What is Digg?164 Comments
- MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -20/+69This is when the "they let it happen" Pearl Harbor theory gets some credibility.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -31/+77I think it is pretty obvious why every division of government and military sworn to protect us ignored all warnings--either:
1. Those in high positions told to them to stand down, look the other way, ignore it or dismiss it
or
2. People failed, systems failed, leaders failed and the military failed. In that case investigations would have been conducted at every level. Hundreds of people would have lost their jobs.
Criminals promise immunity to co-conspirators and use people and the media to cover up their crimes. The innocent, caught off guard investigate every possible angle to find out what went wrong and to fix it. Nobody lost their job so you be the judge--was it #1 or #2? - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -19/+58"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
a year after this statement 911 happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including George W.Bush, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. - gooddaysunshine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41you mean like this?
http://video.google.com/url?docid=7797944525480443766&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=Norman+Minetta&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DbDfdOwt2v3Y&usg=AL29H21GvddVSUmAdQaEt3BnYZ-czjRfmA - primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38pffffft everyone knows the fifty third time's the charm.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
Did they need any clearer warnings ? Seriously. - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33indeed
when you see just how many warnings there were before 911 happened
you'll see why Alex Jones was able to make such an accurate prediction
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
warnings such as
June 29, 2001: Surveillance Indicates Al-Qaeda Will Attack Genoa Summit With More Than One Plane
Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
June 30, 2001: White House Warned ‘Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks’
June 30-July 1, 2001: New York Times Reporter Told Al-Qaeda Is ‘Planning Something So Big the US Will Have to Respond,’ but Fails to Publish Warning
July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
July 2001: CIA Learns Impending Attack Widely Known in Afghanistan
July-Late August 2001: Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Tries to Warn about al-Qaeda Attack on Lower Manhattan
July-August 2001: Translator Alleges FBI Agent Is Deliberately Deceived Regarding Skyscraper Warning
July 1, 2001: Senators Warn of Al-Qaeda Attack Within Three Months
July 5, 2001: Genoa Planes as Weapons Threat Helps Inspire Bush to Ask For Famous August 2001 Briefing
July 5, 2001: Ashcroft Is Warned of Imminent, Multiple Attacks from Al-Qaeda
July 6, 2001: CIA Warns Upcoming Al-Qaeda Attack Will Be ‘Spectacular’ and Different
July 6, 2001: Clarke Tells Rice to Warn Agencies to Prepare for 3 to 5 Simultaneous Attacks; No Apparent Response
July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil
July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning that Unusual Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona
etc ..............................
No warnings ? ha. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+36"Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
Did they need any clearer warnings ? Seriously."
Bin Laden is still determined to strike in US
Is that a clear enough warning? What do you propose the govt. do about it? - jragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I flew from Stockholm to Seattle (with a stop somewhere) on September 2nd and security was *crazy*.
I remember the American couple in front of me making a big fuss about the delay, and how there was no reason for security to be ratcheted so high. I remember the person assisting them continuing to help them with pursed lips. - SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Why are people digging him down? Alex Jones did predict 9/11 around june-july. He even said they would strike at the WTC but everyone ignored him because he was deemed as a conspiracy theorist.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23It's probably done by the same people that killed JFK! Two birds with one stone! We'll get 'em!
- DeejayLupo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23The two above comments are right on. At any given time pre- and post-9/11 there's been a huge stream of intelligence, much of it credible, all of it pointing to a large variety of different threats.
The fact is, unless we get something specific enough to act upon, we can't respond to every piece of intelligence directly. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"because he was deemed as a conspiracy theorist."
Alex Jones _is_ a conspiracy theorist. But what he's trying to address isn't some hidden conspiracy, the "Blueprint for a New American Century" is wide open for anyone to see.
A conspiracy undertaken in full public view is, well, astounding. People must have their fingers in their ears and eyes closed not to know it's happening.
Like the "black helicopter" conspiracy theorists. When the black helicopters were finally photographed carrying American troops "practicing" urban attacks on unsuspecting American cities, the officials who had previously pointed their fingers and said "Ignore that conspiracy nut" just pretended they knew about it all along. - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"This is when the "they let it happen" Pearl Harbor theory gets some credibility."
It already had that credibility. It's been known for a long time that there were clear warnings - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26"What do you propose the govt. do about it?"
I don't. I propose that the Fed.Gov put up a $1B tax-free no-questions-asked, 2x if alive, bounty on his head. Or _allow_ a private effort to the same effect.
Then, if delivered alive, they hold a very public trial presenting evidence by both sides.
You see, "terrorism" is just another name for a criminal act. Treat it as such.
Going to war against entire countries for the actions of a few individuals is no less a criminal act than the original attack. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16The problem here is one of hindsight bias. Typically, retrospective views fail to consider a number of factors. For one, they are likely to receive/come across MANY threats. How many threats did they discover that were not carried out AND did not receive a special response (heightened security). Probably quite a lot. This is a signal-detection task.
Then, the task is to identify the "credible" threat, a task that is going to have a failure rate. In hindsight, a credible threat is easy to identify if something has been carried out. It was clearly CREDIBLE if it happened.
Finally, what about base rate information. What proportion of threats result in an attack being carried out? The answer is simply a very small number. If they responded with heightened security, further elimination of freedoms, and pouring billions into dealing with all the threats, the terrorists win. Terrorism is about a mindset. The acts of terrorism are about scaring people and getting governments to overreact, which they typically do (Patriot Act anyone?). Everyone freaking out about something (the odds of being harmed in a terrorist attack is tiny) leads to the restrictions of freedom (hassle) and rights. Another of their goals is to bankrupt our economy, and pouring money into chasing every threat moves us toward that end. Tensions in the middle east are, in part, responsible for the price we pay for gas, even though we have, historically paid much less than the rest of the world.
Anyway, this is hindsight bias at its finest. They "should've seen it coming" and "should've reacted differently" is easy once we know the outcome. If there had been no 9-11 after these "threats" we wouldn't be complaining about government failures, yet there are plenty of these threats that did not receive a response, nor did they result in a terrorist attack. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24"You see, "terrorism" is just another name for a criminal act. Treat it as such.
Going to war against entire countries for the actions of a few individuals is no less a criminal act than the original attack."
Al Qaeda would still be freely operating in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan, if this sort of thinking prevailed. - FRANKeB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well I wouldn't have taken any of the warnings from April 1st seriously, but the rest....
- rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"...the media has used 9/11 to generate ratings."
Just as the Bush administration has used it to gain votes. Code orange! Code red! "if you ________, the terrorists will have won!" etc etc, ad nauseum - killrbeez, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21shhh.. don't tell Rosie O'Donnell about this
- TSorenson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@ Wargalas
Not only is that blogspam, but it's completely biased, not backed up blogspam. No sources are named, there are deliberate attacks on Democrats within the blog, and the only "confirmation" that's made is at the very end when ONE person is named. - jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16did anyone think to look at how many warnings there were in 2000 or 1999? or even before that?
the media only releases the information that is convenient to their story... it is entirely possible that there were more warnings in the years prior - especially considering the fact that you'd be looking at the whole year rather than jan. 1 - sept. 11
digg me down if you want. the media has used 9/11 to generate ratings. - iamnos, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19For all you people who haven't read the article, here's a couple quotes you should read before slapping on your tinfoil hat and screaming conspiracy:
Fifty-two of those summaries mentioned bin Laden or al Qaeda, and five discussed hijacking "as a capability al Qaeda was training for or possessed."
Two summaries cited suicide operations, "but not connected to a threat in aviation," the report said.
So, 105 reports, 5 mention hijacking. Nothing about suicide operations and hijackings. So these reports DID NOT suggest the type of attacks used on 9/11.
Another quote:
"The commission found no evidence that the FAA knew what al Qaeda was plotting" - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Interesting quote from article
""I asked him,'what would you have liked to have known about this plot that was known to our intelligence agencies prior to 9/11?' Ben-Veniste said. "And he said, 'we never knew the hijackers could fly the plane.' "" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12160 members of Bin Laden family flown out of our country after 9/11.http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_3664.shtml
- derek20cali, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Actually, they did...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal#History - NearlyHeadless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"I don't. I propose that the Fed.Gov put up a $1B tax-free no-questions-asked, 2x if alive, bounty on his head. Or _allow_ a private effort to the same effect."
Well, there's a $25 million bounty. I don't really know that you would get any better results for $1B
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Oct/08-591969.html - xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So that puts the total since 1993 at well over 10,000 times the government was warned
Way to go Dems! Way to go Repubs!
YOU BOTH SUCK! - notdarkyet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i am not entirely sure but i think he predicted the universal id a while back too...
- Burrito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Who do you think the terrorists would vote for if they could?"
Your insane Clinton rambling aside, Bush's Iraq blunder has made terrorism a thriving business again with new recruits joining daily to come kill Americans. I'm gonna say they'd vote for Bush because no one will work harder to tarnish America's image as a good superpower and put American lives at risk for personal pride. - catchneyez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"With 52 warnings, why [wasn't security increased] in 2001?"
I hate to say it, but when have you ever learned from a mistake that hasn't happened yet? Has anyone? That's just how the world works. If we were to start trying to enforce these crazy security measures before 9/11, do you think anyone would have been happy? Airport security would probably be scrutinized everyday on the news just like gas prices are today.
Cause and Effect . . . not Possibility and Effect . . . that's just how things work. - Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wonder how many Diggs this story would have gotten on Feb. 11, 2005 -- which is the day that CNN published it. Oh, wait, that's BD - Before Digg.
- Yukimi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11this damn article is over 2 years old...
- Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5he also claimed they would use planes...
- IceSabre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If all government agencies took every call seriously.... they would either have to raise taxes 200% to cover the costs of hiring enough people to track down every "tip" or they would have each investigator look into 200 cases a day. We all know raising taxes that much won't fly and the case load would be so much that they could never possibly fully check into anything, real or not.
It's like 1000 people all yelling out the code to defuse a bomb at the same time... then complaining later that the bomb went off even though somebody yelled the correct code.
They investigate what they can based on probabilities... and as anybody can tell you the variables that go into computing probabilty vastly affect the outcome. You just have to work with what you got and hope.
How many attempts has the government stopped? For one it is usually not as "exciting" or "newsworthy" and two, they don't really want to publish vunerabilities. "Hey look we stopped a bomber today at XYZ that if he had succeeded would've shut the whole southern power grid down!" - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Because 9/11 was allowed to happen by this government to get us into Iraq. No conspiracy, just the obvious reality.
- Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@ junkyard
Afghanistan was just a stepping stone.
Your thinking about the next move. They are thinking 3 moves ahead. - muchachoburacho, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ stanleyford
"Murder is a crime; fraud is a crime; willfully murdering scores, hundreds, or even thousands of people in order to instill fear in an entire populace far surpasses other crimes in heinousness and scope."
Then what should we do about the Bush Admin? - jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And yet, nobody has been held accountable.
- generalinterest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The gov't is so efficent, let's put it in charge of healthcare!
- hattriq27, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I couldn't even muster the eye roll
- kevinmumaw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Yes, and the FAA has likely been warned 360 more times since 9/11. It is very common to issue warnings without specific threat assessments. I have to give this story two yawns and an eye roll.
- redmyse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a Christian theologian named David Ray Griffin who has investigated this issue quit a bit and has a video where he discusses all the major myths about 9/11 and presents documented facts about the myths. He doesn't present any theories and he doesn't approach it from a religious point of view, just factual.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413&q=david+ray+griffin - scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13With thousands of flights a day and just a general report of malaise there isn't much to do. It is so much easier to say "I told you so" after the fact. Easy to do quote mining and point to specific quotes. lame story.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7actually Nick Rockefeller just said there would be an event. He didn't specify what exactly. But yes he did predict the war on terror. And that we would be 'looking in caves' for terrorists. And that it would all be a big joke.
Video here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=aaron+russo+911&hl=en - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Remember, Bush was busy on vacation during all those warnings, so you can't blame him.
/sarcasm - Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Let me guess. You would vote for Giuliani, the same guy who went along with shipping the debris that could be analyzed and the remains of victims and firefighters as if it was landfill.
- jboeke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Two words. Air Marshals.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@jhaitas
Then security should have been tougher even earlier don't you think? - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you have not seen this.
It is a must watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230 -
Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is