I have no objection to this. I agree that "rogue elements" is a better term.
However, I do consider the neo-Trotskyite inner circle of PNAC leadership a rogue element for all intenets and purposes, so they are on my list of suspects.
In Rebuilding America's Defenses, an official PNAC document, the following is stated:
Quote:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
Revolutionary change - it's not just for hippies anymore.
That's no evidence. If I said "The Mexican/American border won't be secure for a long time, unless terrorists start pouring through", I shouldn't be seen as a cause in the terrorists that come through, simply because I had a vested interest in strengthening the borders.
That was kind of worded poorly but I'm sure you get what I was trying to say.
I disagree with your conclusion. I think there is tons of evidence for LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). In fact, I think MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) is the only thing that should be in serious dispute.
I disagree that there's a lot of evidence for LIHOP, and I think MIHOP shouldn't even be in question.
The whole air defense system can't just catastrophically fail like it did that morning. The military spends many billions on air defense, and yet it fails in every way possible? I'm not buying that.
It's not like in the movies. Think about being on a air force base, then getting an alert, getting geared up, getting into the jet...oh wait, you need to find out what's going on first...
And by then the towers were struck.
Besides, what could air defense have done? Tell them to change their course? There were passengers in those planes.
Do you really think the Air Force would, or even COULD, knowingly drag their feet?
I know it sounds right when you first think about it, but things really aren't so simple in real life.
There's also the evidence that warnings were ignored, people were fired for inisisting there was danger, etc.
Yes, I heard something of that too. Not that anyone was fired for it, but that there were warnings that the government knew about prior to the event...
I have a much easier time believing those who heard of such things just didn't take it seriously enough. I have a very hard time believing that people in charge would make sure no one knew that the event would occur and that it would go off as planned.
Okay, if that's the way you see the evidence of the twin towers, fair enough. I won't try to insist on anything, because I'm undecided about that evidence myself. But what about building 7?
To be honest, I have to say I don't know shit about shit. From what I've heard here and on that website, it does seem likely that they demolished it to hide something. But really, I don't know shit.
Only because it's a pain to preface every statement with "in my current tentative opinion."
Understandable...as long as we're clear that it isn't what you actually believe happened, but is just an idea of what could have happened.