Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
more info on 911
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80, 81  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 21472
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 11:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
Sergeant_Pluck wrote:

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.


False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.


Thanks for the Giladi link. I wasn't aware of these particular false flag operations.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 12:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
Sergeant_Pluck wrote:

Off the top of my head, I think history will show a hundred different Machiavellian examples where a state has a. allowed an attack on itself in order to retaliate exponentially, or b. attack itself in order to blame someone else and then retaliate exponentially.


False flag attacks of all kinds are indeed not aberrations, isolated incidents, but are probably very common, much more than usually guessed. Author of Ben Gurion's Scandals Naeim Giladi provided evidence that the Mossad and the Haganah bombed synagogues in Iraq and other Arab countries in the early 50s to cause Arab jews to flee. We've seen recently other examples in Kosovo, probably in Sarajevo, last year in Lybia. Currently, we're seeing a huge scale example with Syria.


Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 20:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

ted_bloody_maul wrote:

Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?


Well, at first, we should find examples of such countries... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile 
ted_bloody_maulOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 May 2003
Total posts: 4592
Location: Quester's Psykick Dancehall
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 24-07-2012 20:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
ted_bloody_maul wrote:

Are examples of such attacks being carried out in countries with a free media so common though? Countries where access to information itself is not restricted by distance, military embedding, censorship and so on? Also, are there examples where so many civilians would be required to assist or at least turn a blind eye?


Well, at first, we should find examples of such countries... Rolling Eyes


Ok, then - a free enough media. You know, the kind which allows individuals to propound The Truth happening before their own eyes and across various uncensored formats?
Back to top
View user's profile 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 950
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 26-07-2012 16:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

ted_bloody_maul wrote:

Ok, then - a free enough media. You know, the kind which allows individuals to propound The Truth happening before their own eyes and across various uncensored formats?


You set a number of conditions, or more exactely restrictions, probably with a disqualifying purpose when it comes to the lessons to be learned from the examples I had mentioned. But these lessons are relevant to our discussion. The restriction on distance does not rule out former Yugoslavia, Lybia and Syria as irrelevant. They may be far away, but the scale of the deceptions linked to them evidences the existence of censorship in our countries (because our countries are those you suppose to have a 'free or free enough' press...). Censorship on a massive scale, as we see with Syria (and Lebanon) now. Where the western 'journalists' know that the official reports are at best disputable, but who instead of questioning them in their newspapers are willfully and deliberately choosing to be involved in a propaganda operation, with only a few exceptions.

The press may be relatively free when it comes to minor matters. But currently there are no more countries with a free enough press when it comes to such big crucial matters. The media have lost any ability to inform and protect us. In France, recently, the media could not avoid a new episode of the controversy on the role of police infiltrators acting as rioting demonstrators. Their comments were farcical : there were maybe some during the 70s and 80s, but now there were no more because there could be no more. 20 years in the future, they will probably say that there probably were in the 2010s, but now there are no more...
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 21472
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-07-2012 22:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps the TSA are being a tad presumptuous...

Quote:
U.S. Spies Probably Won’t Blow Up Our Airplanes, TSA Concludes
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/spies-shoes-tsa/
By Noah ShachtmanEmail Author July 27, 2012 | 8:43 pm | Categories: Miscellaneous

TV spy Maxwell Smart holding his shoe phone. Photo: Wikimedia

ASPEN, Colorado — For years, America’s spies had to take off their shoes before they got on planes, just like the rest of us. No more. The Transportation Security Administration has quietly enrolled government employees at three of the nation’s intelligence agencies in a program that allows them to pass through airport security with less hassle.

It’s part of a larger push by TSA chief John Pistole to move away from the brain-dead, one-size-fits-all mindset that treats all passengers as equally likely terror risks. That effort is still very much a work in progress; just last month, for example, a female flier was groped by a TSA screener — so she groped back, and was promptly arrested.

Still, there are signs of sanity emerging. Kids are no longer subject to pat-downs. And certain elite members of frequent flier programs from American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Alaska Airlines can keep their shoes on and their laptops inside their bags at 19 airports. Two million passengers have now gone through the so-called “pre check” program, since it was begun last year. The logic is that these people fly all the time, and have given their personal information to the airlines. That makes them rather unlikely terrorists.

Same goes for the more than 800,000 people who hold top secret clearances in this country. They’ve already gone through all kinds of background checks. So, intelligence community consultant Jim Carlson asked Pistole at Friday’s session of the Aspen Security Forum, why not let them sign up for this “pre check,” too.

Well actually, Pistole told the group, somewhat sheepish, we are.

“We haven’t advertised that,” he said, but the TSA signed an agreement with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in February to do include members of the intelligence community in “pre check.”

It’s a voluntary program, Pistole added. “So, if for example you have a NOC [a "non official cover," or spy without any open connection to the government] who doesn’t want to be identified in any way, it’s optional.”

“The beauty of it from my perspective is that the information that the person is a known and trusted traveler is embedded in a bar code [in the passport]. And it doesn’t distinguish between a member of the intel community [and a] frequent flier,” Pistole told the Forum (where, full disclosure, I’m serving as a panel moderator). ” So the security officer at the checkpoint doesn’t know whoever you are.”

The increased security measures at American airports have become a substantial burden for undercover agents, as Danger Room reported in April. The use of eye-scanners and biometricallly-enhanced passports have made it tough for a spy to assume another identity. But if that spy is willing to use her own name, well, she can go right ahead keep her heels on. In the bizarre world of post-9/11 security, that counts as a small sign of progress.
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 984
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 28-07-2012 23:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

ramonmercado wrote:
Perhaps the TSA are being a tad presumptuous...

So anyone that doesn't take off their shoes is a spy! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1380
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 31-07-2012 19:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

stuneville wrote:
Hello Garrick! Long time no see Smile.


And hello again to you, too -- have been off the FTMB for the last couple of years. Not sure why, it was always a lively and interesting place. I think my head has been elsewhere, though.

Quote:
To be honest, I've just been lazy on that front - I accepted that a VT of a bloke speaking Arabic on the News at Ten was saying what the News at Ten said he was saying - i.e. "It's a fair cop, guv, it was me and that" or words to that effect. So yes, would like a transcript link, please.


I think this is the one we're talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
SameOldVardoger
Great Old One
Location: Scandinavia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 12-09-2012 11:07    Post subject: Reply with quote

LEAKED 9/11 ANNIVERSARY PENTAGON CRUISE MISSILE FOOTAGE WITH ANALYSIS

Quote:
LEAKED 9/11 FOOTAGE SUPPOSIDLY SHOWING A CRUSIE MISSILE. ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE. THE SMALL HOLE, NO PLANE DEBRIS, WITNESSES THAT SAW A MISSILE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SMOKING GUN PIECE TO THE ORIGINAL COMMISION REPORT.
ADD US ON FACEBOOK - -
http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100002911717257


http://youtu.be/yRPWLqc5T20
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-09-2012 12:38    Post subject: Reply with quote

More evidence that the Bush Administration ignored plenty of warnings before 9/11.
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share

The Deafness Before the Storm

New York Times. By Kurt Eichenwald. 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.

Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars."
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1269
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-09-2012 11:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

oooooooooo beat me to it !!!!!!!

anyway

did you know that less than 24 hours after the attack the FBI took 12 photos in a folder to the airline check in clerks and asked them to confirm the identity of the people they booked into planes that day ????

no that efficient for you Smile

all 12 hijackers with photos in a folder in front of clerks to confirm their identity

impressive !!!!
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1269
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-09-2012 11:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Atta's luggageThe doctored passport of hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari was found in Mohamed Atta’s left-behind luggage.[8]

When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind luggage, the FBI found important clues about the hijackers and their plans. His luggage contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, and provided information about their plans, motives, and backgrounds.[9] The FBI was able to determine details such as dates of birth, known and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identity of the suspected pilots. None of these documents have been scrutinized by independent legal experts.[10]

[edit] Linking the hijackers to al QaedaThe investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

they knew lots about these folk well before the attacks....lots and lots it owuld appear

Back to top
View user's profile 
lkb3rdOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Total posts: 301
Location: CT. USA
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-09-2012 12:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason that any real investigation, prevention, etc was "botched" is that they had their fake story written in advance. The truth doesn't fit into it, so it is ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1269
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-09-2012 12:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As it happens, Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight, American sources confirm


i like coincedences Smile
Back to top
View user's profile 
JonfairwayOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Total posts: 1269
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-09-2012 12:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"It was about three minutes before departure," he said. "They had it locked up, and it was ready to go."

The bags were brought back and tagged for rerouting to the 11 a.m. flight to LAX, he says.

When it became clear that Flight 11 had been hijacked, the crew chief called the Massachusetts State Police, which dispatched a state trooper to the baggage rerouting area with a bomb-sniffing dog, says the American source, who assisted the trooper and other authorities.

After the dog cleared the bags for explosives, the trooper had the small locks on Atta's bags cut off and the bags opened.

Then the FBI got involved.



on the ball or what !!!!!!!!! only his luggage was left behind and they sent a bomb sniffing dog and then called the FBI, that was before the explosion or just after ?

LIHOP maybe ?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80, 81  Next
Page 79 of 81

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group