The list you supplied, the one with the forewarnings, contains information from declassified documents. (Yes, I Googled "Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline-> Warning Signs", like you said). To me this conveys that the documents were probably classified at some point.
U have qualified this later, so I wont bother.
I'll be the first to admit that my credulity is lacking in favour of a US government conspiracy.
However, demanding a new investigation after the one that has brought to light the very list of 'suspect' forewarnings you base your demand on, seems a bit odd.
But they didnt. Thats why you dont know most of them. The timeline is msm reports. My stuff comes from here and there. Moreover, there is a difference between stating the facts, and dealing with them. So for instance one thing the Comm dealt with was the fact that the system was "blinking red", and Bush was warned 40 times, but did nothing. Then silence. This is not dealt with, this is not criticised, this is not investigated, it is left to be forgotten about; an uncomfortable silence. This should not happen in a report into the attacks.
But say I go along with the fact that the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks is suspect, what is your reason to don't trust the previous investigators to come to the conclusion you come to?
As above- they havent touched some of the most important facts (e.g. the OBL handover), and they havent dealt with any of the others.
Take a wild guess. Even better, I'll save you the effort: Normal people don't do that. The odds that the conspirators were able to recruit enough sociopaths among the ranks of government agencies to pull off such a conspiracy and not screw up are vanishingly small.
Again, that is
completely untrue. The US government has been responsible for the murder of literally millions of people since 1945; leaders like Carter, Truman, Clinton, Kennedey- you deem these people to be "sociopaths"? These people come across as the most normal, genteel, respectable politicians... but since government is a power centre, the propensity to sacrifice human life, and do immoral things, is inherent. To quote Hans Morgenthau, the father of post war US diplomacy:
The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil."[
Put this principle in neo con hands, and it gets a rocket boost.
Finally, to frame this in a topical situation, you have the PNAC doc, which was written/co signed by maybe up to 60 people, all endorsing this view as to the propitousness of a catastrophic attack on ths US for geo politics. So where is the difficulty in keeping a secret, when you already have so many people who believe in it?
In fact, you clearly contend that they totally screwed up their homicidal conspiracy by both publically announcing their plans beforehand and publishing the screw-ups afterward. I contend that they just screwed up their intelligence gathering.
Who's arguing from incredulity here?
No, they didnt screw it up, because the public is sufficicently cowed to accept any subterfuge in order to not have to believe that their government is guilty of this; even by arguing that "911 was not a new PH"; or that WTC7 was not imploded (more on that later, of course). So there was no screw up; politicians know the way the public mind works very well. To quote Bernays:
No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
But I think I see what kind of conspiracy you think may have happened. It would have to be a conspiracy where the conspirators
1. recruit some maniacs to fly aircraft into buildings or
2. allow existing maniacs to fly their airplanes into buildings, because they were going to anyway.
Am I right?
For the moment, assume 2.
I can't tell without knowing who exactly got the warnings, or knowing how the different intelligence agencies communicate with eachother, or how many unrelated warnings about other terror attacks with trains, car bombs, ships, dirty nukes, anthrax, small pox, doomsday machines or space lasers gave more specific information and demanded more immediate action at the time.
Do you?
Ok, well dont worry about that. Just think about Bush/Cheney et al. What did they do and why.
