Homeland Insurgency said:
Well, I have to do a lot of presuming here, because you seem to dodge and weave when asked straightforward questions. But here goes:
Presumably, you have come to the conclusion that another, or more investigation is needed. If this is not true, I have no idea why you would be so argumentative.
Now, if your conclusion is correct, you seem to have had access to enough information to conclude another, or more investigation is needed. A competent foreign intelligence service (FIS) should have come to this conclusion as well.
Based on what evidence that they had access to? That's a straight forward question BTW.
It certainly is. But either your good faith or your reading comprehension seems to be very small. I've bolded the part in my original post that should have provided you the answer. But I'll make it more explicit: the same evidence
you used to decide that more or another investigation is needed.
Homeland Insurgency said:
The FIS, of course, would have access to resources that you would likely not. Now, by resources, I don't mean agents in the U.S. to ferret out secret information of a closely held conspiracy, I mean qualified experts in the fields necessary to evaluate information.
Name exactly what they evaluated. Don't assume.
Why? You say you want additional investigation. I am pointing out a class of organizations that would be competent, independent, and motivated to do additional investigation into 9/11.
Name exactly what
you evaluated to reach your conclusion that additional investigation is needed.
Name every fact. Don't leave anything out.
Notice that my post was a conditional:
IF your conclusion is correct.
If your conclusion is incorrect, then a competent FIS would not reach that conclusion.
Homeland Insurgency said:
There are many FIS that would have this level of competence. Some of them, of course, might be friendly to the U.S., or the Bush administration, and keep quiet.
There are governments though, that would gain politically from publicly embarrassing the Bush administration. Venezuela and N. Korea spring to mind.
Has there been no foreign officials claiming doubts about 9/11? Is there nothing N Korea needs from the US? If there weren't would it prove something? Try harder.
Doubt of the US from an unfriendly state is hardly a weapon.
Homeland Insurgency said:
I'd like to point out that for the purpose of political embarrassment, it is not required that the FIS discover proof of the actual perpetrators, or even what really happened.
All they have to do is present independently verifiable information of a plausible alternate to the consensus narrative. The alternate narrative, though, is crucial.
Based on what evidense that they had access to. Even it a FIS had evidence of something going on in America pryor to 9/11 to come forth with said evidense could also expose how they came to such evidence. That wouldn't be very intelligent would it?
No. To be a useful weapon for a foreign power it has to be
independently verifiable. But notice, the alternate narrative doesn't have to be
true. It could be a lie. Something that didn't happen. A frameup using existing data that is completely irrelevant.
So it would not depend on the FIS having access to evidence held by the U.S. government. Merely on their ingenuity in supporting a plausible story.
Homeland Insurgency said:
Depending on how broad you believe the conspiracy to be, it would be presented to foreign or the U.S. mainstream media. A complete alternate narrative with independently verifiable evidence implicating the U.S. government would certainly be news.
Again what evidence do they have access to and if they did could they admit it officially? I don't have a conspiracy. You have one if you believe in 19 conspirators. And you don't have a complete narrative either. Live up to your own standards.
Let me turn the question around a bit. Do you believe additional evidence would be available to a second investigation run by the same government you suspect of either: A) not making all relevant evidence available to the first investigation, or B) running the first investigation in such a way that it did not use all the evidence that was available?
If so, why? I'm not asking "what evidence"? You can't be expected to know that.
But if the first investigation was incompetent or corrupt, why would you expect a second one to be different?
If it was
not incompetent or corrupt, why would a second investigation be necessary?
Do you think a second investigation run by the U.S. government (and assuming worst case, that it was trying to hide something from the public) would be more likely or less likely to expose incriminating information than a covert investigation/frameup by an FIS? Remember, the evidence doesn't really have to be relevant, merely independently verifiable, and fitting into a plausible narrative of events.
I think the narrative of 9/11 is pretty complete. If you disagree, say what's missing in the narrative. I am not speaking here of what you personally find unbelievable, but the part that's actually missing.
Homeland Insurgency said:
Considered as a weapon, it would do a lot of damage, both inside the U.S., and to its world reputation. It carries virtually no risk of retaliation.
There is plenty of doubt worldwide about 9/11. There is also plenty of distrust towards America and it's government.
Yet in seven years, no enemy of the U.S. has used it.
Are we really that popular?
That's not true. Would you call Iran a friend of the US? Is there not officials from countries like Japan or Italy or Germany who have expressed doubts about 9/11? Most of those countries are suppose to be our friends. How much trust worldwide is there of America right now? Do you live under a rock?
There are individuals all over the world who dislike the U.S. and/or the current administration. A subset of that group probably are officials of foreign governments. A subset of that group probably are twoofers. That's not a plausible narrative supported by independently verifiable data. That's just statistics applied to a large group. So what?
