So I'm wrong then, ok... Here's a hypothetical question - Suppose for a minute that I agree with you that the towers were brought down in a CD. Forgetting all the rest, would you agree that the manner in which they fell - not the cause - could be described as pancaking ?
You need to remember that the Able Danger guys found out about the terrorists beforehand and what they were up to. But they were prevented, by mandates initiated by Clinton/Gorelick, from talking to the FBI. The reason for this mandate was to be able to use intelligence info in a trial AFTER a terrorist attack. Now does that make sense to you? To use this info in a trial, rather than using this info to PREVENT an attack.
i agree with a lot of what you're saying, particularly the notion of credit for a big save and competetition between agencies. especially on a govt payscale and in largely thankless positions, the competition for recognition is as highly coveted as in any other industry, perhaps higher ...but... there were numerous concerted efforts by multiple officials to bring the threat directly to the president's and administration's attention. is it possible the bush administration simply had political incentives not to intervene? there are some very unambiguous examples of this hypothetical motive what precludes this possibility other than faith in the integrity of the bush whitehouse and human nature? it has almost no moving parts, no vast conspiracies. not more required than playing dumb and looking largely the other way
off topic somehow. but some things i find strange within the conspiracy department. most important is the whole setup. i mean flying in planes AND use pre-installed explosives is one weapon too many. why not just use the explosives and forget all the plane thing? or use a missle? see my point? why should they bother with coordinating TWO very difficult tasks, involving more people, thus more risk, if they could have their pearl harbor easier. and the whole pearl harbor thing as such seems flawed. i mean even pearl harbor itself was very much offshore. and gulf war I was based on much less emotional outrage. it is simply not true that an event of such magnitude was necessary to enter war. the whole thread of reasoning seems far-fetched to me ... plus my main argument: why in daylight with dozens of cameras on, while you want to hide a controlled demolition? just consider this was a movie plot. you would not believe for a second that this was not plain stupid a plan. i mean the very fact you want to hide: that it is controlled, is what you put on the highest level of attention possible. with all news stations on it for hours and hours. and then in full spot light you do your demolition? so unlikely that any conspiracy would agree on this as a good plan. just think of the meeting of the guys, sitting together: "yeah, let us do it in front of all the world, right in the face, ok?". hmm. i mean these guys were professional enough not get caught yet, but they made such a strange decision?
Seriously, are you that naive or are you only pretending? Why don't you ask these guys, they can provide better answers than anyone on these boards. http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
honestly and sincerely, no i would not agree with that statement. ive seen pictures of bldgs that have pancaked and they are not pulverized into a fine dust. during 9/11 "almost" everything was pulverized into a fine dust in wtc1 & 2. bldg's that pancake, actually leave stacks of floors at the base of the previous site of the bldg. i have not seen anything yet that resembles stacks of floors in the aftermath. i have watched multiple videos and seen thousands of pictures of the actual collapsing and it truly appears that wtc1 & 2 are exploding all the way down. wtc7 is quite different... it is a classic demolition.
Abridged version: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Unabridged version http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8303.htm Precedents in history: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIHgXxIP8dE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DIHgXxIP8dE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings The Russian apartment bombings were a series of bombings in Russia that killed nearly 300 people and led the country into the Second Chechen War. They happened over a span of two weeks in 1999. The Russian authorities, directed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, blamed the bombings on Chechen separatists, and, in response, ordered the invasion of Chechnya. However, former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter [1], and Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimate the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin and FSB to power. Now why would the Russians kill their own citizens?! Huh huh....Huuuuuuhhhhh?!! Problem Reaction Solution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zpj5OJwO-U