Ok Jonny, my God...
Look. You have a document. It is, to an astonishing degree,
a blueprint for the WOT (War On Terror). Not only does it state the individual elements, but also that they have to be pursued under one global banner, it should be crystalised in decision makers bminds by Oct 2001, and that they will take a long time absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new PH.
This doc is signed by many of the men who will be in charge of running and protecting the US on and up to 911. Now, there is a huge secutiry infrastructure in place, in order to stop a new PH happening. This means that the chances of one happening, absent gov complicity, are very small. With gov complicity wouldnt be hard, since they are the ones at the controls, right? So when this happens, and the gov has stated its propitiousness only 12 mths ago, something smells fishy, no? Further, when such occurs, bang in time as had been stated, things look very dodgy indeed. So let's move on, bearing this in mind.
When Bush came to power, he had been warned by the Clinton admin that AQ were a
deadly and urgent threat. He was handed a doc by the counter terror czar, Dick Clarke, on 25th Jan, entitled "Strategies for dealing with AQ". Bearing in mind that AQ were th most likely people to do a new PH, Bush demoted Clarke the next day.
Bush was then offered OBL by the Taliban in Feb. He said no thanks.
He was then warned 40 times just at PDB's, just by Tenet, the DCI, of the imminient threat of an AQ attack. He did nothing. He was told that they were AQ cells in the US, and that they were plotting hijackings. He did nothing.
Read this
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
Watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A
And read "Against all enemies" by Dick Clarke.
This will all help u
ETA- Oh, and just to remind you, th argument here is that there is sufficient evidence of gov complicity to warrant an investigation into it.
