The point isn't that we know we could have prevented it, its that we know we didn't secure the cockpit doors, increase air marshals on flights to major cities, inform the public to be aware of suspicious activity on commercial flights, shall I keep going?
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm I love how you decide what i believe for me, its a cool trick. The cost of paid shills to effect public opinion is less than advertising. This can simply be proven by using math. Who says the government has to be employing the shills? Why couldn't the ATC, and AIPAC interests Sibel Edmond's describes in her testimony under oath pay for the shills?
You do have shills.. Paid ones, even those that work on behalf of a the government to promote their agenda and hide certain realities. They aren't on obscure message boards. If you want to see these shills, just turn on your TV and switch it to the news channel.
Of course, this is why people are tuning out. Look at the ratings and trends for news over the last 5 years. Especially cable news over the last 2 years.
I wish we could actually have hindsight. Sibel Edmonds claims their are far more damaging intelligence briefings than this, but we can't confirm or deny this claim(Except that she stated this under oath and was never charged with perjury), because these intelligence briefings are classified 11 years after the fact.
One can always identify failings by the source being a truther. If a truther makes a statement, one can almost guarantee it is wrong. Take, for instance, the claims by Sibel Edmonds. Truthers like to claim that since she wasn't charged with perjury, everything she says MUST be true! OMGZ! Yet the only way to prove perjury is to prove she is lying. One cannot disprove an unsourced claim unless one has direct evidence refuting the claim. Now, since nobody can either prove or disprove Edmond's bull(*)(*)(*)(*), one cannot charge her with perjury. Simple enough concept for anyone but a truther.
God I bet you hate it when facts get in the way of your BS. We have courts for classified information. She made specific claims about classified information. So if the Us government didn't have the intelligence briefings she claims, they could easily go to this court specifically for classified info, and still charge her with perjury. So try again guy.
That isn't new. That PDB was released years ago. BTW, what federal building in NYC was hit? 70 full field investigations going on at one time and truthers like to pretend the FBI was sitting on their hands doing nothing. Funny how truthers completely deny the 9/11 commission report except when they think it proves one of their points. Thanks for proving truthers are full of it.
Then why isn't she under arrest? Ever think of that one? That isn't their job, is it. Nope. Instead, if she had spilled classified information, she would have been brought up on charges of divulging state secrets. I did. You lose. Again.
Wrong yet again. Boy, you can't get anything right. If she had been telling the truth, she would have been brought up on charges. Was she? Nope.
I doubt they would. I mean, it depends on how things were presented, I guess. If they just threw the Patriot Act out there without telling the adults in America why - then no, it obviously would fail, but if they were able to connect dots that, "Hey, we've got a growing and escalating problem here!" then I think most level-headed people would have sacrificed their liberties for the safety that the Pentagon, government, and elected officials would promise to deliver. If you were told, prior to 9/11 that some terrorist group was going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC, and to avoid that, all that was needed was the Patriot Act to go through, what would you have said? But to look at this another way, I think after President Bush said, "All right. You've covered your ass, now," that the simplest of security measures, not the far-reaching liberty taking Patriot Act, would have prevented 9/11.
If she wasn't telling the truth she should have been brought up on perjury charges. I have explained why they wouldn't charge her with releasing state secrets, as it would mean admitting she is right. Now why don't you explain why if she is lying about specific documents that either exist or they do not, that she hasn't been charged with either perjury of release of state secrets? Seems pretty obvious one or the other has to be true. So why don't you account for why she hasn't been charged with perjury, like I have for why she hasn't been charged with releasing state secrets?
sure they can be sued! this will all remain classified until no one is around that qualifies to claim a legal interest, that mean that the courts will recognize as a legal interest and if that should happen they will spin it and pass another 11th amendment to exhonerate putting themselves in a position immune to suit. people often hear the facts of our history but never seem to really add it up that we have a criminal government that is for themselves and their benefit, not their vassals.
This concept seems to be proven by the lawsuit by the 9-11 families, and the way they were blocked from having key witnesses and experts take the stand.
yep! they pull the national security card and if that does not work sovereign immunity. we are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed in this country. and the courts that were established to protect individual rights of men and women to insure in fact a republican form of government are completely bought out and instead enforce police powers of the oligarchy. .
How else do you suppose we go about discussing a historical event ?!?!?! Maybe look into our crystal balls?
Well if that is the trend then this is good news. I just hope people understand my purpose in mentioning your mainstream media distraction team. While most people can chalk this up to "partisan" bias (failing to realize that from lefty CNN (or whatever the left channel is) to righty fox, they are distracting from the SAME non-partisan abuses like extrajudicial murder and detention (even US citizens are fair game now)... So basically since most people fit their views into a per-determined partisan belief template, the actual agenda of these very real shills won't raise many eyebrows. This is so effective it keeps like 90% of people in the dark about the most critical issues.. Suchas did you know Obama is right now helping AL QAEDA get weapons and cash?!?!?! It's apparently THAT important to get rid of big bad Assad. Wouldn't THAT make better mud for Romney to sling? So pardon the rant but the point is this, with such effective mainstream means of pulling the wool over eyes, based on a synergistic effect between mainstream media headline cherrypicking and focus switching and partisan templates for the masses, why on EARTH would they need to bother to get people to patrol the obscure areas of the internet like this forum section that has an audience of all of like thirty people at most... While CNN and FOX and those lot reach hundreds of millions in one go? The one thing EVERYBODY on this forum have in common, from myself to yourself to the truthers to the ant-truther debunker squad, from the lefties to the righties and everybody in between, they ALL come here because they are extremely opinionated and they like to argue. I highly doubt this would be an outlet for shills.
First of all you don't need the time and date of the attack in order to prevent it, necessarily. Of course it depends on the case but in general, investigations work by trying to identify something, they can see as part of the plot they know nothing about, or someone, and use it to pursue additional information.. Get the guys behind the plot off the streets and who cares when they planned it for, they're not doing it.. This is known as following leads. This is how the world works. Now as for the plot pre-911, you wouldn't HAVE to know when and where it was planned for. Maybe, I don't know. I don't want to speculate on the matter right now, because my argument for preventing the attack is airline security. Nevertheless I believe Moussaiu, who is the only one convicted to date for anything to do with 9/11, was captured prior to 9.11.. And there was a laptop they wanted to search but higher ups dragged their feet over a warrant. It's a lot of he said/she said and am I saying doing things differently might have led to the plot being stopped? Maybe check his laptop? Or not even arrest him, but conduct serveillance and wiretap him instead? Or whatever? I don't know.. Speculation. But the point is, someone who says you must know time and date and specifics of the attack in order to prevent it isn't being honest. Most successful investigations that stop a murder or a crime get good results because of not them determining the future, but because they busted the guys behind it before they do it.. You don't need their target date and time and ticket boarding pass numbers to do this necessarily. Could this have happened pre 9/11 if things were done differently? Honestly I don't know. I can speculate and imagine either that being true or false are possible. What I DO know for a fact is that not letting people take weapons onto planes would have stopped it. What I said was the terrorists were allowed to bring their weapons on board. Whatever it sounds like, it is a fact. I make no claims they were offered special privilege to do so and would like to correct your misinterpretation now. Also, we have reports of weaponry far beyond mere box cutters and mace. And there is NO evidence, NOT A SHRED that ever confirmed the government lies that terrorists were able to commandeer four flights just by using boxcutters. While information is very scant, and we must rely on panicked phone calls from the tragic victims, it looks like heavier firepower was involved including guns and bombs (although likely fake bombs). The undercover FAA agents who tested security pre 9/11 said they had an EASY time smuggling both guns and bombs onto planes. THIS Is the issue when it comes to 9/11 prevention. Not "boxcutter" myths.
If you are referring to the modern day granny-groping TSA then yes. Even now, post 9/11 people are still enraged by it. But the other side of the coin, pre 9/11, that was just not caring, that's also bad and resulted in 9/11.. This is easily reconciled with the common sense approach, the happy middle ground between these extremes. They don't need to go as extreme as the TSA and violate people's civil rights to stop them bringing weapons onto planes. They've always managed to do this with almost perfect success rate in courthouses and other secured buildings, without generating contraversy like the TSA manages.
