redhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:
That's because I didn't see any logic. All I keep seeing is a bunch of names of people, organizations, categories of people or occupations, allegedly all tied together for some nefarious purpose, that involved the murder of 3,000 U.S. citizens on American soil.
I’m sorry to say but your current knowledge seems somewhat in question – you did say that the best reason you could come up with for a 9/11 false flag is “to give the armed forces combat experience” and seemed unaware of the term ‘Neocon’, or their stated goals, or how these have been achieved due to the attack – from this disadvantaged position it is understandable that you don’t grasp the logic in my ‘Wolf and Raven’ analogy and are overwhelmed or unable to structure many of the names, organizations and categories mentioned. I will say that some links I see alleged can be weak, though can only suggest you carry out more research or ask questions to determine those connections that do exist. You need to be more specific, though to not see
“any” logic appears largely a failure of your knowledge.
redhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:
You wrote;
The same goals can also be attributed to the Soviet... er I mean Russian empire. Your insinuation that the timing of the attacks and the then recent U.S. election was more than coincidental, is just that, an insinuation.
I’m not sure why you mention Soviet goals. It does not detract from the stated Neocon goals to which you enquired. I do hope you are not attempting to argue that we should place Russia, having equally grand goals to the U.S., under similar suspicion. The insufferable flaw to that theory would be the complete lack of Russian presence, action and benefit in regard to 9/11 which preclude even a motive, all in contrast to that of U.S. individuals and goals achieved. I’ll forget you ever raised that.
Also, I’m not opposed to insinuation, but it is a little deeper than that, more a combination of inductive and abductive reasoning that leads to the conclusion ‘timing of the attack and election were more than coincidence’. But granted, this only deals in probabilities not certainties. For instance, whilst the attack as we know it could not have progressed without the CIA intervention I have previously noted, I accept there is no direct action of the Bush administration that would lead to quite an equal degree of culpability – the attack itself could have been performed entirely as an intelligence agency driven operation under any administration.
However, we do know that the CIA element in question shared political ideologies of, and were answerable to, the Bush administration as the situation deteriorated. We do know FBI officials complained that restrictions on bin Laden and Saudi related cases specifically,
“became worse after the Bush administration took over this year.” We do know that the Bush administration took no positive action on the growing number of intelligence warnings (for one example, see Presidential Brief in
post #1552 and consider the questions asked). We do know that a 9/11 scale attack suited the Neocons’ longstanding agenda for war, particularly regime change in Iraq, and wider stated motives, and that those in the Bush administration did not hesitate to benefit. Under another administration that did not share those motives, allowance of the attacks may not have been so simple and there is high risk that advantage to the Neocon ideology may not be taken (a prime example: the Clinton administration failure to maximise military ventures based on the 1993 WTC bombing) – the operation could have come to nought. We do know that of all the times 9/11 could have occurred, it happened to coincide within a year of the Neocons, those who would benefit most, taking power.
Under the circumstances it is only logical to reason there is probability that ‘timing of the attack and election were more than coincidence’. Honestly, what else am I supposed to think? The very worst and most ignorant option is to not consider it at all, perhaps to auto-disregard everything above as ‘coincidene’ to follow a preferred reality. The most frustrating part is that we could get definite answers had the correct investigation been carried out. So then we must ask, who are these people that would not like to see that investigation, and why? Again, the lead culprits are the Bush administration and intelligence services.
redhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:
So let me revise my claim;
Truthers are heavy into metaphor, analogy, insinuation, inferences and implications.
I think you are trying to make an attack on ‘truthers’ here, but really I don’t see the above characteristics as a negative. I already mentioned analogy/metaphor being linked to cognitive ability in my last post. Likewise the ability to imagine possible scenarios and their consequences (“insinuation, inferences and implications”) is further a sign of intelligence. Even Einstein said
, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
My only complaint would be the selectivity of your description; which fails to mention the above positives, vast knowledge that most ‘truthers’ hold on the 9/11 topic and reasoning invoked, etc.
redhen, on 31 January 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:
I previously had suggested we take up a collection here on the UM forum to enable a court case to be filed against Bush, Cheney et al. But I see someone actually tried that, with
less than stellar results, lol.
"Army specialist April Gallup filed suit claiming that Vice President
Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and the Pentagon was hit by an attack ordered by Cheney. The suit was dismissed in 2010 by Judge
Denny Chin, who said the claim was "the product of cynical delusion and fantasy". Her lawyers filed an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals which in April 2010 issued a
show cause order why the lawyers and Gallup should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Her lawyers asked that the judges on the Court of Appeals recuse themselves because their emotions made them prejudge the case and abuse their power. On October 14, 2011 the judges sanctioned her lawyers $15,000 each for both the frivolous lawsuits and the accusations of prejudice"
So, forget about my request to "put your money where your mouth is", you seem like a decent enough fellow, I wouldn't want you to lose your shirt.
I dealt with this in
post #718.
Anyhow, thank you for your response, it is interesting to read. You still did not answer the question in my
post #710 ‘what would you have done in the CIA position?’ I’ll present a few more uncomfortable questions from another angle, given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists: -
What might agents attempting to
prevent an attack have done?
What might agents attempting to
allow an attack have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?
There is no escaping it.
Edited by Q24, 01 February 2013 - 01:48 PM.
6
Our embassies were bombed and our ships have been attacked, which included the USS Pueblo, the USS Liberty, the USS Stark, and the USS Cole, and WTC1 was bombed in 1993, and to mention the downing of our EC-121 by North Korea and still, we did not go to war.
