Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/10/2010 7:10:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:25:50 AM EDT by GaryM]
Is it someone who believes the original 9/11 report was flawed or do you have to believe it was all a giant conspiracy?
Personally I believe the report has/had flaws since just about every AAR through out history has had errors but no way in hell do I believe it was Bush's grand plan for payback.
So, am I a truther or am I a pragmatic?
oops, pragmatic was not the right word, realist would be better.. I think...
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:13:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:14:04 AM EDT by WayneD]
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:13:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:14:56 AM EDT by cowboy7242001]
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:18:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:21:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.


And everyone who disagrees with a conservative candidate is a DU troll
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:21:49 AM EDT
I believe the report was flawed, as no human endeavor is perfect. I do believe that some in the intelligence community (and officials from the Clinton administration) have tried to cover up their incompetence - but that doesn't infer that it was some vast Bilderburger NWO conspiracy.

I also think that Alex Jones & Jessie Ventura need to be kicked in the nuts when they spout off their "false flag" bull.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:24:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:25:32 AM EDT by Tahawus]
The correct term is "troofer." A troofer is someone who lives in his mother's basement, smokes a lot of marijuana and believes Dick Cheney and the Hamburglar were in the Statue of Liberty's crown on Sept. 11, 2001 directing the planes by remote control.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:25:22 AM EDT
Some one who doesn't go along to get along.

There are a lot of people here and on other similiar mesage boards, that will NOT express an honest opinion about what they think about 9/11. Most work or have worked for the gov. Many depend on those gov funded pay checks for their lively hood. Their patriotism, only goes as far as their wallets.

Others are like children who like being part of the popular group, and won't say anything to ruin that relationship.

Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:28:36 AM EDT
See this thread as an example of truther herp derp.


New 911 investigation needed?
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:37:08 AM EDT
I saw one the other day. At least his vehicle.

It had a Ron Paul bumper sticker and a 9/11 was an inside job sticker.

I have an ex-friend who is a troofer. He puts posts on Facebook with Infowars links and statements saying Bush/Cheney planned 9/11 and how evil they are.

For that reason alone I no longer speak to him.

Questioning the reports of 9/11 does not make you a troofer. It makes you a realist who knows that no report is perfect.

But to think that for a second it was some government conspiracy makes you a troofer who should be ridiculed daily.

The problem is all the covering up done by the government in the past to hide their incompetence is often interpreted as hiding some ulterior motive instead of just covering up their stupidity.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:44:38 AM EDT
Someone who can think for themselves, and not blindly believe everything the government says.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:46:35 AM EDT
A Truther is someone who will never believe the government's official account of what 9/11/2001 was about, no matter what that account says.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:47:59 AM EDT
1. I do NOT believe that every, single, little fact in the "Official" explanation or report is accurate. I'm sure somewhere, someone screwed up.

2. Generally, all the important facts are correct.

The only things that are "Not Factual" are your regular, inefficiency mistakes that our Government tends to make.

Nothing that really matters.

A Troofer believes something SO wild, it defies logic.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:50:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:54:18 AM EDT by pseudojd]
Like any set of beliefs it is a range of belief. On one side people think GW radio controlled that shit right into the towers. Unlikely in my opinion.

On the other side, people don't believe 100% of what the gov. is telling us about that day. I personally do not believe 100% of the story. Highly improbable series of events the way the gov lays it all out. To much circumstantial evidence of Something going on that day other than the official story.


eta: The story really comes into question when you look the circumstantial and at past actions revolving around war and our government.

Pearl harbor: we let that happen, this has been declassified.

Gulf of tonkin: read up.

There are a half dozen examples of our government doing/ letting happen similar terrible events just to go to war.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:50:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 7:51:37 AM EDT by Mall-Ninja]
Basically, someone who believes that the government (under George W Bush) was responsible for 9/11, either by direct involvement ("9/11 was an inside job") or directly "benefitting" from it ("Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste"-style)

You'll see terms like LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose).
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 7:55:41 AM EDT
A truther is not someone who questions what happened.

A truther is someone who is convinced it was an inside job and will not listen to facts.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 8:22:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GaryM:
Is it someone who believes the original 9/11 report was flawed or do you have to believe it was all a giant conspiracy?
Personally I believe the report has/had flaws since just about every AAR through out history has had errors but no way in hell do I believe it was Bush's grand plan for payback.
So, am I a truther or am I a pragmatic?
oops, pragmatic was not the right word, realist would be better.. I think...


What is your'realist' unflawed explaination? How you answer will determine my answer to your question.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:06:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
Is it someone who believes the original 9/11 report was flawed or do you have to believe it was all a giant conspiracy?
Personally I believe the report has/had flaws since just about every AAR through out history has had errors but no way in hell do I believe it was Bush's grand plan for payback.
So, am I a truther or am I a pragmatic?
oops, pragmatic was not the right word, realist would be better.. I think...


What is your'realist' unflawed explaination? How you answer will determine my answer to your question.


I believe the official explanation but make allowances for details like times or locations which could be either guesses or simple mistakes. I also believe the government would not release details which might affect national security.
Just like an witnesses at an accident or robbery, the details will vary but you can still get a good picture of what actually happened. Other details intentionally omitted would be things concerning the ways security was bypassed by the terrorists. Wouldn't want to give the next team any ideas would we?
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:08:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rob762:
Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.


And everyone who disagrees with a conservative candidate is a DU troll


Except John McCain, if you agree with him, you are a DU troll
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:14:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GaryM:
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
Is it someone who believes the original 9/11 report was flawed or do you have to believe it was all a giant conspiracy?
Personally I believe the report has/had flaws since just about every AAR through out history has had errors but no way in hell do I believe it was Bush's grand plan for payback.
So, am I a truther or am I a pragmatic?
oops, pragmatic was not the right word, realist would be better.. I think...


What is your'realist' unflawed explaination? How you answer will determine my answer to your question.


I believe the official explanation but make allowances for details like times or locations which could be either guesses or simple mistakes. I also believe the government would not release details which might affect national security.
Just like an witnesses at an accident or robbery, the details will vary but you can still get a good picture of what actually happened. Other details intentionally omitted would be things concerning the ways security was bypassed by the terrorists. Wouldn't want to give the next team any ideas would we?

You're not a troofer.


What you describe is being pragmatic.



Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:18:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.

No.

There is no 'gap' to accept.

Either Hadji did it all by themselves (the real truth), or 'something else' (Truther bullshit).

Any insinuation or belief that the US government was involved in 9/11 or intentionally allowed it to happen, makes you a 9/11 TRUTHER, and thus brain-dead scum.

I say *intentionally* allowed it to happen, to distinguish between being a Truther, and believing that the govt screwed up (say, due to Clinton-era 'firewall' policies keeping the CIA and FBI from cooperating) and un-intentionally failed to stop the attacks due to red-tape, et-al...

THAT is not being a truther...

But 'They knew, and let it go through anyways, in order to (stupid conspiracy theory)' IS being a Truther.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:20:07 PM EDT
Functionally retarded with a sprinkling of paranoia. That shit makes me lose serious respect for people.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:22:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 1:29:05 PM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By pseudojd:
Like any set of beliefs it is a range of belief. On one side people think GW radio controlled that shit right into the towers. Unlikely in my opinion.

On the other side, people don't believe 100% of what the gov. is telling us about that day. I personally do not believe 100% of the story. Highly improbable series of events the way the gov lays it all out. To much circumstantial evidence of Something going on that day other than the official story.


eta: The story really comes into question when you look the circumstantial and at past actions revolving around war and our government.

Pearl harbor: we let that happen, this has been declassified.

Uh, no, it has not.

We did not let Pearl happen, however we did overlook signs that it was happening due to institutional inertia....


Gulf of tonkin: read up.

Actually DID happen.

An F-8 and (IIRC) the Maddox herself were hit by 14.5mm KPV fire.

Plus, sailors who were there are all very, very insistent that it happened, and the North Vietnamese admitted to the attack.

I believe the Sailors, and the enemy (post war) - since both said the same thing...

The source of the 'belief' that Tonkin Gulf was 'made up' is the August 4 incedent, where (in foul weather) the USS Turner Joy believed she was under attack again, based on electronic data. This turned out to be inaccurate, after the fact.

However, that does not change the fact that on August 2, a US warship was attacked by the North Vietnamese.


There are a half dozen examples of our government doing/ letting happen similar terrible events just to go to war.

No.

There are a half-dozen examples of fuckwit anti-war conspiracy kooks CLAIMING that the government 'let happen' events so we could go to war.

Every single one of those ends up being bullshit.



Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:22:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2010 1:32:01 PM EDT by DuBri]
Originally Posted By Vortech347:

I have an ex-friend who is a troofer. He puts posts on Facebook with Infowars links and statements saying Bush/Cheney planned 9/11 and how evil they are.


Funny I'm in kind of the same boat. That truther shit runs rampant among young adults in the north Texas area where I live. Makes me weep for the future


ETA: To clarify my position on what exactly constitutes a 'Truther', it' someone who listens/watches/reads Alex Jones and or 'loose change' and takes it as fact without investigating even the most easily investigated claims made by said conspiracy theorists. Truthers will argue that the 9/11 report didn't "answer all the questions" or that it contained inaccuracies, or outright fabrication, but 99% of them never read it, because its a huge thick book full of boring shit to them, and since they already believe it's full of lies they shouldn't waste their time anyway....

Bottom line, if it did happen as the truthers claim(cruise missile into pentagon, remote controlled aircraft, etc) then by god it was the most spectacular example of government efficiency, teamwork, and secrecy that has or will occur in the history of mankind. It was also an exceptional waste of time and money since I'm pretty sure radical islamists enjoy hijacking airplanes as a pastime anyway
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:29:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DuBri:
Originally Posted By Vortech347:

I have an ex-friend who is a troofer. He puts posts on Facebook with Infowars links and statements saying Bush/Cheney planned 9/11 and how evil they are.


Funny I'm in kind of the same boat. That truther shit runs rampant among young adults in the north Texas area where I live. Makes me weep for the future

I had one for a room-mate in Iraq.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:31:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DuBri:
Originally Posted By Vortech347:

I have an ex-friend who is a troofer. He puts posts on Facebook with Infowars links and statements saying Bush/Cheney planned 9/11 and how evil they are.


Funny I'm in kind of the same boat. That truther shit runs rampant among young adults in the north Texas area where I live. Makes me weep for the future


I linked this thread to one of mine. I was actually pretty nice in my posts but she and her friend thought I was being an ass. One thing about truthers, they will ignore anything or anyone who posts anything that is in conflict with what they think. There was a guy who posted he was a fire and explosion investigator and backed up my position. She completely ignored his post.

I dumped her ass as my friend. She was actually a pretty well know radio personality a few years ago, she evidently has lost any good sense she had.

Unfortunately because of that former position she probably will convince some people to believe the bullshit she posts.

Just post the debunking911 link and dump their asses as friends. That is what I'm doing from now on.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:14:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.

No.

There is no 'gap' to accept.

Either Hadji did it all by themselves (the real truth), or 'something else' (Truther bullshit).

Any insinuation or belief that the US government was involved in 9/11 or intentionally allowed it to happen, makes you a 9/11 TRUTHER, and thus brain-dead scum.

I say *intentionally* allowed it to happen, to distinguish between being a Truther, and believing that the govt screwed up (say, due to Clinton-era 'firewall' policies keeping the CIA and FBI from cooperating) and un-intentionally failed to stop the attacks due to red-tape, et-al...

THAT is not being a truther...

But 'They knew, and let it go through anyways, in order to (stupid conspiracy theory)' IS being a Truther.


Are people who thought that we let pearl harbor happen brain dead scum?.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:22:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pseudojd:
Like any set of beliefs it is a range of belief. On one side people think GW radio controlled that shit right into the towers. Unlikely in my opinion.

On the other side, people don't believe 100% of what the gov. is telling us about that day. I personally do not believe 100% of the story. Highly improbable series of events the way the gov lays it all out. To much circumstantial evidence of Something going on that day other than the official story.


eta: The story really comes into question when you look the circumstantial and at past actions revolving around war and our government.

Pearl harbor: we let that happen, this has been declassified.

Gulf of tonkin: read up.

There are a half dozen examples of our government doing/ letting happen similar terrible events just to go to war.


This is a troofer post. By well crafted insinuation the poster has led you to think that the U.S. government allowed 9/11 to happen so they could go to war...

Welcome to ignore troofer

Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:26:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tahawus:
The correct term is "troofer." A troofer is someone who lives in his mother's basement, smokes a lot of marijuana and believes Dick Cheney and the Hamburglar were in the Statue of Liberty's crown on Sept. 11, 2001 directing the planes by remote control.


i wish people would get it right,cheney was with mayor macheese.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:47:36 PM EDT
A troofer is someone who refuses to allow common sense to infiltrate their brain. You can show them the facts that are being distorted by the troofer websites and movies, and they refuse to believe what actually happened.

As for mistakes and incompetence in the original report, Does anyone actually expect the Government to do something perfectly? The same Government that gave 8k homebuyer credits to dead people and prisoners? That's one of the problems truthers have, they can't admit that the Government fucked up as badly as they did before 9/11, and were unable to locate and intercept the planes.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:51:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.


That's true. We have one member who will call you a "truther" and try to harass you in his self given position as site troll hunter if you are the slightest pragmatic about the government and its role in things.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:52:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 2:56:42 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Doubter. Would we more accurate, although attention _____ would do too!

A truther never heard of Occam's Razor
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:08:19 PM EDT
I dont understand whats so hard to understand.

Al Queda has been trying to blow up US buildings for a decade BEFORE 9/11. The car bomb in the Trade centers, the attack on the US ship (sorry cant remember its name ).....
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:12:17 PM EDT
If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you're an imbecile IMHO.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:19:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tahawus:
The correct term is "troofer." A troofer is someone who lives in his mother's basement, smokes a lot of marijuana and believes Dick Cheney and the Hamburglar were in the Statue of Liberty's crown on Sept. 11, 2001 directing the planes by remote control.


LOL!! Best explanation/definition yet!!

Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:34:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 3:44:48 PM EDT by Beachjumper12]
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Beachjumper12:
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


To be fair, anyone here on arfcom who does not except any and all explanations provided by .gov as to the facts of 9/11 will be labeled a "truther..."

One does not have to believe that the .gov did it all by themselves.

The "gap" in between the two extremes is not accepted here.

Visit the many threads and observe.

No.

There is no 'gap' to accept.

Either Hadji did it all by themselves (the real truth), or 'something else' (Truther bullshit).

Any insinuation or belief that the US government was involved in 9/11 or intentionally allowed it to happen, makes you a 9/11 TRUTHER, and thus brain-dead scum.

I say *intentionally* allowed it to happen, to distinguish between being a Truther, and believing that the govt screwed up (say, due to Clinton-era 'firewall' policies keeping the CIA and FBI from cooperating) and un-intentionally failed to stop the attacks due to red-tape, et-al...

THAT is not being a truther...

But 'They knew, and let it go through anyways, in order to (stupid conspiracy theory)' IS being a Truther.


Ya know Dave, i'll give this a single try, and move on.

Frankly, I think its a waste of time to respond to you, but maybe it will satisfy others.

And, I'll quote you here because you make such an ass of yourself with your bleating "But 'They knew, and let it go through anyways, in order to (stupid conspiracy theory)' IS being a Truther."

Let me retort:

You claim there is no "gap" of information I alluded to in my post and then go on to explain the "gap" between the two extreme positions by labeling it "intentional," an obvious and pathetic attempt to abdigate any responsibility for your government friends...

...because now government failures were "UNINTENTIONAL..."

You're so proud of your military service, so a question I have for you is at what point in your junior level military career did they teach you that "intent" would somehow absolve you of your lack of performance and your ineffectiveness in your responsibilities...?

For you, either one is a truther because you beleive the government did 9/11 all on its own, or your a good guy because you beleive the terrorists did it all by themselves...

But we don't talk about anything in between, the "gap" of data that illustrates the government failures THAT ALLOWED 9/11 TO HAPPEN.

THE FACT IS, HADJI DIDN'T DO 9/11 ALL BY THEMSELVES. THEY RECEIVED ASSISTANCE FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT THROUGH INCOMPETENCE, INFIGHTING, MILITANT CAREERISM, IGNORANCE AND A REFUSAL TO SHARE INFORMATION AND ACT ACCORDINGLY, A CRIMINAL LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Okay, super .gov defender, I've identified your hypocrisy, so now please brood over these few FACTS for awhile, and then defend your beloved government:

The Central Intelligence Agency received warnings from foreign liaison intelligence services, including the French, German, Israeli and Russian services of planned attacks on commercial airlines within days of 9/11.

The German intelligence service twice warned both the CIA and Mossad, the Israeli service, in the summer of 2001 that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack US targets.

The Israelis issued their own warnings to the FBI and the CIA in August 2001 that al-Qaeda was planning to attack US targets within CONUS.

The State Department and the CIA possessed information that al-Qaeda had decided on targeting American Airlines and United Airlines, prompting some Foreign Service officers to change travel plans.

Your government work on the Cole attack, a fine job defending our assets overseas:

Adm. Tony Zinni had been warned in 2000 not to refuel ships off the Yemeni coast, but chose to ignore these warnings. The USS Cole was attacked in October 2000.

A prominent Nigerian banker and former senior government official, well known to the international community, relayed suspicions about his son to the US Embassy and the CIA station in Lagos, but there was no effort to approach Yemeni officials to gather information on the banker’s son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The son was a poster child for the “no fly” list, buying his ticket with cash, checking no luggage, lying to British authorities about his student visa and spending several months in Yemen. The British denied Abdulmutallab reentry, but the US State Department didn’t even bother to check whether he had an entry visa for the United States.

More interesting government "efficiency" in action...

The NSA had transcripts of al-Qaeda phone conversations in 2001 (plus transcripts/records dating back to 1990) and sensitive intercepts on the “Nigerian” in 2009 that it refused share with the CIA, the FBI or the National Security Council. The FBI accumulated copious intelligence on al-Qaeda that it hoped to use in a major public criminal prosecution case against Osama bin Laden; therefore, most of this intelligence never left the compartmented areas of FBI headquarters. Inter-service rivalry, show-boating and media attention were the priorities.

One of THOUSANDS of articles demonstrating the abject FAILURE of your precious government to even perform the most rudimentary responsibilities of the job WE PAY THEM HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DO...

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers –– Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar –– after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.
ad_icon

The FBI said in a statement that it agreed with many of Fine's conclusions but "has taken substantial steps to address the issues presented in the report."

"Today, preventing terrorist attacks is the top priority in every FBI office and division, and no terrorism lead goes unaddressed," the FBI said. "Stronger centralized management has strengthened accountability, improved information sharing, facilitated coordination with outside partners and guided a national counterterrorism strategy."

The 371-page report is the latest in a stream of assessments from Congress, the Sept. 11 panel and other investigators documenting serious shortcomings in the performance of various U.S. government agencies in the months leading up to the hijackings. It also comes amid a wave of criticism of the FBI in recent months over a scrapped $170 million software program and its continuing struggle to attract qualified analysts, translators and other intelligence personnel.

"We believe that widespread and longstanding deficiencies in the FBI's operations and Counterterrorism Program caused the problems we described in this report," Fine's investigators wrote, including a shoddy analytical program, problems sharing intelligence information and "the lack of priority given to counterterrorism investigations by the FBI before September 11."

Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who served as a member of the Sept. 11 panel, said the "litany of reports" documenting FBI problems in recent months "has to be a wake-up call" for Director Robert S. Mueller III and other FBI officials.

"I think they believe they have made significant progress, but there is still quite a bit of work to be done," she said.

Fine's investigation was requested by Mueller shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it has been held up for 11 months over classification and legal issues. It focuses on three major episodes before the Sept. 11 attacks: the missteps in tracking Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the failure to connect al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui to the hijacking plot, and the handling of a July 2001 memo theorizing that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden might be sending operatives to U.S. flight schools.

Although the memo from Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams was proposed as "a theory rather than a warning or a threat," the report concludes that the bureau "failed to fully evaluate, investigate, exploit and disseminate information related to" the memo because of shortcomings in the way its analysis and intelligence programs were set up and run. "Even though it did not contain an immediate warning and was marked routine, Williams's information and theory warranted strategic analysis from the FBI," the report says.

Fine's conclusions about Moussaoui are less clear, because most references to the case have been blacked out by court order. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding over Moussaoui's prosecution in Alexandria, blocked release of the full report because of objections from defense attorneys.

Some hints of Fine's conclusions are still evident in the censored version of the report, however. In one paragraph that clearly pertains to the Moussaoui case, the report says agents "did not receive adequate support . . . from the field office or from FBI headquarters" and criticizes the FBI for "disjointed and inadequate review" of requests for secret warrants.

Previous investigations have found that Moussaoui's laptop computer and other belongings were not searched in the weeks after his arrest in Minneapolis because the FBI mistakenly believed it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant.

In the case of Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the report said the FBI missed at least five opportunities to possibly locate the pair after Almihdhar was first identified in connection with a Malaysian meeting of al Qaeda operatives.

Even after the FBI learned that the pair had reentered the United States in August 2001, "the FBI did not pursue this as an urgent matter or assign many resources to it," the report found, noting that "it was given to a single, inexperienced agent without any particular priority." Agents within the bureau were also hampered by disagreements over the hazy rules governing the separation between criminal and intelligence investigations.

In the end, the report concludes, "the FBI was not close to locating Mihdhar or Hazmi when they participated in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

And lets not even discuss the much documented John O'Neill infighting with your governments bitch traitor Barbara Bodine, the Yemeni cum sucking ambassador that roadblocked O'Neills feeble FBI investigation of the Cole attack...

Yea, even the apologist PBS had to make a frickin' movie about that government fuck-up.

I could go on, but it would take years to cover the bits and pieces of that which your government has tried to hide...

So, super government defender, are those of us that understand that our own criminally incompetent government, of which there HAS NEVER BEEN EVEN A SINGLE INVESTIGATION NOR PROSECUTION of anyone responsible (how convenient, for those that pay the "justice" system) share the responsibility of 9/11 and demand those responsible be exposed and held accountable...

...are we truthers?

Because we have been in the past by finger pointing apologist like you.

So, which is it?


Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:35:12 PM EDT
Part of me thinks that the government knows more about 9/11 than they're letting on, but then again the other part of remembers that the Bush government was worse at keeping a secret than your average 13 year old girl.

And no part of me believes that the perps were anything other than Islamic extremists.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:53:23 PM EDT
A troofer essentially will exhibit numerous instances of marvelous stupidity to support outlandish notions while doing everything possible to ignore the obvious.

Demanding investigation into incredible fuck ups on the part of many does not qualify as trooferness.

Expecting an airplane to leave an outline in the Pentagon like Bugs Bunny does when he runs through the side of a barn qualifies as trooferism.

Claiming the WTC towers were brought down by silent explosives qualifies as trooferism.

Wondering why Jamie Gorelick was not questioned for her role in stopping the FBI from making progress against foreign terrorists is not trooferism.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:59:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WayneD:
1. Truther


Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.



so no, you're not a truther, I'll have to look up pragmatic.


Don't forget the faked moonlanding retards
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 4:32:25 PM EDT
A crazy sack of shit.
Top Top