9/11 - An Incomplete Investigation - Louis Freeh

[shootinstudent]

All I'm saying is that from an impartial standpoint, #1 is clearly possible. And if you take incompetence and negligence far enough and you are very close to #2.

Okay, since you're going to repeat yourself...see above.

Then, explain to me how 2 is possible, without anyone speaking out. You are dodging the question. Explain to me how you think it's possible for hundreds of people to be in on a conspiracy, yet keep it a secret.

 

[Joejojoba111]

I don't want to bog this down, more than it already is. Let me just make 1 example of an irregularity:

Michael Moore is persona non gratta here, for obvious reasons, but we all saw his movie anyway, to know what he's saying now.

In that movie there's an FBI case officer who really would have liked to talk to the Bin Ladens. But he couldn't, because they were all given unique clearance to fly, and they flew out of the country.

Do you think that officer was happy that he didn't get to question the close relatives of the prime suspect in the crime? No, he was unhappy. Little things like that. I think this shows you that there is no vast conspiracy of silence, there are many frustrated people who were quite vocal. There are many other frustrated FBI officers you could read of, regarding several other problems, too.

Besides, you seem to have a tendency to view things in extremes. You keep talking about what I "BELIEVE!"

I suggest that you consider this - not everyone has solid beliefs in things. I, for instance, like to try and keep an 'open mind'. 'Consider all possibilities'. You probably see me use those words or phrases often.

I can see that you have different preferences, and I respect that. Right and wrong, black or white, guilt or innocent, it's perfectly understandable you could view my opinion as believe or disbelieve. Let us simply agree to disagree. I simply wish to convey that I do not 'believe' any one scenario. I see what there is to be seen, and leave it at that.

 

[shootinstudent]

I can see that you have different preferences, and I respect that. Right and wrong, black or white, guilt or innocent, it's perfectly understandable you could view my opinion as believe or disbelieve. Let us simply agree to disagree. I simply wish to convey that I do not 'believe' any one scenario. I see what there is to be seen, and leave it at that.

Fair enough. As I said, I even enjoy seeing other people's beliefs. All I'm pointing out is that the belief that it's possible there was a US government conspiracy involved in 9-11 is based on no solid evidence, and you proved that once again by dodging the central issue...it's all speculation and little anecdotes from movies and news clippings.

 

[DRZinn]

The other explanation is what DeNiro said when he fired a politician's nephew, in Casino.

OK, I'll bite. What DID he say?

In that movie there's an FBI case officer who really would have liked to talk to the Bin Ladens. But he couldn't, because they were all given unique clearance to fly, and they flew out of the country.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

It's hard to make the case that flights of Saudis departed from the U.S. over the objections of the FBI when, according to former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the FBI itself gave the go-ahead:

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," he told Vanity Fair magazine.

Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."

Many other sources confirm that the FBI was asked to allow them to leave, and did not stop them.

If I recall correctly, it was a Clinton appointee who specifically authorized it (not Freeh, I mean before the FBI was asked), but I don't remember who.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Essentially DeNiro said that anyone stupid enough to let several people walk away winning several big jackpots was either too stupid for the job, or complicit in the fraud. Either way they should not have the job. The logic was infallible, except his adamance had political repurcussions which hurt in the long run.


And, without politicizing the incident (blaming one party or the other), does it sound either sane or rational? It does not sound so to me. I don't care how many people rubber-stamped the deal, it is incorrigible. Contrary to popular belief, increasing the number of people complicit in an activity should not increase the legitimacy thereof (democratic process excluded).

 

[DRZinn]

And, without politicizing the incident (blaming one party or the other), does it sound either sane or rational?

Truth is, I don't know - and neither do you. It sounds a little squirrely, but the FBI was satisfied. Remember, he's estranged from his family anyway.