What if some Truthers have been right all along?

[Baby Nemesis]

A couple of months ago, I caught the end of a radio programme where someone was saying 9/11 conspiracy theories had hampered America's fight against the Taliban. I wanted to find out how, so I looked for information with Google. I didn't find any. But I found this instead: From Wikipedia - 9/11 advanced knowledge debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debate)

I'd had no idea just how many intelligence warnings were given by various countries and people! How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? It does make things look suspicious, or at the very least, as if the American intelligence agencies were crawling with incompetents. Why weren't more efforts made to find out more?

And then there's this, from a man who says he was working to expose flaws in airport security so they could be fixed, who says all his recommendations for improvements were just ignored, and when he spoke out after 9/11, he was fired. 9/11 whistleblowers ignored, retaliated against (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/11/911-whistleblowers-ignored-retaliated-against/)

He blames incompetence for the fact his information was ignored:

“Contrary to their pledge to establish accountability, they refused to hold anyone accountable and lamely justified it by saying, ‘We don’t want to point a finger at anyone.’ All those responsible individuals remained in their positions or were even promoted. And as far as meaningful remedies and reforms are concerned, the commission threw in senseless, and in some cases, detrimental cosmetic and bureaucratic ’solutions’ that ended up making our government even more cumbersome and unable to respond to threats to national security. In the name of solutions and reforms, they forced down our throats exactly what led to the failure to protect our nation on 9/11: A highly bureaucratic, complicated, inefficient mammoth of a malfunctioning machine.” ...

But the Joint Inquiry report is much more forthcoming about the failure of the complicated, inefficient, mammoth, malfunctioning bureaucracy. For example:
“From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.”

And then I find this:

Glenn Beck Guest: Osama Bin Laden Should Attack Again (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/glenn-beck-guest-fantasiz_n_223807.html)

Beck: ... Let's bring in Michael Scheuer. He's the former CIA counterterrorist analyst ...

SCHEUER: Well, I haven't been in the White House, Glenn, but I was in the -- I was in the CIA at a senior level.

Michael Scheuer warns against the dangers of patrolling the Mexican border unarmed, saying that only an attack against America will make politicians do what's necessary and deploy troops there:

BECK: You've been -- you've been in the White House with the president. You have been in the room with the president and you have been making, you know, suggestions. Do I have that right?

SCHEUER: I have been with very senior people, yes, sir.

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Perhaps he was at a senior level in the CIA before 9/11. What if there were several people there who thought a major attack on America would be a good thing then for some reason?

[BigAl]

A couple of months ago, I caught the end of a radio programme where someone was saying 9/11 conspiracy theories had hampered America's fight against the Taliban. I wanted to find out how, so I looked for information with Google. I didn't find any. But I found this instead: From Wikipedia - 9/11 advanced knowledge debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debate)

I'd had no idea just how many intelligence warnings were given by various countries and people! How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? It does make things look suspicious, or at the very least, as if the American intelligence agencies were crawling with incompetents. Why weren't more efforts made to find out more?


Read Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

She describes about 12 lines of investigation in as many FBI offices in the summer of 2001 that, if all examined by one person, would have made the incipient attacks obvious and allowed the administration to block the attacks, if only by telling pilots to lock the cockpit doors. That might have been enough to foil the hijacker's plans.

Zegart describes how the FBI was organizationally incapable of preventing crime. They were and are very good at catching the perpetrators of a crime.

Don't confuse bureaucratic incompetence and with conspiracy. A few people like Tenet saw something coming but were unable to turn the FBI around.

[triforcharity]

Here is my take on this.

"How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? " How many times does someone cry wolf, and nothing happen. When you have credible threats, people are watched, people are investigated, etc.

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.

Now, does this make it ok?? **** ****** ($#*#$&%* $**($8 NO!!!!! Does it mean that the intelligence departments have some changes to be made?? Absolutely!!

But, like I said, when so many reports were coming in about upcoming attacks, most people thought it would be overseas, not in our own back yard. That was their biggest faailure. If someone, somewhere, would have figured it out, 9/11 might not have happened. Who knows. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20.

[Dave Rogers]

I think it's important to note that there are so many mutually incompatible theories put forward by truthers that, occasionally, a very few of them are bound to have some merit, if only by accident. The idea that US intelligence agencies may have been incompetent is one that is by no means specific to truthers, and the suggestion that there were systemic issues that prevented them from anticipating the 9/11 attacks is even more widespread; in fact, a major aim of the 9/11 Commission was to identify such systemic failures. These issues aren't really conspiracy theories anyway; they're cock-up theories, the absolute antithesis of conspiracy theories, and it seems to me that they have considerable merit. They are generally only used as a final stage of retreat by truthers, when MIHOP and LIHOP have been so comprehensively debunked that they need to back off to a rational position; Dylan Avery's comments prior to the release of LC:FC are a good example.

As for Michael Scheuer, yes, it's quite possible that some people thought that an attack on America would in the long run be a good thing. It's possible that some of these people saw signs of an attack on America and decided, individually and separately, not to act as strongly on these signs as they might have. Since this is a question of individual motivation, we'll never be sure. It's also possible that some people conspired to ignore such an attack, just as it's possible that there was a conspiracy to incite or even assist such an attack. However, what the truth movement claims is that there is positive evidence that this happened. It's that claim that has proven, so far, to be unfounded. Speculate all you want; with any luck you'll get enough material for a good thriller novel. Without evidence, that's the most it will ever be.

Dave

[Justin39640]

I think it's important to note that there are so many mutually incompatible theories put forward by truthers that, occasionally, a very few of them are bound to have some merit, if only by accident. The idea that US intelligence agencies may have been incompetent is one that is by no means specific to truthers, and the suggestion that there were systemic issues that prevented them from anticipating the 9/11 attacks is even more widespread; in fact, a major aim of the 9/11 Commission was to identify such systemic failures. These issues aren't really conspiracy theories anyway; they're cock-up theories, the absolute antithesis of conspiracy theories, and it seems to me that they have considerable merit. They are generally only used as a final stage of retreat by truthers, when MIHOP and LIHOP have been so comprehensively debunked that they need to back off to a rational position; Dylan Avery's comments prior to the release of LC:FC are a good example.

As for Michael Scheuer, yes, it's quite possible that some people thought that an attack on America would in the long run be a good thing. It's possible that some of these people saw signs of an attack on America and decided, individually and separately, not to act as strongly on these signs as they might have. Since this is a question of individual motivation, we'll never be sure. It's also possible that some people conspired to ignore such an attack, just as it's possible that there was a conspiracy to incite or even assist such an attack. However, what the truth movement claims is that there is positive evidence that this happened. It's that claim that has proven, so far, to be unfounded. Speculate all you want; with any luck you'll get enough material for a good thriller novel. Without evidence, that's the most it will ever be.

Dave

this pre-911 stuff is where i give LIHOP its 1%
its simple its easy and its very tough to prove

although like tri said
lumped together it might have made a coherent picture
but the way things were before the attacks it didnt work that way

thats why i give intel FUBAR a 99%

[firecoins]

During the 1990's the FAA ignored its own security teams recomendations and even punished them for finding security flaws. Had the FAA followed some of the recommendations, 9/11 would not have happaned the way it did.

[newton3376]

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.

This is 100% correct...

This problem still exists within not just the INTEL community but within the military and government as a whole...

This is an issue we still haven't fixed to this day....we currently have 17 agencies involved in various intelligence areas....IMO many of these could be consolidated but for now they aren't and the issue persists.

[T.A.M.]

Were there people asleep at the wheel on 9/11? Absolutely. That is what happens when a country has no more than one or two terrorist attacks on its own soil. That is what happens when the public mindset (which it was pre-9/11) is that of invincibility. That is what happens when you elect a govt. that was more interested in Korea and Russia, then the middle east. That is what happens when you have organizations that dislike each other, are jealous of each other, and organizations that treat their anti-terrorist members like lepers.

TAM:)

[sylvan8798]

Here is my take on this.

"How can they have failed to follow up so many leads? " How many times does someone cry wolf, and nothing happen. When you have credible threats, people are watched, people are investigated, etc.

The problem pre-9/11 was simple: (not excuseable) Too many different departments, not many sharing information.


I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

[T.A.M.]

I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

Exactly. I have no doubt they (Bush et al) saw terrorism as a whole, and OBL even more so, as a fly buzzing about, not even worth swatting.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

Don't forget as well that it is easy with hindsight to see which warnings were valid; what we don't see is the blizzard of other information those warnings come in and the number of warnings that turn out to be nothing.

I also would be cautious about accepting anything Richard Clarke says.

[TexasJack]

There was also the insinuation that the CIA may have deliberately withheld infomation to the FBI because there was a deep hatred of the CIA toward FBI director John O'Neill (who tragically died on 9/11), this coupled with the bureacratic mess between the agencies.

[newton3376]

I've always thought the change of administration played a part as well. There was a tremendous amount of arrogance and egotism in the Bush administration. The outgoing Clinton people had, perhaps, been humbled a bit by their own experiences with terrorism. They warned the incoming crew.

Who can't imagine Cheney and Company sitting there at that big table saying "Yeah, yeah, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We're in charge here now. (snicker, snicker)" ? Think about how arrogant they were in regards to Iraq, and it all makes sense.

This is not a Bush/Cheney or Republician/Democrat issue...

This is an issue that has always existed (to my knowledge) within the Intel Community and the military.

You have 17 agencies all doing various Intel work each with a certain sphere of influence. These spheres often intersect or overlap and everyone wants to hold onto their "piece of the pie".

It's a pissing contest that is there no matter who is in office and it often creates a lot of headaches.

[LightinDarkness]

People seem to ignore that government actors operate within the realm of bounded rationality just like the rest of us. The intelligence community receives hundreds of so called "warnings" that a terrorist attack is about to happen every single day from around the world, and 99.9999% of them will never happen. Many of them are "repeated warnings" about things that will never happen.

No reasonable amount of money or additional staff will make the intelligence community omnipotent. The fact that the intelligence community was not omnipotent about 9/11 does not lend credence to a conspiracy or LIHOP.

[David Wong]

Don't forget as well that it is easy with hindsight to see which warnings were valid; what we don't see is the blizzard of other information those warnings come in and the number of warnings that turn out to be nothing.

I also would be cautious about accepting anything Richard Clarke says.

For instance, we don't have massive security around the nation's power plants. Later this year, a coordinated attack disables five of them in a couple of days with car bombs, shutting down power to like 25% of the united states.

For the next decade people are running around screaming, "HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS COMING?!?! WHERE WERE THE CONCRETE BARRICADES? WE KNEW CAR BOMBS WERE A THREAT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ! OBAMA WAS IN ON IT!!!"


Read Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

She describes about 12 lines of investigation in as many FBI offices in the summer of 2001 that, if all examined by one person, would have made the incipient attacks obvious and allowed the administration to block the attacks, if only by telling pilots to lock the cockpit doors. That might have been enough to foil the hijacker's plans.


I have a feeling that book would just make me angry. Pretty easy for Ms. Zegart to blow the lid off a terror plot YEARS AFTER IT HAS ALREADY FREAKING HAPPENED. Not so easy beforehand. It's not like this was the only freaking thing the FBI had on its plate.

It's like she's looking at a loom, weaving a pattern in fabric. She gets to look at the finished weave and say, "The pattern is so obvious!" They, on the other hand, only got to look at thousands of individual stings of colored thread feeding into the machine on the back end, and had to try to guess what was coming out the other end. Not so easy.

[BigAl]

For instance, we don't have massive security around the nation's power plants. Later this year, a coordinated attack disables five of them in a couple of days with car bombs, shutting down power to like 25% of the united states.

For the next decade people are running around screaming, "HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS COMING?!?! WHERE WERE THE CONCRETE BARRICADES? WE KNEW CAR BOMBS WERE A THREAT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ! OBAMA WAS IN ON IT!!!"



I have a feeling that book would just make me angry. Pretty easy for Ms. Zegart to blow the lid off a terror plot YEARS AFTER IT HAS ALREADY FREAKING HAPPENED. Not so easy beforehand. It's not like this was the only freaking thing the FBI had on its plate.


Rad the book. It's all about what the FBI kew prior to 9/11.

[Brainster]

It's like she's looking at a loom, weaving a pattern in fabric. She gets to look at the finished weave and say, "The pattern is so obvious!" They, on the other hand, only got to look at thousands of individual stings of colored thread feeding into the machine on the back end, and had to try to guess what was coming out the other end. Not so easy.

Terrific analogy.

[alienentity]

On the other hand, here's a couple of ways the 9/11 'truth' movement, if it were successful, would harm America's security:

1) There would be massive, ongoing investigations to catch phantom 'perps' in government, wasting time and resources instead of reforming and correcting the flaws in FBI etc..

2) The 9/11 'truth' myths that Osama Bin Laden was either dead or had nothing to do with the attacks (for example) would mean that vigilance against Islamic terror groups would be de-emphasized. I mean, if your gubmint did it, no need to deal with Islamic terrorists, right? They're just the cover story... (I believe Tony Szamboti recently offered this theory regarding the 9/11 hijackers)

[beachnut]

Monday morning ...

Where is the kill pilots take planes? I think one pilot set tried to keep out the bad guys but caved on threats to kill! They forgot the land now even in a corn field scenario where murder is not normal on a plane.

There are future plots the truthers need to tell us what will happen.
There are future inventions, truthers need to tell us what they are now!
How can you have foreknowledge of a unique event and how do you pick out the 911 exact event when the warnings are in the thousands? Has anyone received warning about terrorists activities that could involve their death? Yes I have and they never materialized, but I was looking around.

The only way to prevent 911 even with the warnings was to change the way we react to hijackings and we do not let them happen and everyone would have to fight the hijackings. That policy would have to be in place on 911! Since it was not, since we were not trained for the murderers to kills us, we failed until Flight 93 Passengers figured out what was going in in minutes and took action.

However! Having a secure cockpit should have been the rule! An idiot in the cockpit can cause the plane to crash in less than 6 seconds; plane doomed in a few seconds. When you look back, anyone of us could have stormed the cockpit and gained access in seconds and screwed up the day before 911. We all had a chance to demand a secure cockpit; we all screwed up.

[JihadJane]

I mean, if your gubmint did it, no need to deal with Islamic terrorists, right?

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.

[newton3376]

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.

You know nothing about the government.

[jaydeehess]

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.

You know, the topic was LIHOP and incompetance in gov't agencies. Did you have a comment to make on THE TOPIC JJ?

I have always given the notion of 'let it happen...", whether on purpose or through incompetance, its due. However what do we see on this forum and every forum with a 911 subject? Bombs, thermite, fake planes, decoy planes, space-a-beams,.

As a member of the tribe that does assume gov't complicity in the attacks of 9/11 JJ, how about a coherent thought on the matter at hand.

[johnny karate]

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.

We did. They're called elections. We actually had a pretty significant one not too long ago. You should read a newspaper once in a while.

That, of course, is your cue to remind us all that elections are meaningless, and that whoever is in power, the same people are in power.

Don't forget to mention the economic apocalypse about to befall us.

Maybe throw in a mention of the imperialistic U.S. plot to monopolize the world's energy resources.

And finally don't forget to cite all the books from where you cribbed these ideas so we can all be terribly impressed with how well-read you are.

And no matter what, make you sure you do all of this in as long, rambling, and snore-inducing manner as possible.

[JihadJane]

You know, the topic was LIHOP and incompetance in gov't agencies. Did you have a comment to make on THE TOPIC JJ?

I have always given the notion of 'let it happen...", whether on purpose or through incompetance, its due. However what do we see on this forum and every forum with a 911 subject? Bombs, thermite, fake planes, decoy planes, space-a-beams.

Yes, we do have that on this forum, almost exclusively from the fingertips of the likes of yourself in paragraphs the likes of the one above.

As a member of the tribe that does assume gov't complicity in the attacks of 9/11 JJ, how about a coherent thought on the matter at hand.

Well, if the gubmint LIHOP then you'd still have to deal with the gubmint. That's my point. It's hardly a get-out-of-jail-free card.

BTW, I don't belong to any tribes. Your fantasy is getting the better of reality there.

[T.A.M.]

Don't forget as well that it is easy with hindsight to see which warnings were valid; what we don't see is the blizzard of other information those warnings come in and the number of warnings that turn out to be nothing.

I also would be cautious about accepting anything Richard Clarke says.

Interesting that you single out Clarke. Any particular reason why? (important to me, as I am reading his "Against All Enemies" now).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

People seem to ignore that government actors operate within the realm of bounded rationality just like the rest of us. The intelligence community receives hundreds of so called "warnings" that a terrorist attack is about to happen every single day from around the world, and 99.9999% of them will never happen. Many of them are "repeated warnings" about things that will never happen.

No reasonable amount of money or additional staff will make the intelligence community omnipotent. The fact that the intelligence community was not omnipotent about 9/11 does not lend credence to a conspiracy or LIHOP.

That is absolutely true, but as the commission pointed out, and other since then, the ball was dropped on Al-Mihdhar and Al-Nazmi. Now had the FBI gotten the info they needed on these two, would it have stopped the attacks? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it speaks to, as others here have said, that many areas (yes, with 20/20 hindsight) were lacking.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

We did. They're called elections. We actually had a pretty significant one not too long ago. You should read a newspaper once in a while.

That, of course, is your cue to remind us all that elections are meaningless, and that whoever is in power, the same people are in power.


Bingo. A lot like truther escape clause #1 (all evidence against the CT is faked and/or planted, all witnesses or experts opposing it are "in on it", or IT IS ALL DISINFO), this, escape clause #2 states that it does not matter who is in power, they are still evil, is in keeping with the truther mantra...when faced with being wrong, don't admit it...modify.

You see when you are raging against the machine, it does not matter whether it is new or old, black or white, ford or honda, it is still the machine, and therefore you must rage against it...

TAM:)

[Comsat Angel]

If your gubmint did it then you'd have to deal with your gubmint.

Jihad Jane - living proof that the Thread Derail gene exists!

[Brainster]

Interesting that you single out Clarke. Any particular reason why? (important to me, as I am reading his "Against All Enemies" now).

TAM:)

There are numerous inconsistencies between Clarke and others, and from what I have seen they all tend to go one way; that is, if Clarke remembers something that others don't it's something that makes Clarke look good and others look bad. It's the usual "If only they'd listened to me," Washington memoir.

The most glaring error in the book is his claim that he participated in a video conference with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld shortly after the Pentagon attack, on the morning of 9-11. We know from many sources that neither of those men participated. Myers was in a meeting with Max Cleland, while Rumsfeld assisted in the rescue efforts.

The thing that made me most suspicious of Clarke, though, was his 60 Minutes interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml). Obviously the talking point of Republicans in response to that interview, where Clarke was extremely critical of then-President Bush, was going to be that Clarke was a partisan Democrat and so the interviewer asked him what his party affiliation was. And Clarke came up with an odd circumlocution; he said that the last time he'd voted in a partisan primary was in Virginia in 2000, and on that occasion he'd asked for a Republican ballot.

It was such a roundabout method of denying Democratic partisanship that I couldn't help wonder why he'd phrased it that way. Why not say, "I'm a Republican," or better yet, "I'm a registered Republican." So I looked it up and it turned out that he could not have asked for a Democratic primary ballot in 2000, because the Democrats did not have a primary (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpres2000b.htm) in Virginia in 2000, they had a caucus.

At that point, alarm bells were ringing in my head. It is certainly possible (though unlikely) that Clarke had just innocently phrased his response that way. But if he hadn't, not only was he being deceptive, but he had also almost certainly planned that deceptive answer beforehand, because it's unlikely he'd come up with that lawyerly phrasing off the cuff.

[Ragnarok]

That, of course, is your cue to remind us all that elections are meaningless, and that whoever is in power, the same people are in power.

Do you really think any serious government would totally rely on something as unpredictable as a fickle, yet seemingly led by the nose electorate?

[DavidJames]

Interesting that you single out Clarke. Any particular reason why? (important to me, as I am reading his "Against All Enemies" now).

TAM:)Brainster's quote is rather long, but the key point is buried in there somewhere, see if you can find it ;)
There are numerous inconsistencies between Clarke and others, and from what I have seen they all tend to go one way; that is, if Clarke remembers something that others don't it's something that makes Clarke look good and others look bad. It's the usual "If only they'd listened to me," Washington memoir.

The most glaring error in the book is his claim that he participated in a video conference with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld shortly after the Pentagon attack, on the morning of 9-11. We know from many sources that neither of those men participated. Myers was in a meeting with Max Cleland, while Rumsfeld assisted in the rescue efforts.

The thing that made me most suspicious of Clarke, though, was his 60 Minutes interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml). Obviously the talking point of Republicans in response to that interview, where Clarke was extremely critical of then-President Bush, was going to be that Clarke was a partisan Democrat and so the interviewer asked him what his party affiliation was. And Clarke came up with an odd circumlocution; he said that the last time he'd voted in a partisan primary was in Virginia in 2000, and on that occasion he'd asked for a Republican ballot.

It was such a roundabout method of denying Democratic partisanship that I couldn't help wonder why he'd phrased it that way. Why not say, "I'm a Republican," or better yet, "I'm a registered Republican." So I looked it up and it turned out that he could not have asked for a Democratic primary ballot in 2000, because the Democrats did not have a primary (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpres2000b.htm) in Virginia in 2000, they had a caucus.

At that point, alarm bells were ringing in my head. It is certainly possible (though unlikely) that Clarke had just innocently phrased his response that way. But if he hadn't, not only was he being deceptive, but he had also almost certainly planned that deceptive answer beforehand, because it's unlikely he'd come up with that lawyerly phrasing off the cuff.

[eromitlab]

The thing that made me most suspicious of Clarke, though, was his 60 Minutes interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml). Obviously the talking point of Republicans in response to that interview, where Clarke was extremely critical of then-President Bush, was going to be that Clarke was a partisan Democrat and so the interviewer asked him what his party affiliation was. And Clarke came up with an odd circumlocution; he said that the last time he'd voted in a partisan primary was in Virginia in 2000, and on that occasion he'd asked for a Republican ballot.

It was such a roundabout method of denying Democratic partisanship that I couldn't help wonder why he'd phrased it that way. Why not say, "I'm a Republican," or better yet, "I'm a registered Republican." So I looked it up and it turned out that he could not have asked for a Democratic primary ballot in 2000, because the Democrats did not have a primary (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpres2000b.htm) in Virginia in 2000, they had a caucus.

At that point, alarm bells were ringing in my head. It is certainly possible (though unlikely) that Clarke had just innocently phrased his response that way. But if he hadn't, not only was he being deceptive, but he had also almost certainly planned that deceptive answer beforehand, because it's unlikely he'd come up with that lawyerly phrasing off the cuff.

It is interesting phrasing to put it that way. I'm in no way a Republican, but I voted in the Republican primaries in my home state in 2000-2006. Democratic primaries aren't terribly heated in the South these days, and those Republican primaries were battles between normal Republicans and hyper-evangelical Republicans (Roy Moore and his acolytes) that I felt it imperative to weigh in on. But if asked for party affiliation, I might mention that... but I would positively identify myself as a Democrat in all instances.

[parky76]

yes....truthers are right.

they are right that Sunday comes after Saturday.

that's about it.

[fuelair]

Exactly. I have no doubt they (Bush et al) saw terrorism as a whole, and OBL even more so, as a fly buzzing about, not even worth swatting.

TAM:)

ALL flys need to be swatted.

[jaydeehess]

I have always given the notion of 'let it happen...", whether on purpose or through incompetance, its due. However what do we see on this forum and every forum with a 911 subject? Bombs, thermite, fake planes, decoy planes, space-a-beams,.Yes, we do have that on this forum, almost exclusively from the fingertips of the likes of yourself in paragraphs the likes of the one above.

See the bolded part JJ. That includes the forums where the majority of posters FAVOUR the idea that the government/shadow world government are complicit/responsible for, the attacks.


You know, the topic was LIHOP and incompetance in gov't agencies. Did you have a comment to make on THE TOPIC JJ?

As a member of the tribe that does assume gov't complicity in the attacks of 9/11 JJ, how about a coherent thought on the matter at hand.
Well, if the gubmint LIHOP then you'd still have to deal with the gubmint. That's my point. It's hardly a get-out-of-jail-free card.

BTW, I don't belong to any tribes. Your fantasy is getting the better of reality there.

<<sighs>>
Do you or do you not subscribe to the notion that the government, or some behind the scenes group who direct what we perceive as our governments, are responsible for the attacks of 9/11?

In using the term "tribe" I was attempting to mollify your taking umbrage at being labeled a truther/TM.

No one is saying that incompetance or allowing the attacks to be carried out would be letting the governemnt agencies/individuals 'off the hook'. That notion would seem to have sprung from somewhere in your being.
So let's try again shall we? Do you have anything at all to contribute, coherent or not, free of the emcumberances and dogma that occurs when like-minded individuals organize, as an independant thinking human being unattached to any group, on the subject of whether or not a LIH,,, senario has any weight?

[jaydeehess]

...........the interviewer asked him what his party affiliation was. And Clarke came up with an odd circumlocution; he said that the last time he'd voted in a partisan primary was in Virginia in 2000, and on that occasion he'd asked for a Republican ballot.

It was such a roundabout method of denying Democratic partisanship that I couldn't help wonder why he'd phrased it that way. Why not say, "I'm a Republican," or better yet, "I'm a registered Republican." So I looked it up and it turned out that he could not have asked for a Democratic primary ballot in 2000, because the Democrats did not have a primary (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpres2000b.htm) in Virginia in 2000, they had a caucus.

At that point, alarm bells were ringing in my head. It is certainly possible (though unlikely) that Clarke had just innocently phrased his response that way. But if he hadn't, not only was he being deceptive, but he had also almost certainly planned that deceptive answer beforehand, because it's unlikely he'd come up with that lawyerly phrasing off the cuff.

The question is a rather odd one to many in the world. Party affiliation is much more important it seems, to Americans than it is in other countries. Clarke may simply have been illustrating that although he is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, that in the election which saw GWB become the POTUS , he favoured the Republican ticket.

In Canada we have three major political parties. I have voted for all of them at one time or another(I'm 53 so there have been several Federal elections since I turned 18). Normally though I favour the center left "Liberal Party of Canada". On occassions when that party simply does not have its 'stuff' together I usually vote for the center right "Conservative Party of Canada" (or their predeccessor). However there have been occassions when neither of them has earned my trust or respect and I have voted for the leftist "New Democratic Party of Canada".

I am far from alone on this.

In the USA is it so uncommon that a person would vote according to how they felt about the Party or the ticket at that moment in history or is it simply expected that one votes along party lines till the day they die?

[Brainster]

Remember, that 2004 was an election year, so that no matter what Clarke said it was going to be interpreted as political, and so the question would inevitably come up and indeed it was raised by 60 Minutes on the program, not afterwards. And BTW, Clarke ended up becoming an advisor to the Kerry campaign; make of that what you will.

But more than that I resist the constant "Who's to blame for 9-11?" when it comes from either side of the fence. Who's to blame? How about we start with KSM, Ramzi Yousef, Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, etc.? The pilot-hijackers were all in the US during the Clinton Administration; should we blame them? Clinton did not respond to the USS Cole incident--was that the problem?

It's second guessing. Clarke got a pass from 60 Minutes in 2004 because it was an election year and as you may have heard, 60 Minutes was slightly invested in defeating George W. Bush.

[jaydeehess]

But the question is part of the idea that Clarke, not 60 Minutes, had a vested interest in seeing GWB brought down. He was essentially saying that he supported the Republican ticket that saw GWB come to power.

My read of Clarke is that he discovered that he did not like or trust the administration's handling of the intel he was feding them and the he felt that it could have done much more to head off the(at the time non-specific) attacks that he believed were coming.

So one wonders why Clarke was Republican supporter in 2000. Perhaps the fact that the Dem administration had not taken the terrorist threat seriously enough(the Cole for eg.)

He could hardly be an advisor to GWB in '04 given that GWB did not take his advice even when he was an advisor to the Whitehouse.

It would be a natural then for him to want to advise the other potential POTUS would it not, if Clarke's main goal was fighting terrorism and not politics?

[Jackanory]

Were there people asleep at the wheel on 9/11? Absolutely. That is what happens when a country has no more than one or two terrorist attacks on its own soil. That is what happens when the public mindset (which it was pre-9/11) is that of invincibility. That is what happens when you elect a govt. that was more interested in Korea and Russia, then the middle east. That is what happens when you have organizations that dislike each other, are jealous of each other, and organizations that treat their anti-terrorist members like lepers.

TAM:)

Nail on head. Mistakes were made, information incorrectly analysed or misinterpreted, lack of specific intel, too many cooks, human error and a determined and highly skilled/trained terrorist organisation took full advantage of it and succeeded.

Add a system that elects the best showman, richest or best funded person into office, not neccessarily the right one for the job, and you have a recipe for disaster. Good old USA. Likes to ham up the Hollywood way, even when electing a president. I dont do politics but the USA way of electing its leader is nothing more than showboating and has absolutely nothing to do with competence in governing. You elect that way, yet winge and whine when that person and his government are found to be lacking when needed the most. Political agendas abound and a truth movement who believe in ray beams and magic hushaboom thermite. Hardly surprising that that sort of mentality exists.

LIHOP and MIHOP may be relevent offshore in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the military and CIA will undoubtedly run things together - but LIHOP and MIHOP for 9/11 would have required the co operation of GOV, USAF, FAA, UAL, AA, ATC, NORAD, Military, CIA, FBI, NYPD, NYFD, NIST, FEMA etc etc etc.

Only the dumbest of the dumb believe in an elaborate conspiracy when the simple fact is that 9/11 happened because the USA was asleep and 19 determined and trained suicide terrorists executed an attack on your soil that was a resounding success. Same here in the UK on 7/7 when we where attacked by home grown terrorists. They were born here, Have families here, had British passports, had British citizenship, were schooled and worked here. They didnt need planes - just backpacks full of fertiliser.

Could the UK and USA goverments and intel departments have done more to prevent it? Yes - had they each known more!

Highly trained terrorists crashing planes or homegrown terrorists packing backpacks with home made explosives made from everyday items isnt very hard. Multi department collusion involving thousands of people is impossible.

Did waterboarding exist pre 9/11? Yes!

If they had caught KSM and waterboarded him prior to 9/11 would he have given up the plan for 9/11 and saved thousands? Did KSM give intel about other attacks hat have been prevented since 9/11?

[Brainster]

But the question is part of the idea that Clarke, not 60 Minutes, had a vested interest in seeing GWB brought down. He was essentially saying that he supported the Republican ticket that saw GWB come to power.

No, he said he voted (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200403311251.asp) for McCain in the primary and Gore in the general.

[R.Mackey]

There's no way the Truthers have been right all along about a LIHOP scenario. For starters, most of them don't even believe in it, but only fall back on it when they reach the paper-thin depths of their scientific knowledge and fail to support their MIHOP dreams.

Obviously, no intelligence service is perfect. We try to anticipate and prevent things like September 11th, but there are no guarantees. We also know for a fact that there are bureaucratic inefficiencies, idiotic turf wars, personal conflicts, legal hurdles, and flat out bungling that occurred.

But, as I've argued before, these flaws do not support LIHOP. In fact, they absolutely preclude any LIHOP scenario.

Think about it. In order to pull off LIHOP, the intelligence services have to be totally coordinated. This is true regardless of which basic scenario you follow: If the operation was created by the CIA or what have you, they'd have to tell everybody about it and get them to look the other way -- and the others would have to obey. If the operation was legitimately started by al-Qaeda but stumbled upon by the CIA, then they'd have to prevent anyone else from finding out about it.

How is this remotely possible?

Here's what would really happen. At the highest levels, Cabinet members and agency directors would hammer out some kind of agreement, and keep it under lock and key. Then they'd prepare their own agency strategies to make it a reality. This becomes marching orders, presentations, phone calls, carefully orchestrated staffing changes and moves, manipulation of files and IT departments, etc... eventually landing at the lowest common denominator where analysts and field agents are sitting around a conference phone, going through PowerPoint slides, trying to figure out what fresh hell is being inflicted on them by management this time.

It can't work. All it takes is one person who conveniently ignores her orders, or one working stiff who was at the dentist that morning, and all of a sudden you've got a loose cannon that could ruin everything.

Were that not the case, were the various intelligence services tight as a drum and in lock-step, it might be plausible. But it just ain't so. The various books on the subject describe, in vivid detail, just how close some of those loose cannons came to cracking the whole thing open. No way would that have happened if it really was LIHOP. None at all.

[stateofgrace]

On top of what R.Mackey said there is also the problem of foreign intelligence agencies. If an attack was allowed to happen inside the US and warning were being picked up by US intelligence agencies and ignored, then they would also have been picked up by other intelligence agencies, some of whom are not friendly to the US.

To keep it tight and under wraps all these agencies would have to be, somehow brought onboard. This is simply impossible. Beyond that little problem there is also the added bonus of actually keep them onboard for many years to come, again this is an almost impossible task.

For LIHOP to actually succeed and to keep the rest of the planets intelligence agencies quiet about it for untold years simply would not happen. If the US somehow allowed this to happen and there was the slightest whiff of anything doggy going on then there is no reason for countries, many of whom actually had citizens murdered in this attack, to keep quiet. It is simply not going to happen.

[R.Mackey]

Another excellent point. Well spoken.

ETA: Of course, this is the juncture at which the troglodytes start jumping around and gibbering about the Mossad, but outside the world of fantasy, there's absolutely no way that all of the intelligence services would either miss it completely or come on in for the ride. None. Those who like us would warn us, and those who are suspicious of us would expose us.

[rwguinn]

There's no way the Truthers have been right all along about a LIHOP scenario. For starters, most of them don't even believe in it, but only fall back on it when they reach the paper-thin depths of their scientific knowledge and fail to support their MIHOP dreams.

Obviously, no intelligence service is perfect. We try to anticipate and prevent things like September 11th, but there are no guarantees. We also know for a fact that there are bureaucratic inefficiencies, idiotic turf wars, personal conflicts, legal hurdles, and flat out bungling that occurred.

But, as I've argued before, these flaws do not support LIHOP. In fact, they absolutely preclude any LIHOP scenario.

Think about it. In order to pull off LIHOP, the intelligence services have to be totally coordinated. This is true regardless of which basic scenario you follow: If the operation was created by the CIA or what have you, they'd have to tell everybody about it and get them to look the other way -- and the others would have to obey. If the operation was legitimately started by al-Qaeda but stumbled upon by the CIA, then they'd have to prevent anyone else from finding out about it.

How is this remotely possible?

Here's what would really happen. At the highest levels, Cabinet members and agency directors would hammer out some kind of agreement, and keep it under lock and key. Then they'd prepare their own agency strategies to make it a reality. This becomes marching orders, presentations, phone calls, carefully orchestrated staffing changes and moves, manipulation of files and IT departments, etc... eventually landing at the lowest common denominator where analysts and field agents are sitting around a conference phone, going through PowerPoint slides, trying to figure out what fresh hell is being inflicted on them by management this time.

It can't work. All it takes is one person who conveniently ignores her orders, or one working stiff who was at the dentist that morning, and all of a sudden you've got a loose cannon that could ruin everything.

Were that not the case, were the various intelligence services tight as a drum and in lock-step, it might be plausible. But it just ain't so. The various books on the subject describe, in vivid detail, just how close some of those loose cannons came to cracking the whole thing open. No way would that have happened if it really was LIHOP. None at all.

On top of what R.Mackey said there is also the problem of foreign intelligence agencies. If an attack was allowed to happen inside the US and warning were being picked up by US intelligence agencies and ignored, then they would also have been picked up by other intelligence agencies, some of whom are not friendly to the US.

To keep it tight and under wraps all these agencies would have to be, somehow brought onboard. This is simply impossible. Beyond that little problem there is also the added bonus of actually keep them onboard for many years to come, again this is an almost impossible task.

For LIHOP to actually succeed and to keep the rest of the planets intelligence agencies quiet about it for untold years simply would not happen. If the US somehow allowed this to happen and there was the slightest whiff of anything doggy going on then there is no reason for countries, many of whom actually had citizens murdered in this attack, to keep quiet. It is simply not going to happen.

Another excellent point. Well spoken.

ETA: Of course, this is the juncture at which the troglodytes start jumping around and gibbering about the Mossad, but outside the world of fantasy, there's absolutely no way that all of the intelligence services would either miss it completely or come on in for the ride. None. Those who like us would warn us, and those who are suspicious of us would expose us.

Of course, the Sun could rise in the WESTtomorrow. I put the odds of that happening somewhat higher than "some truthers have been right all along"

[Baby Nemesis]

Thank you to some of you for informative answers.

[JihadJane]

Thank you to some of you for informative answers.

That's very generous of you, Baby Nemesis. As far as I can see, only one poster has attempted to answer your question, alienentity. The rest have gone off on automatic debunker pilot, apparently the only way they know how to fly!

---------------------------------------------------------

See the bolded part JJ. That includes the forums where the majority of posters FAVOUR the idea that the government/shadow world government are complicit/responsible for, the attacks.

See the unbolded part: "However what do we see on this forum...".


<<sighs>>
Do you or do you not subscribe to the notion that the government, or some behind the scenes group who direct what we perceive as our governments, are responsible for the attacks of 9/11?

In using the term "tribe" I was attempting to mollify your taking umbrage at being labeled a truther/TM.

Thanks for efforts. Try again! What tribe do you belong to?

What relevance has my personal opinion got to the OP's hypothesis?

No one is saying that incompetance or allowing the attacks to be carried out would be letting the governemnt agencies/individuals 'off the hook'. That notion would seem to have sprung from somewhere in your being.

I was responding to on-topic alienentity, the only poster who has attempted to answer the OP question: "What if...":


On the other hand, here's a couple of ways the 9/11 'truth' movement, if it were successful, would harm America's security:

1) There would be massive, ongoing investigations to catch phantom 'perps' in government, wasting time and resources instead of reforming and correcting the flaws in FBI etc..

2) The 9/11 'truth' myths that Osama Bin Laden was either dead or had nothing to do with the attacks (for example) would mean that vigilance against Islamic terror groups would be de-emphasized. I mean, if your gubmint did it, no need to deal with Islamic terrorists, right? They're just the cover story... (I believe Tony Szamboti recently offered this theory regarding the 9/11 hijackers)

He/she suggests that "9/11 'truth' myths" would let Islamic terror groups off the hook. I responded that if the gubmint did it then he/she would have to deal with the gubmint, probably a more difficult undertaking than dealing with the comparatively miniscule problem of Islamic terror groups.


So let's try again shall we? Do you have anything at all to contribute, coherent or not, free of the emcumberances and dogma that occurs when like-minded individuals organize, as an independant thinking human being unattached to any group, on the subject of whether or not a LIH,,, senario has any weight?

That is not the question of the OP, which is "What if some Truthers have been right all along?" My answer is that you'd have to deal with the gubmint, i.e. it would trigger a massive political, consitiutional and possibly even existential crisis.

[Myriad]

That's very generous of you, Baby Nemesis. As far as I can see, only one poster has attempted to answer your question, alienentity. The rest have gone off on automatic debunker pilot, apparently the only way they know how to fly!


What if most of the members who responded in the thread actually read the OP, and thereby correctly interpreted, in context, the meaning of the question "what if...?" in the thread title, as meaning "is it possible that...?" as opposed to "what would happen if..."?

What if JihadJane alone misinterpreted the question and therefore thought that everyone else who answered in the thread had misunderstood it?

Or, what if JihadJane understood the OP question perfectly well, but has only pretended to misunderstand it, as a pretext for expressing scorn for those capable of critically evaluating historical information and reaching reasonable conclusions that fail to put all of Western civilization in the worst light possible?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JihadJane]

What if Myriad answered a "What if..." question?

[Homeland Insurgency]

On top of what R.Mackey said there is also the problem of foreign intelligence agencies. If an attack was allowed to happen inside the US and warning were being picked up by US intelligence agencies and ignored, then they would also have been picked up by other intelligence agencies, some of whom are not friendly to the US.

To keep it tight and under wraps all these agencies would have to be, somehow brought onboard. This is simply impossible. Beyond that little problem there is also the added bonus of actually keep them onboard for many years to come, again this is an almost impossible task.

For LIHOP to actually succeed and to keep the rest of the planets intelligence agencies quiet about it for untold years simply would not happen. If the US somehow allowed this to happen and there was the slightest whiff of anything doggy going on then there is no reason for countries, many of whom actually had citizens murdered in this attack, to keep quiet. It is simply not going to happen.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

Clues Alerted White House to Potential Attacks

Friday, May 17, 2002

[Luntoc]

If the truthers are right then they are right. However, they are a long way to proving it. I still find it difficult to believe that in a world where we have had many people in power impeached, including presidents, for much lower crimes, its difficult to accept that the governemnt are willing to let Bush get away with orchestrating the attacks. In a world where there was so much hatred towards bush it's hard to believe that everyone like the NY times, Bill mahrer, Michael Moore and god knows who else, is willing to let Bush get away with it. I strongly believe that Bush used 911 as an excuse to war with Iraq, and had it planned from the split second he decided to run for office, but actually planning the attacks is going way too far. The man is an idiot plain and simple and is really the main reason I believe he didn't do it. that and the fact that there is no evidence despite the beliefs of some of these people.

[Jackanory]

[QUOTE=JihadJane;4894146]That's very generous of you, Baby Nemesis. As far as I can see, only one poster has attempted to answer your question, alienentity. The rest have gone off on automatic debunker pilot, apparently the only way they know how to fly!

Coming from JihadJane who has made 4 posts to this thread so far- not one of them on topic and all of them bickering and name calling at some point. Care re - read the OP in its entirity including links and then come back with something of your own?

[Jackanory]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

Clues Alerted White House to Potential Attacks

Friday, May 17, 2002

Yes HI. Another example of your inability to read or comprehend all that is put infront of you. The article concludes with the following:-


Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council for whom the report was written, said that in 1999, "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat."

Gannon said it is "egregiously unfair" to blame the president for failing to act to prevent Sept. 11 since there was no "actionable intelligence."


Seems that so much intel was coming in about some terrorists planning to strike at US targets (not neccessarily in the USA) that the USA didnt know what was real and what wasnt. What is clear -AND THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT AGAIN - is that plans were afoot by terrorists - and not the USA gov.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Yes HI. Another example of your inability to read or comprehend all that is put infront of you. The article concludes with the following:-


Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council for whom the report was written, said that in 1999, "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat."

Gannon said it is "egregiously unfair" to blame the president for failing to act to prevent Sept. 11 since there was no "actionable intelligence."


Seems that so much intel was coming in about some terrorists planning to strike at US targets (not neccessarily in the USA) that the USA didnt know what was real and what wasnt. What is clear -AND THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT AGAIN - is that plans were afoot by terrorists - and not the USA gov.

What you're not getting is that "egregiously unfair" is not everyone's conclusion. Save the sycophants.

[Blender Head]

Clinton did not respond to the USS Cole incident--was that the problem?

The problem was that the CIA did not identify the perpetrators of the USS Cole incident until sometime in January of 2001, which made it nigh impossible for Clinton to reply, even if he wanted to. Bush's administration had all of eight months to do something prior to 9/11.

They did nothing.

[Ragnarok]

If the truthers are right then they are right. However, they are a long way to proving it. I still find it difficult to believe that in a world where we have had many people in power impeached, including presidents, for much lower crimes, its difficult to accept that the governemnt are willing to let Bush get away with orchestrating the attacks. In a world where there was so much hatred towards bush it's hard to believe that everyone like the NY times, Bill mahrer, Michael Moore and god knows who else, is willing to let Bush get away with it. I strongly believe that Bush used 911 as an excuse to war with Iraq, and had it planned from the split second he decided to run for office, but actually planning the attacks is going way too far. The man is an idiot plain and simple and is really the main reason I believe he didn't do it. that and the fact that there is no evidence despite the beliefs of some of these people.

I doubt any serious "truther" in the world believes Bush was anything more than a puppet, so let's leave that has-been out of it.

[Architect]

For instance, we don't have massive security around the nation's power plants. Later this year, a coordinated attack disables five of them in a couple of days with car bombs, shutting down power to like 25% of the united states.

For the next decade people are running around screaming, "HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THIS COMING?!?! WHERE WERE THE CONCRETE BARRICADES? WE KNEW CAR BOMBS WERE A THREAT FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ! OBAMA WAS IN ON IT!!!"


Let me give you another example.

The UK suffered from some 30 years of terrorism attacks, from both Loyalist and (to a greater extent) Republican paramilitary organisations. Nothwithstanding extensive long-term efforts by security forces, including use of agents in the field, and the investment (if that's the right word) of huge amounts of effort and money, successive governments had only limited success in preventing attacks. "Spectaculars" included the Brighton Hotel Bombing, almost taking out much of the Cabinet, the mortar attack on Downing Street, and the Warrington attack.

If the UK, despite such extensive effort and in the face of a very imminent terrorist campaign, failed to prevent such attacks then why should the US or other countries be any different? Do we turn our towns, our cities, our offices, our infrastructure into a fortress? Do we attempt to bomb-proof everything? Do we have checkpoints?

(As an aside, several typles of public building in the UK to this day include elements of bomb-proofing, particularly the various parliaments, police stations, and courts. Not power stations, as far as I know).

I suppose a Police State and severe restrictions on movement might do it, of course.......

[Sam.I.Am]

If, on August 6th 2001 (the day of the famous PDB stating that terrorists are determined to attack), we had implemented the airport security we have today the general public would've gone ballistic without a very good explanation as to why they just had to add an hour to their trips all of a sudden. What was in that brief wouldn't have cut it.

[MaGZ]

The government ignored these early warnings because they knew the Israelis were in the US watching Atta and his group. So why worry, the Israelis would tell us if they were up to something.

[Dr Adequate]

The government ignored these early warnings because they knew the Israelis were in the US watching Atta and his group. So why worry, the Israelis would tell us if they were up to something. Thank you for giving us the Neo-Nazi point of view: we shall of course treat it with all the seriousness that it deserves.

[ElMondoHummus]

Before anyone ascribes even a shred of credibility to MaGZ (Missiles at Ground Zero; that's what his forum handle stands for. He believes that missiles were used on the Twin Towers. That alone should tell you what you need to know in order to judge his credibility), keep in mind what he's basing his conclusion on:

The myth that supposed Israeli art student "spies" were tracking the hijackers (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Israeli_Art_Students).
The myth that the supposed "dancing Israelis (http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html)" were forwarned of the attacks and had been assigned to record them.
And the myth that an Israeli company - Odigo - with offices in the World Trade Center had been forwarned of the attacks in order to get their people out (http://www.911myths.com/html/odigo.html).
And while I've heard MaGZ discuss the above 3 myths, I'm not sure he's ever mentioned this next one. However, he's been a library of common, standard antisemitic "Jews did it" myths, so he might have. Regardless, I'm willing to bet he believes it. Anyway:

Another Israeli company - Zim Shipping - also had forewarning and had actually broke their lease in order to leave the Twin Towers (http://www.911myths.com/html/zim_shipping.html).
The point I'm making here is that MaGZ has been known to retail long refuted myths in order to implicate Israel in the World Trade Center attacks. He's a known antisemite in this forum, and has often attempted to tie "the Jews" into any malicious conspiracy myth that has been discusssed.

If you read the above links, you'll know enough to judge his conclusions and understand the extent of his myth peddling. It's simple to just dismiss him on his antisemitic views alone, but when you realize just how much he has to accept in order to argue his beliefs, you'll understand just how active and intentional his derangement is. And you'll understand the mind of the racist subspecies of conspiracy peddler; it's not mere misunderstandings and confusion that leads them to their addled views, it's active seeking and acceptance of misinformation in the place of truth. It's done on purpose. And that's why it's reprehensible.

[Foolmewunz]

The question is fairly broad, so I'll assume by "some truthers" you don't mean a random sampling of, say, Ace Baker, the Pteradactyl Lady or Web Fairy, Dylan Avery, David Ray, Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, or Killtown - but specifically mean Truthers who adhere to the evidence mentioned in the OP - that it was a pretty classic example of how our intelligence agencies are FUBAR. That is what you linked to and cited, after all.

As soon as you show me the Truther who limits his/her opinion to only that element, then I will redefine that person as a somewhat rational thinker who may be onto something.

I don't think there is any such person in the TM. If anyone could show me someone who identifies him or herself as a member of the TM but who only holds the view that this was a clusterfornication by the CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service, etc.... I'd be interested.

[gzoinks]

US intelligence agencies may have been in a mess but at least one politician was able to analyse the data and make best use of it: Tony Blair. 9/11 was coincident with Blair's speech at the TUC - a speech where he was expected to be savaged - and has always hated giving. Just as he was about to step out in an unusual afternoon slot (These speaches are usually given in the morning to make the lunchtime news - UK is 6 hours ahead of USA). Blair had to abandon his speach where the previous day's papers said "he'd be lucky to survive"!

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...

[timhau]

Yes, remember TANC (There Are No Coincidences).

[Travis]

US intelligence agencies may have been in a mess but at least one politician was able to analyse the data and make best use of it: Tony Blair. 9/11 was coincident with Blair's speech at the TUC - a speech where he was expected to be savaged - and has always hated giving. Just as he was about to step out in an unusual afternoon slot (These speaches are usually given in the morning to make the lunchtime news - UK is 6 hours ahead of USA). Blair had to abandon his speach where the previous day's papers said "he'd be lucky to survive"!

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...

Welcome to the forums. :)

Are you alleging that the UK did participate in a LIHOP of sorts?

[T.A.M.]

He's been lurking for 4 months and finally decides to post, OR, the account was set up 4 months ago in case something happened that required he use it.

Odd, but I will give benefit of doubt FOR NOW.

Oh, and the UK is 5 hours ahead of the USA, if you go based on Eastern Standard Time (NYC, Boston, Washington DC, etc...)
TAM:)

[BigAl]

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...

What did they try to tell us?

Unless UK intelligence gave us something precise as to time, place or method, they gave us no more information than the US agencies had and ignored. We already had enough of the hijacker's names.

There were plenty of warnings.

[MikeW]

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...
Which "warning" was this? Not the reference in the August 6th PDB, presumably - that was an idea from 1998 about conventional hijackings that was no use at all.

[WUBRINY63]

I thought it was the standard MO around here that all twoofers believed the same thing. How could some be right and others wrong?

[Sam.I.Am]

Oh, and the UK is 5 hours ahead of the USA, if you go based on Eastern Standard Time (NYC, Boston, Washington DC, etc...)

He's right about it being 6 hours ahead of us. 9/11/01 was running under EDT not EST.

[T.A.M.]

I thought it was the standard MO around here that all twoofers believed the same thing. How could some be right and others wrong?

back again are we. You have a series of email responses in other threads that you have not responded to. You might want to.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

He's right about it being 6 hours ahead of us. 9/11/01 was running under EDT not EST.

ah, so they do not follow the same "clocks ahead, clocks behind" strategy we do in N.America then? My error.

Sorry.

TAM:)

[alienentity]

US intelligence agencies may have been in a mess but at least one politician was able to analyse the data and make best use of it: Tony Blair. 9/11 was coincident with Blair's speech at the TUC - a speech where he was expected to be savaged - and has always hated giving. Just as he was about to step out in an unusual afternoon slot (These speaches are usually given in the morning to make the lunchtime news - UK is 6 hours ahead of USA). Blair had to abandon his speach where the previous day's papers said "he'd be lucky to survive"!

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...

You've already stretched your logic to the point it's like Joan Rivers' face. To start, you'd need to examine how many speeches Blair has given in the afternoon, versus the morning. You might then be able to calculate the odds of any given speech occurring at that time of day.

Second, you should look at the number of other politicians of note who were making speeches that day - you do realize this activity is something very frequent and routine, I hope.
You could then calculate what the probability of a notable politician making a speech around the time of the attacks was.

There were many other things interrupted by the attacks as well. Are you counting all those things, or just selecting (cherry picking) according to your bias? For example, musician Sting cancelled a major performance out of respect for the victims, even though the performance was in Europe.

Was he in on the plot as well? Of course not, but you are singling out Tony Blair simply because Britain has an intelligence service, and he happened to be Prime Minister. Those are coincidences - all major countries have intelligence services, and leaders. You'll always be able to find the kind of connection you just did, somewhere.

Does it mean anything special? Only if you're determined to read something into it after the fact.

[parky76]

Perhaps he was at a senior level in the CIA before 9/11. What if there were several people there who thought a major attack on America would be a good thing then for some reason?

What if monkeys fly out of my butt?

[alienentity]

Further to gzoinks idea that Tony Blair had foreknowledge and deliberately scheduled his speech to coincide with the attacks, here is an article from Sept 12, 2001

'However, as the scale of the atrocities in America became clear, Tony Blair cancelled his planned address to the TUC conference in Brighton and made a statement offering his sympathy to the victims' families and declaring his determination to form a worldwide front against terrorism.'

So gzoinks, do you disagree with Blair's reaction? And what of the following reactions?

The TUC later suspended its conference * the first time it has done so in living memory * and cancelled a dinner that was to be addressed by Mr Blair. In copies of his speech distributed before his intended address to TUC delegates, Mr Blair had failed to offer the assurances that trade unionists were seeking over the scale of private involvement in the delivery of public services.

As a mark of respect for the victims in the US, union leaders declined to comment'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tuc-in-brighton-cancelled-blair-speech-gave-firm-backing-to-euro-669039.html

1)So, copies of his speech had already been distributed - if Blair had known beforehand that he wasn't going to speak, why go ahead and release the materials?
2)and the whole conference was then suspended due to the attacks. And also cancelled a dinner with Mr. Blair.

Sounds like a pretty normal reaction by everyone to me. What else would you expect from them? What would you have done under the same circumstances - anything different?

Also, the annual TUC is held from Monday thru Thursday - in 2009, it will be from Sept 14-17. In 2001 it happened to be Sept 10-13. There was no change in the TUC schedule to coincide with Sept 11 - that is a coincidence.
The British Prime Minister is expected to attend. You'll note that Tony Blair attended TUC every year following 2001 as well.
So it is also a coincidence that his speech happened to be scheduled for Sept 11.

There is no indication of anything irregular in either Blair's schedule or the TUC schedule which would indicate some foreknowledge of an attack. They were simply proceeding according to normal, expected plans.

Would you expect otherwise? I fail to see how Blair could have done anything differently given the circumstances. Can anyone else?

[quadraginta]

<snip>
It's like she's looking at a loom, weaving a pattern in fabric. She gets to look at the finished weave and say, "The pattern is so obvious!" They, on the other hand, only got to look at thousands of individual stings of colored thread feeding into the machine on the back end, and had to try to guess what was coming out the other end. Not so easy.


That is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

Thank you.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

US intelligence agencies may have been in a mess but at least one politician was able to analyse the data and make best use of it: Tony Blair. 9/11 was coincident with Blair's speech at the TUC - a speech where he was expected to be savaged - and has always hated giving. Just as he was about to step out in an unusual afternoon slot (These speaches are usually given in the morning to make the lunchtime news - UK is 6 hours ahead of USA). Blair had to abandon his speach where the previous day's papers said "he'd be lucky to survive"!

Just becuase US intelligence may have failed, there was no reason to suppose UK intelligence (which was warning the US about 9/11) had also failed...


OK, so... Tony Blair and others in the UK government knew exactly when the 9/11 attacks would occur and deliberately scheduled Blair's speech to coincide with it... just so he wouldn't have to give a speech he hated giving?

That's a bit... "my dog ate my homework", isn't it?

[Dave Rogers]

I thought it was the standard MO around here that all twoofers believed the same thing. How could some be right and others wrong?

Bizarre. How could anybody suggest we think that such a diverse collection of delusional nutters like the 9/11 truth movement all believe the same thing? We even have different derisive nicknames for the separate factions.

Dave

[Baby Nemesis]

What if monkeys fly out of my butt?

Ah, so you have nothing of substance to say. Well, thanks for letting us know, but do you think you could oblige us by not posting again until that changes? Thanks. ;)

[beachnut]

...
Michael Scheuer warns against the dangers of patrolling the Mexican border unarmed, saying that only an attack against America will make politicians do what's necessary and deploy troops there: ...

What would they attack on the border? Once a few Saudis find the desert in the USA they will just stay there; they love the desert, we could sell all that worthless desert to Saudis they prefer the dirt of the desert; they play soccer in the desert. An attack by Saudis from Mexico would result in higher prices for desert land and a bunch of Saudis moving in. The women would love it, they could drive for the first time and crash daddy's car!

They attack what? Has this secret CIA agent been on the border?

[quadraginta]

What would they attack on the border? Once a few Saudis find the desert in the USA they will just stay there; they love the desert, we could sell all that worthless desert to Saudis they prefer the dirt of the desert; they play soccer in the desert. An attack by Saudis from Mexico would result in higher prices for desert land and a bunch of Saudis moving in. The women would love it, they could drive for the first time and crash daddy's car!

They attack what? Has this secret CIA agent been on the border?


"I claim this steenking desert in the name of..."

[Baby Nemesis]

What would they attack on the border? Once a few Saudis find the desert in the USA they will just stay there; they love the desert, we could sell all that worthless desert to Saudis they prefer the dirt of the desert; they play soccer in the desert. An attack by Saudis from Mexico would result in higher prices for desert land and a bunch of Saudis moving in. The women would love it, they could drive for the first time and crash daddy's car!

They attack what? Has this secret CIA agent been on the border?

The high-level CIA agent interviewed on the show wasn't suggesting terrorists should attack the border itself; it seems he was suggesting that any place in America would do, since the purpose would be to rouse the indignation of Americans in general so they'd support any old military action they could be persuaded to see as keeping America safer; so it could be totally unrelated to the attack and the attackers, in the same way that George Bush used the 9/11 attacks to gain support for the Iraq invasion even though the attackers were Saudi. The CIA agent being interviewed obviously sees Mexicans as a threat, perhaps because he thinks some are bringing drugs into America. So much of a threat they need to be crushed with full-scale military action, it seems.

I wonder whether these were the types of people he was talking about:

Border Desert Proves Deadly For Mexicans (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico/border.html)

... Leon Stroud, a Border Patrol agent who is part of a squad that has the dual job of arresting illegal immigrants and trying to save their lives, said he had seen 34 bodies in the last year. In Border Patrol parlance, a dead car and a dead migrant are the same thing -- a ''10-7'' -- but Mr. Stroud said he
had never gotten used to the loss of life.

''The hardest thing was, I sat with this 15-year-old kid next to the body of his dad,'' said Mr. Stroud, a Texan who speaks fluent Spanish. ''His dad had been a cook. He was too fat to be trying to cross this border. We built a fire and I tried to console him. It was tough.'' ...

For years, deaths of people trying to cross the border usually occurred at night on highways near urban areas, killed by cars. But now, because urban entries in places like San Diego and El Paso have been nearly sealed by fences, technology and agents, illegal immigrants have been forced to try to cross here in southern Arizona, one of the most inhospitable places on earth.

They die from the sun, baking on the prickled floor of the Sonoran Desert, where ground temperatures reach 130 degrees before the first day of summer. They die freezing, higher up in the cold rocks of the Baboquivari Mountains on moonless nights. They die from bandits who prey on them, in cars that break down on them, and from hearts that give out on them at a young age. ...

[Galileo]

Don't confuse bureaucratic incompetence and with conspiracy. A few people like Tenet saw something coming but were unable to turn the FBI around.

You are the one confusing bureaucratic incompetence and with conspiracy. You should follow your own advice, rather than just giving it out.

[Klimax]

You are the one confusing bureaucratic incompetence and with conspiracy. You should follow your own advice, rather than just giving it out.

So far you have been much more wrong about things than he,so first you should stop.

[gzoinks]

Further to gzoinks idea that Tony Blair had foreknowledge and deliberately scheduled his speech to coincide with the attacks, here is an article from Sept 12, 2001
...
There is no indication of anything irregular in either Blair's schedule or the TUC schedule which would indicate some foreknowledge of an attack. They were simply proceeding according to normal, expected plans.

Would you expect otherwise? I fail to see how Blair could have done anything differently given the circumstances. Can anyone else?

The TUC responded correctly to events.

However Blair's previous TUC conferences were not well regarded and when Blair finally retired as PM he made a comment about not having to do any more TUC conferences. Before the 2001 event, there was many press releases about the savage time Blair was going to receive at the conference. It was described as a showdown in some papers on the eve of the conference. Here's one the Independent. I can find others.

Sorry I can post links...


Blair to face TUC fury over privatisation

By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor

Friday, 24 August 2001

Tony Blair was given a stark warning last night that his plans to involve the private sector in public services will face a fierce backlash from trade unions at this year's TUC conference.

John Monks, the TUC general secretary, said the Prime Minister would feel the full "anxiety and anger" of trade unionists over the issue when he addressed the gathering in Brighton next month.

Mr Monks, who added that Mr Blair's second-term government had had "the shortest honeymoon on record", made his remarks as news emerged that unions have prepared a raft of highly critical motions for the annual conference. The Labour leader looks certain to face his stormiest TUC since he came to office, with attacks expected on his public-private plans, weak parental rights and proposals to charge for employment tribunals. The extent of the opposition Mr Blair faces became clear as the final agenda for the conference was published yesterday, with 15 critical motions from Britain's biggest unions on "privatisation" alone.

The TUC agenda confirms Downing Street's fears that it could face an "autumn of discontent" over private-sector involvement in public services, with similar anger likely at the Labour conference in October.

If the motions are endorsed by the TUC, they will, in effect, put the union movement on a collision course with the Government over one of Mr Blair's most cherished policies. After the general election, Mr Blair failed to reassure union leaders that private-sector involvement in health, education and other services did not mean privatisation.

In his most strident comments to date on the issue, Mr Monks made clear there were still serious concerns over exactly what Mr Blair would introduce in his second term. He told BBC News 24's One to One programme, due to be broadcast tomorrow: "It's the shortest honeymoon on record. The area that's most concerning the TUC is what the boundaries are between the public and the private sector in the delivery of public services."

Mr Monks, normally a staunch ally of Mr Blair, said he could foresee "a difficult period of relationships" between the TUC and the Government as unions launched public campaigns opposing the plans.

[gzoinks]

Welcome to the forums. :)

Are you alleging that the UK did participate in a LIHOP of sorts?

Thanks for the welcome. (Seems like I've landed in a hornet's nest). This is sort of LIHOP theory... since politicians are very careful about planning the timings of speaches and news releases. If the PM was given a high probability of a terrorist attack on a particular day, would he, perhaps, change the time of this controversal speech say, from morning to afternoon? The British were (apparently) trying to warn the US about the risk of a terrorist plot - obviously the exact details of this warning have not been released - but a day could have been worked out by analysis.

The next day, a memo was released - and this was big political news at the time - that 9/11 was "a good day to bury bad news". (You can find details of this in wikipedia under "Jo Moore"). That was after the event. What I'm suggesting was that Blair could have been working on pre-knowledge (probablistic or definite cannot be determined).

[BigAl]

Thanks for the welcome. (Seems like I've landed in a hornet's nest). This is sort of LIHOP theory... since politicians are very careful about planning the timings of speaches and news releases. If the PM was given a high probability of a terrorist attack on a particular day, would he, perhaps, change the time of this controversal speech say, from morning to afternoon? The British were (apparently) trying to warn the US about the risk of a terrorist plot - obviously the exact details of this warning have not been released - but a day could have been worked out by analysis.

The next day, a memo was released - and this was big political news at the time - that 9/11 was "a good day to bury bad news". (You can find details of this in wikipedia under "Jo Moore"). That was after the event. What I'm suggesting was that Blair could have been working on pre-knowledge (probablistic or definite cannot be determined).


In other words, you and Blair have nothing specific as to the time, place, or method of the attack.