CIA thwarts underwear bomber.

I'm really disgusted by the whole TSA and DHS thing. Not just by TSA. But the fact that we're such a bunch of wimps and we are willingly letting them do this to us. All communications monitored and everything searched. They're slowly turning this country into a police state.

inigo, MikeD, qutch, Cazadores, TallFlyer? Some of your posts hint that you guys know some secret about this CIA exposed bomb plot that the rest of us are not privy to.

What is it you guys are hinting at? Did I miss a previous thread on this or something? qutch and inigo always seem to come up with something semi-classified secret. MikeD often talks like he's only telling us 1/10 of what he really knows. You 3 always seem to have access to information that is over our heads. Is there another level of JC where we can pick up the Code you guys are talking?

I think the secret to "cracking the code" is to be respectful of users you mentioned. Usually they bring up some really interesting stories that are fun to fact check and research. I'm a big fan as I'm often bored in a hotel room. Sometimes they are on the "fringe" but the fringe becomes more acceptable after certain facts are allowed into the light. For example the chemtrail = SRM flights thread was an eye opener for me and based on the posts, for many others. These users are an important part of the community here at JC (IMHO) but they don't respond well to heckling. Usually they will stop publicly discussing anything once there have been rude or worse responses to their posts.
 
I'm really disgusted by the whole TSA and DHS thing. Not just by TSA. But the fact that we're such a bunch of wimps and we are willingly letting them do this to us. All communications monitored and everything searched. They're slowly turning this country into a police state.

inigo, MikeD, qutch, Cazadores, TallFlyer? Some of your posts hint that you guys know some secret about this CIA exposed bomb plot that the rest of us are not privy to.

What is it you guys are hinting at? Did I miss a previous thread on this or something? qutch and inigo always seem to come up with something semi-classified secret. MikeD often talks like he's only telling us 1/10 of what he really knows. You 3 always seem to have access to information that is over our heads. Is there another level of JC where we can pick up the Code you guys are talking?


There's no secret Code. Sorry if it seems that way. And we never knowingly post anything that might be Classified, checking to make sure that it's already been publicly exposed or disclosed by some other public source(s) first. Some of us are mil or ex-military. Some JC members have been exposed to Covert Operations. Some have technical backgrounds that give them special insight. BEEF SUPREME is correct. If the posted dialogue becomes too rude, we stop our public discussion and move to PM or TheQutch@gmail.com in order to preserve the peace on JC. You can find out what you want to know that way, if we decide to leave a thread. Polite posters are always welcome.

Later, if I get the time and it's alright with JC, I'll make an attempt to explain what IMO is going on with this story. And I'll back it up as best I can with credible public sources and links. This story has a very long tail, so some background history is required to understand what they are not revealing in Official Press Releases and US media reports.

For now, you can start here. The 911 Commissioners' attempts to withdraw their support for the 911 Report they authored.

"They manipulated public opinion.....The American people are not aware that their opinions are being manipulated....The media became cheerleaders for war.....There was deception....The American people are a target of outside forces." . Source: 911 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton

.
 
"WE". Seems awful hypocritical to me, you've complained in the past that there is some "board room" of JC users that have tried to squash your opinions, now you post that you have your own group of JC users that go offsite to discuss the things that are posted here. Divide and conquer? Am I missing something?
 
Why can't we hear what they have to say? Are you going to shut them down again?

I'm not shutting anything down. I'm perfectly OK with them saying whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate The Rules.

It appeared to me that Qutch is asking for approval (which I think is silly, but apparently he feels he needs to have pre-approval on controversial topics *shrug* ), so I tagged Doug to make sure he was aware of Qutch's inquiry.

Don't be so freakin' paranoid.
 
Fact Check Time again.

Another Bogus planted Muslim Judge story.

Didn't happen as reported. Anybody think I'm wrong this time?

What is interesting is that Qutch didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions that I posted on page one of this thread below, in response to his statements also on page one:

You well may be. What are your sources? You made the above statements/claims and never followed up or backed them up with anything. What are your specific "fact checks" to this story? Why do you think that it's a "bogus" story? What proof do you have? If the story did not happen as now being reported, as you stated, exactly how did it happen and what proof and sources do you have of how it did occur? Inquiring minds want to know and awaiting your responses to all of these questions with bated breath.
 
What does a You Tube video from last year about the 9/11 commission have to do with the subject matter at hand let alone anything to do with what Skyking asked you? Aside from the usual soap opera of asking permission in public instead of by pm to a Mod, to post information and the usual story of the alleged "JC underground?" And no one has been rude to you thus far on this thread. Is all the continual drama and subterfuge really necessary? Are you going to address your statements on page one and stick to the subject matter of this thread, or do you plan on taking it all to an entirely new direction and just ignore any questions? I am still looking for specific and credible facts and sources to back up what you have claimed on page one. Is that going to be the excuse to cause you to take it "underground"?
 
I, too, am quite open to hearing specifics about the incident. If there is information to back up the claims of a bogus story or it not happening as its claimed I am interested in hearing about it.
 
There's no secret Code. Sorry if it seems that way. And we never knowingly post anything that might be Classified, checking to make sure that it's already been publicly exposed or disclosed by some other public source(s) first. Some of us are mil or ex-military. Some JC members have been exposed to Covert Operations. Some have technical backgrounds that give them special insight. BEEF SUPREME is correct. If the posted dialogue becomes too rude, we stop our public discussion and move to PM or TheQutch@gmail.com in order to preserve the peace on JC. You can find out what you want to know that way, if we decide to leave a thread. Polite posters are always welcome.

Later, if I get the time and it's alright with JC, I'll make an attempt to explain what IMO is going on with this story. And I'll back it up as best I can with credible public sources and links. This story has a very long tail, so some background history is required to understand what they are not revealing in Official Press Releases and US media reports.

For now, you can start here. The 911 Commissioners' attempts to withdraw their support for the 911 Report they authored.

"They manipulated public opinion.....The American people are not aware that their opinions are being manipulated....The media became cheerleaders for war.....There was deception....The American people are a target of outside forces." . Source: 911 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton

.


Excellent, eye opening video. It's so sad that it only has a little over 3,000 views.
 
inigo, MikeD, qutch, Cazadores, TallFlyer? Some of your posts hint that you guys know some secret about this CIA exposed bomb plot that the rest of us are not privy to.

What is it you guys are hinting at? Did I miss a previous thread on this or something? qutch and inigo always seem to come up with something semi-classified secret.

I've never seen a classified document in my life. If I had, I would probably end up contacting the agency in question to advise them of their information security leak (and in turn have to sign an NDA, called an "Oath Upon Inadvertent Exposure to Classified Security Data or Information" after being "debriefed" by some disagreeable gentleman). The government takes this stuff very seriously, and there are major criminal repercussions for compromising classified documents - you don't just do it on a public web forum full of strangers - and classified documents don't just show up as pdf files in google search results, they're kept in safes, vaults and secure intra-nets not connected to the worldwide "series of tubes."

That being said, I'm a huge fan of OSINT - Open Source Intelligence. It's the idea that any secret or classified program or activity leaves a trickle of breadcrumbs behind in the public domain. Every time you find a bit of circumstantial evidence, you try and connect it to the other bits you already know and arrive at some theory through deductive reasoning. It's akin to being a detective looking at a whiteboard full of evidence and trying to crack a case. Through open-mindedness and objectivity, you try and let the facts at hand lead you to the truth without some preconceived notion of what that truth is going to be.

I'm flattered by your compliment, but I hope you're not too disappointed to learn that there's no code and I'm not privy to any secret info, only an educated guess based on a collection of facts available in the public domain for anybody to find.

MikeD often talks like he's only telling us 1/10 of what he really knows.

The guy flew the stealth fighter, an airplane that "didn't exist" for almost a decade after its first flight. We haven't heard 1/1000000th of what he really knows. ;)

Back on the topic at hand, we know:
  • There have been a series of discovered terrorist bomb plots since 2001.
  • In each case these bombs were engineered to be almost undetectable by conventional security methods, using an extremely advanced chemical explosive (used as a nuclear warhead detonator, as I previously mentioned).
  • Yet in each case they either miraculously failed to go off at the last moment (Reid/Abdulmutallab) or the plot was thwarted before it even started (2010 cargo plane printer cartridges and now this latest one).
  • Much like the Anthrax attacks of 2001, we have no idea if these bombs actually came from Yemen. In the case of the Anthrax attacks, recall that in 2008 it was discovered that the Anthrax (which was blamed on everyone from Bin Laden to Iraq) actually came from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infections Diseases in Maryland. (Ironically, the FBI had been using USAMRIID as their top consultant throughout their investigation!) (source) (source)
  • Most importantly, each incident prompted a reactions by the government and the TSA, deeming previous airport security measures ineffective. I find it mighty peculiar that they stress in this latest incident how body-scanners may have been the only means of defense, as that has usually not been true in the past. Take a look at the article below to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...canners-would-have-caught-new-underwear-bomb/

Ex-TSA chief: Full-body scanners would have caught new underwear bomb

By Mark Strassmann
(CBS News) At more than 180 U.S. airports, the Transportation Security Administration increasingly relies on full-body scanners. Their electromagnetic waves screen passengers for dense objects -- both metallic and non-metallic threats -- from guns to homemade plastic explosives.
Kip Hawley was the TSA administrator in 2007, when the agency rolled out these scanners.
He believes an alert transportation security officer at an airport security checkpoint would have caught the latest underwear bomb, which was revealed Monday had been thwarted by the CIA before it came near an airport.

I'm not buying it. Instead of quietly handling the problem, the CIA went out of their way to be very vocal about just how "undetectable" this bomb was, and the fear-mongering around how well it would get around traditional airport security measures is practically an endorsement to those who may wish ill-will on the US. I think A Life Aloft was right when he said:

A Life Aloft said:
Seems like a possible/plausible pr campaign to me, to justify the TSA, perhaps. Not saying that this is the case, as I don't know. Certainly it is somewhat unusual for most intelligence agencies to announce what they are doing or what they have discovered or foiled, in order not to send the message to those who intend to do harm, to find another route to go that has yet to be detected, let alone the risk of putting of their own undercover operatives in danger.

I think this isn't just about justifying the TSA, it's about pushing through full-time implementation of the body scanners.

Body Scanner CEO Accompanied Obama to India: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/21/body-scanner-ceo-obama-india/

And if that's the case, who stands to profit from all this?

The Airport Full Body Scanners Are Made By ex-DHS Chief Michael Chertoff's Consulting Client: http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/airport-full-body-scanners-are-made-by.html

Investigate the TSA, not Tyner: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/16/investigate-the-tsa-not-tyner/ (Contains an interesting timeline of events since 2005.)

Investigate the TSA, not Tyner

The TSA is opening an investigation targeting John Tyner, the man who earned himself an aggressive “pat down” at the airport when he refused to go through the TSA’s new AIT “porno scanners.”

But it’s the TSA that should be investigated, not Tyner.

Tyner was not permitted to board his flight after he refused to be groped, and now he could face both prosecution and a fine of $11,000.
But his real crime was making the “don’t touch my junk” video showing exactly what happened during his encounter with the TSA, which sparked a public backlash.
The new pat-down policy for refuseniks, which started on November 1, has been described by the Airline Pilots Association as “sexual molestation” — and it’s nothing more than a way to punish people who might boycott the Department of Homeland Security’s expensive new boondoggle scanners. And prosecuting Tyner is blatant and very public way to intimidate anyone who might follow his lead.
This goes to show just how how constant threats of “terror” are used to create new markets for products nobody needs. The public is then intimidated into compliance in the name of “national security,” when in reality they’re sacrificing their dignity, their civil liberties and their tax dollars for the sake of enormous profits:
  • 2005: Michael Chertoff, as head of Homeland Security, orders the first batch of porno scanners from a company called Rapiscan Systems. After his departure, Chertoff gave dozens of interviews using his government credentials to promote the device. What he didn’t tell people was that Rapiscan was one of the clients of his consulting company, The Chertoff group.
  • March 2009: The Department of Homeland Security says they will apply $1 billion in stimulus money to the nation’s airports. Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, personally promises to oversee the distribution of stimulus funds so money goes toward the goal of creating “4 million jobs” and not on “boondoggles”
  • December 2009: Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz inserted language into the Homeland Security appropriations bill barring the use of full-body image scans as “primary” screening tools at airports, and it passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 310-118. Both the ACLU and the NRA backed it. The amendment also made it illegal to store and copy these images. It died in the Senate.
  • December 25, 2009: The “Christmas bomber” attempts to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a flight to Detroit.
  • December 29, 2009: Joe Lieberman calls for “more widespread use of the full-body scanners after the aborted attack.”
  • January 2010: Since they couldn’t get money for the porno scanners from Congress, TSA uses the “Christmas bomber” scare to appropriate $25 million they had received in stimulus money to buy the “backscatter” scanners — from Rapiscan, Chertoff’s client. Rapiscan said the contract “helped create” 25 jobs. The government gives the TSA the green light to spend a total of $173 million on the scanners. TSA spokesperson Sarah Horowitz said “the agency has enough funds that would come from the stimulus program and other federal sources” to purchase 300 more porno scanners, per CNN. Total jobs created, per the government’s own website: 1.
  • April 2010: The GAO reports that “it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received.”
  • November 8, 2010: US Airline Pilots Association tells its members “NOT to submit to AIT screenings.”
  • November 15, 2010: Joe Lieberman says he “comes down on the side of the patdowns.”
The last thing the TSA needs is a pile of crappy technology that isn’t even effective, that people refuse to use, right?
So the “groping” technique was developed as a way to punish people into using the scanners — because there are $148 million more on the way. And just so nobody gets the idea to follow Tyner’s lead, the TSA is using threats and intimidation to guarantee the market for the porno scanners. Whether Tyner is prosecuted or not, people will hear about what happened to him and think twice before refusing to become fodder for their new machines.
This is a full-on outrage.
 
Also conveniently timed with rising anti TSA fervor in Congress, granted Rand Paul's legislation currently being drafted is DOA, and so likely is the STRIP act, however it is a potential signal to the paranoia profiteers it may be time to find something to trot out in front of the American public.
 
I think the secret to "cracking the code" is to be respectful of users you mentioned. Usually they bring up some really interesting stories that are fun to fact check and research. I'm a big fan as I'm often bored in a hotel room. Sometimes they are on the "fringe" but the fringe becomes more acceptable after certain facts are allowed into the light. For example the chemtrail = SRM flights thread was an eye opener for me and based on the posts, for many others. These users are an important part of the community here at JC (IMHO) but they don't respond well to heckling. Usually they will stop publicly discussing anything once there have been rude or worse responses to their posts.

Thanks BEEF. I get the code thing now. Too bad about the heckling.

And THANKS to which ever of you emailed me back the stack of Underwear Bomber papers and videos. Still going through them. I really think you guys should just post those things, heckling or not. I loved Inigo's info, but the interviews too in Congress were UNBELIEVABLE. It's amazing to me that you guys can dig up this obscure footage. Like Hambone said, eye opening but not very many views.

Operation Northwoods, 2012 version. Really sick minds behind this.
 
That being said, I'm a huge fan of OSINT - Open Source Intelligence. It's the idea that any secret or classified program or activity leaves a trickle of breadcrumbs behind in the public domain. Every time you find a bit of circumstantial evidence, you try and connect it to the other bits you already know and arrive at some theory through deductive reasoning. It's akin to being a detective looking at a whiteboard full of evidence and trying to crack a case. Through open-mindedness and objectivity, you try and let the facts at hand lead you to the truth without some preconceived notion of what that truth is going to be.

I'm flattered by your compliment, but I hope you're not too disappointed to learn that there's no code and I'm not privy to any secret info, only an educated guess based on a collection of facts available in the public domain for anybody to find.

Thanks for all the effort putting that post together. Just finished going through everything. I'd forgotten that the 911 Anthrax attacks were finally traced back to the US Army instead of Sadam H/Iraq.

I'm not really understanding you on the OSNIT explanation though. I've got an engineering background, and you write more like an engineering Prof than a pilot. I mean that as a compliment, not an insult. I don't think just anyone can order up all that information with a simple google search. And the evidence that Qutch posted to show that Chemtrails were really SRM flight research would take me 100 years to find. Chemtrail sites are full of useless kooky conspiracy junk. Somehow Qutch vacuumed up government and scientific lectures, White House science advisors, patent applications and other credible evidence. All from different .gov and .edu type url domains and sources. How would you know where to locate them all using OSNIT? No simple google search does all that. So how does one go about learning OSNIT? The News we get isn't reliable, so if there is a trick to finding the kind of proofs you guys post, I'd like to get plugged into it. Or see you start your own news site.

I understand in theory what you are saying, but how to practically apply it or go about learning it, I don't. If there is an OSNIT for Dummies, can you post it? Or private message it to me. Thanks.
 
I'm not really understanding you on the OSNIT explanation though. I've got an engineering background, and you write more like an engineering Prof than a pilot. I mean that as a compliment, not an insult. I don't think just anyone can order up all that information with a simple google search. .

Most OSINT conclusions comes from taking various pieces of info and combining them to a conclusion. The trick is insuring that you don't create your own path of what you "want to see" versus what's really there. IE- one has to take the various pieces of info that's out there, and really remove bias when linking different pieces of the puzzle together; as some pieces seem to fit will, but make no sense when put together. A lot of trial and error goes into digging up various bits of info. Sometimes, good stuff is hidden in plain sight too. So it's not one website with "Open Source Intelligence"; it's bits of information that happen to be unclassified as individual pieces, but when put together correctly, can tell an interesting story or lead one down an interesting path.
 
Most OSINT conclusions comes from taking various pieces of info and combining them to a conclusion. The trick is insuring that you don't create your own path of what you "want to see" versus what's really there. IE- one has to take the various pieces of info that's out there, and really remove bias when linking different pieces of the puzzle together; as some pieces seem to fit will, but make no sense when put together. A lot of trial and error goes into digging up various bits of info. Sometimes, good stuff is hidden in plain sight too. So it's not one website with "Open Source Intelligence"; it's bits of information that happen to be unclassified as individual pieces, but when put together correctly, can tell an interesting story or lead one down an interesting path.

I'm familiar with confirmation bias. That can lead to wrong conclusions. I see that everyday on forums and worse yet in the major media by professional journalists. It's a waste of time for readers. In the Martin/Zimmerman shooting, NBC went so far as to selectively edit the 911 call to manipulate the public to support a conclusion of racism. What intrigues me about this JC OSINT, and what I see a few of you doing here, is that it's more than just your opinions. A few of you seem to know exactly where to go to back everything up with obscure source links to .gov, .edu, .mil, or original interviews from the principals themselves. Or you are very specific, using precise terms that can be verified with a google search. It's not just your "opinion". That makes it different than most forum chatter, and most professional news reports. Not so much chance for confirmation bias. For example, the 911 Commissioner video is not an opinion, it is THE SOURCE. What I guess I'm curious about is wondering how some of you can pull up these little known public documents and videos, on obscure, sometimes still partially classified subjects at the drop of a hat. Spooky. You guys have to know more than you're telling us. Google doesn't provide that service.
 
Back
Top