intel brief? This is just the very *tip* of the iceberg. You realize that in august the US recieved intelligence warning from every major western country? This even happened on order from the highest officials in those countries.



    The whole thing was hardly a secret. Every intel organization knew it was going to happen. THIS IS NOT IN QUESTION.




    Talk about your formation of opinions before the conclusion, I believe the article said that the findings created more questions than they presented answers.



    So for example one intel report mentions a scenario. Does that mean every agency spends all the money necessary to insure that scenario never happens? Does it mean that it is credible? Does it mean it could happen or will happen?



    Don't forget the towers we bombed by a van during the Clinton administration Giant. I'm sure some report must have mentioned bombs and vans. Of course if I mentioned that Clinton must have known that Oklahoma was going to be bombed with a van and bomb made of fertilizer and should have prevented it, it would be laughable. I mean sure the WTC was bombed in 1993 and Oklahoma almost the exact same way in 1995 but Clinton must have "known" and allowed it to happen. It is impossible to give equal attention and money to all possible scenarios at all times. Clinton couldn't do it, Bush couldn't do it. No one can.



    I'm sure I've heard dozens of reports about knives and fake bombs still being snuck onto planes. This despite huge efforts made to PREVENT that from happening. We are talking billions of dollars spent and the point is, you can't stop it all.



    Think of the billions we have spent to prevent drugs from coming into this country. Yet if I suggested to you that we are all safe from illegal drugs, you would laugh in my face.



    Efforts does not equal knowing something is going to happen and ignoring it.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Talk about your formation of opinions before the conclusion, I believe the article said that the findings created more questions than they presented answers.







    You know, some of us have been studying this in DEPTH for the past two years. Come back when you have more than 'the article.' It will also help you understand the article and the background of the groups investigating it.

    Quote:

    So for example one intel report mentions a scenario. Does that mean every agency spends all the money necessary to insure that scenario never happens? Does it mean that it is credible? Does it mean it could happen or will happen?



    Trumptman, here's something you really need to learn: speculation is stupid when the actual facts are out there, and speculation in such a situation is almost always WRONG.



    Go learn about the path each piece of info took and then maybe you will understand how this stuff works.



    I have no problem giving you a reading list on information systems and intelligence procedures, issues and functions.



    There is NO QUESTION that a significant number of people, including individual members of the bush admin, knew that this was going to happen. If you actually bothered to look then you would know this, too.
  • Reply 7 of 55
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Spin spin spin spin SPIN!







    Of course the report is partially inconclusive. ANY report about these events would have a large amount of conjecture about "what if" scenarios.



    The thing about the report that's important to me is that BushCorp (and by extension the entire Republican party) can no longer successfully blame Clinton for this. I know Clinton is their favorite whipping boy and responsible for pretty everything that's wrong with the world, but this report also show's that BushCorp is also harangued by the same inaction.



    In the end Bush shouldn't take the fall and therefore none of his predecessors should either. 9/11 was simply a wake-up call for America.



    Unfortunately, the result of that wake-up call is that we're no longer fighting "the war on terror", but fighting "the war on tyranny" instead.
  • Reply 8 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    I have to strongly disagree with this not being placed on the Bush admin. When they came in, the clinton admin had recently finished a counter-terrorism plan that had been been developed over the course of the preceeding year. The Bush admin shelved it. In fact, when warnings increased in the summer of 2000, they simply ignored them and went fishing. Literally.
  • Reply 9 of 55
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    This just in!



    Hindsight 20/20!!!!
  • Reply 10 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    This just in!



    Hindsight 20/20!!!!




    Except that at the time every western government was buzzing about it. Everyone knew it was going to happen. At BEST you could say that most people didn't know the EXACT time and day. That's at BEST.
  • Reply 11 of 55
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant





    You know, some of us have been studying this in DEPTH for the past two years. Come back when you have more than 'the article.' It will also help you understand the article and the background of the groups investigating it.



    Trumptman, here's something you really need to learn: speculation is stupid when the actual facts are out there, and speculation in such a situation is almost always WRONG.





    Oh I see, you are an expert? Pull out your credentials buddy. Otherwise shut yer trap. I mentioned this article because you cited this article as proof dumbass. You don't like the conclusions I draw with the same article so you of course dismiss mine as fallous while yours are "expert."



    I suppose the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden and didn't take him is "proof" that Clinton knew the towers were going to be destroyed, and wanted them so. I'll tell you what giant. When the towers were attacked during Clinton's term did he even visit the site? Anyone remember the U.S.S. Cole? I suppose Clinton knew about that and wanted it too since I'm sure plenty of reports have mentioned military bases, boats, and troops as targets.



    Likewise you (again) prove what I mention regarding scenarios. Until you have the facts, speculation is almost always wrong. Hell Bush was catching grief even AFTER the tower attacks for rounding up individuals who met the profile of terrorists and who appeared to be in cells. Could you imagine the grief he would have caught BEFORE, with no real proof of action? I mean what is wrong with someone who is here on a student visa actually going to flight school? If Bush had acted on that info, you would be the first one in line screaming about racial profiling and acting premptively.



    Therein is the rub of total illogic. Bush is evil for acting premptively against a threat in Iraq, and evil for not acting premptively against a threat against some guys taking flying lessons. Sure the guys taking the lessons ended up causing the most heinous act of terrorism on American soil but the way they did it would have sounded like insanity, especially to the left which claims racism about these issues, if acted on before hand.



    Imagine Bush claiming it wrong for them to own, knives, or box cutters, because they are from Saudi Arabia. Please....





    Quote:

    Go learn about the path each piece of info took and then maybe you will understand how this stuff works.



    I have no problem giving you a reading list on information systems and intelligence procedures, issues and functions.



    There is NO QUESTION that a significant number of people, including individual members of the bush admin, knew that this was going to happen. If you actually bothered to look then you would know this, too.



    I suggest you get busy posting that list. I'll gladly read it. Make sure it doesn't assume perfect hindsight, information that Clinton had as well, or one mention of one scenario in one report that somehow the entire government was supposed to act on perfectly as its sole priority.



    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I'll gladly read it.



    Will do.

    Quote:

    Make sure it doesn't assume perfect hindsight, information that Clinton had as well, or one mention of one scenario in one report that somehow the entire government was supposed to act on perfectly as its sole priority.



    Apparently you didn't understand my post. Try again.



    And as for that big block of text above this part of your post, I didn't read it as I've explained in the past.



    The reading list is at home, but this is one of my favorites I suggested to someone here on AI a while ago:



    The New Craft of Intelligence by Robert David Steele (with the whole list of acronyms after his name: MA,MPA,NWC,USMC,CIA,OSS).



    His previous book On Intelligence is considered the standard reference for future of intelligence, and details some of the changes now taking place.



    I'll post the list if I have a chance tonight.
  • Reply 13 of 55
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    It is just our wonderful belief in rationalism and information. We believe if we have enough laws and enough information, no bad things can happen. I wish it were true but it isn't.



    Nick




    This just seems like really sad partisan drivel. How do you equate 'no bad things' happening with stopping the attacks from 9/11?
  • Reply 14 of 55
    Trumptman, I'm afraid they simply refuse to address your responses point-by-point (as should happen in an actual discussion). They are simply content to point out that whatever you say doesn't count, point at some link/document (while themself offering no specific points of information into the topic for us to work with), repeat.
  • Reply 15 of 55
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,780member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    You are aware that so many people knew of the impending attacks that *multiple* grammer school kids were telling their teachers about it in the days and weeks before 9.11?



    I, for one, would love to know which grammar school kids were talking about planes flying into the Twin Towers in the days before Sept 11th.



    Please enlighten me.
  • Reply 16 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    I, for one, would love to know which grammar school kids were talking about planes flying into the Twin Towers in the days before Sept 11th.





    Quote:

    September 6, 2001:_Antoinette DiLorenzo, teaching English to a class of Pakistani immigrants, asks a student gazing out the window, "What are you looking at?"_The student points towards the WTC, and says: "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week."_At the time, nothing was thought of it, but on September 13 the FBI interviews all the people in the classroom and confirms the event. The FBI later places the boy's family under surveillance but apparently are unable to find a connection to the 9/11 plot._An MSNBC reporter later sets out to disprove this "urban myth," but to his surprise finds all the details of the story are confirmed._The fact that the family are recent immigrants from Pakistan might mean the information came from Pakistan. [MSNBC, 10/12/01] ...



    September 10, 2001: A fifth grader in Dallas, Texas casually tells his teacher: "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose." The teacher reports the comment to the FBI, but doesn't know if they acted on it. The student skips the next two days of school. The event may be completely coincidental, but the newspaper that reports the story also notes that two charities located in an adjacent suburb have been investigated about raising money for Islamic terrorist organizations (see also September 5-8, 2001). [Houston Chronicle, 9/19/01] ...



    September 10, 2001: A sixth-grade student of Middle Eastern descent in Jersey City, New Jersey, says something that alarms his teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School. "Essentially, he warned her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad was going to happen," says Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department. [Insight, 9/10/02] Note that others with possible 9/11 foreknowledge also lived in Jersey City.



  • Reply 17 of 55
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    Trumptman, I'm afraid they simply refuse to address your responses point-by-point (as should happen in an actual discussion). They are simply content to point out that whatever you say doesn't count, point at some link/document (while themself offering no specific points of information into the topic for us to work with), repeat.



    Actually his post was simply without context so I've asked him to clarify.
  • Reply 18 of 55
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    you have links for those stories giant?



    google news found nothing on some of them, whereas the web had all sorts of stuff, but most of it was just the same rehashed crap. it's not unheard of for bogus stories to get reported as "news" before any real fact checking goes on.
  • Reply 19 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    you have links for those stories giant?



    google news found nothing on some of them, whereas the web had all sorts of stuff, but most of it was just the same rehashed crap. it's not unheard of for bogus stories to get reported as "news" before any real fact checking goes on.




    Do a lexisnexis search; they're up there. News websites take stories down after a few months.



    Edit: Nevermind. All of them are online. The MSNBC story can be found in full text on other sites or on lexisnexis.
  • Reply 20 of 55
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    September 6-10, 2001:_Suspicious trading occurs on American and United, the two airlines used in the 9/11 attacks. "Between 6 and 7 September, The Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options ? where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would have netted a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price dived after September 11. On 10 September, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines saw such trading in their put options." One analyst says: "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." [Associated Press, 9/18/01, San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/01] "To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the "put" options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, now executive director of the CIA."_Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. "His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust ? Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world." [Independent, 10/14/01]



    This is just one facet of all of the trading that occurred.



    And we haven't gotten into the meaty stuff yet: connecting and filtering the large numbers of reports and including ones from more specialized sources.
Sign In or Register to comment.