[9/11] Voorkennis

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 09:07 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Vliegtuigkapingen dat hebben we echt nóóit verwacht, ja vast Condo Rize.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 09:43 schreef pingu_ het volgende:

[..]

Bedoelde ze echt dat? Vliegtuigkapingen zijn al vaak genoeg voorgekomen dus het lijkt me dan een vreemde context.

Dat ze die vliegtuigen in gebouwen als het WTC zouden vliegen hadden ze nooit verwacht.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 09:49 schreef soppig het volgende:

[..]

ookwel : het kapen van vliegtuigen als middel voor het plegen van aanslagen

quote:

Lorenzi en anderen beklemtoonden dat de informatie zeer algemeen was en dat de Fransen zeker niet wisten van gedetailleerde aanvalsplannen op het WTC en het Pentagon.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 09:49 schreef soppig het volgende:

[..]

ookwel : het kapen van vliegtuigen als middel voor het plegen van aanslagen

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 11:54 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Dus ondanks oefeningen met precies dat scenario kwam het toch nog onverwachts zegmaar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 11:59 schreef Basp1 het volgende:

[..]

Toch heel logisch dat geheime diensten dingen verwachten die erger zijn dan je eigenlijk voor mogelijk houd. Net zoals ze ons voorzien van infomatie die totaal (niet) klopt. Maar ja de veiligheidsdiensten moeten toch wel wat doen om hun eigen bestaan te rechtvaardigen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 13:19 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Letterlijke verklaring van Rice

"No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

Transcript of Rice's 9/11 commission statement

Dat is onjuist. Vliegtuigen als "missiles" gebruiken was een mogelijkheid die men al heel lang voorzien had.

quote:

KEAN: I've got a question now I'd like to ask you. It was given to me by a number of members of the families.

Did you ever see or hear from the FBI, from the CIA, from any other intelligence agency, any memos or discussions or anything else between the time you got into office and 9/11 that talked about using planes as bombs?

RICE: Let me address this question because it has been on the table.

I think that concern about what I might have known or we might have known was provoked by some statements that I made in a press conference. I was in a press conference to try and describe the August 6 memo, which I've talked about here in my opening remarks and which I talked about with you in the private session.

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

Part of the problem is -- and I think Sandy Berger made this point when he was asked the same question -- that you have thousands of pieces of information -- car bombs and this method and that method -- and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort to tell you what is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative.

RICE: And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative.

All that I can tell you is that it was not in the August 6 memo, using planes as a weapon. And I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons. In fact, there were some reports done in '98 and '99. I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke.

KEAN: You didn't see any memos to you or any documents to you?

RICE: No, I did not.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

quote:

In het document worden United Airlines en American Airlines, luchtvaartmaatschappijen waarvan in september 2001 inderdaad toestellen werden gekaapt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 13:51 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Waarom blijkt er oh zo vaak iets anders te staan als je de link opent? Uit je eigen link:

quote:

En ja, ik weet dat Rice die zin gezegd heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 13:59 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Het staat er letterlijk.

Waarom suggereer je alsof ik de zaak loop te bedonderen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 14:06 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Als mister Jones al halverwege juni (2001) letterlijk het "draaiboek" kende., dan zal vast Pentagon het niet weten.
Je wil echt niet weten hoeveel stapel papier hebben dat er iets op stapel stond voor 9/11. Misschien daarom ook dat ze exact die dag het spelletje gingen naspelen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 14:02 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Ja, het staat er letterlijk. Maar het is duidelijk dat ze die mening in die bevraging niet toegedaan is. Ze is aan het uitleggen dat die uitspraak niet klopt en dat ze beter wat anders had gezegd. Lijkt mij niet echt netjes om dan net die ene zin eruit te halen zonder dit te vermelden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 14:10 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Nah, het is imo zoeken naar iets om over te mierenneuken. Een quote is niet netjes, ok...

Ironisch genoeg maakt jouw quote mijn punt nog beter.

Het scenario van gekaapte vliegtuigen gebruiken als raketten of bommen was niet "nog nooit aan gedacht".

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 13:57 schreef gorgg het volgende:
Ja, de VS had voorkennis uit verschillende bronnen dat er aanwijzingen waren dat er een aanslag op til stond. Ze hadden echter GEEN specifieke informatie over wanneer, hoe, waar, door wie. Kortom, niks waardoor ze direct actie hadden kunnen nemen.
In een ideale wereld, met perfect functionerende ambtenaren die perfecte beslissingen nemen en met perfecte communicatie tussen de verschillende diensten was de aanslag volgens mij zeker verijdeld geweest. Maar dat is niet het geval en zal nooit het geval zijn.

quote:

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

Part of the problem is -- and I think Sandy Berger made this point when he was asked the same question -- that you have thousands of pieces of information -- car bombs and this method and that method -- and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort to tell you what is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative.

quote:

May 15, 2002: Bush’s ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US’ Warning Is Leaked to Public

The New York Post has a banner headline on May 16, 2002. [Source: New York Post]The Bush administration is embarrassed when the CBS Evening News reveals that President Bush had been warned about al-Qaeda domestic attacks in August 2001 (see August 6, 2001). Bush had repeatedly said that he had “no warning” of any kind. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer states unequivocally that while Bush had been warned of possible hijackings, “[t]he president did not—not—receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.” [New York Times, 5/15/2002; Washington Post, 5/16/2002] “Until the attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.” [MSNBC, 9/18/2002] Fleischer claims the August memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the US,” but the real title is soon found to end with “… Strike in US” [Washington Post, 5/18/2002] The Guardian will state a few days later, “the memo left little doubt that the hijacked airliners were intended for use as missiles and that intended targets were to be inside the US.” It further states that, “now, as the columnist Joe Conason points out in the current edition of the New York Observer, ‘conspiracy’ begins to take over from ‘incompetence’ as a likely explanation for the failure to heed—and then inform the public about—warnings that might have averted the worst disaster in the nation’s history.” [Guardian, 5/19/2002]


May 16, 2002: Nobody Predicted 9/11-Style Attacks, Says Rice

National Security Adviser Rice tries to explain what Bush knew and when in her May 16, 2002 press conference. [Source: CNN]National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice states, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,” adding that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/2002] Contradicting Rice’s claims, former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon acknowledges that such a scenario has long been taken seriously by US intelligence: “If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a plane into a missile? [N]obody would have ruled that out.” Rice also states, “The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas.” [MSNBC, 5/17/2002] Slate awards Rice the “Whopper of the Week” when the title of Bush’s August 6 briefing is revealed: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” [Slate, 5/23/2002] Rice later will concede that “somebody did imagine it” but will say she did not know about such intelligence until well after this conference. [Associated Press, 9/21/2002]


May 16, 2002: Rice Incorrectly Claims Bush Warning Contains Only Historical Information

National Security Adviser Rice holds a press conference to respond to the public leak (see May 15, 2002) of the title of President Bush’s August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” (see August 6, 2001). She asserts, “It was an analytic report that talked about [bin Laden]‘s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998.… I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House, 5/16/2002] In April 2004, Rice will testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission and repeatedly assert that it was “a historical memo… not threat reporting” (see April 8, 2004). However, when the full text of the memo is released later in April 2004, it will be discovered that it does contain threat reporting based on warnings from the summer of 2001.


October 1-2, 2006: Rice Denies Attendance in Urgent Pre-9/11 Al-Qaeda Briefing, but State Department Confirms She Was There

Secretary of State Rice says that she does not recall the meeting on July 10, 2001, when CIA Director Tenet and other officials briefed her about the al-Qaeda threat (see July 10, 2001). “What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible.” [Associated Press, 10/2/2006] Rice says she has no recollection of what she variously calls “the supposed meeting” and “the emergency so-called meeting.” [Editor & Publisher, 10/1/2006; McClatchy Newspapers, 10/2/2006] The Washington Post comments that “Rice added to the confusion… by strongly suggesting that the meeting may never have occurred at all—even though administration officials had conceded for several days that it had.” Hours after Rice’s latest denial, the State Department confirms that documents show Rice did attend such a meeting on that date. However, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack then says, “The briefing was a summary of the threat reporting from the previous weeks. There was nothing new.” The Washington Post notes that when it was pointed out to McCormack that Rice asked for the briefing to be shown to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft (see July 11-17, 2001), “McCormack was unable to explain why Rice felt the briefing should be repeated if it did not include new material.” [Washington Post, 10/3/2006]

Bron: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_post-9/11_world=denials

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 14:02 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Ja, het staat er letterlijk. Maar het is duidelijk dat ze die mening in die bevraging niet toegedaan is. Ze is aan het uitleggen dat die uitspraak niet klopt en dat ze beter wat anders had gezegd. Lijkt mij niet echt netjes om dan net die ene zin eruit te halen zonder dit te vermelden.

quote:

Author James Bamford comments, "Neither Rice nor Bush was aware that the United States had gone to 'battle stations' alert and had scrambled fighter jets into the air to intercept and possibly take hostile action against multiple hijacked airliners, something that was then known by hundreds of others within NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Pentagon.'

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 09:07 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

Vliegtuigkapingen dat hebben we echt nóóit verwacht, ja vast Condo Rize.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 14:10 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

Het scenario van gekaapte vliegtuigen gebruiken als raketten of bommen was niet "nog nooit aan gedacht".

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 11:54 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

Dus ondanks oefeningen met precies dat scenario kwam het toch nog onverwachts zegmaar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2007 18:18 schreef calvobbes het volgende:

[..]

Als de fransen weten dat op die manier een aanslag voorbereid wordt, dan hebben de Amerikanen er nog niks aan.

Echte voorkennis is als je weet waar, wanneer en hoe een aanslag wordt gepleegd. En dan moet je het ook nog zeker weten.
Dus jouw beweringen tonen weer eens niks aan mbt voorkennis van de Amerikanen.