You miss my point. You are asserting that the US authorities knowingly let terrorists engage in mass murder in their own country, including partial
destruction of the US military headquarters.
Partial destruction of the pentagon? What i am asserting is that the US government had the same level of information about the likely consequences of
their actions on 9-11 as they did about the likely consequences about their invasions of Iraq&Afghanistan. They knew Iraq had no WOMD and that the
Taliban could be induced to give up OBL and other accused with the proper bribes&guarantees ( the Taliban were willing to give him up before the war
if evidence could be presented that he was responsible and were willing to give him up again in exchange for a end to hostilities once started ) thus
saving hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead American citizens and a few million Iraqi and Afghan lives. The US national security state does not
seem to care about the lives of it's citizens beyond how they can be made to serve corporate or state interests.
You suggested the lack of immediate military response as evidence.
I don't believe so at all, and the lack of immediate military response was the obvious one that they weren't aware of the military dimensions of the
attack until it was completed and they don't have orders or policy to fire on civilian commercial aircraft in their own country.
The facts are quite different as indicated by the Norad spokesman at the time who claimed that they "routinely intercept aircraft"; as far as my
knowledge goes the FAA must alert Norad and then provides tracking information to intercept aircraft when ANY plane misses a 'fix point' along their
filed flight plan. Basically any plane who deviates from it's flight plan can expect to have a fighter escort after 10-15 minutes and hijacking with
the intent of flying into buildings is thus rendered pretty ridiculous; unless you know that things will be different on the day. Having said that
maybe the hijackers didn't know any of these things being as know out drinking and conducting themselves in generally unexpected ways.
Well it would be quite a great deal to expect most uninformed or misinformed people to believe but since you have no reason to be either could you
I think it's ridiculous to blame US authorities for acquiescing intentionally to murder of their own countrymen. It's not ridiculous to
blame them for taking advantage of the situation to advance pre-existing political aims. Reason being that there is no evidence for the first and
there is evidnece for the second.
As i described earlier the usage of agent orange, depleted uranium armor and shells for tanks, the use of untested vaccines before the first invasion
of Iraq and the like strongly suggests that the US national security establishment does not feel the same way about it's servicemen, which it at
least in theory at least should, than you do. Since it is a hard thing for most people to accept that their governments might use and abuse their
services i do not blame you but given that you are on this forum i do expect you to eventually see as much. Starting a war there when there is no
threat to domestic security ( actually even when there is but that hardly matters when it comes to US actions ) is murder by default and why it is
the pre-eminent war crime as well.
What counts as 'serious danger' ? I seem to remember not just danger but actual damage.
The pentagon is structured and armored in such a way that a large majority of whoever is inside will survive even the close detonation of a tactical
or small ( 200-500 KT ) nuclear weapon) so that is what i mean with 'no serious danger'. If there was ANY warning of attack no one would have died
in the pentagon.
Glad you find it so and i am always happy to eleborate on why that must be so to even begin to explain why the world works the way we can observe it
Kamikaze planes were military manufactured aircraft crewed by military pilots attacking military targets.
And since 'the terrorist' have no state backers of consequence ( which is in some ways surprising to me) they can not build those planes. The main
reason the Japanese and later Germans had to rely on military manufacturing&design is because no other type of aircraft had much of a chance to reach
the intended targets whereas the 'terrorist' targets were in fact best reached by the type of planes employed.; it would have been ridiculous to
attempt to steal military jets from military airfields for the simple reason that they were very small.... It would be like suggesting the Japanese
build large 4 engine bomber aircraft so they would be able to do more damage when they hit aircraft carriers which at their speeds they probably never
This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous anyways and both you and i know that the US government knew that such attacks were not only possible but
the simplest and most direct method to attack us infrastructure.
Do you believe that any of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, or Dick Cheney knew specifically with high confidence that foreign terrorists would
hijack civilian aircraft to make lethal attacks against civilian and military targets, and that it was the considered and intentional policy of the US
to let them happen for the purpose of advancing globalist corporate capitalism?
yes or no.
I guess i shall try to qualify and then answer:
1: I dont believe that any of them had to know or knew but i believe they had sufficient information to know of the possiblitiy of 'terrorist' doing
it in that time frame and could have been involved if it was staged by US forces to get their foreign plans started.
2: As for the globalist agenda this can be made to fit but it could also have been more of a nationalist diversion from such plans.. The 'evidence'
( determining what should serve and so forth ) can be problematic in it's own right and depending on who really did know what and when you can follow
the trail in many directions.
Essentially i believe them all capable of killing American citizens in cold blood ( that is what starting a war boils down too) if they determined
that it would serve their concept of country/nation best. Either way i think the attack was allowed to succeed by complicity somewhere in the US
defense establishment the only question being if it was organized from the top down, for reasons stated, or from the middle up as some kind of
economic or military coup by foreign or domestic military or intelligence organizations; i don't think it was organized in Afghanistan by OBL or
carried out by muslim extremist as the FBI does not think so and i have not yet found a reason to disagree with them on it.