i don't believe it was an inside job, but...

[nickw]

I'm ready to believe those in power were totally incompetent

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PBS_NSA_tracked_911_hijackers_but_0127.html

PBS: NSA could have prevented 9/11 hijackings
The super-secretive National Security Agency has been quietly monitoring, decrypting, and interpreting foreign communications for decades, starting long before it came under criticism as a result of recent revelations about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Now a forthcoming PBS documentary asks whether the NSA could have prevented 9/11 if it had been more willing to share its data with other agencies.

[wildbilln864]

1. welcome to the DUngeon. nt

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

2. NSA could have prevented 9/11 hijackings

what more needs to be said

[SDuderstadt]

3. What's your implication here, SLAD?

That they NSA could have prevented the 9/11 attacks and deliberately did not, or that they had the capability but, through incompetence, was not able to wield it effectively?

[seemslikeadream]

6. It is as simple as the quote

NSA could have prevented the 9/11 attacks

[SDuderstadt]

7. Simple question, SLAD....

is your implication that they could have prevented the attacks and deliberately didn't? It's a aimple question.

[greyl]

10. Simple question = kryptonite nt

[spooked911]

4. incompetence is a ruse

don't let them fool you

[SDuderstadt]

5. Not according to James Bamford in "Shadow Factory".....

unless you're suggesting he's "in on it, too"....

[Bryan Sacks]

8. Reasonable people can disagree about the conclusions they draw from the same evidence

You've posted a non-sequitur.

What I don't here from those who are SURE it's incompetence is an explanation of what competence would be. Care to elaborate?

[greyl]

9. Have you seen what some "truthers" are calling evidence?

Nice truism to introduce your post, but why leave out those who are SURE it was an inside job but use fabricated evidence or total speculation to carry on their chaotic ecumenical crusade?
There are even those loons who deeply believe the Bush admin wasn't incompetent at all - it was pure evil!

I think most of the conflict in this forum centers around the scientific and logical basis for outlandish claims - in other words, on the claims of the 9/11 was an Inside Job folks - the so-called "truth movement".

Why don't I ever hear about the 9/11 Truth Industry agreeing on just what the evidence is?
By all means, let's start with the evidence.

In the case of the OP topic, competence would have been NSA sharing the information that the terrorists were in the US and heading toward Washington.

[jakeXT]

11. heading towards Washington?

They were not that far away





AMY GOODMAN: You say that they set up their final base of operations almost next door to the NSA headquarters in Laurel, Maryland?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, that’s the ultimate irony, was they eventually travel across country from San Diego, and they set up their final base of operations—these are the—this is the crew that was about to attack the Pentagon—about a month before, they set up their base of operations in Laurel, Maryland, of all places, that happens to be the same city that NSA is headquartered. So they set up their base of operations in this Valencia Motel, and almost across the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is NSA headquarters. The director’s office is on the eighth floor, and, except for some trees, he could almost see the motel where they’re staying. So, NSA is over there trying to find terrorists, and here is the 9/11 terrorists sitting right opposite the NSA on the other side of the parkway making their final plans.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15216

[greyl]

12. Yeah, directly from the OP article.

They weren't born in Washington, were they? ;)
The NSA knew the whereabouts of a few of the terrorists before they got to Laurel, MD.

[HamdenRice]

13. Wrong again.

"most of the conflict in this forum centers around the scientific and logical basis for outlandish claims"

No, that's what you are obsessed with -- that and pure noise heckling.

For much of this forum's history, the material has centered on exactly the kind of data posted in the OP.

[seemslikeadream]

14. "NONE of this information in the 9/11 Commission report. They simply IGNORED all of it."

"None of this information that we're speaking about this evening's in the 9/11 Commission report. They simply ignored all of it."



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/PBS_NSA_tracked_911_hijackers_but_0127.html


.....

Author James Bamford looked into the performance of the NSA in his 2008 book, The Shadow Factory, and found that it had been closely monitoring the 9/11 hijackers as they moved freely around the United States and communicated with Osama bin Laden's operations center in Yemen. The NSA had even tapped bin Laden's satellite phone, starting in 1996.

"The NSA never alerted any other agency that the terrorists were in the United States and moving across the country towards Washington," Bamford told PBS.

PBS also found that "the 9/11 Commission never looked closely into NSA's role in the broad intelligence breakdown behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. If they had, they would have understood the full extent to which the agency had major pieces of the puzzle but never put them together or disclosed their entire body of knowledge to the CIA and the FBI."

In a review of Bamford's book, former senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey wrote, "As the 9/11 Commission later established, U.S. intelligence officials knew that al-Qaeda had held a planning meeting in Malaysia, found out the names of two recruits who had been present -- Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi -- and suspected that one and maybe both of them had flown to Los Angeles. Bamford reveals that the NSA had been eavesdropping for months on their calls to Yemen, yet the agency 'never made the effort' to trace where the calls originated. 'At any time, had the FBI been notified, they could have found Hazmi in a matter of seconds.'"

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer told PBS, "None of this information that we're speaking about this evening's in the 9/11 Commission report. They simply ignored all of it."


Not only was then-Director Michael Hayden never held accountable for the NSA's alleged failure, but he went on to oversee the Bush administration's vast expansion of domestic surveillance. In 2006, he was appointed as director of the CIA.




WHY?





Oh and they ignored this also

[William Seger]

15. Why did you have to ruin your post...

... by including the WTC7 thing? I defy you to come up with a logical scenario that ties your OP to WTC7 being a controlled demolition. It's almost as if you felt the need to demonstrate why the "truth movement" is either ignored or ridiculed.

[seemslikeadream]

16. WTC7 was NOT addressed (in ANYWAY ) in the 9/11 Commission report n/t

WHY?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Why should it have been? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

18. why not?

[AZCat]

19. Not within the scope?

The purposes of the Commission are to--
(1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the
World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
(2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence
developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of--
(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred
to as the ``Joint Inquiry''); and
(B) other executive branch, congressional, or
independent commission investigations into the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks,
and terrorism generally;
(4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States'
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
(5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on
its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

[seemslikeadream]

20. DEFINITELY WITHIN THE SCOPE

The purposes of the Commission are to--
(1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the
World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
(2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence
developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
(3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and
avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of--
(A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred
to as the ``Joint Inquiry''); and
(B) other executive branch, congressional, or
independent commission investigations into the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks,
and terrorism generally;
(4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances
surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States'
preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and
(5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on
its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective
measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

But I can understand your point of view, not wanting to get all the facts, I've seen that before

[AZCat]

21. I think it's unnecessary duplication.

See point #3.

And you know fuck-all about my point of view.

[seemslikeadream]

22. Could you give me a link to that investigation that the 9/11 Commission didn't want to duplicate?

[AZCat]

23. Hmmm. Maybe that'd be the FEMA/NIST ones?

I assume you're familiar with those.

[seemslikeadream]

24. and those were BEFORE the 9/11 Commission's report?

Did they include that in the official report?

[AZCat]

25. Yes, they were.

The FEMA report was released before the commission was set up, and the NIST investigation was initiated prior to the commission.

Why would they include those reports in their own?

[seemslikeadream]

26. Was that the FEMA report that had all those lies in it? Or should I say distortions

or lack of information?

That was the one with the colorful cartoons?


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

[AZCat]

27. Nice attempt at changing the subject.

Regardless your issues with the FEMA report, it was released prior to the commission's initiation. Your claim that WTC 7 was within their scope is not valid.

[seemslikeadream]

28. So you are saying the 9/11 Commission took the word of FEMA

and didn't check the facts?

[AZCat]

29. It wasn't within their scope.

Simple as that.

[seemslikeadream]

31. It was in their scope to find the truth not rely on lies

[AZCat]

34. You seem to be struggling with a simple concept.

I'll let someone else explain it to you.

[seemslikeadream]

37. Yes truth is a simple concept too bad the 9/11 Commission wasn't looking for it

[AZCat]

42. At last you're back to the OP.

This is like herding cats.

[seemslikeadream]

30. Would that be the same FEMA that has lied and lied and lied to the public?

FEMA lies to the public, holds fake press conference on California wildfires


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/26/fema-under-fire-for-faking-news-conference/

[AZCat]

32. Nice attempt at misdirection.

This isn't about FEMA and the validity of their report, it's about the scope of the 9/11 commission.

[seemslikeadream]

33. Have you ever heard of New Orleans?

[AZCat]

36. Oh, for fuck's sake slad.

Can you keep to a simple point?

[seemslikeadream]

39. FEMA is a KNOWN lie machine

[AZCat]

40. Not the topic, but I guess you don't care. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

35. No misdirection when it comes to uncovering lies

[AZCat]

38. This is now pointless.

Either you are incapable or unwilling to understand a simple point.

[seemslikeadream]

41. How in the world can someone write a credible report and not question a known liar?

[AZCat]

43. Perhaps you'd better check your own calendar.

When was Katrina? When was the FEMA WTC 7 report? When was the 9/11 Commission finished?

[seemslikeadream]

44. Oh so they started lying right after Katrina, I see

[AZCat]

46. Not my point.

But you're alleging that the FEMA behavior during and after Katrina somehow should have influenced the 9/11 Commission's opinion of the FEMA WTC 7 report. This, of course, would be impossible since Katrina had not happened yet.

[seemslikeadream]

47. You are saying FEMA was NEVER caught in a lie before Katrina?

[AZCat]

48. No.

I don't happen to have a comprehensive history of FEMA in front of me right now, but since it is an agency composed of human beings (who have demonstrated their fallibility time and time again) I would not be surprised to learn of prior mistakes/lies/coverups.

Whether those prior incidents are relevant or not I don't think is particularly interesting, because they were not the only agency investigating WTC 7. NIST, whatever your criticisms might be, has a long and distinguished history of supporting the engineering and scientific communities.

[seemslikeadream]

52. example remember this?

[AZCat]

53. Again, that was AFTER the 9/11 Commission completed its report. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

57. again so you are saying they only started lying after 9/11?

[AZCat]

61. Perhaps you need to reread my previous post.

That would be post #48. My reply still stands.

[seemslikeadream]

63. Now tell the truth here

Can you honestly say when you find a person has lied to you, you would ever, without checking, believe them again?

[AZCat]

64. I don't think that's relevant.

Why would the 9/11 Commission be worrying about the veracity of a technical report? Such a determination is not within their scope.

[seemslikeadream]

65. Why would the 9/11 Commission be worrying about the veracity of a technical report?

You are kidding me, right? But then again thanks for that, why would that fraud of a commission worry about the truth

[SDuderstadt]

67. Please tell us something, SLAD...

how would the 9/11 commission (which, to my knowledge, contained NO structural engineers) be in a position to evaluate the soundness of the FEMA/ACES/NIST reports???

[seemslikeadream]

68. Hey I got an idea!

HIRE SOME

[AZCat]

70. You seem to think the 9/11 Commission was tasked to oversee NIST/FEMA.

That is not so. Would it have been a good idea? That's a question for another time. But the commission did not have the technical resources, nor was it their role to review the work done by those two agencies.

[SDuderstadt]

71. For the love of God, SLAD...are you serious???

Do you know what ASCE stands for? Hint: It's the American Society of Civil Engineers. Why in the world would the 9/11 Commission hire structural engineers to check the work of the pre-eminent structural engineering organization? I also think it's probably safe to conclude that the studies were peer-reviewed and that no serious structural engineer has substantive problems with the reports.

[seemslikeadream]

73. Aren't there some engineers that disagree?

I thought I read that somewhere? :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

75. ASCE has 140,000 + members....

Have you heard of any substantial outpouring from that organization? No? Why do you suppose that is?

[seemslikeadream]

45. BTW Who reported that the air was perfectly fine to breathe down there?

[AZCat]

49. Please be a little more specific.

I am not sure to what you are referring.

[SDuderstadt]

54. It was the EPA....

duh. Do you ever bother to fact-check anything?

[seemslikeadream]

55. Damn how is one supposed to keep all those LYING agencies straight?

:rofl:

thanks for reminding me, got any more?

[SDuderstadt]

58. By FACT-CHECKING.......

Duh. How can you add to the debate,when you just spout wrong things off the top of your head?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

62. well it seems your replies always come from the other end

which is why they never make any sense

[SDuderstadt]

66. Show me one of my replies that...

doesn't make any sense. This is unintentional irony, right?

[seemslikeadream]

69. I have not got time to link to all your posts right now

[SDuderstadt]

72. Then link to one or....

then this is just more of your usual bullshit, SLAD.

[seemslikeadream]

74. People can just read this thread that's all the proof they need

or here is a great one chocked full of stuff coming not from your head

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=199949&mesg_id=199949

[SDuderstadt]

76. How does submitting one of YOUR OP's prove anything about my posts???? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

77. it's chocked full of YOUR posts and YOUR deleted posts

[SDuderstadt]

79. And a reader would know they are MY deleted posts....

how, exactly? And, what does that have to do with e=whether my posts make sense? I'm willing to bet that if we showed an impartial group some of your posts and some of mine, they'd think yours made far less sense, especially your typical ponderously long, incoherent ones, which is how you so often wind up at odds with other posters.

[seemslikeadream]

80. Because I can pm any one that wants the screen shots

[SDuderstadt]

81. For the love of God, SLAD...

is it possible, just possible that you take DU, as well as yourself, far too seriously? You'll PM anyone the screenshots? Maybe if you took fact-checking anywhere near as seriously as screenshots, you wouldn't be at odds with some many other posters.

[seemslikeadream]

82. prove that SD I dare you

The only people I am at odds with are down here in the dungeon and that's about 5 I believe not counting the ones that have been tombed

[Bolo Boffin]

83. "The only people I am at odds with are down here in the dungeon"

And have you noticed that it's generally only on this one topic that you're at odds with these five people?

[SDuderstadt]

84. I'd love to see all of YOUR deleted posts.....

Did you save screenshots of those too? Could you PM them to me?

[seemslikeadream]

50. Brown lies to FEMA - FEMA hires him - good judgement FEMA

We believe EVERYTHING you tell us :eyes:

[AZCat]

51. Your point is? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

56. "Why not" is not a good reason for including it, SLAD.

My brother's birthday also happened on 9/11. Should it have been included in the 9/11 Commission Report?

[seemslikeadream]

59. No mention of WTC7? Give me a break

[Bolo Boffin]

78. No, I will not give you a break. Justify it.

Pouting isn't a good reason. Try again.