1) No.
2) There's a sizeable gulf of distance of difference between Pearl Harbor & 9/11. One of them was a legitimate surprise attack upon the U.S. & the other was 9/11.
Right, if you there's a report that North Korea might attack the US with suicide bombers, and a six months later there's a Korean guy that blows himself up at the Super Bowl, it's not a "surprise attack". It was known about and, the implication is, allowed to occur.
Flawless logic!
Surprise attack = spontaneous event that is out of the blue without any forewarning
It would also result in a lot of means and methods being compromised, in an effort to placate people like Bob- a guy who admitted there's no information that could ever come out that would convince him it wasn't an inside job. What's the point? Who cares what these people think?
Lets see... Who considered 9/11 a surprise. The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the military, the airlines, the White House, Congress, New Yorkers, NYPD, FDNY, and just about everyone else in the US, Canada, North America, South America... Heck the whole world.
WHO knew outside the REAL conspirators the time, place and method of attack???????
Surprise attack = spontaneous event that is out of the blue without any forewarning
They knew method & I seriously doubt that the place(s) weren't known either. It's day & time that cannot be accounted for based off what's publicly available to us at this exact moment.
Then basically nothing is a surprise attack, by your definition. Do you know how many reports are generated with possible threats every day?
Really? They knew the method?
The know PLENTY of methods. Bombs. Dirty bombs. Car bombs. Anthrax. Sarin. Boat bombs. Suicide Vests. AK-47s. RPGs. Shoulder fired SAMs.
You have intelligence that shows the KNEW aircraft WOULD be used? Not COULD be. Would be.
And the targets were NOT KNOWN.
The time was NOT KNOWN.
The date was NOT KNOWN.
They could be GUESSED.
So, WHO had the foreknowledge you claim?
Which is a bull**** way to have a meaningful conversation with someone. Openness & honesty go long ways.
Likewise, I have to lol at you thinking it's a family of James Bond villains. Regardless, there's no evidence for what you've proposed and no whistleblowers for it. Which makes one wonder how you can be so critical of the "theories" that do have evidence while promoting those that do not.
No, not like James Bond villains, more like organized criminals.
Whistleblowers... I'm talking about 150 or so years to show a trend of documented facts. **** it's even information on the wiki pages of these individuals (not that wiki is necessarily accurate).
I didn't even bring up any of the more controversial points.
It is one of the commonest standard responses to a "loaded question". Probably the #1 popular example used in most teaching about logic errors and debating trickery. And I note that, true to form, all the "obfuscate by divergent avoidance of legitimate comment" specialists like you have not responded to the point I was simply and clearly making. I trust the pretence of not understanding is pretence?
Your snide insults again? Simply because I have taken time - made the effort - to explain to you what your persistent errors of logic are?
FTFY - "Unload" the question and put it in a legitimate context and I may respond.
1) No.
2) There's a sizeable gulf of distance of difference between Pearl Harbor & 9/11. One of them was a legitimate surprise attack upon the U.S. & the other was 9/11.
As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, [US gubbermint above the law!] even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett's requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.
It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:
The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.
So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message's significance could not have been lost on the translator.
1941 also witnessed the following:
On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: "The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength...."
On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: "War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness." He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.
Congressman Martin Dies would write:
Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services.... I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.
Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president's) hands.
Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People's League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii "before Christmas." In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim's merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.
In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall's intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.
Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, "This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East." It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: "I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action.... I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I."
On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.
Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP's foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.
After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR's just-released "day of infamy" speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, "Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor."
Of course, when you deny anything not supported by the government, I could see how you might believe this to be an accurate statement.Except that he managed to almost completely avoid talking about anything that actually happened on 9/11/2001.
Of course, when you deny anything not supported by the government, I could see how you might believe this to be an accurate statement.
That's why there should have been a real investigation rather than a whitewash investigation that you defend thoughtlessly.Bman, WHO and HOW?
An ungodly amount. What separates many of them is what stage they're in I.e. one that is beginning to one that's near action. Take 9/11. There was a point at which discovery of the plot & players became "breaking news." There's also a point where our observation, surveillance, sources & accumulated intelligence pointed specifically to: "hey, these assholes are ready to attack us."
No, not like James Bond villains, more like organized criminals.
Whistleblowers... I'm talking about 150 or so years to show a trend of documented facts. **** it's even information on the wiki pages of these individuals (not that wiki is necessarily accurate).
I didn't even bring up any of the more controversial points.
That's why there should have been a real investigation rather than a whitewash investigation that you defend thoughtlessly.
There WAS a real investigation. The FBI conducted it. Quit playing stupid.
Oh like the 1993 wtc bombing where they blamed the ME dood for planting the explosives they gave him?
That was an all time greatest second to the kennedy assassination.
No, the 9/11 investigation you remain clueless about. The one utilizing THOUSANDS of investigators.
WHERE do you get your info from Bman?
I have asked you a few dozen times.
Of course, when you deny anything not supported by the government, I could see how you might believe this to be an accurate statement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?