Ask Yourself..
I don't even challenge the believers of our federal government's official version of 9/11 events to answer the difficult questions. While they are assembling their logically fallacious rebuttals to the bulletin, I'll ask one simple question following a couple of brief points.
(1) Several members of the Bush administration all stated on the record that nobody in the federal government had ever conceived of a plan to fly hijacked jets into the world trade center and pentagon before 9/11, so I'll be fair and not say they lied but that they were intentionally misleading since it's long been a part of the official record that the CIA and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) were running aerospace defense drills based on the concept of hijacked jets being wrecked into targets none other than the world trade center and pentagon, not only on the very morning of 9/11 (Associated Press) but several times in the weeks and months beforehand.
(2) Our federal government has waged psychological warfare campaigns on us before (see McCollum memos[ww2], pretext for Vietnam War, pretext for Iraq War), has drawn up plans to kill US citizens as a pretext for war with other nations (Operation Northwoods) and actually carried out plans to kill innocent civilians as a pretext for setting up more draconian law enforcement measures (Operation Gladio). There is even a legitamate argument that Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbor attack at least days in advance and took measures to see that it was not prevented. Their motive for doing so is clear when you actually read the McCollum memos which have now been released through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).
My question is this:
Considering the fact that high ranking officials with military authority in the Bush administration stated in a document written at least a year before 9/11 and before they were even members of his administration that a "catastrophic, catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would be conducive to their agenda, which was to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars", and the fact that their administration has been (1)intentionally misleading with respect to other matters, do you not believe that officials with aerospace defense, intelligence, and other security oriented authority would not *consider* looking the other way, dismantling security measures (1, 2), aiding a terrorist threat or even orchestating a terrorist act like 9/11 (WMP)?
(1) Several members of the Bush administration all stated on the record that nobody in the federal government had ever conceived of a plan to fly hijacked jets into the world trade center and pentagon before 9/11, so I'll be fair and not say they lied but that they were intentionally misleading since it's long been a part of the official record that the CIA and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) were running aerospace defense drills based on the concept of hijacked jets being wrecked into targets none other than the world trade center and pentagon, not only on the very morning of 9/11 (Associated Press) but several times in the weeks and months beforehand.
(2) Our federal government has waged psychological warfare campaigns on us before (see McCollum memos[ww2], pretext for Vietnam War, pretext for Iraq War), has drawn up plans to kill US citizens as a pretext for war with other nations (Operation Northwoods) and actually carried out plans to kill innocent civilians as a pretext for setting up more draconian law enforcement measures (Operation Gladio). There is even a legitamate argument that Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbor attack at least days in advance and took measures to see that it was not prevented. Their motive for doing so is clear when you actually read the McCollum memos which have now been released through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).
My question is this:
Considering the fact that high ranking officials with military authority in the Bush administration stated in a document written at least a year before 9/11 and before they were even members of his administration that a "catastrophic, catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would be conducive to their agenda, which was to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars", and the fact that their administration has been (1)intentionally misleading with respect to other matters, do you not believe that officials with aerospace defense, intelligence, and other security oriented authority would not *consider* looking the other way, dismantling security measures (1, 2), aiding a terrorist threat or even orchestating a terrorist act like 9/11 (WMP)?
posted by x_factur at 3:14 PM
6 comments
