9/11...

The issue was that the incoming administration's foreign policy was based on the conviction that non-state actors were not important. They chose to not act because they really didn't think anything significant would come of bin Laden's activities and because they already knew what they wanted to do.

 

Not a relevant comparison, can a trained astronomer find them? Of course, just as trained intelligence analysts should be able to find patterns within data that the ordinary person can't. And, probably most relevant in this case, the government officials who rely on those analysts should actually pay attention to their findings.

 

or if we had a president in power who was more interested in the safety of Americans at home and abroad, and eliminating terrorist leaders rather than trying to find a pretext for invading other countries in a war of enrichment of friends and oil, he would have just used a drone to collect intelligence on OBL's whereabouts using drones and eliminated him quietly. you see it's all about what your end goal is.

 

Or he would have captured him and tried him as a criminal. Remember, the "war" on terror is a post-9/11 construct. Before that, we treated terrorists as criminals and not prisoners of war.

 

If done correctly we probably wouldn't even have known about it, this would be an intelligence operation aimed at preventing the types of attacks that occurred on 9/11, not starting a war. Although it's patently obvious the Bush Administration wanted a war in Iraq, and they eventually got it.

What annoys me about the more extreme forms of the 9/11 truth movement is that they obfuscate the real intelligence failures involved. And I still find it disturbingly interesting that the Bush Administration began linking Iraq with the attacks as soon as they possibly could. Which, at best, was gross opportunism; and at worst, well...I don't really want to go there.

 

not totally.
if Bush had intel that an attack (heck, even the type of attack - i.e. using planes) was imminent, and did nothing about it, he certainly could have figured that if an attack occurs, he could pin it on Saddam, and give him a pretext for invading Iraq. of course, if that was his line of thinking, he definitely miscalculated on the scale of the attack and the resulting destruction. he could have figured it would be a smaller attack, possibly not even on the US mainland itself. yeah, I realize this is arm-chair speculation. but it seems like it was clear to both Clinton and Bush that OBL was a threat, and neither did much in the way of actually killing him, or killing terrorist leaders. I'm not sure if the sophisticated drone technology that is available to Obama was available in the 90s or the early 2000s. but given Bush's reaction AFTER the events, it makes you wonder if he was more interested in invading Iraq or in killing terrorists.

 

I won't go so far as to say that America/Bush/CIA/Israel orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.
but I will speculate that Bush knew that an attack was imminent, but he figured it would be a rather smaller attack (kind of like the attacks during the Clinton administration), and perhaps not against the US mainland, but rather some embassy in a foreign country. he might have figured that was a price worth paying to obtain a pretext for invading Iraq - one that would be at least strong enough to convince most Americans, and enough of the rest of the world to come up with some kind of coalition of the willing. if this was the case, he of course tragically miscalculated the scale of the attack as well as the target.

 

From what I've read, the people actually constructing Bush's foreign policy (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc) were from the start too focused on Iraq, to spend any time worrying about bin Laden. Naturally, they were happy to take advantage of events to do what they wanted to do anyway, but I think they genuinely believed that Al Qaeda was not a significant threat until that day.

 

IF they did have foreknowlege, I agree with you, they had no idea it would be so huge. But once the attacks happened, they ran with the opportunity, and that's what really made me sick at the time (and still does).

And honestly, my first hit on the attacks was that they were far more successful than even the perpetrators imagined, which was their downfall. I really doubt they expected the buildings to go down as easily as they did, and once that happened our response was going to be far more extreme than it would have been otherwise.

 

that seems reasonable. but it also wouldn't be a stretch to say that while they were focused on Iraq, they were certainly briefed on the Al Queda threat, but they figured that if an Al Queda attack did occur (and again, they probably figured it would be a small one), they could take advantage of it and use it as a pretext for war with Iraq.

 

A lot of you people are showing that you think/know there is more to the "official story" than what we were told, that's relieving... For anyone interested in the scientific data explaining why the reports on the collapse of the towers in my opinion MORE IMPORTANTLY BUILDING 7 there is a new movie created by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 re-investigation/truth. This is only the hour long version, there is a longer version but I know just watching an hour of this is enough to get you to question what exactly happened to those buildings on that life-changing event:


Just dont ask what the forum architect thinks as his "special diploma" super-cedes any other architectural engineers expertise

 

Not sure who you were talking about but i was referring to Mr. Warmth... idiot has some grandiose illusion with his diploma in architecture

 

...but that's only because you're biased towards reality.

 

There's no need to scalp you and the rest of the tinfoil brigade in every forum

 

All I did was simply point to the observable facts noted above.

But apparently, those are lies too

 

Yea you do that take the advice from the magazine that has this under the military section, you know they would want you to know the truth... Im sure you are not even considering the video I posted so I will make this brief. What does popular mechanics say about Building WTC7? Can they answer how NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE TOTAL COLLAPSE? Does it mention how NIST has failed to explain the total collapse of WTC7? Does it explain why multiple FOIA (thats Freedom Of Information Act") requesting the data that NIST used to create the collapse model have been denied? Keep to your mainstream media bullshit, you know they always have the masses best interest in mind

 

Why would the government want to destroy WTC7? Who gives a rat's ass about a crappy little office building when you just managed to destroy the two biggest buildings in New York? What could they have possibly gained? Why is WTC7 worthy of a governmental plot against it?

 

I think I recall watching some show a long time ago about the 9/11 conspiracy theories and as I recall, the contention was that WTC7 contained some very sensitive stuff that needed to be destroyed. destroying WTC 1 and 2 were just a cover for WTC7. I don't recall the nature of the sensitive stuff in WTC7 that needed to be destroyed though. I probably need to do a little digging, but probably not on a government computer.

 

I dont know their exact motives BUT the Security Exchange Commission's office was there, at that time Enron (Bush&Cheney's cash cow for elections) was under investigation by the SEC as it was becoming more aware of their fraudulent practices.

Now as I mentioned before I don't have the exact answers as to WHY the attacks occurred or WHO wanted them to occur, My issue and the reason I bring up 9/11 re-investigation/truth is because of the missing holes in the official report as well as the bizarre manner in which WTC7 fell.

That was a good question Barbara and I hope you take the time to watch the video I posted as you will get to see the physical anomalies I am talking about as well as the psychological reasoning people use to cope with 9/11