Odigo says workers were warned of attack

[number6]

by Yuval Dror

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

> link

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

....wonder who sent it, .. Kalid Shiek Mohammad or Osama Bin Laden or Dick Cheney ??

....so what hapened to FBI follow up on this ?

"Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message."

[seemslikeadream]

1. so what hapened to FBI follow up on this ?

[Bassman66]

2. Lucky guess?

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right."

What did the FBI say? What did it say in the 9/11 Commission Report? Was it ever investigated?
Thanks for posting, very interesting.

[Bassman66]

3. Did the FBI investigate this?

Did the 9/11 Commission?

I think it would be very telling if they didn't.

[SDuderstadt]

10. "Truther Logic"...

The FBI is not providing us with a blow-by-blow account of every investigation, so it's clear something nefarious is going on!".


I'm pretty willing to bet that, unless Odigo lodges a complaint that it's not being properly investigated, it's being looked at in proportion to its prority.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. More fodder for the "coincidence theorists"...

Everything was just a big coincidence, huh?

[Andre II]

5. I totally second this question

Let me tell you what will happen to this thread:
At first all the usual nay-sayers will express their highly appreciated opinion by not posting in this thread.
If the thread stays on top of the front page for too long they have to appear.
Then the first reaction will be to doubt that there is any substance to this topic and it was just the usual part of the smog on 9/11.
Then a good researcher will post some articles that clearly state that also months later the story is valid and backed up by the facts.
So, here the only reaction left to the OCTer-crowd is to tell you:
The fact that nothing is published about any investigation by the Commission or by the FBI doesn't mean that there was no investigation.
Case closed.
Oh, by the way:
No, the Commission didn't deal at all with Odigo.
And the FBI didn't whisper a word about it.

[seemslikeadream]

17. Make sure you use that SPELL CHECK!

AND NO INAPPROPRIATE CAPITAL LETTERS!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=199949&mesg_id=199949

[SDuderstadt]

6. You guys might want to....

read the following before you go off half-cocked on this. With all due respect, you ought to take anything that initially originates with or is propagated by Alex Jones with a huge grain of salt. Jones is not exactly known for his accuracy nor does he appear to regard the need for accuracy highly.

http://www.911myths.com/html/odigo.html

[Andre II]

7. Nothing to do with Alex Jones

It was on the press. It is in Paul Thompson's timeline for example.
Now, how difficult is it for the FBI to identify the sender of the message?

[Realityhack]

38. quite possibly completely impossible.

so what?

As far as I know the only thing we know about this message is that it was a non-specific threat (no location, time, type of attack, etc.) sent to two employees of an internet messaging company in Israel a couple of hours before the attacks.

We know that the company in question contacted the FBI and offered to assist them with tracking down the original sender if possible.

Is it interesting? yes
Would I be interested to see the message text? sure.
Is that a good idea? Quite possibly not. If they remain un-published there are investigative advantages.
Is it 'telling' that the original senders may be impossible to track down? No. Not really.

[SidDithers]

8. What? You mean Alex Jones got it wrong?...

Shocked. Shocked I am.

Sid

[Andre II]

9. Shocked.

Shocked I am that you believe it was Alex Jones who brought the Odigo story into the center of interest.
Moreover there is nothing in the quoted article that refutes the need for an investigation and the fact that Odigo wasn't investigated at all.

[SidDithers]

11. The article also fails to mention that the workers...

who received the message were in Israel, not New York. Oh, and that Odigo's offices are located 4 blocks away from the WTC's, not in the buildings.

Which kinda makes the "story" a whole lot less meaningful.

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

12. Exactly....

of course, in my experience, "truthers" don't seem to dig into things very deeply before waving it around as a "smoking gun". I think the logical fallacy "unwarranted conclusion" was probably defined just for "truthers".

[JackRiddler]

37. No scruples whatsoever. If someone you oppose claims the earth is roughly spherical...

You will immediately cite Alex Jones saying the earth is round as proof that it isn't.

Jones did not make up the Odigo story. It was in the press, citing the CEO of the company as the source. If Jones happened to mention, spin or exaggerated the story, it's still not his story.

Pretending he's the source is no different than saying you found it in wikipedia, therefore wikipedia must have been the source.

It cannot be remarked often enough that the main bedunker tactic is to play tag with their chosen "truthers," preferably of the NWO or no-planes variety, to the exclusion of ever bothering with original sources or actual research.

[Realityhack]

39. um... ok.

I understand you bringing up the point regarding what Alex Jones does or does not believe but...

The OP title was
"Odigo says workers were warned of attack"

The article linked to said
"...two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen,..."

It does temper it's tone a little in the next paragraph BUT...

Both the OP and the article in total are fairly misleading. The post you are responding to linked to detailed actual information correcting the record.

Your point with respect to Alex Jones being the source is correct, but I think you are not giving credit on correcting the misleading OP.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Show me where I said Jones was the source, JR...n/t

[JackRiddler]

42. You: "you ought to take anything that initially originates with or is propagated by Alex Jones..."

"... with a huge grain of salt."

"Originates with" = he's the source. He's not.

"Propagated by" = practically everything to do with 9/11, since AJ covers every story that comes along, as do others (like 911Truth.org). Thus, you can always use this trick, to mention AJ where there is no reason whatsoever to do so.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Ummm, Jack....do you understand how the word "or" works?

When it connects two words, only one of them must be true for the phrase to be accurate. "Propagated" does not mean "originated". Obviously you missed my point, which is this whole "Odigo bombshell" is a dud. Except the "truth movement" is pushing it like it's a smoking gun. It's not. I stand by what I said about Jones and it's silly for the "truth movement" to pretend like he doesn't have a rather prominent role in why these non-stories persist. The way some of the "truthers" here gush about it, you'd think if we could JUST find out who sent this message and what it said, we'd have proof of MIHOP. It's silly and yet another "truther" fizzleout. Sorry.

[JackRiddler]

46. Do you read at all?

I made this obvious distinction and covered both cases in your "A or B." It's rather insulting and beneath me to continue with this nonsense at this point, because you show no scruples and will reach for any sophistry no matter how unbelievably bad-faith or transparently stupid. Might as well try to get on O'Reilly's show for a fair shake.

So to conclude for the record: Odigo is one of hundreds of indicators of advance knowledge, covered well by the 9/11 Timeline, which the likes of you will never mention or deal with in toto because you don't have a leg to stand on when you pretend that 9/11 came as a surprise to the government that had incidentally prepared a broad range of programs and actions predicated entirely on having such an attack.

[jberryhill]

48. "when you pretend that 9/11 came as a surprise to the government"

Not even the 9/11 Commission takes the position that there was no warning.

There were lots of warnings, lots of signs, that an attack was coming. Richard Clarke makes it clear that the Bush Administration was so pre-occupied with its delusions and so out of touch with reality, that they could not deal with reality.

And that is precisely how delusions operate.

But what I can't figure out for the life of me is how 9/11 "inside job" folks handle the disconnect between such assertions as

1. "they ignored the August 6 PDB entitled 'Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US'" (or whatever, I'm posting off the cuff); and

2. 9/11 was an inside job

Proposition 1 does not support proposition 2. So for your friend Jones to have folks using "nano-thermite" (or whatever is the flavor of the month), then this whole idea of "warnings of a terrorist attack" must be an elaborately constructed disinformation campaign in and of itself.

How in the heck, if Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, do you use inattention to "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" as support for "9/11 was an inside job"?

[JackRiddler]

49. Just pack in the irrelevancies.

Since I am fairly well-published on the subject of 9/11 under my tag here as well as my real name (follow the profile link), I will refuse to answer you anything about claims made by others and not by myself. You can google me to your heart's delight, but when talking to ME, I really don't care what you think "truthers" or Jones (either one) or whoever said, or what the supposed contradictions in your own construct are, and will respond only when you cite me. (I don't believe I ever answered a post by you by picking random remembered snippets from what someone else said, by the way; if I didn't address your points, please forgive me.)

[jberryhill]

56. "random remembered snippets"

...as if anyone here has ever claimed that "9/11 came as a surprise". There were multiple warnings, and an entire chapter on those warnings in the 9/11 Commission Report which, yes, I've gone as far as glanced at, but in which I place no particular value because of the way that the administration obstructed the work of the Commission.

I do specifically remember you being quite concerned about the google rank of an organization, linked in your sig every time, of which Jones is on the advisory board.

[SDuderstadt]

50. How is a non-specific warning proof of....

much of anything, JR? You're really reaching here if you think this proves your case. I'm also not sure where I've ever said it came as a surprise, but it hardly was LIHOP and certainly not MIHOP.

[SDuderstadt]

13. The article is misleading also in saying...

"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen...".

Actually what Odigo says was that the IM warned of AN attack, not THE attack on the WTC. Apparently, the information was so vague and non-specific, that Odigo speculates it could even be a prank that happened to coincide with the WTC attacks.

[Sweet Pea]

14. More bullshit elevated to urban myth status

Like the "nobody of importance flew airlines at that time" and "there was no aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon" and "Why would anyone want to turn off a transponder?" logic.

Twoofer Logic: Take anything of fact, twist it and bend it and color it and add to it and take away from it and close one eye while squinting out of the other at it and sit on it and kick it and wo all sorts of things to it and the end result?

Something 180' out from what it was in the first place.

Keeps the laugh track filled, though.

[Andre II]

15. This "discussion" here is pathetically dishonest

Nobody here claims what Alex Jones claimed.
What you and others do here is in fact twisting and turning and puhsing a very clear post into something totally different.
So may I remind you and others:
What was the result of the FBI investigation?
You don't know.
You don't have the slightest clue.

What was the content of the warning?
You don't know.

Who was the sender of the message?
You don't know.

Why is it so difficult to find out the sender?

So to all these questions neitheryou nor any other odter has written a single word.
Instead you make fun of this being a smoking gun.
Nobody presented it as a smoking gun.
This is simply totally dishonest and doesn't come as a surprise.
So maybe stop talking about logic and read the posts instead and try to provide something substantial.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Do you honestly think the FBI feels obligated...

to share everything it has with the "truth movement"? The answer to every question you pose is that you don't know either. As I said previously, probably the one with the most at stake, in a manner of speaking, is Odio. Apparently they didn't think that much of the "warning" at first, beasue they didn't report it until AFTER the attacks. What can you conclude from that? Hint: the warning wasn't very specific at all.

Maybe when the "truth movement" learns to quit making mountains out of molehills, you guys will start being taken seriously. In the meantime, I'd suggest you take it up with the FBI, calling them everyday, if you have to. That would certainly be more expeditious than you keyboard commandos yapping about it here. BTW, don't be surprised if it turns out to be yet one more example where the "truth movement" promises a bombshell and it turns out to be a dud.

[Bassman66]

21. Obligations

Why bother with a 9/11 Commission then?

The question about what happened to the investigation of these messages is legitimate and important.

What you're saying is a bit like saying that the money providers for 9/11 were of no significance. Oh, yes, they already said that didn't they!

Until this question is answered properly then the people are perfectly entitled to view the Government with suspicion.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Maybe you missed what Odigo said about the IM

Non-specific
Said nothing about the WTC
Sent to two techs in Israel
They didn't even report it until after the actual attacks, which aligns with the above
If anyone has a stake in it being investigated, it's Odigo
Why don't you frickin' call the FBI and see what they have to say before you elevate this all out of proportion?

[mhatrw]

31. Who sent the message? What was its exact content?

Herein lies the difference between "truthers" and OCTers. We simply want to know the truth about this. You simply want to dismiss as a "molehill" anything that doesn't fit the official conspiracy theory whether you know the facts or not.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Let me make sure I get this straight, mhatrw...

it's Odigo itself who says the "warning" was non-specific and was probably a prank or a coincidence. If it was legitimate, whoever called didn't seem to have much detail about the attack and certainly nothing specific to the WTC. Why don't you call the FBI and accuse them of hiding something?

[mhatrw]

35. Who sent the message? Why? What was its exact content?

When we have the answers to these questions instead of idle speculations, then we can "get this straight." Do you agree or disagree?

[hack89]

36. Why is there any reason to question Odigo's account?

Why not take it at face value?

[JackRiddler]

43. ummm... because it changed from initial claim that it was specifically referring to 9/11 to...

later, days after talking with the FBI, something vague and possibly coincidental?

[SDuderstadt]

45. The only place it was referred to as "specifically referring to 9/11"...

was in mischaracterizations from "truthers". One of the things that's clear from outset, is that it was so non-specific, Odigo did not even bring it to the FBI's attention until after the 9/11 attacks. Think this through.

[JackRiddler]

47. WOW!

God, I am definitely going to quit YOU.

"Odigo did not even bring it to the FBI's attention until after the 9/11 attacks"

WOW! This warning arrived at 6 am on the morning of the attack and their failure to inform the FBI about it until after the attacks indicates it couldn't have been specific! HALP! (You must know all this psychically, since the contents of the warning and who sent it to whom have not been released, or else you have a religious conviction in advance; nothing that shows foreknowledge by anyone other than the officially perpetrators could be true.)

BYE!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

51. Umm, Jack...think this through....

if you had a SPECIFIC warning about the attacks (place, time, etc.), why on EARTH would you just wait for the attacks to happen before notifying the FBI? Are you thinking here? Show ANYWHERE where ODIGO (not some "truther") claims it was specific. That should be easy. What's really ironic here is you're acting like I'm the one who is being irrational here. Odigo has never claimed it was specific. Get a grip.

[jberryhill]

57. Actually, Odigo did release further information....

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wpost092801.html

Newsbytes (The Washington Post)
September 28, 2001

Diamandis today in a telephone interview also said the warning message did not identify the World Trade Center as the attack target. Diamandis declined to reveal any other information contained in the message, including whether the warning named the targets for the attack.

[mhatrw]

60. That's what was NOT in the message. We want to know what WAS in the message

and who sent it. Why don't you?

[JackRiddler]

63. Obviously he already knows what was in the message - thanks to faith.

[SDuderstadt]

80. No, it's called logical deduction...

Riddleman. Can you look at all that's known about this and somehow conclude that something is being hidden? Do you think every lead the FBI received needs to be reinvestigated? Simple question: If, as you seem to believe, the warning was specific and actionable, why didn't Odigo inform the FBI PRIOR to the attacks?

[mhatrw]

99. It's called illogical induction. Or invalid logical deduction. Take your pick.

Simple answer: They didn't realize the true import of the warning until after the attacks.

Simple question: If the warning was a random coincidence, as you seem to believe, why did Odigo inform the FBI of the warning with the expectation that the warning would be investigated?

[SDuderstadt]

104. For the last fricking time, mhatrw...

I would have done the same thing. You keep missing the point of what we're discussing. Do you think all leads have the same priority? If the "warning" you received, although non-specific, was actually followed by an actual attack, would you inform the FBI or would you just keep it to yourself? I have never said that anything couldn't or didn't arise from this. But, I am also saying it is more likely that it's just what it appeared to be. A vague, non-specific warning that turned out to coincide with an actual attack.

People get fooled by randomness and respond with a phenomenon known as "found significance". It works something like this. You're thinking about a family member and that person calls you quickly thereafter. Sounds like it couldn't be coincidental, right? However, the problem is you're forgetting all the times you thought about that relative and they DIDN'T call. How about all the times you WEREN'T thinking about them and they called? In other words, our minds remember the hits and forget about the misses. If you'd like to learn more about this, I highly recommend, "Fooled by Randomness".

[mhatrw]

114. Yes, a warning about an imminent terrorst attack a few hours before a huge terrorist attack

is just like having your mother call you soon after you thought of her. You might find this hard to swallow, but that's only because you're not thinking of all those times that Odigo employees were warned about imminent terrorist attacks that didn't happen!

Thanks for making that so clear for all of us. If you'd like to learn more about this, I'd highly recommend therapy.

[SDuderstadt]

115. Enough of your nonsense, mhatrw...

if you believe that false predictions never coincide with other events, I can't help you. In fact, I doubt anyone can. You're too irrational to reason with. Bye.

[mhatrw]

122. I never said never. I said I want to see the results of the investigation.

Namely, what the message said, who sent it and how who sent it explained it. Why don't you join me in demanding these results?

[SDuderstadt]

129. Because it's stupid.

I find it difficult to believe that, simply because you are not informed directly of the FBI's every move, that somehow means they didn't investigate it fully or have something to hide. More importantly, I doubt that the FBI is monitoring this and has now concluded, "Yup. We'd better make sure we go through the motions. They're on to us!". Call the frickin' FBI and castigate them. Now, go away and bother someone else.

[mhatrw]

138. What's stupid is that you spend your time badgering active citizens

with your ignorant proclamations that their legitimate concerns are worthless based on nothing but your blind faith in authority.

[SDuderstadt]

143. D...O...N...E

[jberryhill]

64. I'd love to know what was in the message, Mr. Hatter

How do you propose that I find out?

I'd like to know what happened to the Google archive of the usenet message that I found shortly after 9/11 and dated some years earlier, in which someone had hypothesized a terrorist attack using a hi-jacked airliner and crashing it into the NY financial district. It's been scrubbed from Google's usenet archive.

What makes you think I wouldn't want to know the specifics of that message?

[mhatrw]

65. Let's see. Your attitude that there is definitely "nothing to see here"? n/t

[jberryhill]

69. Yeah....

...gee, I guess that's why the thread inspired me to search around to see whether there was anything else I could find on the topic.

I see what you mean. Actually trying to find a follow-up article, and describing the results of searches I had done back in 2001 on the subject of internet-based "warnings", is the true mark of someone saying "nothing to see here."

You may now return to your cardboard cut-out characters...

My goodness Mr. Hatter, if you make enough snide comments like that toward people in a DU Forum, then the truth will eventually be known to everyone in this country. Keep up the good work.

[mhatrw]

71. So what's your theory then, Mr. Suddenly Open Minded? n/t

[jberryhill]

72. About the Odigo thing?

I don't have a theory about the Odigo thing. Being open minded means that "I don't know" is an answer to questions to which there is not enough information to answer.

The two press reports around which the entire Odigo thing revolves are both too vague to make much out of, but I'm sure that closed-minded folks are free to draw conclusions from it that suit their fancy.

If Bush attacks Iran, then the prize winner here at DU will be the last person who posts the "Attack on Iran coming this month" article that month.

Someone sending a terrorist threat to an Israeli company? Yeah, I'll bet that never happens. But if it happens immediately prior to a terrorist attack, then it's a mystery.

However, there were all sorts of rumors and warnings of an attack leading up to 9/11. The FBI and INS rounded up an astounding number of people, and I've never seen an accounting of how many were rounded up, how many were deported, and so on. For all I know, they did track down the source of this message and are still beating them up in Stare Kiejkuty. Heck, I still have StareKiejkuty.com.

My other theory is that my ignore list needs to be longer, since I'm tired of the bullshit personal accusations from the likes of people who've never taken a real stand on anything in their lives.

[mhatrw]

77. So it was basically inevitable that some mystery man would warn some Israeli security

company of an impending terrorist attack on the morning 9/11 and that the employees of this company would find this significant enough that they would contact the FBI with this information?

I can see why finding out who sent the message and why is no big deal. Just another trivial coincidence.

[jberryhill]

78. Is that what I said? No, it isn't

Odigo employees said nothing about the warning until after the attack. Why were they keeping it secret and not reporting it earlier?

You are very good at the insinuating question.

I list several things within the realm of known facts about the Odigo warning:

1. Coincidence / Post Hoc recognition of significance

2. Yet another of many pre-attack warnings and rumors which were ignored (and this warning was in fact ignored by Odigo until after teh attack)

3. Message was sent by actual conspirator (to warn some Odigo employees in Israel for, I guess, some reason) and actual conspirator was rounded up and is being tortured to this day in the CIA's Polish interrogation haven.

...and there are certainly many other possibilities.

From this, you conclude that I think it is "no big deal", "just a coincidence", and have no interest in knowing what the message was. That is an absolutely dishonest characterization of what I said. You've got so much hostility and rage, that you feel the need to direct it at anyone who has the unfortunate inclination to actually communicate with you. I think I'm done making that mistake.

[SDuderstadt]

82. FOIA request to the FBI....

Dear sirs,

I was wondering if you could kindly send all your files on every lead you followed up on after the 9/11 attacks to the "CT's" here at DU. Hopefully that will convince them that, simply because they aren't personally informed on every aspect of the investigation, this does not mean it's evidence of MIHOP and that you aren't part of it.

Thank you,

SDuderstadt

[mhatrw]

101. Wouldn't it be great if you were serious about this?

Why aren't you? What do you have against actually filing a FOIA request for the results of this investigation? Why not actually try to determine the truth (or at least keep your mind open and/or your mouth closed) instead of wasting your time blindly speculating that something you think doesn't matter doesn't matter on a message board?

[SDuderstadt]

108. Why don't YOU file it, mhatrw....

you're the one that thinks it's so meaningful. I've already said I don't think there's much there. If Odigo had said the warning was specific OR it wasn't sent to Israel OR if Odigo had actualy had employees working in the WTC, I'd be all over it. In the meantime, you might want to stop:




BTW, have you been tested for OCD? Just wonderin'.

[mhatrw]

116. It's not up to me to answer the question. It's up to me to ask it as loudly as possible.

I will continue to do so until the question is satisfactorily answered because I love my country. Why won't you join me? What are you afraid of? Why don't you want to know the truth either way?

Look what the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has wrought: the Iraqi invasion and occupation, a state of never-ending warfare, a "Bush doctrine" of military preemption, a cult of authoritarian secrecy, an assault on our Bill of Rights, a crisis of Constitutional separation of powers, the alienation of most of our former allies and the complete loss of our nation's credibility with the rest of the world. And that's just a partial list. Why would anyone seek to shut down questioning of the basis of such a destructive meme? Why not join the growing chorus demanding answers instead?

[SDuderstadt]

117. Enough of your nonsense, mhatrw...

I don't know how many times I have to say it. Bye.

[Realityhack]

168. 'as loudly as possible' would include YOU filing FOIA

You would probably loose horribly but if it is so important for you to find out the answer go ahead and file.

[SDuderstadt]

93. I know the feeling....

I'm still waiting for mhatrw to acknowledge that his claim the 9/11 Commission never issued any subpoenas was false. Far chance.

[mhatrw]

102. Who did the 9/11 compel to testify under oath against his or her wishes?

I don't read this board every minute of every day. I work for a living. I haven't seen your evidence that the 9/11 Commission used subpoena power yet. If true, this would be the first I've heard of it.

[SDuderstadt]

109. I'll post it again...

Except you can do research too and I can't figure out why you don't look for this stuff. All I did was Google "subpoena 9/11 Commission". My question is why you don't bother to vet silly things before you say them.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/110703c2.htm

Your claim that the 9/11 Commission did not use its subpoena power is false.

[mhatrw]

118. The 9/11 Commission reported using "subpoena power" to

attempt to obtain unknown, publicly unreleased Pentagon documents produced by unknown individuals based on unknown evidence gathered by unknown individuals. On that point, I will happily admit that I was in good faith mistaken. However, there is good reason to suspect that the 9/11 Commission was no more successful in exercising its supposed "subpoena power" to obtain these unknown documents than the average citizen's commission making an FOIA request would be. And we know for a fact that the 9/11 Commission never used its vaunted "subpoena power" to compel anyone to testify under oath.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Another stupid goalpost move

You were "mistaken" because you're incompetent at basic research. I found that in the first Google search. I didn't go further. But, a key question here is, if you can be so wrong as to claim the 9/11 Commission issued no subpoenas, why should we listen to your silly blatherings about anything else???? Bye.

[mhatrw]

139. It's not a silly goalpost move. It's a point I made in my initial post.

The 9/11 Commission -- whom you ignorantly lauded for their supposed subpoena power -- never compelled a single witness to testify under oath.

[SDuderstadt]

144. I didn't "laud" anyone...

you claimed they never used their subpoena power at all and you got your ass kicked with facts.


D...O...N...E

[mhatrw]

151. I never claimed anything. I asked you a pointed question.

You claimed that the 9/11 Commission was better than any independent investigation because it had subpoena power. I asked you if you actually believed that they put their subpoena power to good use. They did not, and you exposed yourself as a gullible fool for claiming that they did.

[SDuderstadt]

154. Please point to ANYWHERE where I ever claimed such a thing....

I said nothing of the sort. You made a claim that they never issued a single subpoena and I proved you wrong. That's it.

[mhatrw]

161. Please point to ANYWHERE where I ever claimed such a thing...

I said nothing of the sort. You made a claim that the 9/11 Commission was superior to any independent commission because it had vast powers of subpoena and I proved you wrong. That's it.

[SDuderstadt]

162. Prove that I made such a claim...

can you? Where is it?

[mhatrw]

100. Obviously they didn't realize the full significance of the warning until after the attack.

How does post hoc recognition of significance imply coincidence? It doesn't.

Your husband doesn't come home tonight. Then you consider that he smelled a little like perfume when he came home last night. Post hoc recognition of significance. Coincidence?

This warning was not a rumor. It was reported to the FBI with the expectation that the incident would be investigated and the originator of the message would be located and questioned. Then it went down the memory hole. So what happened? Do you want to know the truth or do you just want to assume coincidence? From everything you have posted, I interpret the latter. Please forgive me if I am mistaken. I cannot see inside your heart.

[SDuderstadt]

110. How do you know the FBI DIDN'T properly investigate it?

Because they didn't call you personally and give you a status update? Call the frickin' FBI and quit wasting everyone's time. I'm done.

[mhatrw]

119. I never made any such claim. I just want to see the full results of this investigation.

Why don't you?

[SDuderstadt]

131. D.....O....N....E....n/t

[mhatrw]

140. People tend to give up when they are continually losing. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

145. Well, we forgive you for giving up nonetheless

It's understandable.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Simple question....

Why send it to employees in Israel? Why not send to their employees in NYC (who, by the way, did NOT work in the WTC)?

[jberryhill]

98. It's on that point that I wonder about the reportage

Reporters suck at accurately reporting technical details, even if accurate information is provided to them.

I don't know much about Odigo or its messaging service. At that time, some messaging systems were not peer-to-peer, but were server moderated.

On the day of 9/11, and thereafter as I mentioned, I was searching archives of usenet discussions to see if any interesting "predictions" turned up, and I did find a usenet posting that had hypothesized a similar type of attack using airplanes.

On the Odigo story, I wonder whether the real basis is that some employees were searching message logs in their server for any potentially interesting communications after the fact, and found something that looked interesting from two hours prior to the attack. Because as stated, the impression is that the "warning" didn't seem interesting enough to take any action at the time it was alleged to have been made. But that kind of speculation is offensive to the analytical treatment of newspaper reports as if they were holy scriptures, which often goes on here.

[Bassman66]

150. You might "wonder"

others would actually want to know for certain.
You'll have to excuse us if this seems important to us and you can't see that.

[jberryhill]

158. What are you doing to get to the bottom of it?

You seem to confuse my not knowing what was in the Odigo warning with my not caring nor wanting to know.

You also seem to believe that a discussion on an internet message forum has some practical consequence in terms of actually finding out what was in the Odigo warning.

Believe it or not, your posts here do not have the ability to reveal the contents of the Odigo warning any more than anyone else's posts have the ability to suppress what was in the Odigo warning.

As pointed out elsewhere in the thread you *could* fill out a FOIA request and send it in. The FBI would likely decline it, but then you'd have a challengeable decision.

Instead, as it stands, you say it is "important to us" yet you are unable to bring yourself to invest the cost of a postage stamp in the act of lifting your little pinky finger to actually *DO* anything about this "important" thing.

Actions speak far louder than words. Explain why you refuse to act.

[mhatrw]

167. Why are your only actions concerning these questions to take the time out of your day

to try to minimize the importance of these questions and to attack people interested in finding out the answers to legitimate questions? Explain your actions.

[mhatrw]

103. The answer depends on which employees in Israel the warning was sent to

in what manner, in what language and from whom. Why don't you want to know the answers to these pertinent questions?

[SDuderstadt]

79. Because Odigo didn't even bother to notify the FBI...

until sometime AFTER the attacks. Use your brain, mhatrw. What would you deduce from that? Do you honestly think a direct, specific warning would be sat on? Odigo has said repeatedly that it didn't even mention the WTC or NYC, for that matter. Do you honestly think if Odigo had domething to hide, they's notify the FBI? Oy.

[mhatrw]

105. I would deduce that the people who received the warning either did not read it or else

did not realize its full significance until after the attack took place. Alternatively, they may have assumed that since they received a warning that surely the appropriate authorities had as well. Maybe the warning even came from authorities. What would you illogically "deduce"?

Nobody has ever implied that the Odigo employees who contacted the FBI about this had anything to hide. The question is if the still unknown person or agency that sent the warning had anything to hide. And since this person/agency is still unknown for reasons unknown, what would you "deduce" about this?

[seemslikeadream]

137. There was another boat that left me on the island

The guys got sand crabs in his knickers

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1604695578417499645&q=bill+hicks&ei=f1dRSKfGJZKc4gKBoum4DA&hl=en

[mhatrw]

58. Why did Odigo provide this information to the FBI with the expectation

of an investigation if there was definitely nothing to it?

[SDuderstadt]

83. Jesus, mhatrw....

you've just basically supported my argument, whether you realize that or not. The fact that Odigo did not regard the "warning" as significant until AFTER the attack goes in the direction that both Berryhill and I were suggesting. The fact that it was an afterthought undermines any theory that it was specific. Why in the world would Odigo call up the FBI and say, "Hey, two of our techs in Israel got an IM that an attack might take place somewhere in the world, but didn't say what, where, when or why."? Think thus through. I think you need to search for your "smoking gun" somewhere else. This does not appear to be panning out.

[mhatrw]

106. You are completely ignorant about logic. Think this through yourself.

Post hoc recognition of significance does not imply coincidence in any way, shape or form. For you to suggest that it does proves your complete ignorance of the basic tenets of deductive logic.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Show me where I said that was the only possibility...

Jesus, mhatrw...you don't think "found significance" applies to coincidences? Let's say that I'm afraid I have the symptoms of some sort of cancer. That very day, I'm reading the paper and that VERY cancer is the subject of an article. Does that mean that the article was written especially for me? No. You need to study what "found significance" actually means. Most of our arguments arise from gaps in your education.

[mhatrw]

120. A warning about a terrorist attack a few hours before a massive terroir attack

constitutes "found significance" only in the SDuderstadt school of "logic".

[SDuderstadt]

132. No, it constitutes found significance because...

it ignores all other false predictions and assumes that the "warning" was about that specific attack. While you're at it, look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc". If you claim the warning could ONLY have been about the actual attack, I can't help you.

[mhatrw]

141. How many false predictions of terrorist attacks did Odigo's employees receive?

What other terrorist attacks that didn't happen were Odigo's employees being warned about on the morning of 9/11? Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

[SDuderstadt]

146. Try to think of it like this...

Although I know critical thinking is hard for you, imagine that Odigo got a non-specific warning every Tuesday for a year. 51 weeks go by and, of course, no attack follows. 1 week out of 52 an attack actually happens. Do the math and tell me the correlation. Hint: it was wrong 98.1% of the time.

I know that I am wasting my time, but I'll give one last try at educating you.

Correlation does NOT equal causality. Unless you can show that the warning is, in fact, connected to the attack, all you have is a strong coincidence. Add the fact that the warning was non-specific, was sent to 2 employees in Israel ( I don't know...what do you think? I'm thinking Israelis get lots of warnings.) and Odigo had ZERO employees that worked in the WTC all go in the direction of coincidence and found significance.

I'm willing to bet you get taken in by "psychics" quite a bit.

[mhatrw]

152. Here's the problem. You have no evidence whatsoever that Odigo employees EVER

received any warnings of an impending terrorist attack that did not come true. So your little "mathematical" illustration is a complete crock of shit.

Your ignorance and complete lack of critical thinking are astounding. Since my contention is only that the Odigo warning was probably correlated to the 9/11 attacks, only a babbling idiot could consider "correlation does NOT equal causation" a cogent rejoinder.

[SDuderstadt]

155. Jesus, mhatrw...

I'm saying that certain information is missing. In order to evaluate the warning, we'd have to know information like this. We don't. That's what I'm asking here. How do you know that this is significant? How do you know the FBI did not adequately investigate it? How many leads were given to the FBI? How come they didn't give you status reports on each one.

It's kinda silly to claim my explanation is a "crock of shit" when you have NO idea what Odigo's experience with warnings was prior to 9/11. I don't know either. All I said was people tend to count the hits and ignore the misses. Maybe you should ask Odigo why they didn't notify the FBI right away. I'm certain that you find that Odigo did not regard the threat as specific.

One is forced to draw inferences from the available information. All I am saying is that the fact that Odigo did not think enough of the warning to report it to the FBI until AFTER the attacks makes it more likely that the situation is exactly as Odigo stated: it was non-specific. I am not concluding it is not significant. I am discounting that possibility based upon the available evidence. Do you deny that correlation does not equal causality? The correlation in this instance is, no doubt, why the FBI investigated it. The fact that you haven't heard anything further could be evidence that they did NOT find a causal connection or they did and it resulted in some action that was not disclosed to you. In either case, you simply don't know. Yet, you treat this like it is some sort of 7 year-old smoking gun.

Do you even understand what you are yammering about? Point to the specific logical fallacy in any of my claims or positions. By name please. I'll gladly match my critical thinking skills against yours anyday. In fact, I doubt seriously that you ever formally studied Critical Thinking.

[mhatrw]

159. How about just finding out what the message said, who sent it and why?

Why instead twist yourself all out of shape to invent ridiculously unlikely scenarios like Odigo employees constantly receiving inaccurate terrorist warnings, but still determining that the one they received on 9/11 was both newsworthy and worthy of an FBI investigation?

Your continued insistence that the fact the Odigo employees did not inform the FBI of the warning until after the fact proves anything whatsoever about nature of the warning (or the frequency of your tenuously imagined previous inaccurate warnings) is illogical to the point of complete lunacy. Every day criminals are convicted on the testimony of witnesses who did not realize the true significance of what they witnessed and did not inform the authorities of what they witnessed until after the crimes were perpetrated and they had post hoc realization of the true importance of what they witnessed.

Imagine you wake up in the morning in your LA apartment and find a precarious lamp knocked over. Hours later you read in the paper about a minor earthquake that occurred during the night while you were sleeping. Does the fact that you didn't realize it until you read it in the paper make it any less likely that the earthquake was responsible for knocking over the lamp?

Suppose you are a bank teller in a posh neighborhood and a lowlife comes in, pretends that he wants to open a bank account but does not and hangs around awhile looking vaguely suspicious. Then the next day somebody who looks of the same build wearing the same clothes but with a ski mask on comes in and robs the bank. Does the fact that you didn't report your initial suspicions to the police have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the likelihood that the two events are in fact related?

[SDuderstadt]

163. FOIA...FBI

DONE

[SDuderstadt]

41. "Truther" Logic

When you're conducting an investigation, you should put all the information out into the public domain.

If "truthers" can't tell what's wrong with the above, we have more work to do than I thought. Hint: keeping certain details under wraps helps the investigation vet interactions further down the line.

[mhatrw]

59. Truther logic = let's figure out the truth.

OCTer logic = let's not and instead simply assume that every unanswered question has a perfectly legitimate, albeit completely unknown, answer.

[SDuderstadt]

84. "Truther Logic"....

lets give EVERY one of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of "unanswered questions" and leads equal weight and not prioritize the investigation at all.

[mhatrw]

121. It's now almost 7 years after 9/11. The pertinent question is, "What investigation?"

What kind of "investigation" leaves hundreds of thousands of unanswered questions?

[SDuderstadt]

133. Ones that don't satisfy goofy conspiracy theorists....

whom, to my knowledge, are the only ones who have that many questions. Maybe we should find out how much gas the hijackers had in their rental cars and what grade it was.

[mhatrw]

142. How about if we just find out who the "hijackers" really were by positively

identifying their remains. Why is that too much to ask?

[SDuderstadt]

147. It isn't.

Ask away. The FBI's phone # is [phone]. They're open 24/7/365. I'm certain they'd be delighted to hear from you.

[frylock]

26. the money trail has already been dismissed as unimportant minutiae by the OCT team

[SDuderstadt]

27. Give us an example of that...

be specific. I don't recall any of us saying finding out who financed it is "minutiae".

[mhatrw]

33. From The 9/11 Commission Report

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.

[SDuderstadt]

34. I didn't know the US government posted here....N/T

[Bassman66]

68. You've obviously had an irony bypass operation. nt.

[jberryhill]

113. Heh.... that's a good one /nt

[Bassman66]

67. That's really incredible isn't it

They really said that.

Did anyone say why it was of little practical significance?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Ummm, probably because....

it was sent to two employees of an instant messaging firm in Israel that didn't even have any employees at the WTC, not to mention the waring was vague and gave no information as to who, what, when or where.

[mhatrw]

123. Whoooosh n/t

[wildbilln864]

18. Oh...

I think you ask too much. Easier to slander and riducule than to debate the facts. :patriot:

[SDuderstadt]

19. When you guys come up with actual facts, Bill...

we'll be glad to debate them. It's kinda silly when we respond with facts that undercut the unwarranted conclusions that "truthers" draw from relatively innocuous circumstances, to claim that it's slander and ridicule. Hint: Slander isn't written, Bill, it's verbal. Another hint: in order to meet the test of either slander or ridicule, it has to damage the subject's professional reputation, When you guys get one of those, let us know and we'll watch what we say more closely.

[wildbilln864]

25. Don't know what...

the ignored poster in #19 said but I'm sure I didn't miss anything important. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

28. This is going to be fun....

I'm sure after a while, he'll be dying to know who it is. The irony here, of course, is it's we should have Bill on ignore.

[Sweet Pea]

29. Well Said!

So maybe stop talking about logic...

Truer words have never been heard from a Twoofer.

[SDuderstadt]

30. "Quit trying to fool us with logic"....

my interpretation above comes from someone I guess to be a 'truther" who accused me of misleading him/her with Logic.

[mhatrw]

61. You don't know logic from a Log Cabin Republican. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

86. Are you a Log Cabin Republican?

That would make some degree of sense.

[mhatrw]

124. Sorry, but you could try match.com. n/t

[Laurier]

20. Aw, jeez

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bassman66]

23. Yep. n/t

[Bassman66]

66. Why was the above message deleted?

I'm puzzled.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

87. What was the joke? n/t

[mac2]

52. One thing is obvious and Lee Hamilton said it himself....

the 911 Commission was denied information they needed to do it properly.

The President and VP kept it from us. That is interfering with an on going investigation of a criminal act (one of the worst in our history).

How do you know anything is true that our government told us?

[SDuderstadt]

53. Because there are other sources besides the government....

what your post has to do with the OP escapes me.

[mac2]

54. Yes I know about them and believe many of them by professionals and

experts who donated their time and energy to inform us. But those who don't believe have to know...the government was not telling us the truth. That's why we need "independent investigations" as requested by the 911 Families.

[SDuderstadt]

55. But we have independent investigations....

that's my point. I'm not sure what you mean by "independent". Are you saying non-governmental? How would iut compel testimony with no compulsory process?

[mhatrw]

62. Are you fucking serious? Did the 9/11 Commission ever use

subpoena power? Did it ever compel anyone to testify under oath? Do you actually believe this shit?

[mac2]

74. Nope.

The Families of 911 were outraged.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Wrong...

you might try to do some basic research before you make false statements.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/110703c2.htm

[SDuderstadt]

88. You know, you really ought to do some basic research before...

you ask really dumb questions.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/110703c2.htm

[mhatrw]

107. Who did the 9/11 compel to testify under oath against his or her wishes?

Nobody.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Your claim, among other things, was that the 9/11 Commission never...

issued subpoenas. I just proved your claim was false. Quit beating a dead horse.

[mac2]

73. Independent of being appointed by those who they are

investigating. Lee Hamilton was picked by Bush and Cheney.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Are you disparaging Lee Hamilton?

Lee Hamilton is an upstanding former public servant.

[Bassman66]

70. It seems to me

that is thread is divided on one side by people who want answers and people who don't.

I want answers.

I have an inbuilt mistrust of Authority, with good reason, I don't believe stuff just because they tell me, I want to see. I want to know what was in those messages and why the 9/11 Commission didn't mention them.

The Government is supposed to serve the people.

[mac2]

75. Right.

Why are they afraid of the truth about 911? We might be able to protect ourselves from those who really attacked us?

[SDuderstadt]

92. No one is afraid of the "truth" about 9/11

Asking for concrete evidence of wild claims is not fear of truth. Your question is a strawman. It's also an example of "begging the question" in that you assume there is some "truth" we're afraid of. The funny thing about truth is it requires evidence to establish. When the "truth movement" develops some concrete evidence, rather than rebunking the same silly hypotheses over and over, I'm all ears.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Bassman....that's a logical fallacy

It assumes either people want answers or they don't. As I have said before, not every question needs answering. If you want a good investigation, you limit it to things that actually need investigating, not every question the "truth movement" has. Most of their questions could be easily answered by doing some research. It's the aversion to research, rendering them low-information investigators, that propagate most of their half-baked hypotheses.

[Bassman66]

94. It's not a logical fallacy

I want answers and you don't.

Or do you? If so then answers about what?

[SDuderstadt]

95. It IS a logical fallacy....

It assumes there are only two choices....either one wants all the answers or one wants none. That's called a "false dilemma". I'm saying that not everything needs to be answered. Most, if not all, of the goofy theories of the "truth movement" can be dispatched with basic research and Logic. Beyond that, I think the biggest questions to be answered are how Bush exploited 9/11 to assemble unprecedented power and take us into a stupid, senseless war. I don't think we need to investigate how the WTC was brought down by "controlled demolition" (it's obvious they weren't) nor do we need to investigate a vague, non-specific warning that the recipient regarded so lightly that they didn't bring it to the attention of the FBI until after the attack. How's that?

[Bassman66]

96. Well prove me wrong

tell me what you want answers to.

[SDuderstadt]

97. I just told you....

read the frickin' post again.

[Bassman66]

126. You just told me you don't want any answers on 9/11

like I said.

There are those who want answers and those who don't.

No logical fallacy involved.

[SDuderstadt]

134. Learn to read....

"Beyond that, I think the biggest questions to be answered are how Bush exploited 9/11 to assemble unprecedented power and take us into a stupid, senseless war. I don't think we need to investigate how the WTC was brought down by "controlled demolition" (it's obvious they weren't) nor do we need to investigate a vague, non-specific warning that the recipient regarded so lightly that they didn't bring it to the attention of the FBI until after the attack.".


How you can interpret that to mean that I don't want answers is, frankly, beyond me. Your strawman is silly.

[Bassman66]

136. I know what you wrote

You don't want any answers about 9/11, just what happened after.

Like I said, there are those of us who want answers about 9/11 and those who don't.

No logical fallacy.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Ummm, how is that not asking a question about 9/11?

Or, are you totally unconcerned with anything that happened after that day? It's kinda silly to say that asking how Bush was able leverage 9/11 to do really dangerous things is not a question about 9/11 is, well, rather silly.

[Bassman66]

153. You know it's just semantics

You don't want any answers about 9/11, answers about Bush's actions since 9/11 is not answers about 9/11.

I think we've all figured out that you're one of the ones that doesn't want answers about 9/11.

There are however people here who do want answers.

[SDuderstadt]

156. "You don't want any answers about 9/11"

Again, another strawman argument. I just don't have the exact same questions about 9/11 that you do. Quit trying to speak for me, please. I don't see anyone obstructing your questions. However, I will say that many of your questions have been asked and already answered. That is why this is so boring.

You believe LIHOP? Great. Prove it.

You believe MIHOP. Great. Prove it.

Don't blame us for your lack of evidence. Similarly, simply because we ask for evidence of your claims or theories does not mean we, in any way, support Bush and, in fact, I despise him. But, simply because I despise him does not give me leave to make false accusations nor slough off legitimate demands for proof of my claims. The thing I find simply amazing about the "truth movement" is that they refuse to apply the same standards of proof they demand of the "official story" to their OWN claims. Why is that?

[Bassman66]

165. You don't want any answers about 9/11

It's clear.

Prove me wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

169. Done

I have already pointed out the questions I have. Your silly strawman argument isn't gaining anything by making it over and over.

[Bassman66]

149. That is not a question about 9/11 and you know it

Some of us want answers about 9/11 and some don't.

You want to play semantic games? Play with yourself.

As I said this thread is divided between those who do and those (bizarrely) who don't want answers.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Aniother stupid "false dilemma"....

You don't get to decide what questions people have or what answers they want. I have told you repoeatedly that I have questions about 9/11. You don't think my questions are sufficient. I have said repeatedly that I am concerned about how Bush exploited 9/11. By definition, that would also raise the question of his response that day. I am puzzled by Bush's lack of immediate response to what Card told him. I think he should have politely excused himself, found the first fucking secure phone he could, call the NSC and swing into action as Commander-in-Chief. But, none of that proves "they" knew they were safe in the school and it certainly does not prove LIHOP, let alone MIHOP.

In nearly 7 years, not ONE piece of concrete evidence has arisen of either of those. For sure, we are promised "smoking guns" or "we've got the bastards this time". The problem is, everytime all it takes is a little probing and digging and the claims fall apart. This has happened so many times now, that I call it "rebunking", i.e., the same ludicrous claims are discovered by new recruits and we go down the rabbithole yet one more time. You have had plenty of time to formulate an alternative hypothesis, construct the necessary proof mechanisms, find the necessary evidence and present it convincingly to the rest of us. You've failed miserably. That's why so few are taking the "truth movement" seriously. Hopefully MY questions will result in the indictment and conviction of Buah and Cheney after they leave office. However, it won't be for LIHOP or MIHOP. It will essentially be for exploiting a national tragedy to destroy the constitution and entangle us in a monumental waste of time, money and, most importantly, lives.

Please quit insulting me by claiming I don't want answers. I've asked you politely.

[mhatrw]

160. If you wanted answers about 9/11, you would want to know what

the warning the Odigo employees received said, who sent it and why.

For some reason, you don't want any answers to these perfectly obvious and completely legitimate questions. On the contrary, you have devoted hours of your time to picking fights with and insulting anyone who simply wants to find out the truth about this event while continually bending over backwards to deny the legitimacy of perfectly legitimate questions. Why?

[SDuderstadt]

164. FOIA...FBI

DONE

[Bassman66]

166. Give me one answer you would like about 9/11

Not about what happened after, just about 9/11.

Prove me wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

170. I have answered this repeatedly...

Your badgering is getting silly.

[mhatrw]

127. Indefensible. You are confusing logic with your own ignorant opinion. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

135. D.....O.....N.....E n/t

[mhatrw]

125. So what does your "research" tell you about this specific question?

Why do you think it is unreasonable to want to determine the facts concerning a warning about an imminent terrorist attack a few hours before a 9/11? Why dismiss such a reasonable question?

[Bassman66]

128. It's not just reasonable

it's important.

But like the money trail it's deemed insignificant by some who don't want any answers for 9/11.