9/11: an inside job?

[YodaTux]

Except the FBI really did not know that, as the information the CIA got on the Hijackers from a conference that was held a year or so earlier, could not be shared.

But the CIA was not the only group tracking the Hi-jackers... aspects of the military had information as well. The military does not have the same restrictions as CIA, in regards to nation security.

 

[DerMißingno]

And that makes no political sense. Our two largest organizations dedicated to the security of this country were not allowed to share information? By allowing that we pretty much bought the gun with the intent of shooting ourselves in the feet.

It wouldn't be the first time that has happened, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

 

[Big Lutz]

But the CIA was not the only group tracking the Hi-jackers... aspects of the military had information as well. The military does not have the same restrictions as CIA, in regards to nation security.

Military cannot act as law enforcement though.

And that makes no political sense. Our two largest organizations dedicated to the security of this country were not allowed to share information? By allowing that we pretty much bought the gun with the intent of shooting ourselves in the feet.

Really there is alot of CYA on this, one group says they told them, another says you didn't. In the end the law was changed after 9/11 by the Patriot Act allowing for information to be shared through multiple sources.

 

[Falconwing]

Really there is alot of CYA on this, one group says they told them, another says you didn't. In the end the law was changed after 9/11 by the Patriot Act allowing for information to be shared through multiple sources.

And because we waited till after the disaster to approve this, we are one of the main reason for our suffering. It may not have been a big inside job, government planned attack, but we allowed it. You can't state those facts and not see that.

 

[YodaTux]

Military cannot act as law enforcement though.

Agreed... but what about the claims by Able Danger specifically stating that the Pentagon stopped them from giving the information over to the FBI. Again do some research on Able danger and the news clips of the men involved in the unit talking to the 9/11 commission report committee.

 

[Big Lutz]

Agreed... but what about the claims by Able Danger specifically stating that the Pentagon stopped them from giving the information over to the FBI. Again do some research on Able danger and the news clips of the men involved in the unit talking to the 9/11 commission report committee.

I point you to a US Senate Report found with a very easy search:

"Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001"

http://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/abledanger.pdf

 

[YodaTux]

I point you to a US Senate Report found with a very easy search:

"Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001"

http://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/abledanger.pdf

That was the end result... have you actually seen the footage of Able Danger members reporting to the committee.

Do you know why the commission reported that the did not verify... becuase the data had been deleted.

Do you know that several of the commission report members have reported falsities in the report itself.

Again I tend to trust the raw footage rather than second hand info.

 

[Big Lutz]

That was the end result... have you actually seen the footage of Able Danger members reporting to the committee.

Do you know why the commission reported that the did not verify... becuase the data had been deleted.

Well the information wasn't deleted, they were photographs and charts that the allegation stems from. The Contractor that made those charts has gone on record saying none of the terrorists were in it, that their group personally checked days after the attacks.

Do you know that several of the commission report members have reported falsities in the report itself.

Which does not imply that this directly is false. Not to mention a second Senate Report, the PDF you had, was released pretty much disproving everything you said. Including the FBI being blocked from Able Danger's information.

Again I tend to trust the raw footage rather than second hand info.

This is a Senate Intelligence Committee Report directly investigating the claims you are making. You cannot get any more first hand or in depth.

Face it, you are wrong.

 

[YodaTux]

Face it, you are wrong.

hmmm.... really...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsM3oCsEJOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSTip84eIfw&feature=related

 

[Big Lutz]

hmmm.... really...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsM3oCsEJOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSTip84eIfw&feature=related

I direct you to Claim 3 of the Intelligence Report

Committee staff found no evidence to support the allegation, stemming primarily from the claims of an Army Lieutenant Colonel associated with Able Danger, that Able Danger team members were prevented from pursuing contact with the FBI to share terrorism related information found by the Able Danger program. The Lieutenant Colonel claimed, publicly and during interviews with the Committee staff, that he asked the deputy to arrange meetings between the FBI and the Army Colonel who directed the Able Danger team. He claimed further that these meetings were classified because of the concerns of DOJ lawyers, which he vaguely described as issues regarding the involvement of DOJ with domestic law enforcement.

Testimony from several witnesses, however contradicts the Lieutenant Colonel's claims. The Lieutenant Colonel's deputy denied ever setting up meetings with the FBI related to the Able Danger program. The Colonel who allegedly was to have attended the meetings said he had no knowledge of such meetings being scheduled. The Lieutenant Colonel's FBI contact said she provided the Lieutenant Colonel with a phone number in another FBI office, but never had any conversations with him about the Able Danger program or the proposed meetings as the Lieutenant Colonel alleged.

Should I continue?

 

[Mitchman]

I'm actually a bit of a believer on this and go with the Moore movie. So its not the government who allowed this its bush.

 

[Big Lutz]

I'm actually a bit of a believer on this and go with the Moore movie. So its not the government who allowed this its bush.

If thats true then so did the Clinton Administration as most of it was planned and set in motion during his administration. Unless Bush has a time machine that allows him to go back in time and set things in motion.

 

[YodaTux]

I direct you to Claim 3 of the Intelligence Report

Committee staff found no evidence to support the allegation, stemming primarily from the claims of an Army Lieutenant Colonel associated with Able Danger, that Able Danger team members were prevented from pursuing contact with the FBI to share terrorism related information found by the Able Danger program. The Lieutenant Colonel claimed, publicly and during interviews with the Committee staff, that he asked the deputy to arrange meetings between the FBI and the Army Colonel who directed the Able Danger team. He claimed further that these meetings were classified because of the concerns of DOJ lawyers, which he vaguely described as issues regarding the involvement of DOJ with domestic law enforcement.

Testimony from several witnesses, however contradicts the Lieutenant Colonel's claims. The Lieutenant Colonel's deputy denied ever setting up meetings with the FBI related to the Able Danger program. The Colonel who allegedly was to have attended the meetings said he had no knowledge of such meetings being scheduled. The Lieutenant Colonel's FBI contact said she provided the Lieutenant Colonel with a phone number in another FBI office, but never had any conversations with him about the Able Danger program or the proposed meetings as the Lieutenant Colonel alleged.

Should I continue?

I ask my self couple of questions here... why would Lt. Col willing putting his carrier on the line for something he truly did not beleive?

Why would the DOD specifically ask the 9/11 Commission to speak with Lt. Col behind closed doors?

Why did the DOD ao so much to attack to discredit the Lt. Col.

If you watch the movie Core of Corruption you will see video of the gentleman who deleted all of the data that Alpha Danger collected. And the commission was ok with this claim? And the commission was ok with the claim that Able danger did send two brief cases full of information, this being verified by several people within the unit.

All I ask is why. and is there a possibility that some memebers of government allowed certian things to happen for the hi jackers to pull off the attacks.

Again Core of Corruption and Fabled Enemies bring up a different point of view.

And no I do not trust a document, when several of the members of that document claim that the full report did have falsehoods in it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

 

[Big Lutz]

I ask my self couple of questions here... why would Lt. Col willing putting his carrier on the line for something he truly did not beleive?

Fame? He certainly got enough of it from those various TV clips you posted. Then again only he really knows.

Why would the DOD specifically ask the 9/11 Commission to speak with Lt. Col behind closed doors?

Well lets see he is a Lt. Col with information about a military operation, who has clearly gone a bit insane. Yeah I think they may be worried he could spout something off that could actually be damaging to security.

Why did the DOD ao so much to attack to discredit the Lt. Col.

Ask them, right now I am dealing with the facts and you have multiple people saying he is lying.

If you watch the movie Core of Corruption you will see video of the gentleman who deleted all of the data that Alpha Danger collected. And the commission was ok with this claim? And the commission was ok with the claim that Able danger did send two brief cases full of information, this being verified by several people within the unit.

Again, looking at the Senate Report, the information talked about was a third party contractor which they have said that they did not provide any information. You are putting a movie, something which you cannot even verify as true, against a Senate Report. Sorry but they are not even in the same league.

All I ask is why. and is there a possibility that some memebers of government allowed certian things to happen for the hi jackers to pull off the attacks.

No.

Again Core of Corruption and Fabled Enemies bring up a different point of view.

So does Loose Change, there are a bunch of idiotic movies out there trying to cash in on nut jobs that will believe anything. There is a market out there, and they will lie, twist, and turn anything they have to make you believe they are telling the truth.

And no I do not trust a document, when several of the members of that document claim that the full report did have falsehoods in it.

You realize this document is a separate Senate Investigation, not the 9/11 report.

 

[Falconwing]

If thats true then so did the Clinton Administration as most of it was planned and set in motion during his administration. Unless Bush has a time machine that allows him to go back in time and set things in motion.

I'm pretty sure he could have gotten a DeLorean.

 

[Big Lutz]

I'm pretty sure he could have gotten a DeLorean.

Yeah but where would he get the 1.21 Gigawatts needed for the Flux Capacitor? God, I love that movie.

 

[YodaTux]

@Big Lutz

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, but the 9/11 truthers are not as fringe as you might think, or as crazy as you might think. Again to see the whole picture I choose to look at all sides rather than trust what one side is says... While I do dissagree with many things on both sides and have come to my own conclusions. Again, at the very least there were far too many "dropped balls" in our intelligence agencies for comfort. Be it corruption, or mess ups, both are concerning.

In a day and age when our own government lies to us consistantly for their own gains, I'm loosing faith with in them. I understand that the two party system is corrupt... there need to be real change in Washington, not flipping back and forth between two questionable groups of people.

In regards to the fame statement about the Lt. Col. read more about him, before you make that claim.

No I did not realize it was a seperate document and I will take a look at it and the history around it. Again I have a hard time believing things that come from one side or the other.

Edit: on the Loose Change and other documentaries cashing in... they are all posted for free the day they come out online... while you can choose to buy them most people don't.

 

[Big Lutz]

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, but the 9/11 truthers are not as fringe as you might think, or as crazy as you might think.

Oh yes they are.

And to take a page out of Big Al's book, if I was able to tell you what I think of truthers, I would get atleast one infraction.

Again to see the whole picture I choose to look at all sides rather than trust what one side is says...

Is that why you said: And no I do not trust a document,

That doesn't sound like looking at all sides, that sounds like willfully ignoring a document that disproves you, because it disproves you.

In a day and age when our own government lies to us consistantly for their own gains, I'm loosing faith with in them.

But look at who you are turning to, wing nut groups who are yes on the fringes of society. Who have been disproven multiple times by both science and logic.

In regards to the fame statement about the Lt. Col. read more about him, before you make that claim.

I don't need to, I have multiple sources backing up that he lied, including key members that would have to be in any meeting that took place. If this was a court room he would have already been found guilty of lying under oath.

No I did not realize it was a seperate document and I will take a look at it and the history around it. Again I have a hard time believing things that come from one side or the other.

Except you come off as some one who is able to willfully believe things that suit your viewpoint, but when hard evidence is presented you cannot accept it. You say you have a hard time believing things that come from one side or the other, but you seem almost dead set in your beliefs that this Lt Col is right, even when multiple witnesses say he isnt.

Edit: on the Loose Change and other documentaries cashing in... they are all posted for free the day they come out online... while you can choose to buy them most people don't.

They are also driven to their website, which I believe get the money from any add traffic. Not to mention many 'documentaries' and I use that term loosely as you need facts first to be a documentary. Are also produced and sold on DVD.

For Example Loose Change sold at Amazon.com

 

[Falconwing]

Yeah but where would he get the 1.21 Gigawatts needed for the Flux Capacitor? God, I love that movie.

According to Doc Brown, you can get Plutonium at the corner drugstore.

But this is off topic

 

[YodaTux]

Oh yes they are.

And to take a page out of Big Al's book, if I was able to tell you what I think of truthers, I would get atleast one infraction.

Thats a harsh statement, why so much animocity for someone with a different point of view? Have you looked into the research some of these groups have done? Or just ignored them?

Is that why you said: And no I do not trust a document,

That doesn't sound like looking at all sides, that sounds like willfully ignoring a document that disproves you, because it disproves you.

I was trying to present another point of view, get people to look outside the box of the norm. The reason I did not look at the document is because I believed it to be about of the 9/11 commission. That was my own mistake not to look at it and am sorry for it.

But look at who you are turning to, wing nut groups who are yes on the fringes of society. Who have been disproven multiple times by both science and logic.

Again statements like "wing nut groups" and "fringes of society"

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1475.cfm

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/10263/Poll_Third_of_Americans_suspect_9_11_inside_job
There are more people than you think.

I don't need to, I have multiple sources backing up that he lied, including key members that would have to be in any meeting that took place. If this was a court room he would have already been found guilty of lying under oath.

Multiple sources? So far I've been given the one document which mentions mutliple people... again doin research on this document.

Except you come off as some one who is able to willfully believe things that suit your viewpoint, but when hard evidence is presented you cannot accept it. You say you have a hard time believing things that come from one side or the other, but you seem almost dead set in your beliefs that this Lt Col is right, even when multiple witnesses say he isnt.

I'm dead set that there is a possibility that he is correct. Again one docuement for me is not hard evidence.

They are also driven to their website, which I believe get the money from any add traffic. Not to mention many 'documentaries' and I use that term loosely as you need facts first to be a documentary. Are also produced and sold on DVD.

I never said they did not sell them on DVD... free market you know, again you say beleive, about making money for traffic. That may be true... but not too concerned if they do, have to have monetary support for them to keep running.


For Example Loose Change sold at Amazon.com[/url