Thread: FBI Warns of Possible Attack Around 9/11

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... eat12.html

FBI warns of possible attack around 9/11

New York Times
Aug. 12, 2005 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - A group of FBI counterterrorism analysts warned this week of possible terrorist attacks in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago around Sept. 11, but officials cautioned on Thursday that they were skeptical about the seriousness of the threat.

The warning grew out of intelligence developed from an overseas source indicating that terrorists might seek to steal fuel tanker trucks in order to inflict "mass casualties" by staging an anniversary attack, officials said.

The information led FBI joint terrorism task forces in Los Angeles and Newark, N.J., to alert other government and law enforcement officials privately this week about the threat, law enforcement officials said.

Several government officials in Washington who were briefed on the threat said it was described as credible and specific enough to warrant attention.

I really wish the American people would wake up. We are attacked every single day, with gangs like MS-13, and other gangs, that have come across our borders, to in fact to do damage to The American society

Well Well Well...I sent the info yesterday concerning the General Byrnes info..and saw last night on CNN that he has been removed for sexual misconduct--I'm sure it didn't mirror Clinton's--I think everyone I emailed dismissed me as a 'nut'.

I didn't dismiss the information by any means. My husband and I re-read and discussed those posts. We have decided that we will make provisions...without apology.

RR

RR--Stay the Course. More information will start to flow on Byrnes I believe. This is a 4 star general. He is in the process of getting a divorce. A charge of "adultery" is pretty hard to prove unless our military spies on the sex life of our soldiers. A charge of failing to follow a direct order to break off a relationship is pretty hard to prove without the same spying.

Something is afoot here.

You can not trust the Pentagon under present conditions.

I've been askng a question:

Why did the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon hit the section under construction that had the barricade wall newly built which would PREVENT the intrusion from destroying more of the Pentagon which also happened to be the most difficult section to fly a plane into?

Why not fly the plane into the roof with greater speed, greater force, greater impact, greater damage?

Connect the dots, Folks.

And quickly.

I am not sure if it is connected to all of the recent news. But does anyone find this odd? Why would they be lowering it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050812/ts_ ... transit_dc

US to lower transit terrorism alert level- sources

By Deborah Charles 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security is going to lower its terrorism alert level to "elevated" from "high" for buses, subways and trains on Friday -- a month after raising it in response to bombings in London, two U.S. government officials said.
ADVERTISEMENT

The officials said the decrease in the threat level was expected to be announced later on Friday and would take place in the evening, after rush hour.

The department had raised the alert level on July 7, after bombings on the London transport system killed more than 50 people.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Montgomery would not confirm the change in threat level to "yellow" or "elevated" for mass transit from "orange" which represents a high level of risk.

"At this time, the mass transit system remains at orange, but it is reviewed several times every day," she said.

Last month, Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff said the increase in the threat level was being made in the short term because of fears of a possible copycat attack.

At the time, Chertoff had said there was no specific, credible information of an imminent attack on the United States but has said that al Qaeda and its affiliates remained determined to target Europe and the United States.

The increase state of alert on mass transit meant more police were on watch and patrolling stations and platforms. There were also bomb-sniffing dogs on patrol, increased video surveillance of stations and more frequent inspection of trash receptacles.

In New York, police conducted random searches of bags carried by subway passengers. The subway system also added more security after a second wave of explosions in London later in July and locked seats on the subway train cars to prevent objects being placed underneath them.

The searches in New York sparked a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that random searches violated constitutional rights of privacy and invited racial profiling.

Separately on Friday, Homeland Security and
FBI officials confirmed that a warning had been sent out this week about potential terror attacks using tanker trucks in three major U.S. cities.

But the officials said the warning, sent to intelligence officials across the country, was uncorroborated and not based on reliable information.

It referred to potential attackers who might try to steal tanker trucks to inflict mass casualties on Chicago, New York and Los Angeles sometime in September.

"This is a single-source, uncorroborated statement of questionable reliability," one FBI official said. He noted that officials have long warned that tankers could be used for a possible attack.

It's all strange. Now have you heard that the Administration is no longer using the term "war on terror" but referring to it as "attacks by insurgents".

I heard that the other night on CNN Larry King.

Keep your eyes open for changes in the language regarding "terror", "terrorists" and "terrorism".

Something is "afoot".

I think the "terrorism" gig is up and they know it.

Post anything that uses the "terror" language as well as any new "words" they're using.

Thanks!!

Originally Posted by Judy

It's all strange. Now have you heard that the Administration is no longer using the term "war on terror" but referring to it as "attacks by insurgents".
I heard that the other night on CNN Larry King.
Keep your eyes open for changes in the language regarding "terror", "terrorists" and "terrorism".
Something is "afoot".
I think the "terrorism" gig is up and they know it.
Post anything that uses the "terror" language as well as any new "words" they're using.
Thanks!!

I've noticed the same thing! Notice too, that the BBC uses the term 'bomber'.
Calling these terrorists 'insurgents' is being too gentile. This is Brainy Dictionary's definition:
A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws; a rebel.

Insurgents don't terrorize people by cutting off their heads, doing suicide bombings, and blowing up buildings! What a complete copout on behalf of the Bush administration to start giving these TERRORISTS 'pet names'. Call them what they are, Bush! TERRORISTS!

This tanker truck-attack scenario sounds fishy to me for several reasons (including one I thought up while typing this sentence).


1. How is this supposed to be an economic attack?

Maybe the theft of 3 or 4 tanker trucks will put a huge dent in our gasoline reserves? I better fill my tank!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A "mass casualty" attack is not going to affect everybody.


One sample response:

"What happens in New York does not affect or inconvenience me, so who cares?, MOD EDIT."



How about this poll question, that will never be asked:

Which is worse?

a. 4 tanker trucks simultaneously exploding at four different locations that are packed with people, perhaps killing 500 to 2000.( assuming that none of the explosions are near you)

OR

b. 4 tanker trucks simultaneously exploding, destroying four different oil/gasoline refineries, strangling your region's gasoline supplies for months, possibly years.


Sad isn't it?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. This tanker-alert is a way for the government to seize all remaining gasoline easier when we run out (soon).

When we have to ration, the gov't will decide who gets gas, and who doesn't.

This will make stealing a tanker truck, for the peaceful purpose of fueling your automobile(s), a Gitmo-worthy crime.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


p.s.

It's probably a sham warning (I hope), that type of attack would look weak compared to 9-11.

Although I believe constant truck bombs could bring our government to surrender.

Not the people though, our surrendering government would then turn their powers on us, to enforce the surrender terms.






-n

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/36 ... onomy.html

Bush acknowledges the collapsing US economy
08/12/2005 14:23

The US administration aims to spend $286 billion on the development of the American transport system

US President George W. Bush released a remarkable statement a short time ago. The remark has not been highlighted in the world media yet, although there is every reason to do so. Bush virtually acknowledged that the USA was experiencing a serious economic crisis. Moreover, the US government was taking immense efforts to avoid a massive outbreak of social uneasiness, the American president believes.

One may come to this conclusion from the newly-signed law about the development of the US transport system. The implementation of the law will cost tax-payers too much money. The US government plans to spend $286 billion on the implementation of the law during the forthcoming six years. Furthermore, Bush had to cut the costs of the law, which originally made up $400 billion. The US Treasury, however, will have to spend only $12.3 billion during ten years to guarantee the energy security and independence within the scope of the recently passed energy policy law. NASA's annual budget makes up $16 billion. Therefore, the sum of $400 billion makes a huge sum of money even from the point of view of American financial standards.

Passing such highly expensive laws is usually accompanied with heated debate, numerous changes and so on and so forth. This time, however, a bill was transformed into a law a lot earlier than usual. As it was supposed, 24 billion dollars were supposed to be used for governmental subsidies to the states, which will be fulfilling the projects of the law. Adversaries of the law said that congressmen and senators would most likely spend the money inappropriately, trying to insinuate their electorate. In addition, many protest against the unwillingness of the US Congress to control the state spending at the moment, when the budgetary shortage is to exceed the record-breaking $333 during the current year.

The law envisages 6,300 special projects in all states: bridges, highways, landscape accomplishment, snowmobile tracks, etc. Is it all so bad with the US infrastructure? George W. Bush released the key statement, which dotted all i's at this point: the law is meant to generate more jobs and give an incentive to the economic development of the USA.

The triumphant leader of the world's strongest superpower would never utter such words. The above-mentioned statements from the American president do not characterize the USA as a great empire. Quite on the contrary, the White House is desperately looking for measures to find employment for crowds of unemployed American citizens and hungry migrants, which threaten to enrage the rest of the States.

There were 9.3 million unemployed American citizens registered in the USA in 2004. The foreign trade shortage of the USA made up $617.73 billion in 2004, which became the record-breaking index for the USA. To crown it all, the US state debt reached unimaginable $7.22 trillion in 2004 too.

All optimistic reports about the rising US economy carry the short-term efficiency only - they are presumably destined to save the demising US dollar. Quarterly changes in the number of the unemployed by 100-200 thousand people do not change the general situation.

The USA has already faced such hard periods in its history. Taking a look back at the previous experience of the USA and estimating the new initiative of the American government, one may thus infer that the law about the transport system is like the last glimmer of hope for the US administration to keep the nation under control.

When massive unemployment put the USA on the brink of survival during the Great Depression of the thirties, the government started funding the development of the transport infrastructure - it became the only way out of the crisis. Highways, on which the government spent billions and billions of dollars, rescued the entire nation. It is worth mentioning that the value of the US dollar used to be lower during that time.

Here is another example, which bears some similarity to the present-day USA. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was suffering from massive unemployment and helpless economy. Hitler mobilized thousands of the unemployed to build autobahns, which Germany is proud of still. The road construction gave a very powerful impetus to the revival of the German industry. Huge state investments triggered the industrial development, and Germany turned into one of the strongest European superpowers.

The White House is going along the same path now. However, there is a certain aspect, which distinguishes the USA from the above-mentioned examples. Both Hitler's Germany and the USA of the Great Depression period were raising their economies up from the bottom. Nowadays, the USA enjoys the peak of its triumphant development, which is currently being damaged with the flaws of the American economic system. The USA obviously has something to lose.

Sergei Malinin

He's doing this to bankrupt the United States.