| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gruts wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | To really point the finger, you need to show that the warning was so specific that no reasonable person could possibly have ignored it, and that is not easy. |
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ timeline&before_9/11=warnings
I think a reasonable person who looked through the information in the above link would conclude that having received so many warnings (often very specific and detailed), they should have done something to prevent the attacks instead of doing nothing - as well as the fact that they blatantly lied over and over again after 9/11 when they claimed they hadn't received any warnings. |
I agree with you, they should have done something, having received so many warnings, but can you say that their failure was more than incompetance? I think that is difficult to prove, particularly when we do not know how many other warnings that proved to be false they were also receiving, which masked those that were genuine. Trying to cover up afterwards is a natural reaction of all organisations, and proves nothing in itself, other than that politicians lie, something we already knew! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
I agree with you, they should have done something, having received so many warnings, but can you say that their failure was more than incompetance? I think that is difficult to prove, particularly when we do not know how many other warnings that proved to be false they were also receiving, which masked those that were genuine. Trying to cover up afterwards is a natural reaction of all organisations, and proves nothing in itself, other than that politicians lie, something we already knew! |
I'm sorry after taking a long hard look at this I no longer find incompetence a credible excuse for 'failing to connect the dots'.
As Arlen Specter, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee commented in 2002 (before much of what we know now came to light) | Quote: | | "I don't believe any longer this is a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable road map. And we want to know why they didn't act on it."link |
What we have here is not a picture of incompetence or an 'intelligence failure'. What we have is a picture of criminal negligence and outright complicity. It was not a matter of connecting dots. It was a matter of placing barriers between dots to ensure that they were not connected.
Given what has emerged since it's not hard to see why - there's a web of complicity surrounding the alleged hijackers and especially the flight schools that implicates a lot of people. People like Wally Hilliard, Yeslam Bin Laden; people with serious connections. Hilliard has connections to Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi (himself no stranger to scandal). You can see why they might stop digging into the murky goings on at Huffman Aviation, and why nobody seems to remember how Hilliard's private Lear jet got busted with 43lbs of heroin on board with an estimated street value of $50 million. No convictions related to that, curiously...
They say that in order to win the War on Terror, they need to "drain the swamp". It's just a shame that the real swamp that spawned 9/11 wasn't in Iraq, it was in Florida.
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I agree with you, they should have done something, having received so many warnings, but can you say that their failure was more than incompetance? |
If you consider how many warnings they received and how specific they were about exactly what was being planned I think it goes way beyond incompetence. Just look at the warnings they received from foreign intelligence agencies for example:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence
Surely even an incompetent person would have done SOMETHING?
It's also not just the case that they did nothing. There is evidence, eg from the Able Danger programmme, that they actively stopped investigations and prevented the different agencies from talking to each other about the information that was coming in.
And you have to look at this as part of the bigger picture - eg the motives and plans outlined by PNAC and the presence of the same people in the Bush administration, links between the CIA, the pakistani ISA and al qaeda, control over Norad being taken away from the military and given to Cheney in June 2001, the "coincidence" of the wargames/hijacking simulations taking place on 9/11 etc etc.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some very interesting stuff there. If the truth movement concentrated on that instead of ever wilder theories about demolition of the WTC towers it might get somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrmis
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
