Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jetmech Jr. on February 23, 2005, 06:49:17 pm
-
I have no idea whether any of this is credible or not, but it should be good for a read.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370&page=1&pp=10
-
I'll give it a read later, its quite long.
Whats the jist of it?
-
"Cheney's behind the 9-11 Attack," I believe...
-
Dammit, I clicked Edit, not Reply! :mad:
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wall Street to the Wilderness
Early in the game, as the shady background of Ptech began to emerge, Indira Singh came to a point of decision. Should she go forward with Ptech's product, or reject the company? Were the allegations about Ptech serious, or were they disinformation from competitors engaged in commerce interference? She sought out the FBI agent to whom Jeff Goins had spoken. He sent her a video documentary produced by Joe Bergantino for WBZ TV, a CBS affiliate in Boston, about an Islamist charity called CARE International.
"The people in the video that the FBI were looking for right after 9/11 were Ptech employees: Muhammed Mubayyid and Suheil Laher, who had also worked for CARE International. But this was not the Care International everyone knows. This CARE listed its corporate office in the same suite as Al Khifah's Boston office25 - whose more famous location was the Al-Khifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue, where mujaheddin recruits were processed for the CIA's Afghani "Operation Cyclone." It was later named as the locus of the 1993 conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center.26 Muhammed Mubayyid, a Ptech employee and former treasurer of CARE, has donated money to Al Khifah's Brooklyn office.
Recall the notorious intransigence of the FBI in the 1993 WTC case - using Egyptian informant Emad Salem, the Bureau had successfully infiltrated the terrorist cell responsible for the bombing and secretly recorded myriad hours of the cell's planning discussions. It has never given a satisfactory account of its failure to act on that abundant advance information. As documented in Crossing The Rubicon, the same deeply disturbing obstructionism pervades the behavior of middle and high officials in the FBI's before and after 9/11/01.
This is the same FBI.
Indira took Joe Bergantino's video report down to Virginia and interviewed Ptech employees herself. Having confirmed fears, she demanded the FBI agent who gave her Bergantino's report re-open an investigation into Ptech. He said he couldn't. She told him to tell his supervisor. He already had, and was told there was nothing they could do. The FBI was one of Ptech's clients.
Her next stop was Mark Coughlin, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at JP Morgan Chase. His particular position equipped him to understand the kind of damage the firm might suffer if it were to adopt a malicious program with Ptech's computational power. Moved and alarmed, Coughlin called Security, the General Auditor, and the CEO.
They contacted the FBI - at a very high level - who validated all of Indira Singh's claims about Ptech.
Coughlin was shaken. He sent her to William Moran, the General Auditor, who refused to meet with her until she had been debriefed by his security people. "They treated me like I was crazy, like I was the terrorist." And when the meeting finally happened, it was an Orwellian horror show. He asked where she had gotten her information, and as she named her individual sources Moran answered each name the same way, over and over: "That person should be killed... that person should be killed… that person should be killed."27
Hateful words, motivated by a terrible fear of the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, Ptech is a company which appears to have not only deliberately stood in the way of increasing digital security for both finances and intelligence, but also allegedly has been heavily involved with funding Al Quaida and has deep ties with Dick Cheney and several other influencial people.
Basically, despite the fact there was a lot of evidence to bring terrorists (who were deeply involved with Ptech) to justice before the 9/11 event, since Ptech was involved with these personel, and because FBI was their customer, agents were actually ordered not to do anything other than observe.
-
This would certainly make quite a spectacle to the public if they could make any sense of it.
-
Yeah well, so would a million other things, but they'de rather watch The Bachelor instead.
-
ok the article posts too much in the way opinion and not nearly enough in the way of fact. it makes statements that are not at all backed up. Thank you for showing us this.
-
:rolleyes: Your welcome.
Like I said, I thought it would be a good read for some people. Not sure how credible it is, though.
-
I'm not even going to bother getting into the old eye rolling contest with you.
a long article based on opinion and not fact is not a good read for most people who tend to form an opinion all by themselves when presented with facts, but for some, i guess someone else's opinion is needed before they can shape one.
-
I don't care if you didn't find it interesting, or really what you think at all, especially when you act like a prick over it :doubt:.
For some, I guess they have nothing better to do than to berate others and make underhanded, baseless accusations in regards to how they form opinions on subjects.
In short, if your just going to insinuate things against me, STFU. No offense.
I'm not even going to bother getting into the old eye rolling contest with you.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Don't start, guys. :rolleyes:
-
Actually Jetmech, ShadowWolf said the article was just mostly based on opinionated presentation, and you bite his head off for him not finding it "interesting"
-
Damn! I just slipped over on an eye.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Actually Jetmech, ShadowWolf said the article was just mostly based on opinionated presentation, and you bite his head off for him not finding it "interesting"
No, I bite his head off for insinuating this:
"but for some, i guess someone else's opinion is needed before they can shape one."
...About me.
And for this Sarcastic Comment:
"Thank you for showing us this."
And alright, I'll keep it down, Sandwich.
-
actually that was a sincere thank you. This article nicely showed the difference between reporting and grandstanding. I thought you would pick that up. But since you have now labelled me a prick...perhaps i was giving you more credit than you warrant. You came back with the old eye roll bit, so i thought i could better explain my stance on what the article was. Now if you feel that i was insinuating that you personally cannot form an intelligent opinion on your own, that isn't my problem. You said that SOME might find it to be a good read, you never stated that YOU found it to be a good read. i was operating under the assumption that SOME and YOU were probably two different entities. This assumption was based on the wording that you provided.
So, while i was actually inferring good in you, you were inferring the worst in me. All you had to was ask, and maybe we could have avoided this unpleasantry. rest assurred that from this point on, i will be asking instead of simply assuming, or in your case, i will be going to painstaking detail to ensure that you get my point.
let me clarify that for you, this thread has shown me that i cannot take your ability to put the puzzle together for granted. Because when I do, you decide to take my head off.
Now with that said, any misunderstanding that i caused by assuming that you would pick up on a few subtle nuances was in fact unintentional, and you have my apology for making that mistake. I won't make it again with you.
-
but for some, i guess someone else's opinion is needed before they can shape one.
Yes, because I can just feel the love in this statement.
actually that was a sincere thank you. This article nicely showed the difference between reporting and grandstanding. I thought you would pick that up.
There was nothing in your comment to allude to this. As it is, it comes off as a sarcastic remark.
But since you have now labelled me a prick...perhaps i was giving you more credit than you warrant.
Perhaps you were...or perhaps you just failed to hint (even slightly) that your original statement was, in fact, sincere.
let me clarify that for you, this thread has shown me that i cannot take your ability to put the puzzle together for granted. Because when I do, you decide to take my head off.
I could mention what it's shown me, but I'd better not. I said I'd cut the insults down. And perhaps you should put a tad more thought into your posts, as well.
Now with that said, any misunderstanding that i caused by assuming that you would pick up on a few subtle nuances was in fact unintentional
Understood, despite the fact that there were no real "nuances" to pick up.
Now, all that said, if your post was indeed sincere, you have my apologies.
-
i think that maybe instead of insinuating sincerity, people need to simply stop reading sarcasm into every post. I understand how it easy to fall into this, especially here at HLP. I mean think about it....alot of what we read IS sarcasm. I think that sometimes we need to step back and really read something for what it is, and not for what it could be stating. With that said, and i hope that you agree with that statement......
can we get on with the discussion that you meant to start, as oposed to the arguement that we are having?
-
Certainly (to both statements). Though I'm not sure anyone cares, anymore :D