Food for Thought!

[Jurhum]

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Posted in the database on Wednesday, June 07th, 2006 @ 19:32:26 MST
from Muckraker Report

This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitate to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

 

[Duke]

Boh, if not Osama, who then? The first one to claim the US government did 9/11 themselves gets their post deleted for being an idiot.


On the general notion that the media distorts shit: Of course.

 

[PuffnScruff]

this chain letter was started by CT's like alex jones. he proudly has this on his website

the CT's get blacklisted because they refuse to look at the evidence that debunks what they claim.

"Usama Bin Laden is formally charged with the 1998 bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. When filed, it was these Federal Charges that immediately resulted in a major effort by the FBI to locate, arrest and bring Bin Laden to justice. In 1999, he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List to aid in this effort. The wanted posters, which are still in use, were printed at that time.

Because outstanding Federal charges for the American Embassy bombings were already on record, prosecutors deemed it unnecessary to formally charge Bin Laden for any alleged involvement in the events of September 11th. This is because he can be arrested and detained on existing charges, and any additional charges can be added when, and if needed, at a later time. "

I hope this helps you,
Rex S. Tomb
Chief
Investigative Publicity and
Public Affairs Unit
FBI

 

[Kareem]

Boh, if not Osama, who then? The first one to claim the US government did 9/11 themselves gets their post deleted for being an idiot.


On the general notion that the media distorts shit: Of course.

Whats so hard to believe that the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11? Its really not that hard to imagine or fathom, they had plans back in the 60's to do similair things maybe not on the same huge scale as 2,800 people being killed but they still plotted on killing their own citizens an making it look like the Cuban government was to blame.

Im not saying you directly Duke cause i know your not a u.s. citizen but i dont see why some americans or people for that matter seem to think this government would never do such a thing.This administration has shown time again it will do whatever to push its agenda. Now on that note do i think whole heartedly that Bush or his admin did it completly? No I dont, I think they knew damn well what was gonna happen but chose to do nothing because it will play everything they wanted right into their hands.

He (Bush) had it out for Iraq the moment he took office an 9/11 gave him the green light to go ahead with it, playing on the peoples fear and gathering their support via the 9/11 rehetoric. Bush told us after 9/11 we wouldnt give up the fight till Osama was caught dead or alive, then when he invades Iraq he later says when asked what about Osama Bin Laden "I dont even think about him anymore" your shitting me right? The man thats supposedly responsible for the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor an your not thinking of him anymore? Instead your trying to finish your daddies war.Too much shit doesnt make sense an theres too many loose ends, I just think people are a lil naive to believe that the u.s. government wouldnt have a hand in such a thing as 9/11.

 

[Duke]

Whats so hard to believe that the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11? Its really not that hard to imagine or fathom, they had plans back in the 60's to do similair things maybe not on the same huge scale as 2,800 people being killed but they still plotted on killing their own citizens an making it look like the Cuban government was to blame.

Im not saying you directly Duke cause i know your not a u.s. citizen but i dont see why some americans or people for that matter seem to think this government would never do such a thing.This administration has shown time again it will do whatever to push its agenda. Now on that note do i think whole heartedly that Bush or his admin did it completly? No I dont, I think they knew damn well what was gonna happen but chose to do nothing because it will play everything they wanted right into their hands.

He (Bush) had it out for Iraq the moment he took office an 9/11 gave him the green light to go ahead with it, playing on the peoples fear and gathering their support via the 9/11 rehetoric. Bush told us after 9/11 we wouldnt give up the fight till Osama was caught dead or alive, then when he invades Iraq he later says when asked what about Osama Bin Laden "I dont even think about him anymore" your shitting me right? The man thats supposedly responsible for the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor an your not thinking of him anymore? Instead your trying to finish your daddies war.Too much shit doesnt make sense an theres too many loose ends, I just think people are a lil naive to believe that the u.s. government wouldnt have a hand in such a thing as 9/11.

Iraq war stupid, yes.

U.S. government involved in 9/11, most unlikely. There is far more to lose than to gain.

 

[Devious]

while i don't believe that the US government actually had a hand in 9/11 directly, i do think that they let the attack happen. i don't think they knew exactly what was going to happen or when and where it was gonna happen, but they knew something was coming and they did nothing to stop it. i mean when a guy like Bin Laden goes on television and says there will be an unprecedented attack on American soil within weeks, and the government does nothing to try to prevent it, you have to question their motives.

 

[Tru Principle]

Blame it all on the arabs

 

[Sebastian]

while i don't believe that the US government actually had a hand in 9/11 directly, i do think that they let the attack happen. i don't think they knew exactly what was going to happen or when and where it was gonna happen, but they knew something was coming and they did nothing to stop it. i mean when a guy like Bin Laden goes on television and says there will be an unprecedented attack on American soil within weeks, and the government does nothing to try to prevent it, you have to question their motives.

This makes no sense at all. - Dont even try to explain it once again.

Plus, everyone who thinks the government might have been involved in the events on 9/11 needs a reality check. Because i dont want to to explain how stupid it is, i recommend this ( http://www.streethop.com/forum/thread167946.html ) thread.

 

[Devious]

i don't know how you think it doesn't make sense. they had every reason to believe that an attack was coming, and they didn't heighten security, they didn't warn citizens. it was either a massive intelligence failure or they wanted an attack to happen. it makes much less sense that they were just that stupid and couldn't figure out that something was coming, when even the "mastermind" of the attack tells you he's going to attack you, there is no excuse to do nothing about it. oh, and please don't tell me what i can and can't explain, my opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else's, whether you believe it or not. you seem to forget what America is capable of, and has planned to do to their own people, so here's a little refresher course for you http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

click the link to read the rest. now i reiterate. did the US have direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks? no. did they intentionally do absolutely nothing to try to prevent it from happening? yes, i believe so

 

[Duke]

^ Intentionally? No. But I do think that they were lazy and seriously underestimated the risks.

 

[Sebastian]

If anything, its what Duke said. More than that? Of course not.

 

[Devious]

well one of 2 things happened. one: the US government was so arrogant in their position as a world superpower that they didn't believe that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would actually try to attack them. even though he has shown that he is willing to carry out his threats (the 98 embassy bombing and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole prove that) they figured no one would have the balls to try an actual attack on US Soil, let alone actually pull one off. or the second option: they knew that an attack was imminent (as shown by Bin Laden's ability to carry out his threats) and figured it was in their best interests to allow an attack to happen. this would give them provocation to move into the Middle East with full support of the people (or so they thought) and they could use that as a launching pad for whatever they wanted to do in the region. judging by what has transpired since 9/11 (lying to the people to try to get support for the Iraq war, the subsequent cease of searching for Bin Laden, supposedly the world's most wanted terorist, etc.) i would put my money on the latter.

However, i don't believe that the US knew just how bad this attack was going to be. i think tey figured it would be something like a suicide bomber or maybe bombing one building, or something along those lines. i believe that if they knew the exact plan, they would have done more to stop it. i think they truly believed that the attack would be much smaller than it was, and that's why they let it happen. i don't think that anyone can argue that there was enough evidence to believe that an attack was imminent, not probable, or likely, but imminent, and the government did nothing to try to stop it. the beliefs on why they did nothing may differ between us here, but i'm putting my money on the belief that they let it happen, not realizing just how big this attack was going to be.

 

[Duke]

well one of 2 things happened. one: the US government was so arrogant in their position as a world superpower that they didn't believe that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would actually try to attack them. even though he has shown that he is willing to carry out his threats (the 98 embassy bombing and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole prove that) they figured no one would have the balls to try an actual attack on US Soil, let alone actually pull one off. or the second option: they knew that an attack was imminent (as shown by Bin Laden's ability to carry out his threats) and figured it was in their best interests to allow an attack to happen. this would give them provocation to move into the Middle East with full support of the people (or so they thought) and they could use that as a launching pad for whatever they wanted to do in the region. judging by what has transpired since 9/11 (lying to the people to try to get support for the Iraq war, the subsequent cease of searching for Bin Laden, supposedly the world's most wanted terorist, etc.) i would put my money on the latter.

However, i don't believe that the US knew just how bad this attack was going to be. i think tey figured it would be something like a suicide bomber or maybe bombing one building, or something along those lines. i believe that if they knew the exact plan, they would have done more to stop it. i think they truly believed that the attack would be much smaller than it was, and that's why they let it happen. i don't think that anyone can argue that there was enough evidence to believe that an attack was imminent, not probable, or likely, but imminent, and the government did nothing to try to stop it. the beliefs on why they did nothing may differ between us here, but i'm putting my money on the belief that they let it happen, not realizing just how big this attack was going to be.

Scenario 1 + your final paragraph.

 

[Morris]

How ironic that this thread was posted almost immediately in conjunction with Al Jazeera airing video footage of Bin Laden meeting with some of the hijackers.

i don't think they knew exactly what was going to happen or when and where it was gonna happen, but they knew something was coming and they did nothing to stop it.

Suicide attacks are about impossible to stop. Moreover, this was the first instance of suicide airplane hijackings. It worked because hijackers usually land the planes and hold hostages, not ram them into buildings. It's also why suicide plane hijackings will never work again.

they figured no one would have the balls to try an actual attack on US Soil, let alone actually pull one off. or the second option: they knew that an attack was imminent (as shown by Bin Laden's ability to carry out his threats) and figured it was in their best interests to allow an attack to happen.

That's not true. We had terrorist attacks on American soil as early as 93 with the first WTC bombing. We've always known that Bin Laden's group is willing to strike us whenever it can, but we can't predict every nature of the threat and different type of attack.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

It's incredible to me how often people cite this without actually comprehensively reading the plans, so let me do some reiterating.

Operation Northwoods was a propaganda plan to create public support for an invasion of Cuba. However, all of the ideas pitched in Operation Northwoods were about faking terrorist attacks, faking casualties and staging fake riots. It's clear as day when you read the thing.

Taking your cited example:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

They were going to blow up an obsolete destroyer, with nobody on it, right by Cuba, and then hand over a fake casualty list to the press.

These were false flag operations. The most well known one was the idea of destroying an unmanned drone over the ocean and say it was a plane full of college students.

And of course, Devious conveniently forgot the most important thing about Operation Northwoods: the Department of Defense rejected it and never implemented a single idea.

 

[Devious]

Suicide attacks are about impossible to stop. Moreover, this was the first instance of suicide airplane hijackings. It worked because hijackers usually land the planes and hold hostages, not ram them into buildings. It's also why suicide plane hijackings will never work again.

well first of all, i never said that they could have prevented the attacks, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have tried. it would have been a lot better than the strategy that they did use, which was do nothing. and if you are trying to indicate that the US had no idea that the use of planes as weapons was possible, there is documented evidence from as far back as 96 that they knew of possible plans to fly a plane or planes into buildings. its a threat they should have prepared for but didn't.

That's not true. We had terrorist attacks on American soil as early as 93 with the first WTC bombing. We've always known that Bin Laden's group is willing to strike us whenever it can, but we can't predict every nature of the threat and different type of attack.

that's even more of a reason to take his threats seriously, and yet they still ignored it. and again i point to the fact that they knew well in advance of 9/11 that flying planes into buildings was a very real possibility. i know they aren't psychic and can't predict every move in advance, but they had a huge advantage in that they were given advance warning of an attack, and they did not respond. my nature makes me question why.

They were going to blow up an obsolete destroyer, with nobody on it, right by Cuba, and then hand over a fake casualty list to the press.

These were false flag operations. The most well known one was the idea of destroying an unmanned drone over the ocean and say it was a plane full of college students.

And of course, Devious conveniently forgot the most important thing about Operation Northwoods: the Department of Defense rejected it and never implemented a single idea.

i never once indicated or tried to make anyone believe that these tactics were implemented in any way. my point in showing it was that if they could think up plans like this, then my suggestion here shouldn't so far fetched. it also shows that the US gov't has a history of trying to manipulate it's own people for their gain. of course they were rejected, cuz Kennedy had a lot more sense than George W. Bush does. this administration, and past US administrations, has shown a propensity of lying and manipulating people to get what they want, so i don't put much past them anymore. but i must reiterate, i don't believe that they were directly involved in 9/11, but they made no effort to try to prevent it, and like i said, i have to question why.

 

[Morris]

well first of all, i never said that they could have prevented the attacks, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have tried.

I don't understand why you think the government wasn't trying to do anything. In fact, the incompetence and complications of our intelligence bureaucracy between the CIA and FBI stopped us from arresting some of the hijackers who had been previously identified as Al Qaeda members. Somewhere earlier in this thread you suggested that there was a major intelligence failure. That's exactly what it was, and exactly why the Homeland Security Department was created.

the US had no idea that the use of planes as weapons was possible, there is documented evidence from as far back as 96 that they knew of possible plans to fly a plane or planes into buildings. its a threat they should have prepared for but didn't.

There is documented evidence that we knew hijackings were a possibility. I'm not sure how you expected the United States to know where and when hijackings would come, or what the targets would be, or whether they would crash the planes or not. There are hundreds of thousands of flights in the United States daily: we can't put an air marshal on every plane. And that doesn't even take into account international flights.

it also shows that the US gov't has a history of trying to manipulate it's own people for their gain

That's a universal theme in politics But what you tried to do was incorrectly cite Operation Northwoods as evidence that the United States would intentionally let its civilians be murdered for political gain.

i don't believe that they were directly involved in 9/11, but they made no effort to try to prevent it, and like i said, i have to question why.

In addition to already refuting your suggestion that the United States made no effort to deal with Al Qaeda terrorist attacks beforehand, I'd like to point out that the United States had very little to gain from such a massive attack, or have you forgotten the subsequent years of economic depression already?

 

[Devious]

I don't understand why you think the government wasn't trying to do anything. In fact, the incompetence and complications of our intelligence bureaucracy between the CIA and FBI stopped us from arresting some of the hijackers who had been previously identified as Al Qaeda members. Somewhere earlier in this thread you suggested that there was a major intelligence failure. That's exactly what it was, and exactly why the Homeland Security Department was created.



There is documented evidence that we knew hijackings were a possibility. I'm not sure how you expected the United States to know where and when hijackings would come, or what the targets would be, or whether they would crash the planes or not. There are hundreds of thousands of flights in the United States daily: we can't put an air marshal on every plane. And that doesn't even take into account international flights.



That's a universal theme in politics But what you tried to do was incorrectly cite Operation Northwoods as evidence that the United States would intentionally let its civilians be murdered for political gain.



In addition to already refuting your suggestion that the United States made no effort to deal with Al Qaeda terrorist attacks beforehand, I'd like to point out that the United States had very little to gain from such a massive attack, or have you forgotten the subsequent years of economic depression already?

well the evidence that i was referring to that indicated that planes may be used as weapons actually specifically cited a plan to crash a plane into the World Trade Center, so your theory goes out the window as well. days after 9/11 the information about this came out that they recieved a tip in 96 about that plan. so they knew it was a possibility, and didn't prepare for it. and i never said that they could predict when and where an attack would take place, but judging from that tip, WTC would have been a place that i would think of. my point is that even though they might not have stopped the attack, they could have at least attempted something, like put the military on high alert, since they knew an attack was coming. and i honestly don't believe that the US is so incompetent that they can't even protect their own people. i'm sure George W would disagree with you on that one. the simple fact is that nothing was done to try to prevent it. and as for your point about economic hardships since then, if the US isn't psychic enough to see this attack coming, how could they have known about that? are you suggesting that W purposely put the country into economic disarray? cuz thats not much better than my theory.

and again you ignored the fact that i only posted the article about operation northwoods to prove the point that if they can think up these things, even if they weren't actually used, what else could they think of? you incorrectly assumed what my intentions were with that post, and you remember what happens when you assume, don't you?

 

[Morris]

well the evidence that i was referring to that indicated that planes may be used as weapons actually specifically cited a plan to crash a plane into the World Trade Center

I know of the document you're referring to, but I don't recall a specific site being identified. Regardless, if the WTC was specifically mentioned, that was because it was attacked in 1993.

I still don't understand how you think the intelligence could have been or should have been acted upon. Even if we knew that terrorists planned to fly a plane into the White House, we wouldn't know which plane or when. So what would we have to do? Fly military patrols everyday around D.C.? We have (and had) NORAD for the specific purpose of intercepting hijacked planes, and shooting them down if necessary if they approach unauthorized airspace, but once again the NORAD system was too slow because we were slow in identifying hijackings that day and bureaucratic chain of command issues slowed NORAD's response times.

my point is that even though they might not have stopped the attack, they could have at least attempted something, like put the military on high alert, since they knew an attack was coming.

What exactly is "putting the military on high alert?" And if we are unsure of the nature of the threat, and where it's going to originate, what's the point?

We know Al Qaeda is trying to attack us. A number of terrorist cells are always trying. So should we be on high alert everyday? I can imagine what some of you would say if we imposed martial law indefinitely. I would probably be saying the same things if that happened.

and as for your point about economic hardships since then, if the US isn't psychic enough to see this attack coming, how could they have known about that?

It doesn't take an economics major to realize that the 9/11 attacks would do damage to property in the billions, the airline industry would do an immediate economic nosedive, thousands of jobs lost in an hour, and a forthcoming economic recession on the basis of declining consumer confidence.

Knowing that stuff doesn't require being a psychic. It requires common sense.

 

[Devious]

the same kind of common sense that should have been present when a terrorist organization, with a known history of following up on threats, makes its intentions known that it is going to attack. common sense dictates to me that you do whatever is in your power to try to prevent an attack in your country. i'll give you an example. say that you were told that someone is threatening your family and that they planned to attack you and kill you and your family. wouldn't you do whatever you could to try to prevent it, even if you don't know when it's coming, or where it's going to happen? i'm pretty sure you would. i'm not implying that they should have implemented martial law, or have military patrols. but considering that they knew of the possibility of planes being used to crash into buildings, why wasn't there a system in place to inform the military the minute a plane was known to be hijacked? the fact is that there were a lot of things that could have been done in an attempt to prevent this, and most of those things weren't done. in fact, most of the sugestions from the 9/11 commission to better prevent another attack have not been implemented, which again leads me to wonder why.

and in pointing out evidence that they knew of possible plans to use planes as weapons, i wasn't referring to any specific documents. i was referring to a tip recieved by the department of defense from a credible German source in 1996 that specifically made mention of planes being flown into WTC, so it wasn't speculation due to the fact that it had been attacked before, it was very specific information they were given mentioning those buildings. with all this information that they had, there is no other reason i can comprehend why nothing was done to try to prevent it other than they figured it would be in their best interest to let it happen, and they thought that it would give them an excuse to do whatever they wanted in the Middle East. i haven't mentioned this yet, but there is strong evidence showing that the US also allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. Hell, a year before 9/11 Dick Cheney said in front of an audience "America needs another Pearl Harbor", i think that says a lot. maybe i'm wrong, but either way the US let its people down on 9/11, and i fear that if another attack is to occur, they will let their people down again.

edit: i'm surprised i didn't really notice this in your post

What exactly is "putting the military on high alert?" And if we are unsure of the nature of the threat, and where it's going to originate, what's the point?

what's the point? are you serious? what's the point of trying to take some action on a threat from a terrorist organization in an attempt to thwart it? well you're right, why bother trying to prevent terror attacks, just let them happen and then deal with the aftermath, right?

 

[Morris]

the same kind of common sense that should have been present when a terrorist organization, with a known history of following up on threats, makes its intentions known that it is going to attack.

Al Qaeda puts out videotaped threats on a monthly basis, including one by al-Zawahiri today. Al Qaeda has not successfully performed a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11, yet they have threatened imminent attacks dozens of times in the last 5 years.

i'll give you an example. say that you were told that someone is threatening your family and that they planned to attack you and kill you and your family. wouldn't you do whatever you could to try to prevent it, even if you don't know when it's coming, or where it's going to happen?

What I'm saying is that even when you know that information, it doesn't help you prevent the attack because you don't know exactly who will be attacked, where, when or how.

but considering that they knew of the possibility of planes being used to crash into buildings, why wasn't there a system in place to inform the military the minute a plane was known to be hijacked?

There has been a system in place to do exactly what you just asked for decades. Have you never heard of NORAD?

To make things simple, I'll give you a concise summary of how our system worked:

What happens is that flight controllers radio pilots on a number of things while those planes are in that flight controller's airspace. Planes have transponders that identify them. When the terrorists took over cockpits, they turned off the transponders and turned off radio correspondence to flight controllers (with the exception of Atta, who accidentally radioed a flight controller when he meant to say something to the plane's passengers).

At that point, when the plane stops radio contact and makes an unusual turn, the flight controller alerts a superior, who eventually alerts NORAD, who eventually scramble planes. As you can imagine, this means that a NORAD interceptor plane doesn't get into the air the minute we know there's a hijacking. And as you can see, it requires a number of minutes even to identify a hijacking. Moreover, it requires the president to order a NORAD plane to shootdown a civilian plane.

NORAD planes, flying at their fastest speeds from taking off at their bases, were still a 15 minute flight from NYC. In otherwords, NORAD interceptors would never have had a chance to stop the first plane in NYC or D.C. The mismanagement between the FAA and NORAD on that day was so severe that NORAD hadn't identified United 93 as hijacked until after it crashed.

in fact, most of the sugestions from the 9/11 commission to better prevent another attack have not been implemented, which again leads me to wonder why.

Care to cite a few examples? The 9/11 commission's report was gigantic (and non binding). I'm interested in seeing what you think should be done from that report that hasn't that would have had an appreciable effect on 9/11.

Hell, a year before 9/11 Dick Cheney said in front of an audience "America needs another Pearl Harbor", i think that says a lot.

That's definitely not true. I think you're confusing Dick Cheney with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a committee that puts out foreign policy reports. Before Bush was elected, PNAC, which had a number of future administration members (but not Cheney if I remember right), put out a report on what they considered should be foreign policy initiatives. In that report, they said that transformation of America's armed forces would occur gradually, in the absence of a Pearl Harbor type event.

what's the point? are you serious? what's the point of trying to take some action on a threat from a terrorist organization in an attempt to thwart it? well you're right, why bother trying to prevent terror attacks, just let them happen and then deal with the aftermath, right?

You missed the point I was making. We can't safeguard every potential terrorist target with the military. If we flew patrols over every American city to stop plane attacks, that wouldn't deal with attacks done by cars or on the ground. If we flew patrols and imposed martial law on every city, there are soft targets out of the city, like nuclear power plants, that could not be safeguarded by the military. The country is gigantic and the list of targets is endless.

The most important point I can stress, and I think most of the people on this board would agree, is that there is no military solution to combating terrorism. We're going to be largely combating terrorism with the FBI and CIA, not the Marines and National Guard. Thus, the intelligence system is critical. And despite what you have charged, we've had very good intelligence systems since Truman created the CIA.

Did the system fail us on 9/11? Of course. But that wasn't from a lack of effort, or malicious or conspiratorial intent.