Reuters: Evidence Cia Allowed 9/11

[CogSpin]

Reuters: Significant New Information Details CIA Criminal Culpability in Allowing the 9/11 Attacks!

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRele ase/idUS188405+08-Sep-2008+PRN20080908

Read up and stare blankly

[Gunter45]

At best, it's an inter-bureau pissing contest that ended up fucking America severely.

At worst? Well, it's fodder for the conspiracy crowd, that's for sure.

My opinion is that it has to do with a little of both. It's no secret that the FBI and CIA get into jurisdictional scuffles all the time about everything. In an effort to get more funding, they compete in areas where their scopes overlap to be the ones to make the big busts.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was CIA infiltration. It's not like the CIA is as lean and mean as it once was and it's not like we have J Edgar running the joint anymore. While he was an unacceptably racist, xenophobic prick, he certainly had strict qualifications for being allowed a security clearance.

[Oblivia]

After rigging pictures of Beirut being turn into a burning city made by "teh ebil zionist," I don't see Reuters having much credibility on this story.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/10/08 12:34 PM, Oblivia wrote: After rigging pictures of Beirut being turn into a burning city made by "teh ebil zionist," I don't see Reuters having much credibility on this story.

The pictures were rigged by a Lebanese freelance reporter, not Reuters. Are you aware that Reuters fired this reporter and removed all of his pictures from its database, after it was discovered that some of them were fake?

[Oblivia]

At 9/10/08 12:44 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 9/10/08 12:34 PM, Oblivia wrote: After rigging pictures of Beirut being turn into a burning city made by "teh ebil zionist," I don't see Reuters having much credibility on this story.

The pictures were rigged by a Lebanese freelance reporter, not Reuters. Are you aware that Reuters fired this reporter and removed all of his pictures from its database, after it was discovered that some of them were fake?

Oh, then good riddance. However, I would like to see other folks scrutinize it before the conspiracy dipshits do.

[zoolrule]

http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jod911.com/

There you go sir.

[adrshepard]

This isn't "Reuters:", it's "Palo Alto Publishing Company:". There's a huge difference, as one writes to inform and sell with consideration to good journalism, while the other will say anything it wants to sell books.

And judging by the premise, it looks like the book consists of hindsight judgments and speculations about actions taken that COULD have made it easier, with little or no evidence to prove that it was a CIA conspiracy.

[Elfer]

This is a press release distributed through Reuters. It doesn't really have anything to do with actual news.

[homor]

"no! my crew's taking on this case so just BACK UP JACK UP!"

"nu-unh crazy cracka (this guy is a bruther) me and mah bois are taking down these terrorists!"

*man whispers in both men's ears.*

*both men sit quitely with blank expressions*

[TimeLordX]

This isn't so much a pissing contest as the consquence of not letting the FBI and the CIA share info. Back in the 70's, legal barriers were set up to keep them from sharing info. These barriers were strengthened in the 90's by the Justice Dept.. So if the CIA did have that info, it's unlikely it would be able to share, even if it wanted to.

[TehChahlesh]

At 9/10/08 12:03 PM, Mr-Money wrote: Reuters: Significant New Information Details CIA Criminal Culpability in Allowing the 9/11 Attacks!

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRele ase/idUS188405+08-Sep-2008+PRN20080908

Read up and stare blankly

Oh not you again.

[n64kid]

You realize the difference between news and reporting a story?

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/08 /ual-bankruptcy-rumors-apparently-untrue /

Just a few days ago, Google/Bloomberg made a mistake. Google was getting a lot of hits on an article about United Airlines declaring bankruptcy, but no date for the article.

Google reported it as September 8, 2008, while the article was really written in 2002.

This surfaced on Bloomberg, and caused the stock to plunge nearly 80%.

So you see, there are many examples of bullshit appearing on news websites that ARE NOT NEWS or even FACTUAL.