Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

CIA knew of 9/11 - told Admin - Covered Up for Inquiry

ska invita

ska invita

back on the other side
New York TImes (damb conspiraloons) running this story today that the CIA tried to forworn Condi of the forthcoming attacks, which she "brushed off" and now claims not to have been told about at all.

The 9.11 inquiry are angry as it is a vital piece of the puzzle.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt501.html

The Bush admin either deliberately let it happen or just failed to listen to their CIA experts saying it was about to happen. But why would you ignore them? Why would you give them the Brush off? How could anyone ignore that, particularly when its a CIA officer trying their hardest to "shake them up" into believing it? Very incriminating...
 
There's nothing 'conspiraloon' about reporting the fact that US incompetence/arrogance led to them ignoring important advice, neither is there anything 'conspiraloon' about the huge ass-covering exercise that took place after 9/11.
 
Its feasible for a billion dollar defense and intelligence apparatus to make "mistakes" and cover it up, but its insane to suggest that they might do something sinister and cover it up...no they`ve only been caught throughout history hiding horrific crimes... :rolleyes:

Is it naivety or is it sheer willful ignorance? I can`t quite understand it.
 
niksativa said:
New York TImes (damb conspiraloons) running this story today that the CIA tried to forworn Condi of the forthcoming attacks, which she "brushed off" and now claims not to have been told about at all.

The 9.11 inquiry are angry as it is a vital piece of the puzzle.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt501.html

The Bush admin either deliberately let it happen or just failed to listen to their CIA experts saying it was about to happen. But why would you ignore them? Why would you give them the Brush off? How could anyone ignore that, particularly when its a CIA officer trying their hardest to "shake them up" into believing it? Very incriminating...
Click to expand...
Rice and her staff were already highly focussed on invading Iraq at that stage according to insider reports.
The signs of impending disaster were clear from the beginning of this administration. Insiders knew it all along. Statements made by the Bush administration often seem to convey the message that Iraq only became a focus of attention after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The evidence points in another direction.

Sometime in the spring of 2000, Stephen Hadley, now Condoleeza Rice's deputy at the National Security Council (NSC), briefed a group of prominent Republican party policymakers on the national-security and foreign-policy agenda of a future George W. Bush administration. Hadley was one of a group of senior campaign policy advisers to then-Texas Governor Bush known collectively as "the Vulcans." The group, in addition to Hadley, included Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and had been assembled by George Shultz and Dick Cheney beginning in late 1998, when Bush first launched his presidential bid.

Hadley's briefing shocked a number of the participants, according to Clifford Kiracofe, a professor at the Virginia Military Institute, who spoke to several of them shortly after the meeting. Hadley announced that the "number-one foreign-policy agenda" of a Bush administration would be Iraq and the unfinished business of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Hadley also made it clear that the Israel-Palestine conflict, which had dominated the Middle East agenda of the Clinton administration, would be placed in the deep freeze.

Dr. Kiracofe's account of the pre-election obsession of the Vulcans with the ouster of Saddam Hussein is corroborated by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's memory of the first meetings of the Bush National Security Council, which he attended in late January and early February of 2001. Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty, based on O'Neill's memory and notes, tells us of an NSC meeting, ten days into the Bush administration, at which both the Israel-Palestine and Iraq situations were discussed.

Referring to President Clinton's efforts to reach a comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, President Bush declared, "Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That's why we're in trouble. If the two sides don't want peace, there's no way we can force them. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of the situation."

Next, Condoleeza Rice raised the issue of Iraq and the danger posed by Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. A good deal of the hour-long meeting was taken up with a briefing by CIA Director George Tenet on a series of aerial photographs of sites inside Iraq that "might" be producing WMD. Tenet admitted that there was no firm intelligence on what was going on inside those sites, but at the close of the meeting, President Bush tasked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of U.S. ground forces in the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq to support an insurgency to bring down the Saddam regime. As author Ron Suskind summed it up: "Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam." If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Drinking the Kool-Aid: Col Pat Lang
 
McClatchy washington Bureau
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice Were Warned of Attack

NY Times
Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on al-Qaeda Threat

AP
Rice: No Memory of CIA Warning of Attack

For me this is at the heart of the conspiracy:

-It is now accepted that US planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 - I was shocked to hear Tony Blairs advisor openly say (on Newsnight) that this was known by the cabinet, who acted in an attempt to curb the US excess. As Bernie pints out it is now without doubt.

-It is now becoming equally common knowledge that the Bush admin, through the ranks, knew that 9/11 was about to happen - and didnt attempt to stop it. If you read the links the urgency with which it was predicted by the CIA makes it impossible for it to have been forgotten or not thought of as important - described as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, by Tenet, the grand conclusion of Al-Q observations by the CIA. It was a deliberate blind eye by the admin.

-All account of this was then systematically withheld from the 9/11 comission.

-Not surprisingly 36% of Americans think that Bush sat on his hands over 9/11 and let it happen - that is a conspiracy point of view, and one that has been shouted down in the past as such...as this slowly trickles out, yesterdays conspiracy becomes tommorows matter-of-fact.

Ed: Its not incompetence/arrogance that led them to ignore the reports - what does that mean? They were too arrogant to listen? That means nothing. Its beyond incompetence for a number of cabinet staff to ignore at 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 CIA terrorist warning - that is willfull ignorance.

The facts are:

-they intended to attack Iraq pre 9/11
-a number of cabinet memebers were madef ully aware of what was going to happen
-they then defliberately made no attempt to stop 9/11
-during 9/11 jets were told to stand down by Cheney, who had given himself the power to do this just days before
-it fulfilled their criteria of a Pearl Harbour style event, as outlined in the Project for the New American Century documents.
 
see, this is the mess that people like Jazz, Azrael13and a half and the rest cause. Doubting the official version of events is entirely legitimate, in fact it's important. That's NOT the same as believing in robot planes and the like
 
Niksativa:

they intended to attack Iraq pre 9/11
Click to expand...

No real surprise there really is there? Cast your mind back to 2000 and many, many commentators were surmising when, not if, Bush would go back to Iraq.

a number of cabinet memebers were made fully aware of what was going to happen
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the UK or US cabinet here?

they then defliberately made no attempt to stop 9/11
Click to expand...

This is where you've got a problem - you cannot PROVE this unfortunately. That they ignored a '10' level briefing from the CIA doesn't not prove 'deliberate action'. What it shows is overwhelming arrogance/inaction/negligence and a failure to uphold the Oath.

during 9/11 jets were told to stand down by Cheney, who had given himself the power to do this just days before
Click to expand...

Have you taken this from the Lauro 'revelations' that have since shown to be of dubious provenance? You know, how Lauro faked his army records, made some comments that are directly contradicted by physical evidence (timings made on ATC voice recordings for example) etc?

it fulfilled their criteria of a Pearl Harbour style event, as outlined in the Project for the New American Century documents.
Click to expand...

No arguments there...

Good to finally get some real, hard evidence of exactly how 9/11 happened - by what seems like wilful ignorance and negligence on the part of the administration. However, at MOST it shows that 9/11 was LIHOP and not some conspiracy involving demolition charges, fake phone calls etc etc

Now all the 9/11 Truth types have to do is show that in ignoring this advice the President failed to live up to the Oath and you've got an impeachment. Easy.
 
kyser_soze said:
No real surprise there really is there? Cast your mind back to 2000 and many, many commentators were surmising when, not if, Bush would go back to Iraq.
Click to expand...
It was obvious to every man woman and child - its partly why we had such a big anti-war movement: it was bright as day.

But the official line was - "we dont want war, if only Saddam would comply etc," - I was shocked to hear this line utterly dropped, and without comment from the press. TB's adviosr has admited that the whol run up to war was built on lies, that they knew BUsh was going in no matter what and that they tried to steer him to the UN.
kyser_soze said:
Are you talking about the UK or US cabinet here?
Click to expand...
The US cabinet. I think it is worht noting that the gang mentioned in Bernie's post above are the same oens who were briefed and didn't act.
kyser_soze said:
This is where you've got a problem - you cannot PROVE this unfortunately. That they ignored a '10' level briefing from the CIA doesn't not prove 'deliberate action'. What it shows is overwhelming arrogance/inaction/negligence and a failure to uphold the Oath.
Click to expand...
True. I'm not a lwayer - but lets be straight in our minds - it could not have been arrogance/negligence and it would be naive to suggest it was. Deliberate inaction is the only option.

How can Rumsfled, for example, chief of defence, ignore a CIA warnign that shows that AL-Q, who have already attacked a numebr of US interest (Cole, Embassy) are going to fly planes into X Y and Z? You dont ignor that, no matter how arrogant or incompetent you are. I would like to see this line of questioning on the stand to hear how he would answer it - there is no answer.
kyser_soze said:
Have you taken this from the Lauro 'revelations' that have since shown to be of dubious provenance? You know, how Lauro faked his army records, made some comments that are directly contradicted by physical evidence (timings made on ATC voice recordings for example) etc?
Click to expand...
From what I gather it is undeniable that the legislation was changed a few days before the attack -giving Cheney the power to stand down scrambled planes - its there in the minutes, if you will. Whether he really gave that order is hard for us here to judge - Lets call it a grey area.
kyser_soze said:
Now all the 9/11 Truth types have to do is show that in ignoring this advice the President failed to live up to the Oath and you've got an impeachment. Easy.
Click to expand...
LEts hope this keeps up some momentum - the 9/11 inquiry are alledgedly angry about recent revelations - unfortunately inquiries are unable to produce the verdicts necessary, and I think we can now witness the inquiry pretending to be a little disgruntled, but unwilling to open up the case again.

It would be funny to see this go to court - I predict Rumsfled et al giving it the Reaganesque onset of Alzheimers disease: plenty of "I don't remember being briefed".
 
Well Condi tried that one WRT to Clinton's mob not leaving any 'plans' for them to follow through on at the 9/11 commission, and last week. No, as The Daily Show demonstrated, they were only left with 'ideas and actionable points' - not a plan then, just ideas and a list of stuff to do...

FWIW I agree with you that this appears to be deliberate and wilful negligence on the part of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush were all aware of what was happening, it'd be hard to prove 'deliberate' since it's an intel report, and they can easily point to the subsequent intel reports about Iraq being inaccurate, and that on balance these were discarded blah blah.

One thing that is worrying is that Tenet hasn't made a comment on this - I have no doubt that it's true since Woodward was actually a supporter of the Iraq invasion and hey, he and Bernstein already got Nixon, but as Ben Bradley yells in the film, 'Will nobody go on the record about this!'
 
Let's face it, most people in the world knew that 9/11 was going to happen except the daft sods who went to work in the Twin Towers that day. And I bet even they had their suspicions. But what next? Disneyworld, Hollywood, Las Vegas, that's what I'd really like to know.
 
kyser_soze said:
One thing that is worrying is that Tenet hasn't made a comment on this - I have no doubt that it's true since Woodward was actually a supporter of the Iraq invasion and hey, he and Bernstein already got Nixon, but as Ben Bradley yells in the film, 'Will nobody go on the record about this!'
Click to expand...
A big weakness in this is TEnet - saying this in a book years after the fact is not good form, and the to-ing and fro-ing decribed in the NYTimes article (linked above) is really confusing.
 
Going back to the OP's statement that the CIA knew that a large attack on the continental US was in the pipeline, that has not been doubted it is public knowledge that the CIA had warned the Bush administration that a large scale attack was being planned by Al-Q. The information that there were these Arabs learning to fly but did not wish to know how to land or take-off was in the system, but the system was so big & unwieldy that it did not filter to the relevant people.
 
Andy the Don said:
The information that there were these Arabs learning to fly but did not wish to know how to land or take-off was in the system, but the system was so big & unwieldy that it did not filter to the relevant people.
Click to expand...
...Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rice are not the relevant people?
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm

-The whole point is they were made aware, they didn't act on it despite it being pointed out that this as a 10 out of 10 situation, and they all deny ever being told, despite the meetings being on record.

You cant blame the system for that, or are you a fustrated CIA beurocrat Andy?

It didn't filter? It stopped at Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts and Rices doors.
Its not a problem of being big and unweildly, its a problem of a small but powerful cabal in the cabinet controlling the situation.
 
There's a lengthy extract from Woodward's book ,plus interviews in the current online Newsweak here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/

Most of it is about Iraq failures...

This is interesting, page 5 of the extract:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/page/5/
jay GArner ran Iraq after the invasion...
Rumsfeld and Garner went to the White House to see Bush. It was Garner’s second time with the president. “Mr. President, let me tell you a couple of stories,” Garner said. Describing meetings with Iraqis, Garner painted a positive picture. “I’d get ready to leave,” Garner said, “and this is true—as I leave they’re all thumbs-up and they’d say, ‘God bless Mr. George Bush and Mr. Tony Blair. Thank you for taking away Saddam Hussein.’ That was in 70 meetings. That always was the final response.”

“Oh, that’s good,” Bush said.

On the way out, Bush slapped Garner on the back. “Hey Jay, you want to do Iran?”

“Sir, the boys and I talked about that and we want to hold out for Cuba. We think the rum and the cigars are a little better … The women are prettier.”

Bush laughed. “You got it. You got Cuba.”
Click to expand...
:mad:
 
-Just wanted to add that Tenet is the Director of the CIA, and if the DIrector of the CIA is telling chief cabinet ministers to act, this is not an unweildly system, but the system running in top gear.
 
niksativa said:
...Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rice are not the relevant people?
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm

-The whole point is they were made aware, they didn't act on it despite it being pointed out that this as a 10 out of 10 situation, and they all deny ever being told, despite the meetings being on record.

You cant blame the system for that, or are you a fustrated CIA beurocrat Andy?

It didn't filter? It stopped at Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts and Rices doors.
Its not a problem of being big and unweildly, its a problem of a small but powerful cabal in the cabinet controlling the situation.
Click to expand...

From the link above..

The briefing "didn't say within the United States," said one former senior intelligence official. "It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States."

As I previously mentioned yes the Bush administration knew there was an attack being planned, but the intelligence report did not give specifics, ie target(s) date of attack etc..
 
History is full of examples of workers attempting to tell bosses that there is a problem (e.g. NASA Space Shuttle); local people telling national people that there is a big problem (e.g. New Orleans) and operational departments telling politicians that there is a problem (e.g. it would seem if this is true, 9-11).

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it is easy for us all to stand and look back and say "How could they be so stupid as to ignore what they were told". But that ignores the fact that (sometimes) there is conflicting evidence / opinions available, that (almost always) there are competing demands for money, time and resources and that communication is (often) less than 100% effective (i.e. the message is not always communicated or understood as clearly as is alleged afterwards).

This story could be cock-up or conspiracy. I think the former is, by far, the most likely.
 
Andy the Don said:
From the link above..

The briefing "didn't say within the United States," said one former senior intelligence official. "It said on the United States, which could mean a ship, an embassy or inside the United States."

As I previously mentioned yes the Bush administration knew there was an attack being planned, but the intelligence report did not give specifics, ie target(s) date of attack etc..
Click to expand...
Your right, that's true.

Of additional fishiness is why the inquiry edited out these meetings from their findings.
Nor is it clear why the 9/11 commission never reported the briefing, which the intelligence officials said Tenet outlined to commission members Ben-Veniste and Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters. The State Department confirmed that the briefing materials were "made available to the 9/11 Commission, and Director Tenet was asked about this meeting when interviewed by the 9/11 Commission."
Click to expand...
 
editor said:
There's nothing 'conspiraloon' about reporting the fact that US incompetence/arrogance led to them ignoring important advice, neither is there anything 'conspiraloon' about the huge ass-covering exercise that took place after 9/11.
Click to expand...


So will you publicly support the call of the 'Jersey Girls' for a new enlarged and independent investigation of 9/11?

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_Press_for_Truth
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
 
kyser_soze said:
Good to finally get some real, hard evidence of exactly how 9/11 happened - by what seems like wilful ignorance and negligence on the part of the administration. However, at MOST it shows that 9/11 was LIHOP and not some conspiracy involving demolition charges, fake phone calls etc etc

Now all the 9/11 Truth types have to do is show that in ignoring this advice the President failed to live up to the Oath and you've got an impeachment. Easy.
Click to expand...

1) The evidence contained in Press for Truth and other evidence linked to on this thread has been around for years. Don't pretend that anyone expressing an informed opinion about the 9/11 truth movement has been unaware of this evidence

2) What this evidence demonstrates is a lot more than 'wilful ignorance and negligance'. It demonstrates on the part of the administration direct complicity in (at the very least) facilitation of the attacks of 9/11 and direct complicity in the cover-up of the true facts of 9/11 on behalf of the media (both here and in the US) and the Blair cabal

3) Even assuming that LIHOP is as bad as it gets for the adminsitration and military, this still amounts to a vast conspiracy and is every bit as treasonous and scandalous as MIHOP scenarios involving controlled demolition.
 
1) The evidence contained in Press for Truth and other evidence linked to on this thread has been around for years. Don't pretend that anyone expressing an informed opinion about the 9/11 truth movement has been unaware of this evidence
Click to expand...

Well that's amazing, cos no-one else has ever come out with 'Tenet had a meeting with Rice where he told her that an Al-Q attack was a 'certainty to happen' as we're reading about here. Not a single one of you or your conspiracy chums ever supplied evidence like this (and since there isn't any corroboration on this - yet - I'm still holding it as 'probably' not definitely)

It demonstrates on the part of the administration direct complicity in (at the very least) facilitation of the attacks of 9/11 and direct complicity in the cover-up of the true facts of 9/11 on behalf of the media (both here and in the US) and the Blair cabal
Click to expand...

Good thing you're not a lawyer really, cos your idea of what constitutes evidence is pretty flaky. All this shows is that there was a meeting in which Tenet attempted to convince Rice of the near-certainty of an Al-Q attack against a US target, and that she rejected his advice, as did the other members of cabinet. It provides no evidence for ANY of the things you talk about.

3) Even assuming that LIHOP is as bad as it gets for the adminsitration and military, this still amounts to a vast conspiracy and is every bit as treasonous and scandalous as MIHOP scenarios involving controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

It doesn't amount to a 'vast conspiracy' if what's happened here is basically down to this report being ignored - if anything it's possibly the most closed and tiny loop imaginable since it basically deals with the head of the CIA and the US cabinet.

Typical conspiracist tho - take a tiny smidgen of evidence and blow it out of all proportion...
 
kyser_soze said:
Well that's amazing, cos no-one else has ever come out with 'Tenet had a meeting with Rice where he told her that an Al-Q attack was a 'certainty to happen' as we're reading about here. Not a single one of you or your conspiracy chums ever supplied evidence like this (and since there isn't any corroboration on this - yet - I'm still holding it as 'probably' not definitely)



Good thing you're not a lawyer really, cos your idea of what constitutes evidence is pretty flaky. All this shows is that there was a meeting in which Tenet attempted to convince Rice of the near-certainty of an Al-Q attack against a US target, and that she rejected his advice, as did the other members of cabinet. It provides no evidence for ANY of the things you talk about.



It doesn't amount to a 'vast conspiracy' if what's happened here is basically down to this report being ignored - if anything it's possibly the most closed and tiny loop imaginable since it basically deals with the head of the CIA and the US cabinet.

Typical conspiracist tho - take a tiny smidgen of evidence and blow it out of all proportion...
Click to expand...

First both sides dispute this story so you can't take it as fact.

Now If the story is true, than what next? No one had any specific, actionable intelligence to act on. The US receives threat warnings every day. There are thousands of leads to comb through

So, if the CIA reported today, October 3rd 2006 that an AL Queda attack was "certain to happen" than what next? Does it happen tomorrow, or a year from now? Will it involve biological agents, chemical agents, planes, trains or automobiles? Will it happen in Los Angeles, Chicago, DC or New York. Are the perpetrators in the country?

How does one act on a general threat assessment like "they are sure to attack us"

Think about it boys and girls.
 
niksativa said:
McClatchy washington Bureau
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice Were Warned of Attack

NY Times
Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on al-Qaeda Threat

AP
Rice: No Memory of CIA Warning of Attack

For me this is at the heart of the conspiracy:

-It is now accepted that US planned to invade Iraq before 9/11 - I was shocked to hear Tony Blairs advisor openly say (on Newsnight) that this was known by the cabinet, who acted in an attempt to curb the US excess. As Bernie pints out it is now without doubt.

-It is now becoming equally common knowledge that the Bush admin, through the ranks, knew that 9/11 was about to happen - and didnt attempt to stop it. If you read the links the urgency with which it was predicted by the CIA makes it impossible for it to have been forgotten or not thought of as important - described as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, by Tenet, the grand conclusion of Al-Q observations by the CIA. It was a deliberate blind eye by the admin.

-All account of this was then systematically withheld from the 9/11 comission.

-Not surprisingly 36% of Americans think that Bush sat on his hands over 9/11 and let it happen - that is a conspiracy point of view, and one that has been shouted down in the past as such...as this slowly trickles out, yesterdays conspiracy becomes tommorows matter-of-fact.

Ed: Its not incompetence/arrogance that led them to ignore the reports - what does that mean? They were too arrogant to listen? That means nothing. Its beyond incompetence for a number of cabinet staff to ignore at 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 CIA terrorist warning - that is willfull ignorance.

The facts are:

-they intended to attack Iraq pre 9/11
-a number of cabinet memebers were madef ully aware of what was going to happen
-they then defliberately made no attempt to stop 9/11
-during 9/11 jets were told to stand down by Cheney, who had given himself the power to do this just days before
-it fulfilled their criteria of a Pearl Harbour style event, as outlined in the Project for the New American Century documents.
Click to expand...

Fact number 1 is false or at least debateable. I say the US never would have invaded Iraq if not for 9-11.

Fact two is total bullshit. No one in the US cabinent was made aware that jihadists were going to hijack airplanes and use them as missles.

Fact three: Doesn't make sense

Fact four:D link?

Fact five? So are you saying certain members of the cabinent let the attack go forward in order to act on some obscure report:)

It doesn't pass the laugh test dude.

I hope you are not yet 18. That might explain it.
 
Ahh, our old friend Nafeez...

IIRC when I first started arguing on 9/11 threads one of the key points raised was how much did the FBI/CIA know and how good the intel was. Well here it looks like we've got a link.

Should the warning have been made public I think is the most pertinent question at the moment - if it had would it have made a difference to the sucess of the operation?

The final point is that while Nafeez claerly shows that those in the know believed it was going to happen, they were prevented from speaking freely on the issue. Now you have to prove if this was done out of ignorance or deliberately as a policy decision.

What's also funny of course, is that if all these warnings had been made public and the whole plot unravelled, it would have been called 'black psy-ops' by a lot of the conspiracy crew...
 
mears said:
Now If the story is true, than what next? No one had any specific, actionable intelligence to act on. The US receives threat warnings every day. There are thousands of leads to comb through
Click to expand...
That is not the case here - You have the director of the CIA making a top emergency meeting with Rice and then with Rumsfled and Ashcroft.

This is not just another bit of information in amongst the myriad of chatter - this is the head of the CIA going to the heads of government with something that he felt needed to be acted upon - his plea was ignored

mears said:
So, if the CIA reported today, October 3rd 2006 that an AL Queda attack was "certain to happen" than what next? Does it happen tomorrow, or a year from now? Will it involve biological agents, chemical agents, planes, trains or automobiles? Will it happen in Los Angeles, Chicago, DC or New York. Are the perpetrators in the country?
Click to expand...

it depends what was known and what possible actions could be warranted in follow up - the information is not yet fully disclosed to the public regarding this - but we do know that the CIA felt sufficiently angered by the brush off to make a stink, and felt that more could have been done in response.

It all comes down to whether you trust the CIA over the elected officials, and who has less or more bias.
 
sparticus said:
I've posting about the 'intelligence failures' on this site for atleast 2 years
Click to expand...
Bless. He thinks we don't remember the barking bollocks he's endlessly posted here!

Now please leave this thread because people are trying to have a decent debate here, and bonkers diversions from self-declared 'truth-seekers' aren't likely to contribute much.
sparticus said:
This is the summary I have most often referred to
Click to expand...
He's the guy that censors all comments that he doesn't agree with - even when they're coming directly from the source he's criticising, right?

Forgive me if I have immense trouble taking anything he writes seriously as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
If the US govt organised 9/11 in order to justify a war in Afghanistran...
Replies
12
Views
37K
Citizen66
C
Dillinger4
'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
537
Views
30K
kyser_soze
K
friedaweed
  • Poll
So 9-11. Who really did it?
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
Crispy
Crispy
DrRingDing
  • Locked
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
543
Views
34K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
M
9/11 a conspiracy?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
13K
Jazzz
Jazzz
Back
Top Bottom