Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wiki Editor Helps Reveal Pre-9/11 CIA Mistakes

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the all-non-denial-denials dept.

Government 176

An anonymous reader writes "Kevin Fenton was reading the Department of Justice's 2004 Inspector General report on pre-9/11 intelligence failures. Parts of it didn't make sense to him, so he decided to add the information in the report to Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline at the wiki-style website History Commons. Eventually, Fenton's work led him to uncover the identity of a CIA manager who ran the Bin Ladin unit before 9/11, when agents there deliberately withheld information about two 9/11 hijackers from the FBI. That manager was named Richard Earl Blee and he is now the subject of a documentary by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, of secrecykills.org, who confirmed his identity using techniques right out of the 70s film All the President's Men. Blee, along with Cofer Black and George Tenet, have found the work disturbing enough to release a joint statement denying some of the allegations."

cancel ×

176 comments

So what is new? (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589334)

As far as I can tell, this is just one more example of how turf wars between the different agencies caused severe information gaps before 9/11. That was obviously a problem. However, after the last decade of the Patriot Act, I'm sufficiently worried by the government information sharing as part of a wider pattern, that part of me wants to go back to the silly turf wars as a de facto restraint on various government agencies becoming too powerful or having access to things they shouldn't.

But there's no real evidence of any sort of high-level conspiracy. This is just low-level bureaucratic infighting at its finest. You can see lots of examples of this in the 9/11 Report which details the many intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Some of them seem like intelligence failures mainly due to hindsight bias where what the evidence meant became obvious only if you knew what happened, but others are genuine failures. There's really not that much new here.

Re:So what is new? (1, Offtopic)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589366)

Exactly, but this won't stop the truther derp brigade from donning their tinfoil hats, regardless.

Re:So what is new? (0, Troll)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591020)

Might be wise to wear your tinfoil hat when we have millions of Americans capable of voting for someone like Bush through his front facing campaign alone. There is no friction against the government in the states, and they do whatever they want as a result. Why no blow up a couple of towers, or release a new flu strain, or make up some laws? wtf are you going to do about it? exactly... nothing.

Re:So what is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591362)

To be fair, America probably didn't vote for Bush.

Re:So what is new? (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591616)

Yep, I keep forgetting about the Florida elections... that put Bush in office w a convenient consensual resignation of the democratic candidate.

Re:So what is new? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589378)

We need to cut taxes on the job creators and the wealthy people that drive our economy. We need to slash funding to effectively kill off those branches of government that are bad, and they will be neutered and die on the "vine".

Re:So what is new? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589676)

We need to raise taxes on the job killers and the wealthy people that drive our economy off a cliff .

FTFY

Re:So what is new? (5, Insightful)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589864)

Just so's you know, the problem isn't taxes, it's demand. Pumping money into the coffers of the wealthy---who are already doing quite well and hoarding almost unprecedented levels of cash---won't help. We've tried tax cuts for the wealthy (what, you didn't know that the rounds of stimulus were, depending on the country, 30-60% tax cuts?) and they aren't working: all it does is cut the revenue to the very programs that would help us get out of recession.

The "job creators" are the disenfranchised middle and lower classes. They're the ones who buy stuff, keeping stores open and others gainfully employed. They're the ones who need TARP programs for underwater mortgages, stable employment and a sense of stability. Not the rentiers who are doing quite well, thank you very much.

Re:So what is new? (5, Insightful)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590168)

But, but, rich people drive nice cars and wear nice suits. They must know what they're talking about, when they say their too scared to hire people right now because their taxes and business taxes are at the lowest levels since 1926. How can they possible think of expanding business if things might change? They really need the government to lock down things so that nothing ever changes again and then turn over control of everything to them. Then they'll finally feel safe enough to start hiring more people. Mostly for private armies.

Re:So what is new? (1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590496)

Just so's you know, the problem isn't taxes, it's demand.

- Just so you know, the problem is not demand, it's supply.

You see, when 2 people trade they are not trading for money, they are trading for things they want. If 1 produces food and another produces fuel, they are trading food for fuel. They are doing so because they both benefit from the comparative advantage of each doing something better - more efficiently than the other.

Money is introduced into the system so it's easy to trade for things that are of not equal value, so a kitchen food processor is not the same value as one eggplant for example.

Money always begins as something valuable, scarce, recognizable, easy to test, easy to measure, not poisonous, not explosive, not radioactive, easy to mint coins out of and something that does not go bad over time, so we've used gold for ages. Eventually people always try to counterfeit the money to be able to BUY stuff but produce NOTHING for it. They invent all sorts of scams, which can be even benign at first - introduce paper bank notes to signify amount of actual gold that a person has, trade with notes, but go to a bank and get your actual money out of it.

Eventually the government hijacks the system and figures out a way to steal everybody's money and start counterfeiting just the paper itself, thus stealing everybody's purchasing power and stealing products without creating anything back into the system. So this is wealth stolen and goods underproduced.

USA is running a scam like that upon the rest of the world because its currency is so called 'reserve' and other productive people give it things, products for the fake currency USA is printing, but nothing can be gotten from USA for this fake currency.

53Billion USD/month and 40% of all gov't money borrowed that is spent is the indicator that USA as a country and the government itself cannot pay for what it consumes, but there is plenty of demand. ALL of the counterfeit money, ALL of the borrowing, ALL of the taxing - it's all demand.

But those who want to consume are not producing. But the reason that production capacity isn't present in the system is the very government that PRICED OUT the US worker from the labor market with all of the regulations, taxes, subsidies, labor laws, everything that makes US worker unproductive, uncompetitive, not worth hiring and thus in reality useless to those, who actually produce for living, and even worse - dead weight, that is consuming but not producing to balance the trade.

Balancing of the trade is not just an esoteric abstract concept, it's very obvious from the monthly imbalance of trade that is easy to show in exact amount of money that is sent abroad minus the money that is sent into USA. The difference is what USA is underproducing.

Those who create jobs - the 'rich', (and no, poor do not create jobs, with any sort of subsidy they only consume wealth, they don't produce it), they now are under a constant attack from all fronts, which is set up by the government that hijacked the economy and is now ruling it into a total collapse.

What is needed is complete stop of all government spending except for bare minimum border protection and the court system. EVERYTHING else needs to stop, all spending needs to stop, all borrowing, debts need to be restructured, millions of unproductive people need to LOSE their jobs. TENS of millions, of people need to lose their jobs. The consumption must stop. People will have to work in order to save real investment capital and restart production and then people can be rehired to do useful, trade imbalance reducing jobs.

NOBODY should be getting any QE, any TARP, any counterfeit money from any government, it all must be balanced within the economy without government intervention.

Economies are created by private individuals who work to live better, that's all there is to it. When economies become strong and rich, governments - the parasites of the economy - become stronger by stealing the power they were not granted. They do this by forming voting blocks out of people who they offer free stuff.

Of-course there is no such thing as 'free stuff', somebody must PRODUCE the stuff, so it's basically stealing from some to give to others in order to gain political power. Of-course this grows gov't further, then various parasites upon parasites form (like the banks that survive only because of bail-outs) and the economy is eventually destroyed.

And it NEEDS to be destroyed and rebuilt, because the massive imbalances make it impossible to continue. It CANNOT BE that some (a small minority) produce most of everything and then the large majority just consumes it.

Re:So what is new? (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590700)

A lot of what you are saying used to make sense. Then we had to go and invent robots. Now a small percentage of people CAN produce everything everybody else needs to live. Economics is long overdue for a major rethinking. We have more people than work to go around, and its just going to keep getting worse. You can whine about it not being fair that poor people get stuff for free all you want, but eventually we are going to have to give a whole lot of people free stuff. If we don't, they are going to get real real hungry and decide to come take your stuff, and probably kill you while they do it.

As a species we can either accept this and build a wonderful world where everybody can live a decent life without working if they want, or keep fighting it and end up living in a post apocalyptic hellscape with people killing each other for scarce resources after civilization collapses.

Re:So what is new? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590916)

Resources are scarce. You can go ahead and create a new device, say an 'iCrap' or whatever, and all of a sudden it IS a scarce device, because only you have it.

Somebody else goes and creates another device 'iShit' and they also are the only ones who have it now.

Anything that any person organizes and creates is a scarce resource, and the pricing model depends on what markets will bear.

As to robots creating everything - once you have your super stuff printers and once you figure out the infinite energy, then you will get your wish. Everybody will be sitting there, printing apples and egg salads and shoes and flying cars and new windows for their sea-houses, etc.

As long as energy is not that easy to get, as long as there are no element trans-mutating, molecule bond and long carbon chain printers, etc., that can produce whatever you want for you immediately, there will be scarcity.

Even when you get all of that, somebody will figure out a way to have your body go on for a longer period of time, all of a sudden THAT is a scarce thing - scarce information. Probably a scarce set of machines and procedures are needed, this becomes the new power - being able to prolong your life.

In a place where things are basically free, the power will be then transfered into other realms, like being able to prolong your life, but what will people be paying with? Because nobody wants to GIVE UP such a thing that they own. If you can prolong your life indefinitely and others cannot, you become an interesting outsider with more and more power of some sort over others.

Free stuff does not really come for free. This will modify the humans if not necessarily immediately physically, then mentally and emotionally, they will become something else and there will be a way to get power over them and some people will seek it, as people always do.

---

Anyway, until that time that all physical things are easy to multiply at no cost, normal rules of scarcity and economics will continue be applicable.

You invent your 'iShit' and somebody else invents 'iCrap' and you want to exchange the 'iShit' for 'iCrap' and thus this type of relationship will continue and those who invent this stuff and organize capital, land and labor to produce this more efficiently than others will gain market share and will be rich.

But to answer your unwarranted question about 'whining' and 'fairness' - AFAIC people don't want to work, but they will have to, because again, the system we have now is NOT the system that you are describing, with everything being 'free'.

It's NOT free. Somebody has to do WORK. Thus your jabs do not reach their destination - the market will continue as it does, and the only people who will suffer are those, who will participate in market destruction via gov't regulations and taxes and subsidies.

They don't DESERVE your 'iCrap' if they don't produce their 'iShit' that you can get from them by exchange. So you'll produce your 'iCrap' in China and they will stay without anything, any 'iCraps' and 'iShits', they won't have any of it, they'll keep being poor. Since they are also ignorant and quite dumb, they will likely try to build what was tried a number of times and failed as many times - some sort of a communist regime to try and avoid the personal responsibility of running their own lives and economies. This only leads to total loss of all rights and total loss of all wealth.

Re:So what is new? (-1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591060)

Oh, and just in case it is not very clear from the other comment that I left as a response to you, here is the 'kernel' of it, so to speak.

On this planet there are billions of people who are poor, they still do not have things they want.

These are billions of potential producers and consumers, but they need to be organized, their work needs to be used to create the things they all need.

Thus it is not true that you have all those 'robots' today, that can produce everything everybody wants and needs. So there is a huge, gigantic, untapped market and productive capacity resource, and it needs to be tapped and it needs to be turned into a productive market.

So saying: there are all these people, and they will kill you if you don't give them something - fuck them. Those with capital need to leave now and start businesses all over the world, because there is HUGE potential that is not USA and Western world. If USA and Western world want to live by consuming products others produce, they MUST learn that they can only do so by producing something in return.

The only way to do this meaningfully is to allow the market sort out what is needed by market and what is not. Market will figure out the products and services and prices for them and what money is and what regulations are.

So the only way to fix this for USA and Western world is to REDUCE their gov't, not to increase it. There is plenty of demand, but those with that demand are not producing anything, but they would be happy to live wealthier lives, where they CAN buy all those things that an average American can buy right now with counterfeit currency.

Re:So what is new? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591298)

Well this is BS, somebody is moderating the comments 'off-topic', then they should moderate the entire THREAD off-topic.

These comments are ON topic in this THREAD.

Somebody just doesn't like the real economic message, now that's more like it.

Re:So what is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591728)

Or it could be your own beliefs working:

"The only way to do this meaningfully is to allow the market sort out what is needed by market and what is not."

The /. community has its own economy in its comments/moderation system, and thus its own market. And this market has spoken.

If I had the mod points I'd give it to you and many of your posts (and I've been following), but alas in this /. economy I'm just an AC and my comments aren't worth anything, just like your comments in this thread. In other words, neither of us are producing anything people want in the /. economy, and thus we can't make any meaningful demands in return (such as not being modded down, or better yet being modded up)

Re:So what is new? (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591894)

"As a species we can either accept this and build a wonderful world where everybody can live a decent life without working if they want"

This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I have read all day. If everyone can live a decent life without working, then why would anyone want to work? Economics never have been and never will be a guaranteed thing that what you put in is what you get out. For every 1 person who works hard and succeeds, another 99 work hard and just make minor progress. If you extend those useful workers to now also have to carry the burden of many others, those chances of success will become 1 in 100,000. Why the hell would anyone try to work hard at such longshot odds if they could simply have an almost identical quality of life doing jack shit?

Automation has increased efficiency, but innovation has also increased the number of products available and has increased the quality of life. Automation is about using resources more efficiently. Workers producing more product means higher profit and more production and thus more resources. More resources means the ability to produce more products and more jobs. Automation and gains in efficiency should never cost jobs, but rather increase the number of high paying jobs as efficiencies grow.

To explain it more simply, if automation allows 1 person to do the work of 100, then the savings of the 99 who aren't paid to make the same product can, atleast in part, go to that 1. That one can now afford to buy far more so there is now more demand for different products from that person. The 99 who no longer are needed can then be used to make other products. The only way that the system could break is if those who were working all had everything they wanted and had no need for anything else. Efficiency can only cause a loss of jobs when demand goes away. The only other possible problem is when resources become to scarce to support the population, but in that case, you are screwed whatever way you go and your best hope is to reward those who make most effective use of resources. (Which will be those who are most efficient.)

Re:So what is new? (1)

g4b (956118) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591688)

> Economies are created by private individuals who work to live better, that's all there is to it.

By using any means neccessary. Not controling the market too much actually made all the mess. You see, it's some of those private individuals who used government to make themselves richer. You have connections, you create lobbies, and it's mostly not even malevolent initially. Even with Terry Pratchett's insights about gold and money, you still have to remember, the most fraudulent thing about it is, that it happens in babysteps. As it happened the last 100 years.

Government spendings on unneeded things is one problem.
The evolution of money is also one problem.
The brainwash of a broken concept, that every human can become rich if he just works right and the market makes us all happy, because human demand for more will make them work, is another.

If you build a market system based on greed, it will be greed which leads the market. And only the greedy will write positive numbers.

What government needs is a clean separation from external moneyfloods, realizing, that we formed governments only, so that we can govern ourselves instead of giving it to some people who just give the power to their children. We formed democracy to prevent human greed from abusing the majority.

We need to control markets and stop people using their wealth to influence politics for them to get wealthier. Because thats why we created governments.

Re:So what is new? (2, Insightful)

LibRT (1966204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590578)

The current level of demand is likely to be close to the "new normal", because the level of demand that previously existed was predicated largely upon homeowners withdrawing equity from their homes, which itself was predicated upon house prices always rising, which itself was predicated upon the federal government backstopping mortgages via Fannie and Freddie, for politically-motivated purposes (ie the federal government's odd notion that one of its jobs is to facilitate home ownership, and to particularly dictate that less qualified applicants should have their mortgage applications accepted, with defaults paid by the taxpayer, and both parties are guilty of this).

The current problem is the continuing notion that the demonstrably unsustainable level of demand must be returned to by getting housing prices to rise again via sustained low interest rates. It's dumb luck that the EU is having such problems with Greece et al that currency is fleeing to the US dollar despite the US dollar's inherent devaluation (hidden, as it is, by the influx of capital from the EU).

But taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people (that happen to be more favorable to your view of the world) by way of a massive bureaucracy is particularly inefficient. The current tax revenues exist to support the 1 in 7 people in the US who work directly for government of one level or another (which is higher than Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Portugal, and just behind Greece, which is just above 1 in 5). The fundamental and structural part of the problem is there are too many people working for government (requiring, of course, tax dollars to pay for them) and that number consistently grows faster than inflation or the economy. At some point that number simply becomes unsustainable (which Portugal and Italy are learning and which Greece already has learned). It's like Social Security: when it was established, there were 30 workers paying for each retiree; currently it's 3 workers to each retiree, and getting close to 2 workers to each retiree. It cannot be sustained long term.

The other fundamental and structural problem is that government borrowing is massively crowding out investment in the private sector (which is the sector which, you know, actually creates jobs). When about $16.6 trillion of investment capital goes to US government bonds to prop up the government, that is, of course, $16.6 trillion not going to private sector investment and in turn not creating private sector jobs.

It is going to take quite some time for the amount of demand to pick up to match the supply of labor available, and that equilibrium point isn't going to resemble the prior equilibrium point, the demand portion of which was subsidized by government policy (see above). But if you think taking even more money from one segment of the population to "bail out" another segment of the population will speed things along or be sustainable long-term, you're most certainly mistaken. I can see the populist appeal of the proposition among the economically unsophisticated, but it will not work.

As an aside, other than putting their money under a mattress, it is impossible for the wealthy (or anyone else) to "hoard" money: as soon as their money is placed in a bank, or on a stock market, or purchases bonds, or is used to purchase something, or start a business, it's back in the economy. And also, it is a decidely different thing to tax people less than it is to give them so-called "government money" (there's no such thing as "government money" - there is only that portion of your money, and your neighbors' money, which the government appropriates), although the current debate does not seem to distinguish between the two (ie people continually claim the government needs to "pay for" tax reductions). When you tax people less, you are forcibly taking less from them, you are not redistributing money. When people claim the government needs to "pay for" a tax reduction, what they are saying is government spending exceeds revenue, and the only option is to increase government revenue. That's a false conclusion - there's obviously one other option available.

Re:So what is new? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591370)

As an aside, other than putting their money under a mattress, it is impossible for the wealthy (or anyone else) to "hoard" money: as soon as their money is placed in a bank, or on a stock market, or purchases bonds, or is used to purchase something, or start a business, it's back in the economy.

That used to be at least ostensibly true back before the banks became so terrified of the high default rate that they stopped lending it out.

These days, putting money in the bank is effectively taking money out of circulation; it's tantamount to burning the bills in your fireplace except that burning money takes it out of circulation permanently, and thus increases the value of the currency as a whole, where banking the money doesn't because in theory it might someday be used.

Re:So what is new? (0)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590736)

The problem is the only way to rescue homeowners is to hand the banks a big bill. These are the folks that pretty much financed 70-80% of Mr. Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He is going to need another billion dollars in 2012 in order to get his second term, so he can't do anything to the people picking up the tab.

A much bigger problem today is that over the last couple of years the lower levels of sales and production have pretty much become structural. The folks that were laid off might get jobs again - if somehow levels of sales increased significantly. But we have proven that everything can function at this new lower level. So things are very likely to just stay they way they are. This means that the 20% unemployed that are out there are just going to stay unemployed. We can either decide to put these people on some kind of government program, like resurrecting Welfare but at a federal level or we can just keep extending state unemployment benefits forever with the federal government picking up the tab. Neither are going to be very popular right now because it is going to be very expensive - 60 million people getting $10,000 a year is 600 billion dollars a year, every year, from now on.

So what can we expect? First off, unless Obama is defeated there will be nothing done for homeowners because he can't afford to do that to the banks. Secondly, we can expect the resurrection of a permanent welfare class that are paid to sit at home and not cause trouble. Will there be a new WPA? Probably not, because many people (somewhat correctly) associate that with turning these people into government slaves. But what about the deficit? As long as China is content to not use the control they are being given, we are likely to just keep running up the tab and getting more and more support from them. What happens if they pull the plug and let most, if not all, the bathwater out? The US will be left high and dry with a lot of commitments and absolutely no way to meet them. That by itself would be justification for a war. Which would handily turn the economy around.

Re:So what is new? (1, Flamebait)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590992)

The problem with defeating Obama is that you will get a fucking Tea Party endorsed candidate in the white house. While we can certainly do better than Obama, the tea party aint that. I would rather have 4 more years of pain under Obama than face the end of America as we know it that could happen if a tea party traitor becomes president.

On the plus side, Obama's political career will be over when he gets out of office. This means that if he does get reelected, he may not be beholden to the corporate interests that got him the election. There is a sliver of a chance that he could stand up and lead the country in the right direction. I don't expect that to happen, but almost anything is better than the tea party.

Re:So what is new? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590020)

We need to cut taxes on the job creators

That might work if the jobs they were creating were in the U.S., and not in China and India.

Re:So what is new? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591874)

Wish that I had my mod points. I would have bumped you up. All the crap about cutting taxes, but then ignoring the fact that other tax breaks ENCOURAGES sending the jobs to China is just insane.

CONgress is America's enemy far more than the taliban. Talban kills individuals. CONgress is killing America.

Re:So what is new? (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591158)

Just so you know, all job-creating activities (investigating business opportunities, hiring people, et cetera) are already tax deductible. Lowering taxes on the money extracted from a business into a personal account decreases the chance that jobs will be created, by reducing the tax advantages of doing so.

Re:So what is new? (-1, Troll)

Schlacht (18295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589600)

All video content confiscated except four frames from the many surrounding the pentagon?
All evidenciary building materials confiscated and destroyed at the crime scene around the trade center plaza?
First steel framed high rise buildings in history to collapse due to fire (and a near free fall collapse I may add)
WTC Tower #7 reported as collapsed 20 minutes prior to actual collapse.
Collapse was also following path of maximum resistance (take off YOUR tin hat and put on thinking cap for that)
NORAD rendered useless due to coincidentally occurring training exercises.
Bush remaining in publicly known location despite the, "attack on the nation"
Extremely challenging maneuvers from terrorists with severely handicapped flying skills.

I could go on, but I need to go get MY foil hat and watch some XFiles ...

Re:So what is new? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589884)

All video content confiscated except four frames from the many surrounding the pentagon?

Actually, more has been released. There's really not much to see. You have some low fps cameras trying to catch a fast-moving object. The Pentagon missile theory breaks down under its own weight. I mean, if the evil conspiracy had already lobbed two planes at the WTC, why would they bother doing so much to make it look like a plane at the Pentagon instead of just lobbing another plane at the Pentagon?

All evidenciary building materials confiscated and destroyed at the crime scene around the trade center plaza?

There was plenty of debris that was later taken back and tested. NYC was in a bit of a hurry to get that massive pile of rubble cleared out.

First steel framed high rise buildings in history to collapse due to fire (and a near free fall collapse I may add)

First steel-framed high-rise building (with a rather unique design) to have massive jumbo jets filled with fuel slammed into them, too.

WTC Tower #7 reported as collapsed 20 minutes prior to actual collapse.

DERP because the media was in on it DERP! The BBC knew, right? No. Misinformation as the fire chief had pulled everyone out of WTC7 and said there was a collapse zone around it. This is one of the more idiotic conspiracy bits because it makes no sense to tout it. It was miscommunication and nothing more. Claiming that BBC an/or the NYC fire department was somehow in on it is absurd, but that doesn't stop conspiracy nuts from flinging every piece of dookie they can find at the wall, now does it?

NORAD rendered useless due to coincidentally occurring training exercises.

And training exercises happen all the time.

Bush remaining in publicly known location despite the, "attack on the nation"

No shit, Sherlock. Cheney went to a secret location just in case, but Bush damned well knew he needed to be visible. People wanted a firm leader at that point. They wanted to hear what he had to say and they wanted to know that he was leading and not hiding. Elementary politics, you idiot.

Extremely challenging maneuvers from terrorists with severely handicapped flying skills.

Oh, bullshit! Lobbing a plane into a building is not challenging. They didn't need to know how to do anything but basic navigation and they didn't do much more than that, either. The maneuvers weren't "challenging" when the plane went for the Pentagon. They were sloppy and haphazard.

I think you've watched enough X-Files.

Re:So what is new? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590380)

All evidenciary building materials confiscated and destroyed at the crime scene around the trade center plaza?

There was plenty of debris that was later taken back and tested. NYC was in a bit of a hurry to get that massive pile of rubble cleared out.

Got any documents on this? For me this was the only really smelly thing about 9/11, there is no way you could cover up the logistics of blowing up a building like that, but to cover up a building not build to code is somewhat easier, only have to lose a memo, bribe a couple of engineers and make the steel go away. But according to early documentaries about the nut jobs claiming the building to be a controlled demolition, the steel was shipped to the far east for reprocessesing before investigaters got to look at it...

Re:So what is new? (1)

Schlacht (18295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591682)

yep, that's my point... And the real frustration starts when you see how the Commission Report just disregards this.

I don't claim to have answers to the mysteries, I just demand a proper investigation by a party that isn't so partial to the white house.

Re:So what is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591768)

look closely... [geschichte...nologie.ch]

Re:So what is new? (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590630)

The thing to ask about any conspiracy is to take each individual claim and ask 'Did this actually further any claimed aim of the conspiracy?'.

Let's pretend for a second that the government was behind 9/11?

Firstly, no, people don't get to combine conspiracy theories. You don't get to have a theory saying 'It was the most massive false flag operation in existence' and at the same time claim it was an attempt to make a few billion dollars by the owners of the WTC. If the government wanted to fly airplanes into the WTC, it's hardly going to ask permission, nor participate in a conspiracy to make some money.

Same with airplanes. Why would the government not use the actual airplanes? That introduces an incredible layer of complexity and it's worth pointing out that every airframe is incredibly well documented and accounted for, so it's not like reuse of the airplanes is actually possible.

Same with blowing up WTC 7. Why on earth would the government participate in that? If the purpose of taking down the WTC was have a 'terrorist attack', I think it was pretty damn successful when the twin towers went down. The WTC 7 is utterly pointless to worry about.

There really only _one_ sane 'piece of evidence' that truthers have. The whole 'The WTC should not have collapsed like that, so there were explosives.'. I don't mean that's true, I mean that's the only thing that if it was true would actually advance their conspiracy.

Re:So what is new? (1)

The Phantom Mensch (52436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591732)

The most unlikely part of the planted explosives theory is that the demolition charges could've survived the plane crashes and ensuing fires without any malfunctions. Remote controlled, wired or wireless demolition charges don't do very well in really hot fires. The wires lose their insulation and short. The explosives themselves melt and/or catch fire. If there are wireless receivers involved they are susceptible to all kinds of fire damage and radio transmission interference problems. And videos of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 show very clearly that the collapses started exactly where the airplanes struck, so the hijackers would have to have aimed exactly where those indestructible demolition charges were planted, on different floors on each tower, for some reason. It just strains credulity way too far.

Re:So what is new? (0)

Schlacht (18295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591422)

-All video content confiscated except four frames from the many surrounding the pentagon?
---Actually, more has been released. There's really not much to see. You have some low fps cameras trying to catch a fast-moving object. The Pentagon missile theory breaks down under its own weight. I mean, if the evil conspiracy had already lobbed two planes at the WTC, why would they bother doing so much to make it look like a plane at the Pentagon instead of just lobbing another plane at the Pentagon? // Oh, you mean ALL of four frames released in 2006? What about the other dozen or more cameras that could certainly show an approach or something? We have been shown nothing of significance, so why hide the rest? No idea why they do what they do in regard to plane/missle/fighters ... but I do know there is not good reason to deny access to the hundreds of frames confiscated by the FBI.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-16-pentagon-video_x.htm [usatoday.com]

-All evidenciary building materials confiscated and destroyed at the crime scene around the trade center plaza?
---There was plenty of debris that was later taken back and tested. NYC was in a bit of a hurry to get that massive pile of rubble cleared out. // As if they expected to rebuild immediately so we could forget our loss? That hole sat ages before they really cleaned it up. Additionally they decided to make a new battleship to help us forget. The whole remove it to forget it argument does not hold up.

-First steel framed high rise buildings in history to collapse due to fire (and a near free fall collapse I may add)
---First steel-framed high-rise building (with a rather unique design) to have massive jumbo jets filled with fuel slammed into them, too. // So, you have looked at the floor plans and still think it was a "hollow box" design? First of all the building was designed to take a hit from an even heavier plane, with four engines not just two. The fuel burned off and is not capable of enough heat to generate the molten steel found in the wreckage, and remaining fires were oxygen starved mostly (See smoke for this). You can't really believe that a building with a core of steel girders running vertically could just collapse straight down into itself, do you? Almost 50 columns of steel 52"x22" and the upper ones still 36"x12".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/docs/jfk_column_s.jpg [wtc7.net]

-WTC Tower #7 reported as collapsed 20 minutes prior to actual collapse.
----DERP because the media was in on it DERP! The BBC knew, right? No. Misinformation as the fire chief had pulled everyone out of WTC7 and said there was a collapse zone around it. This is one of the more idiotic conspiracy bits because it makes no sense to tout it. It was miscommunication and nothing more. Claiming that BBC an/or the NYC fire department was somehow in on it is absurd, but that doesn't stop conspiracy nuts from flinging every piece of dookie they can find at the wall, now does it? // "BBC in on it?" No, but they were given information to report from someone. They had a source for that and just like the whole farce with NORAD and FAA, you can't just say, "Oh, we're sorry ... that is just a misunderstanding." Too many coincidental misunderstandings in one day I would say.

-NORAD rendered useless due to coincidentally occurring training exercises.
----And training exercises happen all the time. // Yes, and the most well equipt and best trained air force on the planet is bourght to it's knees (Once again coincidentally) because on this specific day nearly EVERYONE is playing wargames and not on duty? You are a real piece of work, slashdotters used to be thinkers ... go back to your xbox.

-Bush remaining in publicly known location despite the, "attack on the nation"
----No shit, Sherlock. Cheney went to a secret location just in case, but Bush damned well knew he needed to be visible. People wanted a firm leader at that point. They wanted to hear what he had to say and they wanted to know that he was leading and not hiding. Elementary politics, you idiot. // You gotta be kidding, who is paying you for this? You don't stick the leader of the free word out there to, "Take a hit for the team" and hide the VP in case they are successful and get him. Are you listening to yourself? Of course the poeple will get a message from leadership but not while we are being attacked.

-Extremely challenging maneuvers from terrorists with severely handicapped flying skills.
----Oh, bullshit! Lobbing a plane into a building is not challenging. They didn't need to know how to do anything but basic navigation and they didn't do much more than that, either. The maneuvers weren't "challenging" when the plane went for the Pentagon. They were sloppy and haphazard.

It's great how you call it lobbing? Have you ever even sat in the cockpit of a plane while it was in the air? Maybe try sailing for a 2D version of what is going on in the cockpit of a plane. You don't "lob" a plane 500mph or so. And yes, the flight path was not only a strange circle in front of the pentagon before it chose the newly renovated and reinforced side to hit, it's also not simple take to hit the WTC towers which are about like aircraft carriers.
Pilot skills lacking: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts [911myths.com]
Harder than it looks: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/map.htm [gwu.edu]
By the way, "lobbing" a plane onto an aircraft carrier is not easy, so why is a target not much bigger such a cake-walk to you?

----I think you've watched enough X-Files. // It was a joke, I don't watch TV. I thinked you've played enough xbox

Re:So what is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591492)

Collapse was also following path of maximum resistance (take off YOUR tin hat and put on thinking cap for that)

You missed this one [youtube.com] ...

Re:So what is new? (2, Interesting)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589610)

And if it were a conspiracy, it would still look like low-level bureaucratic infighting at its best. What better cover?

I'm sure someone in the chain recognized the credibility of the threat they were analyzing, and given how compartmentalized info is in the intelligence community, it was probably only a handful of people at most. A tacit standing agreement here and there, no phone calls or emails on the record, just an understanding and a recognition of the value of such an event in certain circles, and information just .. doesn't make it where it needs to go in time.

Bush II had just made it into office in an election a fair chunk of the country still believed he'd flat out stolen, and the legitimacy of his presidency was being debated way too openly by way too many people for people cliose to him (like Cheney) not to have been sorely tempted to arrange a major disaster very much like 9/11. I just can't see those guys not having at least some desire for something to come along to scare the hell out of the population and provide the right climate to intimidate the critics into silence.

You're right, there's no real evidence of it. There won't be, if they did it right. But look at the situation the administration was in, and look at their possible motives. A few face to face conversations off the record with a few key people most likely to have the right scope of "need to know", setting the pieces in place for the right kind of event and the right kind of calculated tactical delay at the right time, and oops! Sorry, we should have caught that, boy, that's terrible, isn't it?

If it hadn't also conveniently provided the justification for passing the USA PATRIOT Act (and what Congresscritter in his/her right mind would vote against America and patriotism, the day after a bunch of scary swarthy foreign people attacked us, right?), it wouldn't resonate this way with me. But I've come to believe it because it's the only coherent story I can make of it. Yeah, that marks me as crazy in some circles. But it's just too convenient in too many ways ..

Re:So what is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590410)

The word "coincidence" exists for a reason. Because coincidences happen often enough that we needed a word for it.

Re:So what is new? (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589650)

"no real evidence of any sort of high-level conspiracy"

The CIA made lots of mistakes. The single worst mistake they made, was when they allowed the White House to influence their reports, and even to edit the data to support political agendas. The CIA could well have denied some of the bullshit gushing from the White House. While they couldn't get away with using the direct language that I tend to use, there are many ways to tell the world that the White House is lying, while making it sound like you really respect the wisdom of the Pres, VP, etc.

I can forgive everything the CIA did and did not do - except for allowing Bush and Cheney to hijack the CIA's intelligence. They should have found a way to assert themselves, and to assert the real information.

Re:So what is new? (0)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590298)

No conspiracy needed - The CIA and FBI are not very good at sharing information, they are better at it now they have been shown to be not very good at it deliberately - now they just do it by accident

15 people organised the hijacking of 4 planes, this is was difficult or complicated or expensive, and the CIA and FBI missed the connections needed to stop it mostly through minor incompetence ..

Afterwards there was massive sympathy towards the USA, even in a few country with reasons to dislike ... and in under 2 years Bush managed to make the USA a pariah in the global community find the conspiracy there ...

Re:So what is new? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589658)

Wrong (3, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589704)

This was not an example of turf wars.

This was a deliberate policy established during the Clinton Administration by Jamie Gorelick to wall off [wikipedia.org] information between the CIA/other foreign intelligence sources and the FBI/Local law enforcement.

Re:Wrong (5, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590828)

Right, and isn't this what most civil liberties advocates (who I count myself among) want? That is, the more that government agencies can cooperate with each other, the easier it is to arrest any one person.

I'm not trying to blame anyone, just predict that future news will cycle between:

"OMG! They missed the 9/11 attack because of stupid rules about info-sharing between agencies?"

and

"OMG! A totalitarian bill going through the Senate is going to let government agencies share their files on us, giving them unlimited power to raid your privacy."

Folks, there are tradeoffs.

Re:Wrong (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591088)

Good posts by both sycodon and DriedClexler. I was looking for it before posting, it's sad I had to go so far before finding somebody pointing out that it was policy not to "share."

There are tradeoffs. The word is an imperfect place, and it will never be a perfect place. If you want freedoms and personal liberties, not only do you have to accept the fact that people will do things you don't want them to do (so long as they don't violate your rights), but there will be security risks, as it will necessarily allow people more freedom to do bad things.

Personally, I think we've crossed the line. I prefer freedom with the chance of security problems than totalitarian security (still with a chance of problems).

I mean, think about it... one guy tries a shoe bomb, and now EVERYBODY, practically worldwide(*) has to remove their shoes to go through security. One guy brings a banned liquid and now you can't bring your own beverage through security (I suspect this has more to do with protectionism of airport businesses than it does with security), one guy puts a bomb in his underwear, and now we've got these invasive scanners and pat-downs.

(*) As little as I've traveled abroad, many places are now adopting U.S. policy if they want flights to be able to travel to the U.S. from their airports

Re:Wrong (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591708)

On that vein I wonder what would happen if someone surgically implanted a bomb inside themselves, or swallowed it. X-rays for every single passenger? There's only so far they can go before it just becomes too ridiculous to fly anymore.

Re:Wrong (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37592064)

I almost want someone to try it so we can finally make the TSA admit that they can't protect us without obviously doing more harm than any potential terrorists.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37592042)

Technically, I think the pat-downs were implemented primarily as a way of punishing people who opted out of the cancer-box scanners. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the scanners were implemented as a response to the underwear bomber; the timing suggests that they were already in the works, and the underwear bomber provided a convenient excuse for the rollout.

Re:Wrong (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37592106)

Technically, I think the pat-downs were implemented primarily as a way of punishing people who opted out of the cancer-box scanners. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the scanners were implemented as a response to the underwear bomber; the timing suggests that they were already in the works, and the underwear bomber provided a convenient excuse for the rollout.

Either way... a convenient way to justify it. I'm sure the government has a lot of things they've already been working on they'd love to implement given some scaremongering to gain public acceptance.

Re:Wrong (1)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | more than 2 years ago | (#37592108)

I believe you are incorrect. Gorelick was merely complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which erected a firewall between domestic and overseas intelligence gathering services. FISA was itself the result of the Church Commission's investigation into US sponsored political assassinations of the early 1970s.

Congress demonstrated tremendous wisdom in the establishment of that firewall, and an embarrassing dearth of wisdom in allowing the administration to breech it.

Re:So what is new? (4, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589706)

But there's no real evidence of any sort of high-level conspiracy. This is just low-level bureaucratic infighting at its finest.

Doesn't that make it even more tragic?

We really screwed up. We panicked and essentially said "Bureaucracy is inefficient - lets add more!"

The problem is naming them. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589734)

As far as I can tell, this is just one more example of how turf wars between the different agencies caused severe information gaps before 9/11.

The difference is that the people RESPONSIBLE for those turf wars are now being IDENTIFIED by NAME.

Look at how many "mistakes" were made on critical issues ... without anyone being identified or fired.

Re:So what is new? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589738)

When evidence is withheld from the public, that usually indicates a cover-up. But you did a very nice job of labeling any and all challenges to the official conspiracy theory as a bunch of loons. Good show!

Re:So what is new? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590636)

So...

we are to believe that a bunch of arabs with intense jihad beliefs sat around in a cave thousands of miles away for two decades contemplating the doom of America by blowing up a few buildings with a few airplanes?

Then a few years later we have Gulf War II, with I being started by daddy?

Think about why the IRA committed their terrorist actions, or why the taliban commit theirs. For somebody to go die to kill you, they must really really have a good motive, and I don't think our elegant lifestyles and cocky denouement are the full picture.

It would more be along the lines of us abandoning Bin Laden years ago during the cold war, but still... a very long time to hold a grudge.

So (4, Insightful)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589362)

Deliberately screwing something up is still called a "mistake" when it leads to thousands of easily-prevented deaths?

I guess if I intentionally sabotage a project I'm working on I can claim a mistake was made too. I am just as sure that I will get fired regardless.

If just ONE person gets fired or becomes unemployable due to this it would be a sign that some kind of credibility still exists in our federal law enforcement/security agencies. But, I doubt it's ever going to happen.

"well, back in my day we didn't eat babies..." (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589438)

Get with the times grandpa! Accountability is for little people!

Re:"well, back in my day we didn't eat babies..." (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589490)

Which is the problem. Rather than focusing on increasing the quality of the information that they're processing, they've focused on increasing the volume hoping that something will rise to the surface. The problem is that even as they get more and more materials the number of people available to analyse it hasn't increased by a similar amount. Leading to the unfortunate situation where there's a lot of intelligence information out there that isn't analysed, and a lot of people losing privacy needlessly.

Accountability for torture and various violations of the law don't seem to ever materialise at the levels necessary to prevent the abuses of power.

credibility? (5, Insightful)

rjejr (921275) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589476)

I think you mean culpability. Nobody gets fired anymore. Colin Powell's huge WMD speech before the UN is still my favorite example. Oh sure, Clinton got impeached for getting a bj from a fat chick, but "Brownie" destroying New Orleans? Heckuva job there. Mission Accomplished in Iraq. On the bright side, cover-ups will soon be a thing of the past, all the evils of the world exposed and the perpetrators will simply say - "there ya go, do something about it", but nobody can, or will.

Re:credibility? (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589732)

Clinton almost got impeached for lying under oath about getting a bj, not for the bj itself.

Re:credibility? (3, Informative)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590092)

Clinton was impeached, he just wasn't convicted. Same with Andrew Johnson.

Re:credibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590132)

Clinton got impeached, not "almost".

Re:credibility? (4, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590352)

Yeah, remember when lying about a bj was this nation's biggest problem? How do we get back to those times?

Re:credibility? (2, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590506)

Yup, and they didn't convict because they're all damned hypocrites, and they had to hound the man and burn millions of dollars only to try and get him for something that occurred during the investigation and not something revealed as a result of the investigation.

tl;dr: the Republican witch hunt was worthless, and so was the impeachment.

Re:credibility? (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591742)

Bill Clinton WAS in fact impeached (which actually I didn't know myself until I looked it up just now), but was not convicted.

Re:credibility? (4, Informative)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590166)

Clinton got impeached for getting a bj from a fat chick,

That's not true. Clinton was impeached for two things, neither of which was the physical encounter with Monica Lewinsky. The first thing he was impeached for was Perjury before a Grand Jury. The act that spawned this article of impeachment was when he claimed under oath in Judge Susan Webber Wright's grand jury that he had never had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him. The second thing he was impeached for was Obstruction of Justice. That acts that spawned this article of impeachment was when he encouraged Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, when he encouraged her to lie under oath, when he plotted with his secretary to hide a box of gifts he had given to Lewinsky, when he attempted to get Lewinsky a job so that she would not provide truthful testimony, when he lied to White House staff, and when he allowed his attorney to make false statements on his behalf.

~Loyal

Re:credibility? (4, Insightful)

cwgmpls (853876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590464)

How stupid do you think we are? Everybody knows exactly what happened to Clinton. So edit the statement to read "Clinton got impeached for lying about getting a bj from a fat chick" and it still carries the same meaning. Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation. Yet we have leaders destroy cities and nations through lies and incompetence and yet they face no consequences.

Re:credibility? (1, Interesting)

rjh (40933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590946)

Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.

President Clinton took an oath of office. In that oath of office, he swore that he would see to it each and every American received the full protections of law without respect to position or privilege. It was his job to respect the civil rights of the mentally ill homeless guy who lives under the bridge, the schoolteacher, the dockworker, the farmer, the banker, the lawyer, and the priest. It was his job to do this without the slightest regard for who they were.

Gennifer Flowers had the right to the due process of law. The President deliberately and willfully subverted this.

If you say that's "of no consequence to the nation," that's your lookout. As for me, if he'll throw Gennifer Flowers' civil rights under the bus in order to avoid telling his wife he's having an affair then he'll do the same thing to me the instant I become inconvenient. I find that to be of immense consequence, and his conduct to be worthy of impeachment.

YMMV, and apparently does. Welcome to America, where we have the right to hold different opinions -- but only so long as we're wise enough to elect administrations that will defend our rights.

Re:credibility? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591556)

His impeachment had nothing whatsoever to do with Gennifer Flowers.

Re:credibility? (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591024)

How stupid do you think we are?

I had only suspicions before, but after reading your latest comment I'm pretty confident that you are quite stupid.

Everybody knows exactly what happened to Clinton. So edit the statement to read "Clinton got impeached for lying about getting a bj from a fat chick" and it still carries the same meaning.

To idiots, perhaps, but not in law. When some poor, hungry schmuck steals food and gets caught, he's not charged with "being poor"; he's charged with theft.

Clinton was impeached for an act that was of no consequence to the nation.

He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury about "an act that was of no consequence to the nation." That was his own damn fault.

Re:credibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590568)

your story doesn't make sense. why would he be telling a judge if he has had intimate relations with any person who was subordinate to him? If you are are being asked that question, you don't have to answer it, you can say whatever you want.

Now, if he had been asked if he had raped a woman -- subordinate or otherwise -- that would be a different question. You can't tell a judge whatever you want about whether you raped someone.

Obviously I am simplifying somewhat, but what you've written simply doesn't make any sense. It would be like a judge asking you, "Have you used your office to gain private influence or influence for after you're done with office?" Obviously you don't have to answer that. That's not even a question in the realm of anything anyone has to answer.

Re:credibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590704)

Yeah, that's much worse than starting two never-ending wars and setting up your buddy's "former" oil companies on the smouldering ruins. That stain on Lewinsky's dress is far worse than the hundreds of THOUSANDS of CIVILIANS that have lost their lives in Iraq to American soldiers who have been driven insane by the realization that every generation after them might still be fighting the same, pointless war.

There's nothing "loyal" about you, fucking traitor.

You're right (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591082)

lying about a beej is far worse than lying about a war and torture.

Re:credibility? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37592246)

In other words, the first count was for lying about a bj and the second was for asking someone to back up his lie about a bj.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589542)

Deliberately screwing something up is still called a "mistake" when it leads to thousands of easily-prevented deaths?

It is quite common when dealing with secret information to restrict access on a need-to-know basis.

This kind of policy has one big upside - the risk of leaking is greatly reduced.

This kind of policy has one big downside - you are denying information to people who could really use it.

Now it's not clear from the summary or the linked articles (still reading) whether the CIA guy was following policy in not passing the info along to the FBI.

Re:So (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589578)

I believe CIA were tracking al-Mihdha and buddies both inside and outside of the US in the months leading up to the attacks. FBI had other pieces of the puzzle, but since they were foreign nationals, they were the primary responsibility of the CIA, even when they were on US soil. Perhaps CIA thought they were on to something bigger and didn't want to compromise their surveillance op too soon, thus the rules on operational secrecy would demand continued compartmentalization.

So it seems the failure here was an agency that played too closely by the book when it should have been bending the rules. But imagine the howling on Slashdot on 9/10/2011 if things had happened differently, and the CIA and FBI stepped out of bounds of their rules and regulations in order to prevent this.

Re:So (1, Insightful)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589670)

The thing is, there are a whole bunch of people around the world who think that this is government conspiracy to cause those thousands of easily prevented deaths. Yes, it was deliberate screwing up. No, it wasn't government conspiracy, it was just humans being short-sited idiots. We as a race are pretty good at that.

Re:So (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589674)

The problem is finding the source of that mistake. Either you accept the possibility that a series of individually inane omissions added up to a giant clusterfuck, or you choose to believe the theory that a handful of people acted strategically to trigger the "right mistakes", which sent the remaining players along a predictable path toward the desired outcome. Like a big meat-powered Rube Goldberg machine of doom...

Given the level of stupidity inherent in any large enough organisation, I'm not quite ready to dismiss theory #2.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590586)

Deliberately screwing something up is still called a "mistake" when it leads to thousands of easily-prevented deaths?

I guess if I intentionally sabotage a project I'm working on I can claim a mistake was made too. I am just as sure that I will get fired regardless.

If just ONE person gets fired or becomes unemployable due to this it would be a sign that some kind of credibility still exists in our federal law enforcement/security agencies. But, I doubt it's ever going to happen.

Not only did Jamie Gorelick not get fired, afterward she moved on to working on the board of Fannie Mae (making some $800,000/year). It seems like world-wide catastrophes follow her wherever she goes...

Re:So (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590646)

Dictionary.com defines mistake as "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." So yes.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590680)

Valerie Plame was fired. /just saying.

5 Who's Instead of 5 Why's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591028)

Ah, the 5-who's method. Someone is to blame so start at the top, and work your way down till you find the person who may be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and may not be trained or qualified to make a decision that s/he was expected to make anyway.

To paraphrase Deming: only 15% of an organization's performance is affected by the people operating in that organization. 85% is influenced by the training, policies, procedures and culture of the organization. The latter, of course, being influenced by leaders within an organization. Organizations rot from the top down, not the bottom up.

Very few people intentionally sabotage anything. There are millions of poor decisions every day, and a number of those have to add up before someone dies. For example, say you read "a mechanic working on a plane made an error and an engine gave out and the plane crashed and people died." Dig a little deeper and you find that the pilot was inexperienced and could not recover, or the plane was over designed to take the controls away from the pilot when something failed and did not let the pilot recover, or the mechanic was working under severe time constraints, or stressed due to a family issue.

People make mistakes, but the only ones who should be held accountable are those who had the power to design a resilient *system* but did not do so.

Conspiracy theories of 9/11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589416)

I agree with the conspiracy theories of 9/11. Do you?

Re:Conspiracy theories of 9/11 (0, Troll)

Schlacht (18295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589694)

Well...

Theories about no planes? NO

Theories about punishment from god? NO

Theories about 19 little skinny guys with box cutters implementing a hail-Mary (or Allah) plan like this? NO

A conspiracy to execute a false flag attack on our own citizens in order to justify taking control of some of the largest oil reserves on the planet?

That doesn't sound like a theory, just a conspiracy.

Re:Conspiracy theories of 9/11 (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590038)

That doesn't sound like a theory, just a conspiracy.

No it is a theory, or a collection of theories. Mostly the theories deal with specific details rather than just "A conspiracy to execute a false flag attack on our own citizens in order to justify taking control of some of the largest oil reserves on the planet?", just like gravity is fairly evident but a theory about the specifics from a major physicist can still be highly valuable and informative. Perhaps gravity is a bad example. I still wouldn't totally discard the box cutters theory either. While it may be obvious that the US government are very keen on oil and the Iraq war was based on lies, it is equally clear that they are incompetent with security and foreign policy, and that intelligence sharing is a shambles.

The only thing that is clear to me is that no one is telling the whole story, whether it be because they don't know it, or for other reasons.

Re:Conspiracy theories of 9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591966)

they are incompetent with security and foreign policy

CIA seems to be perfectly capable of orchestrating attacks on other regimes...

Re:Conspiracy theories of 9/11 (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589834)

I agree with the conspiracy theories of 9/11.

All of them? Or just the government's?

Slashdot has declined. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589464)

Forget the "post-9/11 era" - I'm concerned about the "post-Taco era". The relevant story should be the first link. I clicked the first link and it's a huge PDF from Justice. Yes, the subject of the story combed through that giant PDF and found something interesting, and it might be good to have the primary source as a footnote here, but don't make me comb through it myself. It took me far too long to figure out what this story is about, and that secrecykills.org is where the submitter is getting most of their information and thus the most relevant link to the headline.

All the President's Men (2)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589562)

That manager was named Richard Earl Blee and he is now the subject of a documentary by Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, of secrecykills.org, who confirmed his identity using techniques right out of the 70s film All the President's Men.

They had an FBI Associate Director feed them information?

Re:All the President's Men (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591214)

I didn't say he looked like Alex Trebek, I said he was Alex Trebek!

What's new? (1)

tramp (68773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589678)

It is easy in hindsight to say something about pre 9/11 intelligence. Of course they made mistakes as human beings there will always be someone making mistakes. But has the multi billions costing secret agencies fighting World War IV against terrorism made the world somehow better? I seriously doubt that.

Re:What's new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591242)

What happened to WWIII?

Secrecy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589768)

Details Classified "Top Secret" even when the truth is obvious.

Thank you slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589812)

For covering this extremely important issue.

Pre 9/11 mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590048)

At that time it was illegal for the CIA and the FBI to share information.
Congress wanted to keep the CIA from dabbling into domestic issues.
CIA was created for foreign intelligence and FBI on domestic crime.

Re:Pre 9/11 mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590372)

At that time it was illegal for the CIA and the FBI to share information.
Congress wanted to keep the CIA from dabbling into domestic issues.
CIA was created for foreign intelligence and FBI on domestic crime.

No, it wasn't. This was deliberate. When Michael Anne Casey (CIA) told Doug Miller (FBI) that he couldn't tell his co-workers at the FBI that Khalid Almihdhar had a US Visa and intended on travelling to the US AFTER the terrorist summit that had been recently monitored, Michael THEN immediately sent an internal CIA memo that the FBI had been notified.

Hindsight = 20/20 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590070)

See subject.

Guys guys guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590398)

Thou doth protest too much.

Many Problems I See Here (0)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590890)

Everyone in the C.I.A., and the F.B.I. knows who failed, and why; it is a classic case of, "for all the right reasons, being wrong." I do not believe for a moment that those that deal with the worlds bad guys have an easy task. But it painfully appears that Proto-Islam, when it drew up its plans, factored in the frustration levels of the C.I.A.. Proto-Islam incorrectly factored in pack mentality when it planned for kicking a sleeping dog; it appears that the rest of the pack did not ignore the event. Proto-Islam can not alter itself, but something more devious may have occurred. Did Proto-Islam, allow themselves to be "Ghost Dancers", and indirectly help assist Neo-Islam to be born? Because the end result, today, is a Neo-Islam emerging where decisions by all contributing has begun.

Re:Many Problems I See Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591388)

What in the fuck are you babbling about? You're losing it.

Go take your meds, self-medicate, meditate, go to your happy place, or whatever the fuck it is you do to get your shit together.

Re:Many Problems I See Here (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591780)

While I hate to agree with an obviously trolling AC, I too am very confused as to what on earth you're talking about.

whoops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591056)

It's far easier to look back and see something coming than as it is happening. Years ago at my high school there were bomb threats all the time. A majority of them were just kids thinking it'd get them out of a test; however, after the first few, they stopped evacuating and had to weigh the significance of each one. I'm sure they have plenty to sift though; things slipping though is a reality. It's just the statistics of randomness at work more than anything else.
The same sort of thing happened before Pearl Harbor. Why, so long after the fact, are people still trying to play the blame game?

Where's the beef? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591498)

Which link in the /. story points at the detailed story which is being summarized? Are we supposed to read all of the government report?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...