CIA vs. FBI + NSA - The dilemma of services in advance of September 11, 2001

Discussion in '9/11' started by Mandelus, Oct 23, 2015.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We all know the conspiracy theories milling around about 9/11 in matter of an inside job. Personally, for me is this conspiracy stuff completely nonsense and so far everything they count is refuted.
    But the shock of 9/11 that it could happen at all is deep and still today people can’t understand how this could happen to the world leading nation. Many tried to explain this during last 12 years and a general answer is until now not possible. One major point, which is out of some strange reasons not well known, can be set with the topic I did:

    CIA vs. FBI + NSA - The dilemma of services in advance of September 11, 2001

    On August 23, 1996, Osama Bin Laden made declaration of war to the Americans: "to terrorize you is legitimate and our moral duty". The impression that the US had this warning call before September 11, completely ignored, is wrong. The main law enforcement agencies in the country, the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Service CIA, as well the NSA, were al-Qaida on the track.
    FBI senior agent and counterterrorism chief John O'Neill from the New York office was counting on with an attack on his city. He was convinced since the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that the Islamist terrorist groups established a beachhead in the US. O'Neill was one of the few who recognized the importance of Osama bin Laden and did all to bring him to court. But his superiors disagreed. Until June 1999, Bin Laden was NOT on the list of most wanted criminals of FBI!!!!
    At CIA, there was a man who shared O'Neill's assessment of al-Qaida: the anti-terrorist agent Michael Scheuer. He too had studied in detail the objectives of the group, he also saw his country in a fight to the death with Osama Bin Laden and his terror group Al Qaida. After the suicide attacks on US embassies in 1998 he urged vehemently to kill Osama Bin Laden ... but the US government under Clinton administration let themselves even best opportunities to kill Bin Laden elapse – Scheuer tells that there were 10 opportunities before 9/11 … one of them was for example on February 9, 1999 when Bin Laden was part of a hunting group (using falconry) near Kandahar in Afghanistan but because inside the group were officials and VIP’s of the United Arab Emirates, the missile attack was delayed and when finally done, Bin Laden was still away from place.
    There was a general uncertainty and disagreement inside Clinton administration, whether to kill Bin Laden or if possible better to capture him. As the military leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan - Ahmad Shah Massoud - was in 1999 in the midst of the fighting against the Taliban by the CIA told, we hope together with you to take Bin Laden caught, but not to kill him, Massoud replied "you are crazy, you have not changed and improved yourself or learned anything"!

    The two men in the FBI and CIA, which were al-Qaida closely on the heels would have been perfect allies. In fact, FBI and CIA formed a joint task force, the "Bin Laden Issue Station" But constructive cooperation did not materialize. The reasons for this are firstly institutional nature. The two services are jealous rival for power in the USA. Secondly, the way they work is different. While the FBI is working towards judicial process, is in the CIA secrecy standing over everything and this contradiction manifested itself in the figures of O'Neill and Scheuer. They had contrasting strategies and hated each other, as their services hating each other. Of this benefited at the end their enemy: Osama bin Laden's sworn enemies in America were deeply divided in their own against each other!

    As third force in this case the NSA comes into the game, usually standing between the CIA and FBI. The NSA was at the time the lesser-known service and joined in the power play of services with a securing also its independence and budgets. If already in the CIA secrecy stands above all, so that's at the NSA even more the case. The NSA support both services, but refused stubbornly to deliver here verbatim recordings in the original language, but only their own translations and often only as a summary. Most people know that translations are always a source of error because a word in one language can have several meanings in the other language.
    The legally prescribed, strict separation between investigations of the FBI and CIA and the NSA in between working together (National Security Act) reached the top of insanity in 2000 and 2001, when the terrorists of 9/11 (for example Mohammed Atta) were inside the USA and had often phone calls to Yemen and other suspected sites of Al Qaida centers / offices:
    FBI observed some of the terrorists inside the USA, CIA did the same outside as for example in Yemen and NSA helped both. None of the 2 knew of the activities and findings of the other and even the NSA disguised their findings in turn over to the other two! FBI and CIA each had crucial parts of the puzzle that they hid from each other. So the CIA has been known that the first wave of al-Qaeda people were infiltrated already in January 2000 in the US. But they kept this information from the FBI. Had the two services cooperated, they could have prevented 9/11.

    After Bush administration earned power, the complete fight against terror changed and was settled down to lesser important issues! Of the about 100 security council meetings in the 7 month before 9/11, only 2 of them had terrorism at all as topic … but over 60 had Iraq as topic! More as that … whatever for example Richard Clarke brought into circle in matter of Al Qaida, it was very fast dismissed as “Clinton stuff”!
    This ignorance of the Bush administration against Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and the threat of terrorism in general is appalling. As Richard Clarke did one of his first briefing for National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, his impression was that she plaid with full intention lacking knowledge in matter as that she never heard of Al Qaeda ... only to show how important this topic is for her! In counter, Condoleeza Rice showed still here much more interest in any issue about Iraq and Saddam!
    More as that, even after 9/11 the complete ignorance and incompetence of Bush administration became visible on September 12, 2001 morning, when even here Bin Laden was no topic at the security meeting, Richard Clarke as eye witness reports:

    “On the morning of the 12th (September 2001), the focus had been averted in the Defense of al-Qaida. The CIA now said explicitly although the fact that it held al-Qaida guilty, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, was not convinced. This was for him a too sophisticated and complicated operation, he said, as that they can be done of a terrorist group alone without a government sponsor helping - Iraq must have helped them. .... Later that evening I left the video conference room and met the President, who since alone in the "Situation Room" wandered. He looked as if he wanted to do something. He took some of us with and closed the door to the conference room: "Look," he said, "I know you all have a lot to do, but I want you, as soon as you can, everything, really everything again seen through. See if Saddam did this, see if it is connected to him in any way. " I was once again speechless and could not believe it: "But Mr. President, it was al-Qaida!" - "I know, I know -.. But see if Saddam's behind addiction just afterwards I want to know every little thing ...”

    So still here we have again the speechless trials of Bush administration to involve 9/11 in their plans against Saddam … which ended at least in the criminal attack in 2003, put in the phrase of war against terror and backed with lousy lies to reason attack. 9/11 was for Bush administration a disturbing situation in their preparations to come into war with Iraq.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ohhh :roll:
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    11,895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread seems to be a rehash of the same old tired story told by the government for the last 14 years.

    The story is false. The NIST report is an insult to science and analytical thinking. The 911 Commission Report is a joke, with certain witness testimony taken behind closed doors and then not included in the final report.

    The cover-up is a crime in itself.
     
  4. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok ... explain me as example, what hit the Pentagon if not the Airliner as told. Please explain with science everything what is undeniable like huge fuel explosion, large destruction etc.
    Please don't start with BS and lies like flight recorders never found, impact hole too small, no wreck parts etc. to counter and detour the answer of my clear question and back your telling what is was then if not the Airliner! Thank you!
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    11,895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Though I happen to think that some sort of aircraft hit the Pentagon, it is possible that no aircraft at all hit the building. It is certain that UA 77 did NOT hit the building, and it is certain that no airliner at all hit the building.

    Speaking of FDRs, the one at the pentagon was supposedly recovered, we are told by the habitual liars there. In fact, the NTSB provided the data from that recorder, though it took about 5 years for them to deliver that data.

    Big problem there, because according to one expert who received that data from the government, the FDR was not assigned to any airplane at all, a sure sign the data provided was fraudulent. That expert was a man named Dennis Cimino.

    The purpose of the strike at the pentagon was to destroy the records and the individuals conducted a congressional investigation into missing funds, funds that were missing long before George Bush became president. That goal was accomplished, as the bulk of the casualties there were from that group of auditors.
     
  6. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,067
    Likes Received:
    5,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ollie North warned congress and the rest of us about UBL during the Iran-Contra hearings back in the 80's. He was laughed at. But if you look at history the U.S. usually does not take serious a lot of things until they happen. Then it is play catch up time. I think what you posted is a good synopsis. Cross agency talking and passing information wasn't one of our strong points. Perhaps one agency took pride in knowing things other agencies didn't. But keeping that information within one particular agency hurts national security in the long run.

    What we need to know is acknowledge all the flaws and take steps to correct them. What was done was done. Nothing can change that and to go around blaming whomever, whatever organization without finding and fixing the problems will just keep us as vulnerable as ever. We need to study and learn from history in order to stop committing those same mistakes over and over again.
     
    Mandelus and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So something strange here and something strange there made it suddenly as evidence to be a false flag at least for you?

    Aside this a very smart way to detour question of what hit Pentagon with "it could be nothing, but a bomb". You know that this claim is still given up by most hardcore Pro-Conspiracy persons gave this still up, because the complete picture of debris is not fitting for it?
    Aside this ... you know of course that short after "issue of Pentagon" happened, the complete scene of rescue working was followed by all sort of media and recorded by cameras, with videos and photos. You must know this, because much conspiracy stuff backs on this fact and is base for "their evidences".
    So let me ask you a simple question: is on anything of this any truck or whatever visible or was by someone noted, which dumps the wreck parts of the plane like the heavy landing gear in front of the impact area?
     
  8. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't agree more with you here! :thumbsup:
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you actually that naive to think all the records were kept in one spot?


    And more that just one expert validated to FDR and CVR data.Ones NOT affiliated with a crackpot truther blog
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    11,895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Something strange" is the hallmark of the official story regarding the events of the day. The preponderance of the evidence shows that so many things are strange that the official story cannot possibly be true.

    The testimony of pentagon individuals before the 911 Commission was changed so often that several members wanted to bring perjury charges against those pentagon members.

    The supposed hijackers were not even included on the original passenger manifests. The notorious cell phone calls were impossible, and of course quite strange if one takes the time to read the transcripts of those fabled calls.

    No airliner in Pennsylvania and none at the pentagon. A flight data recorder for UA77 that was bogus from the start.

    Yes, so many "strange things" that the story cannot be true.
     
  11. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    none of these 'strange things' you cite are true,therefore the official story stands



    Fail.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you can answer the simple question what hit the Pentagon if not an Airliner ... and that is still given up by hardcore "truthers" to tell that a bomb I still told.

    So, who is making accusation that it was an inside job must be able to back his accusations with facts as evidence's and the major key element here is to proof that it was no Airliner to refute official story! That is still not done by no one and anything named could easy be refuted by facts!

    Most funny point aside this is for me the point of these people telling that impact area / hole is not fitting for the Airliner here ... only by the way told!
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    11,895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What actually hit the pentagon, if anything did, is not really important all these years later.

    What is important, and what is certain, is that UA77 did NOT hit the building.

    You fellas that defend the official story cannot prove that story, not any element of it.
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    You have the burden of proof and you can't demonstrate that an airliner did NOT strike the Pentagon. Nor can you prove it was a missile, a bomb, or the Death Star.

    If you can't do that, why should anyone believe you? In light of your lack of evidence, the original hypothesis stands and all your rhetoric cannot change that simple fact.
     
  17. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol ... UA77 did not hit the Pentagon and it dies not matter what it hit if anything hit ... are you serious?

    Sorry, no one can refute the official story and this is the point. From your "it was conspiracy" side came until now nothing what is even a little bit in touch to be called evidence.

    And the point is that people like you are making accusation that official story is not true. The principle in such matters is always that whoever makes accusation like here, must also prove this with evidence. That has not happened until now, because not a single proof is furnished that the official story is incorrect. It was previously only drivel, jabbering, claims and twisted facts, or facts that are taken out of context. In short: Until now came just BS!

    People who regard the official story as right and true, are those who are accused by people like you, that it was all a lie! Since when a defendant has to provide evidence of his innocence or that he tells / believes a lie?

    You've only once to make your accusation with evidence ... and that's not been done! So ship your evidence (and please no BS of allegations) and then I can destroy them!
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it did and that is proven with evidence which you consistently ignore
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,990
    Likes Received:
    11,895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps too subtle for you to grasp, but I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I am saying that the official story is a bloody lie. I don't know who did it, but I do know I've been lied to.

    One need not accuse anybody of anything to know one has been deceived.
     
  20. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ehm what???

    Sorry right this "I am saying that the official story is a bloody lie" is an accusation!

    So deliver evidence (and please no allegations or claiming) to back that it is a bloody lie. If you don't you spread around only your opinion, not more!
     
  21. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was for security reasons ironically enough--just internal security. The FBI had generations of agents fighting organized crime and their internal systems were designed to reduce the possibility that organized crime could access information about investigations and undercover agents from on the inside. Active investigations often involved cardboard boxes and the legal pads therein pre-9/11. For the CIA, they had spent generations fighting the same battle except toward protecting our spies from being identified and killed overseas so they developed highly compartmentalized systems to shield against anyone not absolutely needing to know knowing anything.

    For the NSA, who knows. They are like the Richard Nixon of government agencies. I think they just, as you indicated, like to spy on everybody just because they get off on being able to do it.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So prove it...So far you've proven zip.....thinking it lie and it actually being one are worlds apart
     
  23. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Can you prove the official story is true? I'm fond of repeating an old line from Andre Gides: "believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it"
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't NEED to...It's already been done,truthers just cant or won't accept that
     
  25. phoenyx

    phoenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just because you say it's been done doesn't mean it's actually been done. I'd also like to point out that the number of people who question the official 9/11 story has been growing. Here's an excerpt from an article on a poll that was done 2 years ago regarding 9/11: **On the 12thanniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.** Here's the article itself: http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-911-truth/5348967
     

Share This Page