No they are not. But I think Edmonds clearly has credibility, and she has been suppressed from releasing details of her claims.
Latest doubts about 911 commission: Former Vice President calls for "Phase 2"
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
No they are not. But I think Edmonds clearly has credibility, and she has been suppressed from releasing details of her claims.
‘THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets.
The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency’s investigation of the network.
Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.
She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.’
Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an “outright lie”.
“I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations,” she said. ‘
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
Doesn’t this lend her some credibility? No we don’t have much proof, but for me, it is clear that there is something to this.
The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency’s investigation of the network.
Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.
She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.’
Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an “outright lie”.
“I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations,” she said. ‘
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece
Doesn’t this lend her some credibility? No we don’t have much proof, but for me, it is clear that there is something to this.
I certainly think she has valid points, but it pretty much confirms my opinions that there was ineptitude, underfunding and mistakes. It SHOULD have been found out about before it happened, but for various reasons it wasn't. Unfortunately I believe that , even if it was re-investigated, nothing will change becase the failings were due to human failings. The same weaknesses still exist, this is self-evident because as Edmonds points out the cover-up, funding protection and mistakes happened POST-9/11, when everybody was supposed to be all on-board with the 'lets pull all the stops out and kill the 'sons-a-bitches'' outlook.
Seems interesting and looks more credible. But that article has one un-named official saying it exists and another un-named official saying it doesn't. That article is again not proof of anything.
Given the progress of the Pakistani nuclear program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html), why would they need to steal the secrets?
Maybe to get information on better weapons, systems, technologies. I imagine information like that is valuable.
Fair snuff, though the potential for really screwing the US-Pakistan relationship would be spectacular if found out, to the point of forcing the US Administraion to bomb Pakistani installations if it was confirmed to the US public.
It still doesn't resolve the issue of the two diametrically opposing statements from 'FBI officials' in the Times article. I'm not necessarily disputing your position, just saying that it's another article that is not proof of one position or another. It needs to be viewed in that light. I would like to think that people viewed their nuclear secrets in a btter light. But given the leaks to the USSR and China (those were ideological more than monetary). I would not be surprised that there were bastards prepared to do so though. If proven I hope they throw the book at them. The damned things are bad enough without 'improving' on them.
It's of no interest to me if i win anybody over to any argument. I don't even really have a position to be won over to. I favour complicity, but recognise that incompetence is more than a likely answer.
If that is eloquent language, why don't you suggest they copy it in the houses of parliament, and in the general media? You know, ram the point home.
And ah, here we are eh dashing blade, you reckon to be speaking for the "vast majority" of urban posters do you? Not just a majority mind, but a 'vast' majority. Amazing. You ought to be government spokesman. They claim similar insights on behalf of other people.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's lucky then.
All these posts to say this little thing? Is this what you've been saying all along?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And this from a TFL/lecturer in proper english
It's of no interest to me if i win anybody over to any argument. I don't even really have a position to be won over to
It's of no interest to me if i win anybody over to any argument. I don't even really have a position to be won over to
Assuming incompetence is widespread in empire bureaucracy, then knowledge of this would mean that MIHOP could rely upon such incompetence to allow the attacks to go ahead. The thing about MIHOP is that it only needed half a dozen or so people to have initiated the idea for the attacks. Then once the local CIA agent in saudi or pakistan or wherever planted the idea into obl's (or whoever's) mind, then just sit back and wait for it to all unfold.
One or two bits of help could be given, eg the stand down of the jets that normally protect american airspace from precisely these kinds of situations.
And meanwhile the perpetrators can happily hide behind incompetence, knowning full well that this is great motivation for covering up things.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Sounds like you think there's a bit more to it than US incompetence. You can't even keep the story straight for what - 5 minutes?
Is this the new one? It was incompetence, but incompetence that was fostered somehow?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
1) No. Falls. First step.
Oh, you've popped up again for one of your forays into fela fan land. You must be bored.
But either way, care to explain what is wrong linguistically or grammatically with the bit you've highlighted? Because basically there's nothing wrong at all. So i'm all ears.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm not working at the moment, i'm debating on a written forum.
Is it how i tell people to use english? Do i tell people how to use english even? Lots of assumptions for you, putting you on a very sticky wicket. If you knew anything about my work, you'd know that 'tell' is not really part of the story...
Why don't you enlighten me as to how this english is in some way not correct? It's more of a rhetorical question, because it is correct, but i'm hoping you will stop hiding behind your assumptions.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nope, get back to the more important points above.
Who was talking about 'fostering' incompetence? You've simply read that idea into my post. That's your idea, nothing to do with mine.
Interesting to see how easily you apply your own subjective filter onto other people's words. I'm surprised mate, i thought you were less of a slave to your past than this.
Ah, so that'll be no then.
Two can play at your game, but possibly your smugness blinds you to this...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
ze slave filter! No mirror?
So, can you explain what your incompetence with people behind it posts mean please fela?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
So
Who blew up the twin towers then.
Was it treebeard and gandalf or those nasty yanks?
Who blew up the twin towers then.
Was it treebeard and gandalf or those nasty yanks?
editor
hiraethified
It was this holographic clown.So
Who blew up the twin towers then.
Was it treebeard and gandalf or those nasty yanks?
Joe Vialls contacted me from beyond the grave to tell me.
Yes i can. But it's got nothing to do with fostering stupidity.
Just, rather, taking advantage of something you know already exists in great abundance.
Knowing that incompetence is rife in your bureaucracy and intelligence services would mean you could depend on it to a great degree. And secondly, after the attacks have happened, how useful to then be able to hide behind it.
To sum up, incompetence will allow the attacks to happen, and incompetence will then be blamed for the abject failures that allowed the attacks to unfold.
There, hope that is clear for you.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Editor
I recall saying earlier on this thread that anyone can do sarcasm.
Now that we are 200 posts in, do you think you could mark the occasion by speaking to the points referred to in the header? You've given us pedantry, strawmen and a whole bunch of other tactics from the 6th form debaters repetoire of obfuscation techniques but I dont think youve actually gone so far as to say whether these findings and opinions (of qualified and experienced people whose credentials stand up to even your exacting levels of scrutiny) impact on how credible you now find the commission to be.
I recall saying earlier on this thread that anyone can do sarcasm.
Now that we are 200 posts in, do you think you could mark the occasion by speaking to the points referred to in the header? You've given us pedantry, strawmen and a whole bunch of other tactics from the 6th form debaters repetoire of obfuscation techniques but I dont think youve actually gone so far as to say whether these findings and opinions (of qualified and experienced people whose credentials stand up to even your exacting levels of scrutiny) impact on how credible you now find the commission to be.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
If you cant manage that ed
You may wish to try and square this circle, as you were politely requested to a couple of times:
You said on this thread that you require:
"expert analysis, credible research and independent studies"
(somewhat like the stuff linked to in the OP that you keep avoiding for example)
You also said
""I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people."
Now, you could share with us how you reached the latter conclusion with such sources as mentioned in the former statement.
Or you could go and find another clown picture.
Or you could keep obfuscating.
From observing your record here my money is firmly on option C.
You may wish to try and square this circle, as you were politely requested to a couple of times:
You said on this thread that you require:
"expert analysis, credible research and independent studies"
(somewhat like the stuff linked to in the OP that you keep avoiding for example)
You also said
""I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people."
Now, you could share with us how you reached the latter conclusion with such sources as mentioned in the former statement.
Or you could go and find another clown picture.
Or you could keep obfuscating.
From observing your record here my money is firmly on option C.
What stand down? That's old territory, the jets that were 'stood down' wouldn't be the ones that actually took off and are recorded as having done so, would they? Don't say that we're going to re-hash the methodology employed by NORAD and interception times again.
The idea that a handful of people can trigger such events, then monitor the figures involved so that they know the timings and methodology involved (something posited because the 'aircraft were stood down' and 'warnings not to travel were given') is preposterous. Even if they purely suggested such a method of attack the scenario would be open to discovery, modification, or abandonment. If OBL had discovered he was being played by some US officials do you think he would have kept it quiet? It would be a devestating event to the US government if it was proved true. The idea that such a small cabal could promote such an attack is ridiculous.
What you also propose about using the inherent flaws of a large bureaucracy is also flawed. It would require an intimate knowledge of a huge number of people within the organisation. Edmonds allegations included her immediate supervisor, hardly a high ranking member! If you are going to manipulate to that level then you either need to have a lot of people involved in controlling these different departments. This would also need to be done in all of the relevent organisations, the FBI, CIA, NSA and now the Dept of HLS.
Either you have a small number of cabalists which gives you security but reduces effectiveness, or a large number which makes a plot possible, but impossible to keep secret. Alternatively you just have a cluster-fuck of incompetence that doesn't involve any directing influence. Nothing has shaken me out of my view yet.
xes
F.O.A.D
*applauds*
less of the snidey shit Ed,you're making yourself look bad. Like you're trying to play up to all your friends by showing them how much of an arse you can be.
as/if the truth comes out over this. Will you still believe the origional story? Course you will,because it'd mean you'd have to change your stance on something you've so vehimently opposed all this time.
you're the clown
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
I claim to be speaking for no-one. It was merely an observation Fela.
So the majority of urbanites are too stupid to follow this "discussion" Eddy?
xes
F.O.A.D
I've not read this thread for the same reason I've not read any of the 9/11 threads.
I can allready see what's in it,a couple of people trying to have a discussion about something that if it is a big lie,will hang bush. Others just jumping in making snidey point scoring remarks.
did I get close?
I can allready see what's in it,a couple of people trying to have a discussion about something that if it is a big lie,will hang bush. Others just jumping in making snidey point scoring remarks.
did I get close?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Here's a list of the "Unanswered Questions" that the Family Steering Committee submitted to the 9/11 Commission.
Similar threads
- Locked
