Posted: Nov 28, 2010 10:50 am
by Nicko
the_5th_ape wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36fUenwaxw[/youtube]


Just more of the same.

Did the Bush administration come into office intending to attack Iraq and establish a permanent base of operations in the heart of the world's largest oilfields at the first sign of provocation by anyone Muslim? Probably. The pattern of interrogation after 9/11 showed pretty clearly where their priorities lay. Bush reluctantly agreed to make Afghanistan the first target only after Blair pointed out that no one outside the US was buying the whole "Saddam done it" line they had prepared.

Were they aware of al-Qaeda's plans for 9/11? Unlikely. The harshest thing that they could be accused of is agressive indifference to a possible threat. They may have been prepared to take advantage of a terrorist strike, but they also had to have deniability.

Was it a "false flag" operation? They would have had to be clinically insane. The risks of such an operation would so far outweigh the benefits that this claim is just preposterous.

Were the towers brought down by demolition? No. Absence of independently-tested residue, absence of evidence for demolition, absence of opportunity (if you are arguing for demolition, you are arguing for a conspiracy involving thousands).

As I have said before, the point people should be up in arms over is the first one. Instead, people who's mistrust of authority could be put to good use are sidelined into irrelevant bullshit. They're like a cop in front of of a bank being robbed busily issuing parking tickets.