MonsieurStat"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041219061834.14349.00001817@mb-m13.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
Another Warning from German >Intelligence?
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
December 19, 2004
Information predicting an act of nuclear >terrorism in Houston on November
27
Uh, that was over 3 weeks ago.
Yeah, looks like a typo. Dec 27 is mentionned later in the message.
The source purports to be a
former member of German Intelligence. >He claims the CIA and FBI are
again ignoring precise warnings from his >organization, as they did before
9-11.
His organization? I thought he was a "former member"?
He says Paul Wolfowitz, the Mossad >>>and CIA are again behind the attack.
Yeah ok, if you believe this, you're >>wacky.
Well, not 100% sure about Paul. I'd say some factions within CIA being
involved is very likely. Bin Laden's long-term relationship with CIA, and
being on their payroll is a little hard to just right off and forget. If CIA
was involved, then I bet Mossad was involved as well. They have a lot of
expertise in the Middle East.
I used to think you had some credibility, but this post shows that you clearly
have none.
Tony
.
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
21 Dec 2004 11:26:11 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041221060111.06280.00001637@mb-m26.aol.com...
MonsieurStat"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041219061834.14349.00001817@mb-m13.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
Another Warning from German >Intelligence?
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
December 19, 2004
Information predicting an act of nuclear >terrorism in Houston on
November
27
Uh, that was over 3 weeks ago.
Yeah, looks like a typo. Dec 27 is mentionned later in the message.
The source purports to be a
former member of German Intelligence. >He claims the CIA and FBI are
again ignoring precise warnings from his >organization, as they did
before
9-11.
His organization? I thought he was a "former member"?
He says Paul Wolfowitz, the Mossad >>>and CIA are again behind the
attack.
Yeah ok, if you believe this, you're >>wacky.
Well, not 100% sure about Paul. I'd say some factions within CIA being
involved is very likely. Bin Laden's long-term relationship with CIA, and
being on their payroll is a little hard to just right off and forget. If
CIA
was involved, then I bet Mossad was involved as well. They have a lot of
expertise in the Middle East.
I used to think you had some credibility, but this post shows that you
clearly
have none.
My credibility is not the issue here. Not even important enough to mention.
What IS important though is the credibility of a story about a major crime
told by a government - YOUR GOVERNMENT - that doesn't hold any water because
it's got more holes in it than my strainer. Now, when that happens, people
start speculating. The CIA involvement is only one of the dozen conspiracy
theories around. I agree that it is are far fetched, but not as far fetched
as the official story. So come up with something more credible, and I'll buy
it. In fact, speaking of buying, you can make some money doing it. This
millionaire is offering $130,000 to anyone who can disprove HIS conspiracy
theory.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1266553.htm
So don't waste your time with my credibility. There is money to be made out
there.
Stat.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 06:52:13 AM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041221060111.06280.00001637@mb-m26.aol.com...
MonsieurStat"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041219061834.14349.00001817@mb-m13.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
Another Warning from German >Intelligence?
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
December 19, 2004
Information predicting an act of nuclear >terrorism in Houston on
November
27
Uh, that was over 3 weeks ago.
Yeah, looks like a typo. Dec 27 is mentionned later in the message.
The source purports to be a
former member of German Intelligence. >He claims the CIA and FBI are
again ignoring precise warnings from his >organization, as they did
before
9-11.
His organization? I thought he was a "former member"?
He says Paul Wolfowitz, the Mossad >>>and CIA are again behind the
attack.
Yeah ok, if you believe this, you're >>wacky.
Well, not 100% sure about Paul. I'd say some factions within CIA being
involved is very likely. Bin Laden's long-term relationship with CIA, and
being on their payroll is a little hard to just right off and forget. If
CIA
was involved, then I bet Mossad was involved as well. They have a lot of
expertise in the Middle East.
I used to think you had some >>credibility, but this post shows that you
clearly have none.
My credibility is not the issue here. Not even important enough to mention.
What IS important though is the credibility of a story about a major crime
told by a government -
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 08:40:39 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222075213.05986.00001510@mb-m19.aol.com...
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran
makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
Another racist statement from trannyz, strange no guernon
attacking you with lies and ***** over *your* bigotry is
there tone? not like you lying bastards to band together is it ;0)
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 09:12:47 AM |
|
|
"Krib" <krib@address.invalid>
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222075213.05986.00001510@mb-m19.aol.com...
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran
makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
Another racist statement
Just more proof of how stupid you are, go look up the word you like to use so
much.
As if Iran is a race.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 10:29:51 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222101247.05904.00001560@mb-m19.aol.com...
Another racist statement
Just more proof of how stupid you are, go look up the word you like to use
so much.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and
that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Both of which apply to you and many of your postss, care to debate me
on this you chickenshit *****? what's that liar? no? figures ;0)
I'll expect your apology along with the dozens of questions you run away
from every other time our typing crosses.
Your accusation that someone being from Iran makes them a potential
terrorist supporter is racist, get it now dummy? Damn, I understand you're
not very bright tone and I make allowances for that when dealing with you
but you're gonna have to use some brain if you got any at all, ok moron?
As if Iran is a race.
Only their colour matters to you, filthy racist garbage.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
23 Dec 2004 08:05:06 AM |
|
|
"Krib" krib@address.invalid
wrote:
Your accusation that someone being >from Iran makes them a potential
terrorist supporter is racist,
Wrong.
Iran is the single most supporter of Terrorism in the world, put that together
with his antiAmerican rhetoric.
As if Iran is a race.
Only their colour matters to you
Wrong.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
23 Dec 2004 09:33:29 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041223090506.21640.00002177@mb-m12.aol.com...
Your accusation that someone being >from Iran makes them a potential
terrorist supporter is racist,
Wrong.
Aww what's up dumdum? just because you're too stupid to understand
what is typed here for you you're forced into your usual ***** say wrong
and run away tactics, shame ;0)
Get someone with the IQ of a normal person to read the dictionary definition
of racist that you cut, it's you to a tee, racist filth.
Iran is the single most supporter of Terrorism in the world, put that
together
with his antiAmerican rhetoric.
It still doesn't mean he supposrts terrorism, only that he supports his
country.
From his point of view all of the rhetoric about Iran that comes from
chickenhawk
cowards like you, (you know tone, gutless, armchair warriors who've never
done
anything in their lives to support their own country, you in otherwords),
mouthing
off about who's next in your war on terror sounds awfully like a threat to
him
don't you think tone? oh wait... that's *your* problem, you don't think
because
you're a dummy, too stupid to hold down a decent wage paying job, too thick
to run your own life eh tone? ;0)
As if Iran is a race.
Only their colour matters to you
Wrong.
On the contrary, I'm correct. Thanks for playing.
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Trannyz the gutless liar (was: Another Warning from German Intelligence?) |
24 Dec 2004 06:48:37 AM |
|
|
"Krib" <krib@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:dzByd.283$Fp6.209@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Aww what's up dumdum? just because you're too stupid to understand
what is typed here for you you're forced into your usual ***** say
wrong
and run away tactics, shame ;0)
Get someone with the IQ of a normal person to read the dictionary
definition
of racist that you cut, it's you to a tee, racist filth.
What's up fag? couldn't find anyone who can read in your Bayonne slum?
Damn you're as cowardly as that other piece of ***** guernon ;0)
--
krib
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
23 Dec 2004 08:09:29 AM |
|
|
Tony
Wrong!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 04:23:57 PM |
|
|
In article <HHfyd.388$Xv4.383@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, "Krib" <krib@address.invalid> wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222075213.05986.00001510@mb-m19.aol.com...
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran
makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
Another racist statement from trannyz, strange no guernon
attacking you with lies and ***** over *your* bigotry is
there tone? not like you lying bastards to band together is it ;0)
Hopefully, he's been in the US long enough to realize that not everyone here is
a bigoted moron.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 10:09:26 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:1umyd.87657$AL5.69779@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <HHfyd.388$Xv4.383@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net>, "Krib"
<krib@address.invalid> wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222075213.05986.00001510@mb-m19.aol.com...
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran
makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
Another racist statement from trannyz, strange no guernon
attacking you with lies and ***** over *your* bigotry is
there tone? not like you lying bastards to band together is it ;0)
Hopefully, he's been in the US long enough to realize that not everyone
here is
a bigoted moron.
I actually live in Canada, but been to the US many many many times. In fact,
will be going there for Christmas Holidays again (wish me good luck at the
border:-). And yes, I do know that not everyone in US (or even Canada!) is a
bigoted moron. Tony is actually not one either, he just likes to act that
way. And Usenet is the perfect place to act these things out, and get them
out of your system. He's probably more balanced in these respects than you
and me in his daily life. In any case, I've been around long enough to
develop a thick skin. I rather deal with franc, unrestrained bigotry any day
than with hypocrisy and hypocrites :-(
Stat.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
22 Dec 2004 09:37:33 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041222075213.05986.00001510@mb-m19.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041221060111.06280.00001637@mb-m26.aol.com...
MonsieurStat"
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041219061834.14349.00001817@mb-m13.aol.com...
"MonsieurStat" >
wrote:
Another Warning from German >Intelligence?
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
December 19, 2004
Information predicting an act of nuclear >terrorism in Houston on
November
27
Uh, that was over 3 weeks ago.
Yeah, looks like a typo. Dec 27 is mentionned later in the message.
The source purports to be a
former member of German Intelligence. >He claims the CIA and FBI are
again ignoring precise warnings from his >organization, as they did
before
9-11.
His organization? I thought he was a "former member"?
He says Paul Wolfowitz, the Mossad >>>and CIA are again behind the
attack.
Yeah ok, if you believe this, you're >>wacky.
Well, not 100% sure about Paul. I'd say some factions within CIA being
involved is very likely. Bin Laden's long-term relationship with CIA,
and
being on their payroll is a little hard to just right off and forget. If
CIA
was involved, then I bet Mossad was involved as well. They have a lot of
expertise in the Middle East.
I used to think you had some >>credibility, but this post shows that you
clearly have none.
My credibility is not the issue here. Not even important enough to
mention.
What IS important though is the credibility of a story about a major crime
told by a government -
You're either a wacko, or a Terrorist supporter, and you being from Iran
makes
ther latter very easy to believe.
If you want to act like cattle and follow the herd, it's fine with me. I am
not losing any sleep over it.
However, if you really love your country as you say, then you need to learn
to discard lies and deal with the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be.
The case of 9-11 is not an easy one. Too much emotion involved, to make us
lose our objectivity. What is sure is that the official story does not hold.
You don't need to be a nuclear physics scientist to figure that out. There
is a lot of unexplained issues, many loose ends, tons of unanswered
questions that linger on. Why?
Look at some of these old questions asked again by David Ray Griffin, one of
the most respected philosophers of religion in North America.
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11
attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning to
hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon?
* Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not
followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including
immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail
to obey orders?
* Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the
Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the
building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was
confiscated by government officials.
* Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade
Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead
continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his
security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of
terrorists?
* Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the
weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the
hijacked planes were about to plummet?
(More here:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=429)
Do you think Griffin might also be an Iranian wacko terrorist supporter?
Stat.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
23 Dec 2004 08:01:01 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84ryd.28160$GK5.1368315@news20.bellglobal.com...
The case of 9-11 is not an easy one.
Somewhat agree.
Too much emotion involved, to make us
lose our objectivity.
Emotions do create issues with impartiality at times.
What is sure is that the official story does not hold.
Mmmm, I'd say it was incomplete, not false.
You don't need to be a nuclear physics scientist to figure that out. There
is a lot of unexplained issues, many loose ends, tons of unanswered
questions that linger on. Why?
I suspect any unrevealed information may be unrevealed as it would
compromise sensitive sources
to reveal it to the general public.
Look at some of these old questions asked again by David Ray Griffin, one
of
the most respected philosophers of religion in North America.
Why would the opinion of a religious philosopher be relevant to matters
involving
air defense systems? It's like asking an artist for a medical opinion
about treating liver cancer.
He doesn't know enough about anything to ask sensible questions.
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11
attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning
to
hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon?
Because the CIA and FBI said no such thing. It was known for some time that
AQ intended to strike US targets, but neither the targets nor the nature of
the
attack were known. The FBI was suspicious of at least one of the hijackers,
but due to the convoluted agency centric nature of the (then) FBI V CIA this
didn't get to the right people. In short bits of information that
collectively could
have given a clue to the *nature* of the attack (ie that it would involve
taking
control of aircraft) was held piecemeal by the various agencies instead of
being
pooled and analysed.
This is one of the issues that the Homeland Security Dept was supposed to
help correct.
* Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not
followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including
immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that
fail
to obey orders?
Because no such 'standard' procedure existed. NORAD (pre Sept 11) was very
specifically structured to deal with inbound threats from *outside* the
CONUS.
There was no procedure for the routine interception of aircraft subject to
unlawful
interference prior to this, much less Rules of Engagement that allowed them
to be shot down.
Period.
The entire 'question' (more an attempt to presuppose the existence of
nonexistent 'standard'
procedures than a genuine question in reality) shows an absolutely abyssal
ignorance
of both ATC procedures and the operation of NORAD up to Sept 11. Not to
mention
that air assets suitable for an intercept were not then positioned to meet a
threat originating
from withn the US or specifically in the north east sector of the US. Had
they tried it on
Miami it might have been very different as there are strip alert aircraft
there to deal with
incomings from Cuba and South America. The nearest interceptors were over
100 miles
distant and were not on strip alert. Do some research and find how long it
takes to arm
and launch a fighter that is not on alert status. The other part of the
issue was that even
had they gotten airborne, the Rules of Engagement did not permit them to
launch on a
civilian aircraft without command authority from the highest level. This
was eventually
secured and had the last aircraft not crashed in Pennsylvania it's possible
they might
have reached it before it hit it's intended target (presumably the Capitol
or the White House).
But it would have been close, the fighters had a long way to go to get to
it.
In a nutshell, even if an instant decision was made at the time of the first
impact to shoot
down the other aircraft involved (and it was unclear to NORAD what and how
many
were involved until the incident was almost over) it's highly unlikely any
interceptors could
have bought down any of them, with the possible exception of the
Pennsylvania aircraft,
which diverted much further into the flight. The attack was doubtless
intended to be a
'time on target' strike, ie all the impacts to occur within a very small
window of time, specifically
to reduce the time available for air defense assets to respond effectively.
The Pennsylvania
aircraft was late, it was doubtless intended to hit its target at around the
same time as the
Pentagon and the WTC strikes, perhaps the hijackers waited too long or took
longer than
they expected to get control and divert otherwise I suspect the whole thing
would have
been over and done with in about half the time.
This whole scenario has been thrashed out in various aviation newsgroups
several times
since the event, with input from ATC personnel, military and civil pilots
and others that
know what they are talking about. The fact is that the attack was not
anticipated and
there was no direct ATC to NORAD communication in any timely manner nor were
any
suitable air defense assets positioned to deal with such a scenario in the
time available.
In short it was well planned to make it highly unlikely that an intercept
would have time
to succeed. Don't underestimate AQ, they might be religious fanatics but
they are not
at all stupid and this was a meticulously planned and executed operation and
would have
been almost impossible to stop once the aircraft were airborne.
Google rec.aviation.military and see some of the discussion (if it hasn't
gone since they revamped google)
* Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the
Pentagon?
Oh please. I suppose the two turbine wheels visible in a hi res image came
off a Mack truck?
The impact points of the fuselage, wings and at least one engine are very
obvious.
If you are looking for large bits of identifiable aircraft, your ignorance
of their structure is showing.
Aircraft are mostly empty space, and what isn't empty is mostly aluminium
alloy. In case you didn't
realise it, aluminium is close to magnesium in the periodic table and it
*burns* quite readily in air if
you get it hot enough and a jet fuel driven impact fire is quite hot enough.
The rest of the aircraft with
a few exceptions, like landing gear struts that are usually stainless steel
and other smaller bits here and there, and
the hot ends of the engines which contain turbine wheels made of Incomel
(high temp alloy) are plastic, fabric and
other readily combustible or fire consumable material. Not to mention the
fact that human bodies burn very
well too if you get them hot enough. In short most of the aircraft was
consumed in a post impact fire.
I notice you don't mention that bugger all was left of the aircraft that the
whole world watched hit the
WTC either, for the same simple reason.
Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the
building.
A few said that. Several *hundred* others said they saw an airliner. Guess
who was right.
Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was
confiscated by government officials.
And there is at least one frame from that that shows the tail of the
aircraft.
Bear in mind that was a still frame system, not continuous video and it did
not show the point of impact but a view fromthe side and the plane passed it
mostly between the frames. You also ignore that it was tracked by ATC
radar into that vicinity until it got too low to show up.
* Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade
Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and
instead
continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his
security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of
terrorists?
Because he didn't *need* to do anything at the time I suppose. Did you
expect him
to run screaming from the room and ask for the football? This was right at
the beginning
and it wasn't until the second aircraft hit that it was clear it was an
attack rather than a
freak accident. This has been thrashed out elsewhere numerous times, but
still keeps
surfacing.
* Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in
the
weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the
hijacked planes were about to plummet?
More here:
Conspiracy theory crap.
BTW, you do realise that OBL admitted he planned and arranged the
whole thing don't you?
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
23 Dec 2004 08:11:11 PM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84ryd.28160$GK5.1368315@news20.bellglobal.com...
The case of 9-11 is not an easy one.
Somewhat agree.
Too much emotion involved, to make us
lose our objectivity.
Emotions do create issues with impartiality at times.
What is sure is that the official story does not hold.
Mmmm, I'd say it was incomplete, not false.
You don't need to be a nuclear physics scientist to figure that out. There
is a lot of unexplained issues, many loose ends, tons of unanswered
questions that linger on. Why?
I suspect any unrevealed information may be unrevealed as it would
compromise sensitive sources
to reveal it to the general public.
Look at some of these old questions asked again by David Ray Griffin, one
of
the most respected philosophers of religion in North America.
Why would the opinion of a religious philosopher be relevant to matters
involving
air defense systems? It's like asking an artist for a medical opinion
about treating liver cancer.
He doesn't know enough about anything to ask sensible questions.
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11
attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was planning
to
hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon?
Because the CIA and FBI said no such thing.
Then they should have.
Original story was in the London Times, but it's subscription only now.
http://www.blurcentral.co.uk/drugbin/trained.htm
=>
A former waiter in a Manchester curry house was recruited by Al-Qaeda
and trained as a hijacker in preparation for the September 11 attacks.
The British Muslim was enlisted at a mosque in Oldham and attended
terrorist training school in Pakistan. But he had second thoughts about
his suicide mission as he flew to America and surrendered to the police
after gambling away thousands of pounds given to him by Al-Qaeda.
The FBI's counter-terrorism taskforce questioned the 29-year-old man for
three weeks at Newark, New Jersey, in the spring of 2000. There, agents
refused to believe his claim that terrorists were planning to fly
passenger jets into buildings, even though he passed lie detector tests.
Other hijackers were entering the United States at about the same time
and enrolling in flight schools to learn the skills that they would
need, only 18 months later, to carry out the world's most audacious acts
of terrorism.
The failure to investigate the Briton's claims was one of a startling
series of missed opportunities that have emerged in inquiries by a US
commission examining the September 11 attacks. His case had now been
reopened amid wrangling between the FBI and British authorities.
The man, whose name is being withheld by The Sunday Times because his
life is under threat from militants, was brought back to Britain in 2000
by two FBI agents and handed to British security officials at Heathrow
airport.
He was then questioned by Special Branch and released. The FBI believes
that the British authorities failed to follow up the case or to pass on
any relevant intelligence. An urgent request to find the man after
September 11 was ignored, although Special Branch officers have said
they went back to him and took "appropriate action". The FBI has now
asked for him to become a witness in its investigation.
Born in Britain, he grew up in his family's home village in Pakistan
before returning to Oldham when he was 16. After sixth-form college he
worked at a restaurant but became addicted to gambling, running up debts
of £15,000.
He was approached at his local mosque by a recruiter who offered him
money in return for carrying out "a job". He accepted, even when he
realised what was involved.
"If your life has no colour and a mullah says you can be a hero by
dying, why not?" he said in an interview. "I think there are a lot of
frustrated Muslim youths in Britain who feel the same way."
He travelled to Lahore, where he taught how to carry out a hijacking and
was familiarised with the inside of a Boeing cockpit. "I knew they
wanted me to do some kind of operation in which I would die, but my life
was such a mess that in my mind I was already dead," he said.
"At that time, if they had told me to strap a bomb to my body and blow
myself up I would have done it as easily as taking a glass of water to
drink."
On his return to Britain he was given a further £5,000 and then sent to
New York, where he was told that he would be met at the airport.
But he had got married and during the flight thoughts of his wife and
baby helped to change his mind. He gave his contact the slip and instead
of going through with the mission, he took a bus to Atlantic City, where
he lost his money in casinos and then gave himself up.
<=
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
24 Dec 2004 05:27:36 PM |
|
|
"Absolute Zero" <amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqftmo$ioi$26@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
The CO wrote:
"MonsieurStat" <monsieurstat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84ryd.28160$GK5.1368315@news20.bellglobal.com...
* Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11
attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaida was
planning
to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World
Trade
Center and the Pentagon?
Because the CIA and FBI said no such thing.
Then they should have.
The FBI agents were too blase about the information he gave and they just
didn't accept it, probably because it couldn't be collaborated from any
other source.
They probably thought he was trying to trade 'information' for immunity or
protection.
In short, they probably thought he was making it up as the history of ME
hijackers to that
time invariably involved hostage taking and demands for various things, not
a straight out
suicide attack. IIRC, there was only one previous attempt to crash an
aircraft in a suicide
attack that was not politically or religiously inspired nor was it part of
any larger plot, just
the act of a (literally) deranged individual.
I do agree that they should have taken it further, but it appears they
didn't. Poor, very poor.
This is one of the classic 'dropped balls' that were manifest in the US
Intelligence system
prior to Sept 11. Had that snippet been combined with information from
other parts of
the FBI and especially with information from other agencies, specifically
the CIA and NSA,
it's possible a clear enough idea of at least the concept of the planned
operation might have
come out in the wash. Unfortunately that didn't happen. One hopes that
the current chain
rattling might improve that, but the agencies concerned are notoriously
'cliquey' and don't
like sharing information with other agencies in case (and this is mostly
CIA/NSA) it compromises
a source or method used to get the information.
Be interesting to see what else surfaces during the course of the inquiry.
With 20/20 hindsight it's possible to connect a lot of the dots but as
someone once
said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity and
some of the stingy refusals to share intel that might well have led the dots
to be connected
were downright stupid.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Warning from German Intelligence? |
24 Dec 2004 06:15:45 PM |
|
|
The FBI agents were too blase about the information he gave and they just
didn't accept it, probably because it couldn't be collaborated from any
other source.
They probably thought he was trying to trade 'information' for
immunity or
protection.
In short, they probably thought he was making it up as the history of ME
hijackers to that
time invariably involved hostage taking and demands for various
things, not
a straight out
suicide attack. IIRC, there was only one previous attempt to crash an
aircraft in a suicide
attack that was not politically or religiously inspired nor was it
part of
any larger plot, just
the act of a (literally) deranged individual.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/011003nytimes
Excerpt:
=>
In 1994, two jetliners were hijacked by people who wanted to crash them
into buildings, one of them by an Islamic militant group. And the 2000
edition of the F.A.A.'s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation,
published this year, said that although Osama bin Laden ''is not known
to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the
wherewithal to do so,'' adding, ''Bin Laden's anti-Western and
anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat
to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.''
The previous year's edition of that report said that an exiled Islamic
leader in Britain proclaimed in August 1998 that Mr. bin Laden would
''bring down an airliner, or hijack an airliner to humiliate the United
States.'' The report did not identify the leader.
The failure to heed these signs is ''an indication of failure to put the
pieces together,'' said Gerald B. Kauvar, who was the staff director of
the commission headed by Vice President Al Gore on aviation security and
safety after the crash of T.W.A. Flight 800 off Long Island in July 1996.
The authorities appeared to draw no lessons from the two attacks in
1994. But one of them, in hindsight, had striking similarities to those
of Sept. 11.
That was the December 1994 hijacking of an Air France flight in Algiers.
The sponsor of the hijacking was an organization called the Armed
Islamic Group, which said it was trying to rid Muslim Algeria of Western
influence, specifically from France. Four young Algerians, members of a
subgroup called Phalange of the Signers in Blood, commandeered the plane
at the airport and ordered it to fly to Marseille, from which they said
they wanted to fly to Paris.
But they demanded that it be loaded with 27 tons of fuel -- about three
times as much as required for the flight to Paris. The plane was an
Airbus A300, which is nearly as large as the Boeing 767's that struck
the World Trade Center. The French authorities determined from hostages
who had been released and from other sources that the group planned to
explode the plane over Paris or crash it into the Eiffel Tower.
After French troops stormed the plane and killed the hijackers, they
found 20 sticks of dynamite.
Eight months earlier, in April 1994, a flight engineer at Federal
Express who was facing a disciplinary hearing that could have ended his
career, boarded a DC-10 as a passenger and stormed into the cockpit with
a hammer, hitting each of the three members of the cockpit crew in the
head and severely injuring all of them. They wrestled him to the deck
and regained control of the plane. Prosecutors said only that the man
wanted to crash the plane, but company employees have said he was trying
to hit the building in Memphis where the company sorts packages.
In between those two incidents, in September 1994, a lone pilot crashed
a stolen single-engine Cessna into a tree on the White House grounds
just short of the president's bedroom.
<=
I do agree that they should have taken it further, but it appears they
didn't. Poor, very poor.
This is one of the classic 'dropped balls' that were manifest in the US
Intelligence system
prior to Sept 11. Had that snippet been combined with information from
other parts of
the FBI and especially with information from other agencies, specifically
the CIA and NSA,
it's possible a clear enough idea of at least the concept of the planned
operation might have
come out in the wash. Unfortunately that didn't happen. One hopes that
the current chain
rattling might improve that, but the agencies concerned are notoriously
'cliquey' and don't
like sharing information with other agencies in case (and this is mostly
CIA/NSA) it compromises
a source or method used to get the information.
Be interesting to see what else surfaces during the course of the
inquiry.
With 20/20 hindsight it's possible to connect a lot of the dots but as
someone once
said, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity and
some of the stingy refusals to share intel that might well have led
the dots
to be connected
were downright stupid.
The CO
My assumption would have to be that they must have passed the story
through the CIA because so much of it related to activities abroad.. eg
the training at Lahore???
-A
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
