Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I am really confused what you meanby innocent. I am also confused what you find weird about the security protocols of perhaps the largest center of military secrets of the most powerful nation on earth.

By innocent I mean the government's "we had nothing to do with this" story. My point is that in this particular incident, I don't think their hands are entirely clean.

Additionally, the FBI swept the area for evidence right after the plane hit. The FBI is not known to be first-responders on any crime scene. Now granted, they probably did have some real estate in the Pentagon anyways, but the main FBI building, the J. Edgar Hoover building, is almost 3 miles away. I'm sure protocols are different for a defense building, but that just seems fishy.

Also, they haven't released any other footage of the plane hitting, and have far more confiscated video than publicly-released video. Can someone please explain this to me if the proof is apparently in the five-frame security footage the Pentagon released themselves? I also don't totally understand why the hijackers had to make a huge loop to hit the damn thing. Couldn't they have just leveled down on top of the Pentagon and created more carnage that way? Seems like a waste of effort to me.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

By innocent I mean the government's "we had nothing to do with this" story. My point is that in this particular incident, I don't think their hands are entirely clean.

Additionally, the FBI swept the area for evidence right after the plane hit. The FBI is not known to be first-responders on any crime scene. Now granted, they probably did have some real estate in the Pentagon anyways, but the main FBI building, the J. Edgar Hoover building, is almost 3 miles away. I'm sure protocols are different for a defense building, but that just seems fishy.

Also, they haven't released any other footage of the plane hitting, and have far more confiscated video than publicly-released video. Can someone please explain this to me if the proof is apparently in the five-frame security footage the Pentagon released themselves?

The Pentagon being a federal building, the attack was in the FBI's pervue, therefore only they and the secret service would be involved, the fact they were there first is because they have a permanant presence there, normally the local plod would arrive and then hand over to the feds as soon as they got there, in this case the feds were on the site first.


As to film of the plane hitting I doubt there is much of any, how much footage is there of the first plane strike in New York? virtually none that I have seen despite there being thousands of cameras there as well, cameras all point downwards in normal use, I have no doubt the film from the security camera they did release is by far and away the best they have, and that is virtually unintelligable.

Adendum, I went and looked up the wtc 1 crash, there are 2 videos, one is actually very good as it was taken by some firemen that seem to be filming some form of training exercise when the plane flew over their head, a pure coincidence. The other is basically just film of the debris ejecting after the crash from some tourist, again coincidence.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Pentagon being a federal building, the attack was in the FBI's pervue, therefore only they and the secret service would be involved, the fact they were there first is because they have a permanant presence there, normally the local plod would arrive and then hand over to the feds as soon as they got there, in this case the feds were on the site first.

I'm referring to the FBI acting as a first responder, which they, in most cases, are not. I'm sure the FBI was meant to be involved, but in the immediate aftermath? And what does the Secret Service have anything to do with being first-responders? They are meant to protect the President, his executives, and their families, as well as be at events with national security implications. Their role in anything else is investigative, not emergency response to a building disaster.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

As to film of the plane hitting I doubt there is much of any, how much footage is there of the first plane strike in New York? virtually none that I have seen despite there being thousands of cameras there as well, cameras all point downwards in normal use, I have no doubt the film from the security camera they did release is by far and away the best they have, and that is virtually unintelligable.

Well this still doesn't explain why they don't release it, not to mention the Mariott hotel that supposedly caught it on tape, as well as, I'm sure, the numerous highway cameras that likely caught a glimpse. If the Pentagon video was the 'best they had,' that is a pretty unsettling state of affairs. You would think that a building like the Pentagon would have ALL angles of the building covered in video cameras. It just doesn't add up.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm referring to the FBI acting as a first responder, which they, in most cases, are not. I'm sure the FBI was meant to be involved, but in the immediate aftermath? And what does the Secret Service have anything to do with being first-responders? They are meant to protect the President, his executives, and their families, as well as be at events with national security implications. Their role in anything else is investigative, not emergency response to a building disaster.

the job of the FBI

appoint officials to detect... crimes against the United States."[

this was their jurisdiction.

Secret Service

The Secret Service investigates thousands of incidents a year of individuals threatening the President of the United States.

Either way what were they suppose to do? IT was a federal building both FBI secret service are on location - should they just wait around for the police cops to get there....such a minor unsignificant point.

[Yasa]

I don't understand. There are suspicions because the FBI were first responders which "never happens"? That's making a big leap.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

the job of the FBI



this was their jurisdiction.

Secret Service



Either way what were they suppose to do? IT was a federal building both FBI secret service are on location - should they just wait around for the police cops to get there....such a minor unsignificant point.

Incorrect. The responding and investigating agency is a BIG deal in the USIC, especially as it pertains to collection and analysis. And your earlier Wikipedia references are to vague to be convincing in any way.

[getbak]

Back in the 90s, I worked at a small town tv station, and one day the RCMP brought in a tape from one of the local gas stations that had been robbed to see if we could do anything with the picture quality.

Not only was it recorded on a crappy old VHS tape at EP speed, in black and white, but it was one of those systems where the feeds from 4 separate cameras were combined onto one image. The video quality was so bad that you couldn't even have reasonably said if it was a man or a woman, let alone be able to identify the person.

I'd bet that any footage from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon would have been of similar quality. Today, you might find security cameras with HD quality and digital recorders, but in 2001, you'd be lucky if the store employee even remembered to rewind the tape and start recording every 6 hours.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm referring to the FBI acting as a first responder, which they, in most cases, are not. I'm sure the FBI was meant to be involved, but in the immediate aftermath? And what does the Secret Service have anything to do with being first-responders? They are meant to protect the President, his executives, and their families, as well as be at events with national security implications. Their role in anything else is investigative, not emergency response to a building disaster.

The FBI was given almost immediate jurisdiction on 9/11, and while the secret service was involved in the investigation, most of the Secret Service investigative arms are involved in either crimes involving treasury, or direct threats to the President.

The FBI was the first investigative responder on the scene because most of the other law enforcement agencies were tied up in civil protection.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The FBI was given almost immediate jurisdiction on 9/11, and while the secret service was involved in the investigation, most of the Secret Service investigative arms are involved in either crimes involving treasury, or direct threats to the President.

The FBI was the first investigative responder on the scene because most of the other law enforcement agencies were tied up in civil protection.

Tied up with what? Source? Define "civil protection"

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You're reaching big time.

Such an ironic statement from you in this thread.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Incorrect. The responding and investigating agency is a BIG deal in the USIC, especially as it pertains to collection and analysis. And your earlier Wikipedia references are to vague to be convincing in any way.

Im sorry buts the FBI that investigates terrorism not the local police. The FBI being first responders during a terrorism attack is nothing out of the norm. Your reaching - regardless not sure how it changes anything or points to anything other than what actually happened. Again i repeat the FBI investigates terrorism - this was a terrorism attack.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Tied up with what? Source? Define "civil protection"

Might have to wait a day or two, I'm heading to Vancouver tommorrow at 4:30 am so I won't have time to pull the source book tonight.

In terms of the whole civil protection, my choice of words, but the police were tied up in areas other then investigation ie traffic control, security work etc, assisting civil authority. The FBI was given the mandate of investigation.

The Secret Service will investigate threats to the president, but their main investigative mandate is based around the financial systems.

ie counterfitting, fraud, identity theft.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Im sorry buts the FBI that investigates terrorism not the local police. The FBI being first responders during a terrorism attack is nothing out of the norm. Your reaching - regardless not sure how it changes anything or points to anything other than what actually happened. Again i repeat the FBI investigates terrorism - this was a terrorism attack.

You think I'm arguing this wasn't a terrorist attack? Of course it was. My argument is that the FBI was right on the scene at the time of the disaster, sweeping and confiscating evidence even before civil service first-responders could finish their job. All I'm saying is that is highly suspicious, especially if they are still holding evidence from the public 10 years afterwards. I'm not going to argue this particular point any further.

Additionally, your point that the FBI is the responder is insignificant is an ignorant statement. One of the many failures identified from 9/11 was the collection and analysis of evidence and research that agencies were stove-piping from each other, whether due to miscommunication, distrust among IC agencies, or stubborn bureaucratic processes. The fact that the FBI picks up evidence at crime scenes like this is a massive issue for the CIA, NSA, NGIA, DIA, and all other 15 agencies in the USIC.

[CaptainCrunch]

How is it an issue for the CIA, the CIA has no domestic police authority. They can gather intelligence and investigate internationally, they can submit intelligence that might have a domestic effect to a organization like the FBI or SS.

Why would the NSA care about physical evidence.

NGIA is imagery and mapping intelligence, they wouldn't care about aircraft parts.

You could argue about Defense Intelligence, but they would more then likely be subborned to the FBI and CIA in this case since terrorism falls into those two organizations.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Tied up with what? Source? Define "civil protection"

Lets think what would the DC and surrounding area cops be up to a half hour after it became clear the US was under attack? perhaps heading to their pre arranged points of muster in the event of a national emergency or the like, on top of that the rest of the US was going nuts at that point, cops were responding to rumours all over the place throughout the US.

Why were the FBI there first? because they are always there, they have a field office there. This is/was the worlds largest office with 23,000 employees, most of the time I have no doubt they are doing criminal background checks and the like, you really think it is strange that a group of cops in the actual building where the first to get to the scene of the crash?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Additionally, your point that the FBI is the responder is insignificant is an ignorant statement. One of the many failures identified from 9/11 was the collection and analysis of evidence and research that agencies were stove-piping from each other, whether due to miscommunication, distrust among IC agencies, or stubborn bureaucratic processes. The fact that the FBI picks up evidence at crime scenes like this is a massive issue for the CIA, NSA, NGIA, DIA, and all other 15 agencies in the USIC.

It's the FBI job not those other agencies some of which have no legal means to operate inside the US.

I do agree that the CIA looks like idiots for knowing full well that some of the hijackers were in the USA taking flight traning - it was their job to share that information with the FBI who have jurisdiction inside the USA.

Either way doesn't change the fact that a plane flew into the pentagon - i mean they found plane parts and there are pictures of those parts.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is it an issue for the CIA, the CIA has no domestic police authority. They can gather intelligence and investigate internationally, they can submit intelligence that might have a domestic effect to a organization like the FBI or SS.

Why would the NSA care about physical evidence.

NGIA is imagery and mapping intelligence, they wouldn't care about aircraft parts.

You could argue about Defense Intelligence, but they would more then likely be subborned to the FBI and CIA in this case since terrorism falls into those two organizations.

It is an issue for the CIA. If a National Intelligence Estimate or a Presidential Briefing is built on the evidence and analysis collected by the FBI, and is not vetted through other USIC agencies as required by the ODNI in their intelligence sharing strategy (2009), as well as under the mandate of the 2004 IRTPA and the subsequent ICD 501, then the intelligence is incomplete and not trustworthy. Physical evidence is collected, processed and analyzed by various agencies within the USIC, so yes- the CIA, NSA, NGIA, DIA and other agencies have a stake in the collection of evidence to analyze intelligence and produce intelligence products.

Your argument is starting to sound like the IC itself before 9/11 - agencies not sharing information because they think it doesn't pertain to other agencies. The 9/11 Commission Report identified this attitude as one of the primary causes for 9/11 - stove-piping information from each other and only sharing on a "need to know" basis, not a "responsibility to provide" model as the ODNI now employs.

My point on this topic is that the FBI is not some 'lone wolf' assigned to terrorism and terrorist activities. It's every agencies problem now, especially after 9/11.

Also, this photo confuses the f### out of me . . . What the heck was going on here at the Pentagon crash site?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I am really confused about the Pentagon impact.

I really don't understand why they can't show the plane making impact. We have all seen the planes make impact on the twin towers.....a thousand times over and we know that other cameras viewed the Pentagon attack......what is the big deal??

Question for you, and be honest.

When the 9/11 attacks happened, what was your initial default position? Were you automatically looking for alternate theories, or did one particular thing strike you funny?

The only reason I ask, is I don't always trust the government and so I looked for things right off the bat that could be evidence of a different conspiracy, and nothing strikes out as obvious. I lean more towards the official explanation now than I did on September 12th, 2001. I doubt we will ever know everything, nor do I think we are entitled to.

[CaptainCrunch]

There was no vetting of information prior to 9/11, that was the problem, information never escaped from these agencies to be combined into a entire threat analysis.

Thats the problem, thats why we've seen an attempt to reform the CIA by placing military leadership there.

The NSA for example isn't going to care at all about aircraft parts and papers, they're going to care about signal intelligence, so in terms of the investigation, they were intercepting all kinds of communication intel between Al Queda elements before and after 9/11 occured.

They won't process anything but signals, just like NGIA wouldn't really have a roll in the investigation at all unless a Satellite shows some image of Bin Laden holding up a sign that said I did it.

Would DIA care, sure, but they would be suborned to the FBI in this care because one of the big FBI mandates involves terrorist attacks in America, and they hold jurisdiction on that.

But I've never disagreed with what your saying about the sharing of information, but I'm not sure I understand how it waters down to the FBI doing the initial onsite investigation?