Tweet
Bump!
-
-
For what ??Comment
-
Here is what I think about 9/11. It happened 11 years ago. It was a tragedy.
What really happened that day...I don't give a fuck anymore because it is in the PAST. It cannot be changed.
It will be debated for decades if not centuries.....just like the JFK scenario.
I have more important things to worry about.Comment
-
tob, haAnother one of those classic genius posts, sure to generate responses. You log on the next day to see what your witty gem has produced to find no one gets it and 2 knotheads want to stick their dicks in it... Well played, sir!!Comment
-
Here. NY Times article. Chimpy and his asslickers knew a LOT more about Bin Laden and his plans than has ever been publicly released before. If this has been posted before, sorry, but with my crummy dialup connection, I don't have an hour to wait while each page loads as I search through the front line to see if it has:
Op-Ed Contributor
The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD
Published: September 10, 2012
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Last edited by Hardrock69; 09-12-2012, 05:51 PM.Comment
-
Saw that article posted on FB... along with a zillion conservatard comments calling the NY Times "unpatriotic" and "a liberal rag" for reporting it... like how dare they print THE TRUTH... sounded as pissy and crybabyish as the zealotards that stormed the embassy...Originally posted by conmee
If anyone even thinks about deleting the Muff Thread they are banned.... no questions asked.
That is all.
Icon.Originally posted by GO-SPURS-GO
I've seen prominent hypocrite liberal on this site Jhale667
Originally posted by Isaac R.
Then it's really true??
The Muff Thread is really just GONE ???
OMFG...who in their right mind...???
Originally posted by eddie78
I was wrong about you, brother. You're good.Comment
-
Um, I posted that article as a thread yesterday...Comment
-
Can someone please explain how it came to pass that Condoleezza Rice who was the fucking National Security Adviser at the time of 9-11 and said herself that said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire REPEATED terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks was not only not sacked but actually PROMOTED to Secretary of State?
Why did people just accept this and where did she get the fucking nerve from?
Our politicians are shit too but here they would have at the very least resigned.Last edited by Seshmeister; 09-12-2012, 06:28 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
In other words the conspiracy theorist have pro Iranian leanings. Or they're just nutballs. I'm leaning towards the latter.Al-Qaida rejects Iran's 9/11 conspiracy theories
By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF - Associated Press | AP – Thu, Sep 29, 2011
CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaida has sharply criticized Iran's president over his suggestions that the United States government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks and not al-Qaida, dismissing the comments as "ridiculous."
During his trip to New York last week for the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad claimed in an interview with The Associated Press that explosive material and not planes brought down the World Trade Center. He stopped short of saying the United States staged the disaster, but said that as an engineer, he's sure New York's twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.
"A few airplanes without previous coordination known to the security forces and the intelligence community in the United States cannot become missiles and target the heart of the United States," Ahmadinejad said.
In an article posted online Wednesday in the terror network's English-language Internet magazine "Inspire," al-Qaida rejected the Iranian leader's suggestions.
"Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?" asked the article's author, Abu Suhail. He said Iran wanted to portray itself as a country that stands up to the U.S.
"For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-American when its suits it and it is a collaborator with the U.S. when it suits it," Abu Suhail said.
He cited a number of examples of when Iran allegedly cooperated with the U.S., including in the invasion of Afghanistan. He also said the Shiites in Iraq, who are supported by Iran, "brought the American forces to the country and welcome them with open arms."
Abu Suhail said Iran is jealous of al-Qaida's "success" in the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that because Tehran couldn't strike at the U.S. itself, the Iranians want to "to discredit Sept. 11 and what better way to do so than conspiracy theories."
He said Iran and the Shiites opposed giving al-Qaida credit for the 9/11 attacks "because this would expose their lip-service to jihad (holy war) against the Great Satan," a term Iranian officials have used to describe the U.S.
Al-Qaida mainly embraces Sunni militants, and is bitterly hostile toward Shiites, who make up the vast majority of Iran.
Late al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in his many audio and video messages praised the attacks several times and in 2004 he publicly acknowledged al-Qaida's involvement and two years later asserted his responsibility for the attacks in an audio message defending Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the attacks.
In the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a probe that took six years to complete of the tower collapses; the last report found that fire caused the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, a skyscraper north of the twin towers.
In the collapses of the twin towers, the agency found that extreme heat from the jetliner crashes caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures in the building until the entire structure succumbed.
Linky
Life imitates art:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
Comment
-
Hey the guys in Al Quaida are dressing quite dapper these days. Bin Laden never wore Armani suits.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
I remember this.
The Al-Qaeda jackoffs don't want to lose their claim to fame. If it were to come out that the US Gummint and Israel were behind 9/11, they could no longer boast about it.
As it is, that would not serve the purposes of the US either. The Federal Government needs a boogeyman in order to have an "enemy".
The reason they need an "enemy" is so they can train our troops in real-world battlefield conditions, testing out the very latest weapons and equipment manufactured by defense contractors.
They need to test this gear, as they have given the defense contractors multi-billion-dollar contracts to produce it to equip our troops.
The public would not stand for the government to award such massive defense contracts for no valid reason.
"Oh, so we need 100,000 of the latest assault rifles. Why? We are not at war....."
When we leave Assrammistan, things will go back to the way they were. We are NOT changing anything permanently.
Like Vietnam, it is all based on a big lie, so our defense contractors can make billions in profits.
Never mind that our soldiers are DYING over there.
That is simply collateral damage.
What are a few thousand dead humans compared to billions in profits? That is how the defense contractors and our government see it.
So it is in the best interests of Israel and the US for Al-Qaeda to exist, as it gives them a reason to go after Muslims.
There is also Iran. They do not want Iran to be a peaceful Democratic nation. Or North Korea for that matter.
They WANT those two countries to continually threaten the peace of this world, so they can have an excuse to equip and train a large army with gear paid for with our tax dollars.
Sort of like the statement about religion. "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one".
In this case, "If there is no war, it will be necessary for the CIA to invent one".
That is the way it is anymore.Comment
Comment