It‘s like you don’t know... are you aware that a considerable number of that specific think tank, including signatories of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document quoted, took up prominent positions (many military) in the Bush administration in 2001? Here we are talking Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, etc, i.e. the top tier, the same individuals who had written of the benefit that a “new Pearl Harbor” would bring.
The controversy is in the fact that the “new Pearl Harbor” which they had recently foretold would propel their policy, so happened to arrive the very same year of their coming to power in 2001 – how very fortunate for them. Some would like to call it coincidence whilst others, I think wisely, question the convenience of that timing. At a minimum there is no denying that it reveals a motive to assist an attack.
You think these guys aren’t ruthless enough to scaremonger, use propaganda and outright lie in the killing of thousands? Look at their record, philosophy and wars – their orders have directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
So when we then find, as has been discussed, that the CIA bin Laden unit, headed by Cofer Black who is clearly on the same page as these PNAC Neocons, was responsible for holding off the FBI and granting at least two of the 9/11 hijackers free passage inside the United States, the level of coincidence and convenience inherent to maintain the ‘official story’; that it was a random ‘sneak attack’, becomes too much to bear.
We have a motive, we have an action which realised it, we have a benefit. The investigation had to get a hold of these guys, question where the orders came from and/or decisions made and uncover the rationale for it. Heads should have rolled even if it were not by some miracle an ‘inside job’ - there is no doubt that rules and laws were not adhered. A professional lawyer would have had a field day with it. Imagine Cofer Black questioned on the stand: -
- As the standard procedure to block the terrorists from the country had failed, why did you not rectify the situation when it later became apparent?
- Why did the CIA consistently prevent the FBI from taking action?
- If the intention was to recruit or gather intelligence from these terrorists, then were they under surveillance?
- If they were under surveillance then why didn’t you act even when they undertook flying lessons?
- If they were not under surveillance then why did you allow the presence of a known terrorist threat in the country unchecked?
- Either way, just what were you waiting for? And how long were you prepared to wait?
- Were any or all of these decisions of your own making or order from a higher source?
I don’t believe that anyone can honestly miss the controversy in all of this. There is nothing uncontroversial at any step of the way.
An excellent plan. I already backed you for CIA director, it’ll be President next! Though it matters not what you’d do, but what those in power would do – those who achieved and extended their objective due to 9/11.
The requirement to open the oil route was an “internationally recognized Afghanistan Government” with whom to carry out agreeable negotiation. Afghanistan had faced two decades of foreign and civil war. The most powerful group, the Taliban, holding most of the country, were refused a seat at the U.N. and internationally recognised by only three countries... and would not play the oil game with the United States. So again, how fortunate that it was necessary to impose regime change upon Afghanistan to depose the mastermind of 9/11. Although the project is currently stalled due to the stability issues you mention, the new internationally recognised Afghanistan government, in contrast to the Taliban, agreed to the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline in 2002 – another gift of 9/11.
Based upon the full body of background information, circumstances and other facts, an ‘inside job’ element is a more plausible solution than the ‘official story’ which relies only on a selective viewing to cast a blind eye on all of the above and more; a half-truth, nothing more.
You nearly got my view correct. I actually believe vice versa - the evidence indicates that the attacks were planned and carried out by intelligence agencies, with approval and cooperation from ‘Al Qaeda’. Just look at our hijackers. 15 of them turn up on bin Laden’s doorstep all of a sudden only in 1999/2000... Westernised men, not particularly religious, at just the time a major CIA infiltration operation is launched. This is not the expected profile of lifelong, diehard Jihadists... because they were not... even the 9/11 Commission showed some disconcertion at their backgrounds. And after the Bojinka plot, which before its ultimate failure had to be scaled back for a distinct lack of suicidal volunteers, all of these new appearances in contrast pledged their lives for the cause. It appears to be a setup – the failed desire of ‘Al Qaeda’ for such an attack was well known in intelligence circles, and so the operation was presented/enabled by intelligence agents (those 15 hijackers), and bin Laden I’m sure gave his blessing. With his foreknowledge, contact with the hijackers and approval, the trap was set. This is not the theory of a freely wandering mind, but fitting of an ever greater body of evidence, too much to mention here.
I should mention that the other 4 hijackers, they appear to be genuine bin Laden recruits – demonstrating longterm connection to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks. It was 2 from this group, Mihdhar and Hazmi, who required a helping hand from the Saudi government agent inside the U.S. and received that protection from the CIA which has been discussed here.
It appears at a minimum we are looking at a grand entrapment which suited Neocon geopolitical aims. It is not just a plausible answer, but the only answer that incorporates the full body of evidence.